Founding Fathers would be horrified at today’s Senate

Wow.

Last night, U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina sent a message to his fellow senators, informing them that between now and Election Day, he intended to block votes on any legislation that he did not personally approve beforehand.

And under the arcane, archaic and anarchic “rules” of the Senate, one solo senator actually has the power to do so. Those rules are artifacts of a collegial Senate that disappeared long ago and is never returning, especially if DeMint and others have their way.

For months now, DeMint has made it pretty clear that he intends to challenge Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for de facto if not official control over the Republican Senate caucus come January. This current power play is just another step in that effort.

McConnell, you see, is much too accommodating for DeMint and others like him. In the four years that McConnell has served as Republican leader, they have turned to the filibuster to block Senate votes a mere 257 times, which is hardly nine times more than the total from 1919 to 1960.

And with more than 100 vacancies on the federal judiciary, a vacancy level that is making it difficult to conduct court business, the Senate has confirmed “fewer judges … during President Obama’s first 20 months in office than during any administration since Richard Nixon’s,” which further proves that McConnell is an Obama lackey.

And just to be clear: Filibusters, holds and other devices used to block votes in the Senate are not constitutional provisions. To the contrary, the Founding Fathers who drafted the Constitution distrusted requirements for a legislative supermajority, and limited their use to only a handful of very specific cases and well-defined cases, such as passage of treaties, impeachment and removal of a member.

Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton

“To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser,” Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist No. 22, explaining why he and other drafters rejected its use in most cases.

In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton wrote that “all provisions which require more than the majority of any body to its resolutions, have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government, and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority… And the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed, is a history of impotence, perplexity, and disorder.”

In Federalist No. 58, the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, himself takes up the cudgel against requirements for more than a majority to conduct business.

James Madison

James Madison

“In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed,” he warned. “It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.”

Smart guy, that Jamie. He would no doubt react in horror to what DeMint and others are attempting to do to his creation, particularly since they claim to be acting in defense of the very Constitution that they trod upon.

568 comments Add your comment

md

September 28th, 2010
6:36 pm

“Because it soothes the savage breast…”

Haven’t had the luck to run across any of those…..

F. Sinkwich

September 28th, 2010
6:37 pm

Enter your comments here

Saintsfan1959

September 28th, 2010
6:39 pm

Of course Mr. Bookman the founding fathers also thought that highest office that a citizen should vote for was that of Congressman. Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, and presidents by the electoral college. In addition the foundig fathers also were against the imposition of an income tax. It is so interesting that Mr. Bookman cites the founding fathers when it is convenient. Is he proposing the repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments.
Furthermore, the general welfare and commerce clauses have been stretched beyond any resemblance of their original intent.

Matti

September 28th, 2010
6:39 pm

jo nix,

It doesn’t bother me at all that you’ve chosen to be an optimist. I too try to see the good in people, the humor in situations, and try to appreciate the little things and the day to day blessings. Happiness comes from the ability to do so. But there’s no invisible giant in my room that watches me while I sleep, cares if I’m hurting, will heal my sick friend, or who will help me get a better job, etc. no matter how carefully I follow the ancient recipe for asking for stuff. I am at the mercy of the physical forces of this planet just like everyone and everything else, and “believing” does not make things so. “Doing” sometimes can, but not always. Reality.

AmVet

September 28th, 2010
6:42 pm

Speaking of sweet old school music, I just got a call from one of my dear friends, and guess who’s going to see Rush tomorrow night?!

Hell to the yeah! I’ve always wanted to see them!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diUNDsP3Hns

Matti

September 28th, 2010
6:43 pm

AmVet,

SWEET!

Hillbilly Deluxe

September 28th, 2010
6:43 pm

I wasn’t trying to open a can of worms, I was just intending to say, that “Thou shalt not covet”, is probably broken by more people than most of the other commandments. “Covet” can be any number of things besides wealth. Those who do keep that under control are ahead of the game, in my opinion.

