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
“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
“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.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
568 comments Add your comment
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:07 pm
How much productivity do you think you can wring out of a single human being. Americans already work longer hours for less pay than any other industrialized nation. And why do you think that employing someone entails debt. I’ve worked for a lot of organizations and I made more money for them than they paid me. I wouldn’t have wanted it any other way.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
9:07 pm
md
You do have a proclivity to see economics as a one way street, mainly your way…..thats OK we will not be solving the worlds problems anytime soon…but…damn straight I’ll go for an economic war and because of our history that’s a war I know we can win. Why should we keep playing and losing when the deck is stacked against us? Level the playing field with trade and see what happens.
Founding Fathers would be horrified at today’s Senate | Jay Bookman | Slinking Toward Retirement
September 28th, 2010
9:07 pm
[...] via Founding Fathers would be horrified at today’s Senate | Jay Bookman. [...]
md
September 28th, 2010
9:11 pm
“I’m supposed to feel sorry for a “small” business owner who earns half a million per year? On what planet?”
Expand your thinking a bit – if he owes 2 mill, he ain’t doing so great is he??
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 28th, 2010
9:12 pm
and McCann is a great catcher and hitter. He just can’t … run.
In his defense, how many fast catchers have you ever seen, especially after they’ve played a few years.
and fire all the employees and the rich get to keep all that profit
First they’d have to learn what those employees have been doing for years. Most of the ones I’ve worked for, would struggle mightily with that.
md
September 28th, 2010
9:13 pm
Mick,
The world players have changed – glad you have the faith, that monster on the other side of the planet is awful big now.
Matti
September 28th, 2010
9:14 pm
OK, googling it and getting hits. Heard it on the TV while putting groceries away. The FIRST $250K is taked at the same rate for everybody. If you make $300K, ONLY the last $50K is taxed at the higher rate. Not the whole bucket. It’s not quite the dire punishment for working hard that some people make it out to be.
md
September 28th, 2010
9:16 pm
“And why do you think that employing someone entails debt.”
It doesn’t in all cases, but we aren’t talking about the ones that are doing OK – we are talking about the ones that are struggling in a bad economy. 251k is nothing for many out there when their debt load is 2, 3, 4 times that.
AmVet
September 28th, 2010
9:18 pm
Bravos break through for three in the seventh. (Fingers crossed…)
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:19 pm
“Sounds like a fairy tale to me – raise taxes AND pay down the deficit”
Ummm…and how would you suggest the deficit be paid down WITHOUT raising taxes? Cutting spending isn’t going to do it.
Atlanta 1
September 28th, 2010
9:20 pm
Ah Jay… Nice history lesson; but such a short memory.. The Democrats have spent their fair share of time blocking legislation. Why not as much as the Republicans do today? Simple, they gave in…
Nice try though… If the House and Senate ‘flip’ – we’ll see how much time you spend on this when this situation is reversed. Actually we will not; because anyone who bothers to catch your blog knows that you are about as open minded as Fox and CNBC…
md
September 28th, 2010
9:20 pm
“It’s not quite the dire punishment for working hard that some people make it out to be.”
I look at it more on the side of principle vs strictly monetary. It sends the wrong signal. Work hard, do well, and carry the nation on your back.
We choose everything we do, so punishing for being successful is walking a slippery slope.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:20 pm
Contrary to the moaning on the right, there is NO disincentive to making more by working harder. You just get to keep 2.5% less of the additional income, its not being taxed at 100%. That would be a disincentive.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:23 pm
“I’d hazard to say more often than not, many small company’s are in debt up to their ears…….”
Once again, with feeling…taxes are paid on PROFITS, not income. Most debts are an expense against the profit – which means LESS taxes paid. Those darned things called deductions kick in somwhere about here.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:23 pm
And a “slippery slope” is a well known logical fallacy, along with the ad hominem argument and the appeal to false authority. My ninth graders know that.
TGT
September 28th, 2010
9:24 pm
Hinkse!!!
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:25 pm
“if he owes 2 mill, he ain’t doing so great is he??”
If he owes that much he must be doing well enough that a bank thought him a good loan risk…otherwise they wouldn’t have lent that money to begin with.
Jay
September 28th, 2010
9:26 pm
md, according to NPR’s tax calculator (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129605962 ), a couple making $300,000 in taxable income would pay an additional $734 in taxes under Obama’s plan.
Horrifying, I know.
TaxPayer
September 28th, 2010
9:27 pm
I think we just need to get rid of all taxes and regulations and let that handful of super smart educated folks just go ahead and finish acquiring all the money, because they is just so good at doing that, and then there won’t be anything left to fuss about and we can all get on with our lives. I suggest bartering.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:27 pm
Or he’s Nathan Deal……
md
September 28th, 2010
9:28 pm
“Most debts are an expense against the profit – which means LESS taxes paid. ”
Uhhh…. wrong. Debt is not a deduction – interest on that debt would be, but a company does not get to deduct all their debt.
zeke
September 28th, 2010
9:28 pm
The Founders would be shocked when they saw medicaid, wic, adc, food stamps, dept od education, epa, fcc, obamacare, tarp, stimulus farce, voter rights limitation on only about 13 states, the illegal invasion, a President not impeached after committing perjury, an absurd regressive income tax and redistribution, and, the Senate elected by the voters instead of the state legislatures! All these are unconstitutional! The Founders would be in horror!
