If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Lafayette Advertiser)   Republican House pulls through another bill to cut taxes on businesses. This is not a repeat from 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006   (theadvertiser.com) divider line 89
    More: Obvious, White House, GOP, tax cuts, House majority leader  
•       •       •

669 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Apr 2012 at 9:00 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-20 08:30:20 AM
Only an idiot or a liberal would think it is a good idea to raise taxes on businesses during an economic downturn, but then, I repeat myself.
 
2012-04-20 08:35:52 AM
Republicans rammed an election-year, $46 billion tax cut for most of America's employers through the House on Thursday,

From the same party that calls raising $47 billion a "gimmick".
 
2012-04-20 08:43:07 AM
It hasn't ever created jobs in the last 10,000 times we tried the exact same thing, so let's do it again and claim it will totally work this time!
 
2012-04-20 09:02:38 AM

BillCo: Only an idiot or a liberal would think it is a good idea to raise taxes on businesses during an economic downturn, but then, I repeat myself.


Only an idiot or a conservative would think it is a good idea to raise taxes on people who spend all of their income in a recession, but then, I repeat myself.
 
2012-04-20 09:04:32 AM
I'd say they were insane to think it would turn out different this time, but I'm sure they just don't care about jobs, deficits, the overall economy, and so forth. For them, tax cuts are a goal.
 
2012-04-20 09:05:00 AM
So........how many jobs will that create, then?
 
2012-04-20 09:08:03 AM

Jake Havechek: So........how many jobs will that create, then?


Negative jobs. If you employed 504 people, you'd bet your ass the executives would suddenly downsize.
 
2012-04-20 09:09:23 AM
It's going to create jobs THIS time! We're SURE of it! And it will cut the deficit this time too! We REALLY REALLY mean it!
 
2012-04-20 09:10:58 AM
GOP pushes business tax cut through divided House

lolwut?
 
2012-04-20 09:13:16 AM
if hedge funds and private equity funds were exempted from this ruling, Dems would have supported it.

without such an exemption, the bill is a massive give away to wealthy investors.
 
2012-04-20 09:14:17 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Republicans rammed an election-year, $46 billion tax cut for most of America's employers through the House on Thursday,

From the same party that calls raising $47 billion a "gimmick".


Did they release any sort of plan to pay for that missing $46,000,000,000 in revenue? Will poor people's "skin in the game" and cuts to social services/Planned Parenthood/NPR/PBS be enough?
 
2012-04-20 09:15:14 AM
www.baronvonass.com
"Hey, Rocky! Watch me jump-start the economy with tax cuts for the rich!"
"But that trick never works!"
"Nuthin' up my sleeve...PRESTO...well, I'm gettin' close."
 
2012-04-20 09:16:19 AM

BillCo: Only an idiot or a liberal would think it is a good idea to raise taxes on businesses during an economic downturn, but then, I repeat myself.


What tax increase were you talking about?
 
2012-04-20 09:16:30 AM

BillCo: Only an idiot or a liberal would think it is a good idea to raise taxes on businesses during an economic downturn, but then, I repeat myself.


Spoken as somebody who clearly hasn't owned a small business. For those of you who are just too thick-headed to understand, let me repeat, speaking as a small business owner. Taxes, are not the deciding factor as to whether or not to hire. Yes, I would like to pay less taxes. We all do. But it doesn't even enter into the conversation when deciding to hire or not.
 
2012-04-20 09:16:59 AM
Good. That means less money for liberals with which to screw up the country.
 
2012-04-20 09:18:51 AM
As a small business owner, I can guarantee you that I will not hire one additional person because of this tax break.
 
2012-04-20 09:19:13 AM

sprawl15: Jake Havechek: So........how many jobs will that create, then?

Negative jobs. If you employed 504 people, you'd bet your ass the executives would suddenly downsize.


Exactly, also a big company could simply split into smaller companies of less than 500 employees each. For a 20% cut they certainly would.
 
2012-04-20 09:19:24 AM

Dr Dreidel: Dusk-You-n-Me: Republicans rammed an election-year, $46 billion tax cut for most of America's employers through the House on Thursday,

From the same party that calls raising $47 billion a "gimmick".

Did they release any sort of plan to pay for that missing $46,000,000,000 in revenue? Will poor people's "skin in the game" and cuts to social services/Planned Parenthood/NPR/PBS be enough?


You don't have to pay as you go for tax cuts, because you are just giving people back their money*

*this is what Republicans actually believe
 
2012-04-20 09:19:46 AM

BillCo: Only an idiot or a liberal would think it is a good idea to raise taxes on businesses during an economic downturn, but then, I repeat myself.


Only an idiot or a conservative would think it is a good idea to cut taxes with a $15 trillion national debt.

Hey, it's fun to look at only one side of an issue!
 
2012-04-20 09:20:08 AM
We could raise the taxes to 10000000000% on businesses and it wouldn't matter because they just pass the cost on to consumers. Right?
 