Jay

September 28th, 2010
6:44 pm

But Thomas, to what provision of the Constitution was Adams referring? What mechanism, what restriction, what language? Are you claiming that tax rates above a certain level are unconstitutional? Are you claiming that Adams is making such an argument?

No, you’re not. At least I don’t think so.

I guess I have a problem getting all hysterical about property confiscation when we’re merely talking of moving the top tax rate from 36 to 39 percent, given that over the past century the top tax rate was as high as 94 percent, was above 90 percent throughout those communistic 1950s under that noted red Ike Eisenhower, was at 70 percent through the ’70s and at 50 percent as late as 1986.

Were we socialist all that time? Did we hate rich people all that time? How did we happen to turn this country into the greatest economic powerhouse the world has seen in the same time frame in which we were “punishing the producers” and all that garbage?

F. Sinkwich

September 28th, 2010
6:44 pm

Let’s see a raise of hands among you lefties here about who’s going to DC to march with the Marxists, communists, socialists, union thugs, etc., in DC this Saturday?

What a group of loons. I hope it the event gets a lot of MSM coverage.

CorpVet

September 28th, 2010
6:46 pm

AmVet
September 28th, 2010
6:42 pm

You always wanted to see Limbaugh? :)

stands for decibels

September 28th, 2010
6:47 pm

“any suggestion that the top 2% don’t need a tax cut”

Is it better to bake more pies or fight over the slices of one??

“Make the pie higher.”

F. Sinkwich

September 28th, 2010
6:49 pm

Jay:

“I guess I have a problem getting all hysterical about property confiscation when we’re merely talking of moving the top tax rate from 36 to 39 percent”

We’re not talking history, Jay. Moving billions of dollars from the private sector to the government in time of recession is just stupid. Unless of course if the intent is to cripple free enterprise.

Mission accomplished!

Billybob

September 28th, 2010
6:52 pm

Jay 1:28
Do you agree with the way Obamacare was rammed down the throat of the people and promoted with half-truths, lies, and more half-truths?

RW-(the original)

September 28th, 2010
6:52 pm

There’s a big difference between the marginal tax rate and the effective tax rate.

That only goes back to 1979, but it sure looks like they’ve just been playing a shell game with us.

josef nix

September 28th, 2010
6:52 pm

matti

With all due respect, much of this comes from what is one’s traditional view of what G-d is or supposed to be and the dogmatic. It is quite permissible in my faith to be angry with and argue with G-d, that is that over which we have no control and do not understand. Indeed, it is a requirement for it is only through questioning that that we come to a better understanding of self in that great scheme of things. Have you read Elie Wiesel? Rabbi Richard Rubenstein?

AmVet

September 28th, 2010
6:57 pm

Matti @6:36, really well said. I remember a day not long ago when the societal pressure on us to be “religious” was so great as to be over powering and mad many of us guilt ridden. Thankfully, I found a way to move past that. And some years ago I found a funky love thing between me and my “creator”…

CV, I’d love to see Limbaugh! Fall off of a stage… (Just kidding. No malice.)

Seriously, I’m not into stuff that is not good for my heart and soul and mind.

And that is why other than this one AJC peccadillo, I never, ever listen to or watch ANY of the animus that passes for talk radio/TV or even that downer of a farce called the “news”!

Give me something truly sweet, morning, noon and night, like this…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-XlZDKRYQ0&p=6524691E2FDCC1E4&playnext=1&index=8

josef nix

September 28th, 2010
7:04 pm

Hillbilly
That’s why I said I wasn’t trying to be sanctimonious. It’s just that, for whatever reason, to covet is just not that much a part of my nature/character. I am sure that no small part of that comes from the fact that I have pretty much always had whatever it was I wanted…partly from luck of the draw and partly from my own efforts. I agree with the rabbincal teaching that it is coveting which leads us to all our other “sins.” I make no pretense that I am immune to it.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
7:04 pm

“Moving billions of dollars from the private sector to the government in time of recession is just stupid”

Sorry, but that argument simply doesn’t hold up. We’ve been under lower tax rates for the last 8 years and all it got us was a 10%+ unemployment rate. If lower taxes on the richest leads to more jobs…then where the HELL ARE ALL THOSE JOBS?

CorpVet

September 28th, 2010
7:06 pm

Doggone/GA, but, but, the Messiah said unemployment would not rise above 8% if we passed the stimulus…….

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
7:10 pm

“Doggone/GA, but, but, the Messiah said unemployment would not rise above 8% if we passed the stimulus”

He might be YOUR Messiah…he’s not mine.

josef nix

September 28th, 2010
7:17 pm

Doggone

Where are those jobs? Sinkiang and Uttar Pradesh?

SwamiDave

September 28th, 2010
7:18 pm

Good to see that Liberals like Jay are NOW so opposed to the use of filibusters to thwart the legislation and decision that THEY are attempting to force onto Americans. The silence from it’s usage a few years ago to block those “needed judicial vacancies” and obtain up-or-down votes on legislation that the majority would support is deafening.

Honestly, Jay, your hypocrisy is shameful and I cannot imagine that you wrote this opinion with a straight face.

….and, realistically, these means used to stymie and thwart Liberal policy initiatives on behalf of America’s producers and achievers is justified. The dependency class and political thieves they elect deserve the frustration and hindrances that they so richly deserve. Maybe if they quit trying to steal that which is owned or earned by others and build prosperity for themselves, things would be better for us all.

-SD

AmVet

September 28th, 2010
7:19 pm

If only we reduce the corporate tax rate to zero for all American businesses we can get out of this mess.

Brought to you by your friends at the Parallel Reality Corporation.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
7:21 pm

“If only we reduce the corporate tax rate to zero for all American businesses we can get out of this mess”

I love the end result of that kind of logic. If lowering taxes raises revenenue then the end logic is that reducing taxes to zero means the maximum amoung of revenues, right?

Dave R.

September 28th, 2010
7:25 pm

Doggone, the last 2 years of a Democrat CONGRESS got us a 10% unemployment rate. Passing legislation that doesn’t create jobs, while ignoring the issues that got us into a recession got us to a 10% unemployment rate.

GOVERNMENT got us a 10% unemployment rate, Doggone.

Fly-On-The-Wall

September 28th, 2010
7:29 pm

What a bunch of crock – the Democrats ‘blocked’ judical appointments. The Democrat approved 98% to 99% of Bush’s requests. But when a Democratic President has similar requests those are put on the back burner. To me and this is only my opinion, the Republicans do this on purpose and not for any real reason. They are willing to block the wheels of government & society on purpose just to try and get back in power. How sick and sad.

md

September 28th, 2010
7:29 pm

“If lower taxes on the richest leads to more jobs…then where the HELL ARE ALL THOSE JOBS?”

And the question may very well be “how many more would have been lost”. We can be certain though that only the private sector can “create” the income necessary for jobs, and taking money out of that sector in a time of recession is not wise.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
7:32 pm

“We can be certain though that only the private sector can “create” the income necessary for jobs, and taking money out of that sector in a time of recession is not wise”

Then where are the jobs that those lower taxes are creating? WHERE ARE THEY?

Kamchak

September 28th, 2010
7:41 pm

WHERE ARE THEY?

In countries with lower wages.

AmVet

September 28th, 2010
7:42 pm

The real answer is to let the free market police itself. No regulations. No oversight.

Brought to you by your friends at the Trickle Down Corporation.

Fly-On-The-Wall

September 28th, 2010
7:46 pm

Kamchak, what’s sad is you’re probably right. Nation building in the wrong nation.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
7:46 pm

“In countries with lower wages.”

Well, I would call them slave wages…not lower wages.

md

September 28th, 2010
7:47 pm

“Then where are the jobs that those lower taxes are creating? WHERE ARE THEY?”