2012-04-20 09:20:27 AM

Dr Dreidel: Dusk-You-n-Me: Republicans rammed an election-year, $46 billion tax cut for most of America's employers through the House on Thursday,

From the same party that calls raising $47 billion a "gimmick".

Did they release any sort of plan to pay for that missing $46,000,000,000 in revenue? Will poor people's "skin in the game" and cuts to social services/Planned Parenthood/NPR/PBS be enough?


cuts to food stamps.
 
2012-04-20 09:21:16 AM

Lost Thought 00: You don't have to pay as you go for tax cuts, because you are just giving people back their money*


From the people who brought you, "What cost? The oil will pay for the war!"
 
2012-04-20 09:22:20 AM
If we eliminate ALL taxes on business, employment will be 0%.
It's simple math, people.
 
2012-04-20 09:23:25 AM

MindStalker: Exactly, also a big company could simply split into smaller companies of less than 500 employees each. For a 20% cut they certainly would.


And if you look at how prices are calculated in contracted work, the tax cuts don't factor in at all. Nor would there really be incentive to lower prices elsewhere, as it's a temporary reduction in costs; better also to bank it than spend it on employees/expansions that are unsustainable at current tax rates that would kick back in the very next year.
 
2012-04-20 09:25:12 AM
Thanks, im going to suggest our compensation committee uses our savings to give me a bonus.
 
2012-04-20 09:25:22 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: If we eliminate ALL taxes on business, employment will be 0%.
It's simple math, people.


Now now, it's not that simple. You also have to eliminate all government regulation, most importantly the minimum wage
 
2012-04-20 09:25:34 AM

ghare: Dr Dreidel: Dusk-You-n-Me: Republicans rammed an election-year, $46 billion tax cut for most of America's employers through the House on Thursday,

From the same party that calls raising $47 billion a "gimmick".

Did they release any sort of plan to pay for that missing $46,000,000,000 in revenue? Will poor people's "skin in the game" and cuts to social services/Planned Parenthood/NPR/PBS be enough?

cuts to food stamps.


Ugh.

"Give me your tired, your poor / your huddled masses yearning to breathe free / the wretched refuse of your teeming shore / send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me..."

...and I will ship them somewhere else because they're lazy freeloaders.
 
2012-04-20 09:28:02 AM
does this latest tax cut in a long line of tax cuts to create jobs mean the job creators will finally start creating jobs?
 
2012-04-20 09:28:56 AM
What the fark is the point of this bill?
 
2012-04-20 09:30:00 AM

Close2TheEdge: BillCo: Only an idiot or a liberal would think it is a good idea to raise taxes on businesses during an economic downturn, but then, I repeat myself.

Spoken as somebody who clearly hasn't owned a small business. For those of you who are just too thick-headed to understand, let me repeat, speaking as a small business owner. Taxes, are not the deciding factor as to whether or not to hire. Yes, I would like to pay less taxes. We all do. But it doesn't even enter into the conversation when deciding to hire or not.


That does not align with my already established take on reality. I find what you say attempts to stimulate my independant thought processes and this both angers and confuses me.

SOSHULIST!!!!! SOSHULIST!!!!! STRANGER DANGER!!!!!
 
2012-04-20 09:30:08 AM

Jake Havechek: So........how many jobs will that create, then?


Billions. Hell, imagine if we lowered the taxes on businesses to ZERO or even NEGATIVE.
 
2012-04-20 09:30:14 AM
Come on, boys... There's still a some value left in this sponge we call middle-class America. Squeeze 'em 'til they bleed!
 
2012-04-20 09:30:29 AM
I think it's funny that half of the politics threads begin with this:
file.walagata.com
 
2012-04-20 09:30:41 AM

Forgot_my_password_again: does this latest tax cut in a long line of tax cuts to create jobs mean the job creators will finally start creating jobs?


We are trying! Its just all those lazy free loaders demand too much salary and are content to get free money from the government and sit home smoking weed and playing video games all day.
 
2012-04-20 09:31:21 AM
So why do they think this will work this time?
 
2012-04-20 09:31:47 AM

FarkedOver: We could raise the taxes to 10000000000% on businesses and it wouldn't matter because they just pass the cost on to consumers. Right?


And cutting taxes will mean they pass the savings on to consumers. Specifically themselves into whose pockets they will insert $40B+.
 
2012-04-20 09:33:12 AM

qorkfiend: What the fark is the point of this bill?


Judging from how well the other tax cuts for the job creators worked, to get unemployment up to 12%.
 
2012-04-20 09:34:23 AM

qorkfiend: What the fark is the point of this bill?


img521.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-20 09:34:48 AM

Craptastic: I think it's funny that half of the politics threads begin with this:
[file.walagata.com image 275x85]


HA!

Even if he stuck around in threads to try to defend his positions, do you think it'd be anything more than reciting Fox News sound bites like a Chatty Cathy doll?
 
2012-04-20 09:35:03 AM

Dr Dreidel: "Give me your tired, your poor / your huddled masses yearning to breathe free / the wretched refuse of your teeming shore / send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me..."