If you are still employed, it may very well be your job.

Think about it – it isn’t how many are currently created, but how many are currently maintained. And if even more money is removed from the private sector, then more jobs may very well be LOST.

md

September 28th, 2010
7:49 pm

“In countries with lower wages.”

And that mu friends is the new reality – doubt it will ever change – probably accelerate.

A global correction in the job market………

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
7:51 pm

“And if even more money is removed from the private sector, then more jobs may very well be LOST.”

But like everyone else that spouts that bunch of baloney, you act like “taking the money out” means burning it up. It GETS SPENT. It goes back into the economy. It saves and/or creates jobs. The government won’t sit on it like those poor deprived rich people are doing RIGHT NOW. The government will get it circulating. And the more circulating the better. If I had my way, I’d put the tax rates on EVERYONE back to where they were before those disasterous “Bush” tax cuts and I’d do it right now.

Mr_B

September 28th, 2010
7:52 pm

Dave R.
Government intervention limited the unemployment rate to slightly under 10%. Yes, taht is awful, but its a damsite better than the 25% or so the last time we had a major economic downturn and the government decided to “get out of the way of the public sector” in 1930. Did the New Deal end the Depression? Probably not, but at least it made it possible for more folks to survive it.
Trying to change the direction of an economy as huge as that of the US is like trying to change the direction of an iceberg, its possible, but it takes a hell of a lot of time and energy. A three per cent boost in the marginal tax rate of two percent of the population won’t do much, one way or the other.

josef nix

September 28th, 2010
7:54 pm

I don’t understand what the argument is all about. Just put on another shift at the mint and print some more money.

Hillbilly Deluxe

September 28th, 2010
7:56 pm

Ol’ Ross Perot turned out to be right about that “giant sucking sound”.

Dave R.

September 28th, 2010
7:56 pm

“It GETS SPENT. It goes back into the economy. It saves and/or creates jobs.”

Useless, government, jobs. That don’t produce anything. You’re probably the last person on earth that still believes that the $800 billion stimulus package saved or created anything but government jobs, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

And thank goodness you won’t ever get your way on taxes. Although you’re now qualified to serve in the Obama Treasury Dept. (sarcasm)

Fly-On-The-Wall

September 28th, 2010
7:57 pm

Josef, that would be a bad idea. It would get in the way of Glenn Beck selling more gold.

Dave R.

September 28th, 2010
7:58 pm

Mr_B, you go on believing that nonsense all you want. It is government INTERVENTION in the free market that produced this recession, and prolonged it.

Dave R.

September 28th, 2010
7:59 pm

Have a great night, all. I’m kickin’ back and watching some TV.

Mick

September 28th, 2010
8:00 pm

**A global correction in the job market…**

Only because people like you are willing to accept it……we should declare economic war, adopt more of an isolationist attitude then unleash some home grown infrastructure building and promote buy american with newer, fairer, tariffs.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
8:00 pm

“Useless, government, jobs.”

I didn’t say government jobs and I didn’t mean government jobs. The government buys from the private sector, it leases from the private sector, it contracts out to the private sector. It SPENDS IT’S MONEY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. And that circulates the money throughout the private sector. But even government jobs would be better than nothing. Because government employees SPEND their money in the PRIVATE SECTOR.

josef nix

September 28th, 2010
8:01 pm

“…accountants only slow things down, figures get in the way…”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ozAc-Vmbu0

Mr_B

September 28th, 2010
8:02 pm

Dave: Prove it. Because the right wants to declare it “nonsense” doesn’t mean it doesn’t work.

josef nix

September 28th, 2010
8:03 pm

Mick

September 28th, 2010
8:03 pm

dave r

Please go back to the tv and all that important economic theory you’ve been mislearning.

Kamchak

September 28th, 2010
8:06 pm

AmVet

September 28th, 2010
8:06 pm

Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia said his no vote (to the stimulus package) was due to concern over government spending and the rising debt. But in October, he was photographed in a newspaper in Cedartown, Georgia, giving a ceremonial check for $625,000 in stimulus funds to local leaders, which the newspaper noted would go for new sidewalks, landscaping and other city projects.

Mick

September 28th, 2010
8:06 pm

Doggone/GA

It’s amazing how many times you have to pound that home. I remember one time listening to limbaugh saying that the gov’t doesn’t create one job period. Absolute malarkey. Just take one piece of military hardware and literally every nut and bolt has to be made by the private sector. These people are brainwashed, an apt term if ever there was one.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
8:08 pm

“These people are brainwashed, an apt term if ever there was one.”

Yes, they are…and today, for a change, it pisses me off.

TGT

September 28th, 2010
8:12 pm

Jay didn’t seem so concerned with “trodding upon the Constitution” with the filibuster when he wrote:

“So the Republicans were threatening to strip the minority of its historic right to filibuster by ignoring the equally historic requirement of a two-thirds majority to change Senate rules. If carried out, such a revolution would permanently alter the core nature and tradition of the Senate.”

Mr_B

September 28th, 2010
8:13 pm

Billybob @ 6:52
“Do you agree with the way Obamacare was rammed down the throat of the people and promoted with half-truths, lies, and more half-truths?”
I don’t usually consider a bill passed by a majority of representatives and senators who were duly elected in fair and free elections to “rammed down the throat of the people.”
I assume you are OK with the lies and misrepresentations used to oppose it. Death panels, anyone?

Kamchak

September 28th, 2010
8:13 pm

Just take one piece of military hardware and literally every nut and bolt has to be made by the private sector.

Mick—that’s not always a good thing.

What’s Long, Hard, and Wrapped in a “Wal-Mart Tarp”?

Of all the complicated gadgets in the Pentagon’s arsenal, a nuclear submarine is one that probably shouldn’t be built on the cheap. Yet according to military analysts, that’s precisely what the Navy and two defense contractors did with a series of $2 billion attack subs, and now they’re literally dropping chunks of their protective skins into the briny deep.

Paulo977

September 28th, 2010
8:14 pm

Josef …re: jobs to India …Life has a way of balancing things doesn’t it?Of course we tend to only perceive the cosequences for us …. The Bhopal tragedy of course was not perpetrated by the majority of us ……though Hindus would call it Karma!!!!

Mick

September 28th, 2010
8:16 pm

Doggone/GA

It pisses me off too because we are just spinning our wheels with the repubs who actually think doing nothing is a good thing and the something that they do want to do is preserve a 3% tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. I just don’t get it..

md

September 28th, 2010
8:21 pm

“It GETS SPENT. It goes back into the economy. It saves and/or creates jobs.”

And that is the fallacy. It gets spent, and then the private sector must make up the difference. One will never ever be able to spend oneself out of debt – never happen.

Pay your bills with your credit card – let me know when you get to zero…….

Mr_B

September 28th, 2010
8:22 pm

Mick: It works this way. The millionaire and billionaires run the corporations that can now spend unlimited money to get Mssrs. McConnel and Boehner re-elected. You got to look out for your constituents.

Enoch

September 28th, 2010
8:26 pm

Democrats voting against the Democrat jobs bill. Signs of health in the real world but a danger to the republic in Bookman-land

md

September 28th, 2010
8:27 pm

“Only because people like you are willing to accept it……we should declare economic war, adopt more of an isolationist attitude then unleash some home grown infrastructure building and promote buy american with newer, fairer, tariffs.”

A trade war is your answer Mick??

Wow……

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
8:28 pm

“It gets spent, and then the private sector must make up the difference. One will never ever be able to spend oneself out of debt – never happen.”

I never said anything about spending our way out of a deficit. I’ve addressed that differently: I think they need to AT LEAST put tax rates for ALL taxpayers back to what they were before the tax cuts that got us into this dilemma.