...and I will ship them somewhere else because they're lazy freeloaders.



To be fair, that sounds like a bunch of hippie bullshiat that no real American should have to put up with. Ship that statue back to the cowardly cheese-eaters that helped us win our independence.
 
2012-04-20 09:37:38 AM

Jake Havechek: So why do they think this will work this time?


Realizing this question is likely rhetorical, they do because "tax cuts ALWAYS work." It doesn't matter that colossal mountains of evidence from the last 12 years say otherwise.

I'd love any person who is for these cuts to answer this honestly:

If tax cuts for the rich worked so well at creating jobs in the past decade, why did unemployment double while executive compensation increased exponentially?
 
2012-04-20 09:38:37 AM
Listen though, Mr. Big Business CEO, the OWS movement might have been a bunch of hippie throwback ne'er do wells, but there are more of us then there are of you.


Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fark with us.

-- The Narrator
 
2012-04-20 09:41:02 AM

Dog Welder: Jake Havechek: So why do they think this will work this time?

Realizing this question is likely rhetorical, they do because "tax cuts ALWAYS work." It doesn't matter that colossal mountains of evidence from the last 12 years say otherwise.

I'd love any person who is for these cuts to answer this honestly:

If tax cuts for the rich worked so well at creating jobs in the past decade, why did unemployment double while executive compensation increased exponentially?


The people you want to answer that question might have a tough time understanding what "exponentially" means.
 
2012-04-20 09:42:13 AM

LarryDan43: Thanks, im going to suggest our compensation committee uses our savings to give me a bonus.


And you will go out and spend that money on hookers and blow... creating jobs.
 
2012-04-20 09:45:12 AM

Dog Welder: Jake Havechek: So why do they think this will work this time?

Realizing this question is likely rhetorical, they do because "tax cuts ALWAYS work." It doesn't matter that colossal mountains of evidence from the last 12 years say otherwise.

I'd love any person who is for these cuts to answer this honestly:

If tax cuts for the rich worked so well at creating jobs in the past decade, why did unemployment double while executive compensation increased exponentially?


Because without the cuts unemployment would have quadrupled?

/Obamamath
 
2012-04-20 09:50:34 AM
Because the framers of the Constitution would totally meant to give preferential
rights to Job Creators and corporations.

MS Word just crashed before Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry could hit
'save' that one last time.
 
2012-04-20 09:56:12 AM

Dog Welder: I'd love any person who is for these cuts to answer this honestly:

If tax cuts for the rich worked so well at creating jobs in the past decade, why did unemployment double while executive compensation increased exponentially?


The bill actually looks rather interesting. There's a cap on amount you can spend which starts off well, then becomes hurdurr.

'(1) IN GENERAL- The amount of the deduction allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed 50 percent of the greater of--
'(A) the W-2 wages of the taxpayer paid to non-owners, or

'(B) the sum of--
'(i) the W-2 wages of the taxpayer paid to individuals who are non-owner family members of direct owners, plus

'(ii) any W-2 wages of the taxpayer paid to 10-percent-or-less direct owners.

You are reading that right, if the owner decides to pay his brother $10,000 for making coffee one day, the business's deduction cap goes up $10,000.
 
2012-04-20 09:59:36 AM

DjangoStonereaver: Because the framers of the Constitution would totally meant to give preferential
rights to Job Creators and corporations.

MS Word just crashed before Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry could hit
'save' that one last time.


In fact, one of the main beefs was the British allowing one of the worst companies ever, The Dutch East India Corp., to exercise a monopoly on colonial imports and exports, while kicking more up to the Crown for protection and tax breaks.

Why does the Tea Party hate the original Boston Tea Party?
 
2012-04-20 10:03:28 AM

sprawl15: Dog Welder: I'd love any person who is for these cuts to answer this honestly:

If tax cuts for the rich worked so well at creating jobs in the past decade, why did unemployment double while executive compensation increased exponentially?

The bill actually looks rather interesting. There's a cap on amount you can spend which starts off well, then becomes hurdurr.

'(1) IN GENERAL- The amount of the deduction allowable under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed 50 percent of the greater of--
'(A) the W-2 wages of the taxpayer paid to non-owners, or

'(B) the sum of--'(i) the W-2 wages of the taxpayer paid to individuals who are non-owner family members of direct owners, plus

'(ii) any W-2 wages of the taxpayer paid to 10-percent-or-less direct owners.
You are reading that right, if the owner decides to pay his brother $10,000 for making coffee one day, the business's deduction cap goes up $10,000.


Wouldn't the cap go up $5k? "Shall not exceed 50 percent of the greater of-"

Also, what are "W-2 wages of the taxpayer"? Is that just a fancy way of spelling out that you can't include in the deduction calculation the wages of people you're paying under the table?
 
2012-04-20 10:05:10 AM
Actually The Dutch East India company was probably a Propriety Limited. Sorry guys, sorry everybody!
 
Displayed 50 of 89 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report