But you CAN spend your way out of a recession. And that’s what needs to be done. Obviously the private sector is not going to do it, so there’s no other choice…it will have to be the government. If tax cuts would result in more jobs they ALREADY WOULD HAVE. They have not.

It’s an axiom of computer support that if you install something and it screws up something, the first thing you do is UNINSTALL what you just installed. So I would “uninstall” the tax cuts. Or if you want it mor4e4 bluntly: let them ALL expire at the end of the year.

Curious Observer

September 28th, 2010
8:28 pm

Do you agree with the way Obamacare was rammed down the throat of the people and promoted with half-truths, lies, and more half-truths?

I must say it: you’re an absolute, irretriveably broken moron. Rammed down your throats? Do you remember the lies about death panels? About how the government was going to take control of your healthcare? And it was an absolute majority of the Senate and the House that passed the healthcare law.

Do you have trouble finding the bathroom at night? Perhaps you soil yourself when nobody is around to take care of you. I repeat: you’re a moron and a liar, sir. I have my gorge full, and I’m especially sick of morons like you. You are a racist, sir. You resent extending any help to minorities and to the poor.

josef nix

September 28th, 2010
8:30 pm

PAULO

Looks like their karma did run over our dogma…

md

September 28th, 2010
8:31 pm

“If tax cuts would result in more jobs they ALREADY WOULD HAVE. They have not.”

Again, how many have they saved?? We don’t know.

Sorry, can’t agree that taking money out of people’s pockets will result in them spending more – just makes no sense. I can’t spend what I don’t have.

Mr_B

September 28th, 2010
8:32 pm

Md. Your only half right. You can’t spend your way out of debt. But you may be able to spend an entire economy out of a recession,if you’re careful. That’s what the stimulus is about. The debt is a long term problem that calls for a long-term solution, which WILL have to be addressed. But allowing a recession to turn into a depression isn’t going to pay off any of the outstanding bills either. The State of Georgia isn’t broke because it spent too much, the state is required to balance the budget. It’s broke because revenues tanked when people quit spending money, and we decided to give tax breaks to too many interests.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
8:33 pm

“Looks like their karma did run over our dogma…”

I would have said it the other way around.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
8:34 pm

“Sorry, can’t agree that taking money out of people’s pockets will result in them spending more – just makes no sense”

At this point it’s a case of “too bad” – we are ALL responsible for letting those clowns in Washington get us into this mess. Well, the piper is playing and it’s time to pay up.

RB from Gwinnett

September 28th, 2010
8:37 pm

Mick, you know what one of the major problems this nation has is? YOU! And people just like you who are running around saying Republicans want to cut taxes for millionairs and billionairs. It’s a lie, Mick, and YOU are telling it. And it’s intended to sway the opinions of stupid people (ie, Democrats).

The truth is the Democrats plan is to increase taxes on these people which in reality for a small business owner making $500K is $15,000 or more in real dollars. This is not a tax cut by Republicans in any way shape or form. Thats a lie. You dunces act like that $15K is just excess money they’re spending on caviar and Dom Pernion and they can just cut back to cover it. The truth is that’s their mortgage, their car payment, their lawn care company, their house cleaners, etc, etc, etc. Somebody is going to become unemployed when you RAISE their taxes.

Like it or not, that’s the cold hard truth of the lies YOU are selling to the dunces in your party who aren’t smart enough to know the difference between a tax cut and and an increase. Own it, Mick! It’s all you and you lying to the dunces is a major problem.

Bruno

September 28th, 2010
8:37 pm

Heading out–love to all.

josef–Please look after Matti for me. Thanks.

md

September 28th, 2010
8:37 pm

“It’s broke because revenues tanked when people quit spending money, and we decided to give tax breaks to too many interests.”

And revenues are going to pick back up if we take more money away from folks?? Not gonna happen. What you gain in income tax you lose in all the other consumer taxes. Probably a good chance you end up with less revenue.

md

September 28th, 2010
8:41 pm

“The truth is the Democrats plan is to increase taxes on these people which in reality for a small business owner making $500K is $15,000 or more in real dollars.”

Or they can cut one 30k employee and have 15k to pay their bills.

So how many jobs go bye-bye??

Matti

September 28th, 2010
8:43 pm

Brunooooo!

Say you’ll be back! LIE to us! (That’s what women want, you know.)

BTW, you were wrong about my legs.
{;->

josef nix

September 28th, 2010
8:43 pm

Bruno

I’ll try. That much I promise.

Jay

September 28th, 2010
8:44 pm

md, that worker was employed in the first place because he or she was contributing more to the company’s bottom line than he/she was costing.

The tax doesn’t change that. It doesn’t change it in the least. Think that through: How does the tax change whether that worker is profitable or not?

It does not. Firing that worker would cost the employer MORE in production lost, service lost, customers lost.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
8:44 pm

“So how many jobs go bye-bye??”

None. If taxes are raised and the deficit paid down it frees up the money we are paying in interest to be cycled through the economy.

AmVet

September 28th, 2010
8:48 pm

Brother Bruno, this little slice of on-line heaven will be the worse for your absence.

Don’t forget us and come back when you can, OK?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Iwmcs1hps

Mr_B

September 28th, 2010
8:48 pm

md: Revenue will increase when folks aren’t afraid of losing a job tomorrow, or they get back part of the income that they lost in the downturn. Since leaving multiple tjousands of dollars in the pockets of people who obviously aren’t spending it, but are instead sticking it in arcane finacial instuments and commodity markets doesn’t seem to be creating jobs at the moment, it might be time to try a more direct strategy.
That said, I don’t think the dem’s insistance on the expiration of the top 3% would make much of a difference toward creating jobs. It would somewhat slow the rate of growth of the debt, which might be a good thing, but better would be Doggone’s idea of letting them all expire. Just about everybody was doing better under the Clinton tax structure.

md

September 28th, 2010
8:50 pm

Sorry Jay – that employee is an expense on the books like any other expense. Many of these small corps are s-corps, which are taxed through the owner. I can guarantee you that owner will be crunching the numbers and if that expense is the only way to cut back, than bye bye employee. Not to mention the savings associated with benefits.

josef nix

September 28th, 2010
8:51 pm

I know I’m simple minded on these matters, but to me it’s not the money/taxes, but how it’s spent. We are in a country where the infrastructure is crumbling around us. It would make sense to me to put money into infrastructural development. That would do more to create jobs, put the country back to work, have something to show for the effort and a legacy for future generations.

Matti

September 28th, 2010
8:51 pm

“So how many jobs go bye-bye??”

The question seems to be predicated on the supposition that someone making $500K is already employing all the people he or she possibly can. I’m not seeing it.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
8:51 pm

“but better would be Doggone’s idea of letting them all expire”

and it’s going to happen…sooner or later. The deficit will have to paid down sometime.

Mr_B

September 28th, 2010
8:53 pm

Jay @8:44 Well said, sir!!! Job creation derives from the economic interest of the employer. According to md, an employer can fire everybody and keep ALL the money….. oh, wait, I think they’ve figured it out already.

md

September 28th, 2010
8:53 pm

“None. If taxes are raised and the deficit paid down it frees up the money we are paying in interest to be cycled through the economy.”

Sounds like a fairy tale to me – raise taxes AND pay down the deficit.

I’ll believe it when I see it, but highly doubtful from the misfits when they seem to care about nothing but their own job.

Doggone/GA

September 28th, 2010
8:54 pm

“that employee is an expense on the books like any other expense”

sure they are, but they are an expense the company would not have UNLESS they are bringing more in that it costs to keep them. Since business taxes are paid on profit not INCOME, an increase in taxes has no effect on the cost of keeping the employe. As Jay has already said, that you totally ignored.

Mick

September 28th, 2010
8:56 pm

rb

Good evening to you…..I guess you just had to get all that name calling out of your system…the problem is that you believe all the repub propaganda…..define small business? I challenge you to take a walk down any main street in georgia and find ONE dry cleaner, plumbing shop, electrical shop, hardware, restaurant etc..that is making more than a 250k profit. They are all lucky to be surviving with home depot, walmart, and fast food joints. You can’t make the connection that the wealthy can actually afford the tax rates that we had before bush, why not now? Aren’t we being told how they are just sitting on the money? If my taxes go up, I don’t give a damn. Please don’t hit me with that standard canard that I can send in more if I want too, that would help no one but if millions are paying it – no problem. It just has to be commensurate with my income level – once again I do not fight tax battles for the millionaires and billionaires, why do you?

Matti

September 28th, 2010
8:56 pm

“Sounds like a fairy tale to me – raise taxes AND pay down the deficit.”

Wasn’t this actually DONE not oh so long ago? Hmmm…. thinking… thinking…… Anyone?

Jay

September 28th, 2010
8:57 pm

I’m faster than Brian McCann … unfortunately.

AmVet

September 28th, 2010
8:57 pm

josef, that is FAR from simple minded.

Many people, even otherwise savvy business owners are totally hung up on cost. And NOT value.

There is a huge difference.

It is why people flock to Walmart and other outlets to buy cheap junk that will break down in three years.

Had they leaned about things like total cost of ownership, they would have bought a superior product that would have lasted ten.

So when I hear people bitch endlessly about the taxes they pay, it is likely that they don’t understand that it is what they get, or don’t get, in return that is the real issue…

Mr_B

September 28th, 2010
8:58 pm

Fairy tale: reduce tax rates to zero and the debt magically disappears.

josef nix

September 28th, 2010
8:58 pm

g’night…

Jay

September 28th, 2010
8:58 pm

and McCann is a great catcher and hitter. He just can’t … run.

Jay

September 28th, 2010
8:59 pm

Fairy Tale No. 2:

… and fire all the employees and the rich get to keep all that profit

md

September 28th, 2010
8:59 pm

“The question seems to be predicated on the supposition that someone making $500K is already employing all the people he or she possibly can.”

Well, 500k is actually RB’s number, when 251k is all it will take under the tax plan. An awful lot of small businesses hanging in there at the threshold.

Look around you – how many have already closed their doors????

RW-(the original)

September 28th, 2010
9:00 pm

Jay B,

Wasn’t it Bruce Benedict they said would come in third in a race with a pregnant woman? I think McCann might have come in 4th. Too bad that ball didn’t bounce over the wall and save them from their own stupidity.

md

September 28th, 2010
9:02 pm

“According to md, an employer can fire everybody and keep ALL the money…..”

If it comes down to firing an employee and boasting productivity vs going into debt, which would you choose?

RW-(the original)

September 28th, 2010
9:03 pm

If all the employed people in the country were really making a profit for their employer then there wouldn’t be a need to ever lower the workforce.

md

September 28th, 2010
9:04 pm

“sure they are, but they are an expense the company would not have UNLESS they are bringing more in that it costs to keep them. Since business taxes are paid on profit not INCOME, an increase in taxes has no effect on the cost of keeping the employe. As Jay has already said, that you totally ignored.”

Aren’t you and Jay assuming the company has no debt?? I’d hazard to say more often than not, many small company’s are in debt up to their ears…….

Matti

September 28th, 2010
9:05 pm

it ate my post, so I apologize if this duplicates:

md,

It’s my understanding that the person making $251K will be taxed on the first $250K at the EXACT same rate as someone making less than $250K, and it is only the extra $1K that is taxed at the higher rate, NOT the whole bucket. Did I hear this right? Or does your understanding differ?

Curious Observer

September 28th, 2010
9:06 pm

I’m supposed to feel sorry for a “small” business owner who earns half a million per year? On what planet?