TaxPayer
September 28th, 2010
9:28 pm
“if he owes 2 mill, he ain’t doing so great is he??”
If he owes that much he must be doing well enough that a bank thought him a good loan risk…otherwise they wouldn’t have lent that money to begin with.
I hear that’s only half a Deal.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:28 pm
“we are talking about the ones that are struggling in a bad economy.”
If they are struggling it’s because they don’t have enough customers, not because of taxes. They could, actually, stay afloat even without a profit – as long as they can pay their bills. No profit means no taxes.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:29 pm
Jay: Give ME the 300k and call the taxes an even grand extra. I can afford to be generous.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:30 pm
“Work hard, do well, and carry the nation on your back”
Yep, that’s the social contract we ALL sign up for by staying in this country and using the public facilities and services that we are taxed for.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:31 pm
“would pay an additional $734 in taxes under Obama’s plan.”
and if that’s enough to cause them to fire an employee – talk about SLAVE WAGES!
md
September 28th, 2010
9:31 pm
“And a “slippery slope” is a well known logical fallacy, along with the ad hominem argument and the appeal to false authority.”
Call it what you will, I really prefer to call it class warfare – but you already know that.
And I’m speaking as an individual that is not especially well off – it’s principle and ethics that matter, but doesn’t seem to bother many here.
md
September 28th, 2010
9:32 pm
“If he owes that much he must be doing well enough that a bank thought him a good loan risk…otherwise they wouldn’t have lent that money to begin with.”
Yep, every failed bank in the US thought that at one time.
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
9:32 pm
Mick, at least you didn’t try to defend the fact you are LYING to the dunces in your party with this tax cut garbage. Good to see you own up to that.
Are you serious you want to fly that “dry cleaners don’t make $500K” crap?
Let me spell this out for the dense among you. That dry cleaner you mentioned was likely making $350K before the economy tanked. His home, cars, etc. are based on that income level. He’s now making $251K because a large portion of his customer base is now unemployed, BUT, his fixed expense base hasn’t changed a bit. He’s let a person or 2 go, is now working 14 hr days instead of 12, and is not about to add an additional person when you dunces are doing everything you can to take another $8k out of his pocket.
If there is any part of that you dunces don’t understand, please don’t vote in the next election. Yes, you are entitled, but you’re an idiot and would do the world a favor if you stayed home.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:32 pm
“Debt is not a deduction – interest on that debt would be, but a company does not get to deduct all their debt”
Whatever they can deduct REDUCES their taxes.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:34 pm
“Yep, every failed bank in the US thought that at one time”
And how many banks have failed lately due to BUSINESS loans?
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:34 pm
No, ethical considerations are important. It’s just that some of us don’t consider unrestrained self-interest to be especially ethical.
TaxPayer
September 28th, 2010
9:35 pm
And I’m speaking as an individual that is not especially well off – it’s principle and ethics that matter, but doesn’t seem to bother many here.
Wow.
md
September 28th, 2010
9:35 pm
“If they are struggling it’s because they don’t have enough customers, not because of taxes. They could, actually, stay afloat even without a profit – as long as they can pay their bills. No profit means no taxes.”
It is pretty obvious you have never owned your own business. No profit doesn’t do much for the debt load. That is why so many are going under. The bank can care less if there is or isn’t profit, they want their money.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:36 pm
“He’s let a person or 2 go, is now working 14 hr days instead of 12, and is not about to add an additional person when you dunces are doing everything you can to take another $8k out of his pocket.”
He’s making less money, he’s making less profit, he’s paying LESS TAXES. Under the conditions you state, if he’s letting people go it’s because he doesn’t have ENOUGH BUSINESS to continue paying them. How much he’s paying in taxes has NOTHING to do with that decision.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:37 pm
Many of those failed banks thought that colaterized default swaps were a good bet. A lot of them around Atlanta thought that there was an unlimited demand for 6,00 square foot houses.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:37 pm
Sorry: 6,00 sq. ft.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 28th, 2010
9:38 pm
Founding Fathers would be horrified at today’s Senate
12:42 pm September 28, 2010, by Jay
——————-
After all of the wasteful, obscene spending and outrageous growth in government, you bet they would.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:38 pm
Damn “0″ key stuck!!!!!!
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:38 pm
“The bank can care less if there is or isn’t profit, they want their money”
and what part of “as long as they can pay their bills” did you not understand?
Intown
September 28th, 2010
9:39 pm
Radical conservatives are destroying this country. They will set us back 200 years and render us a second rate nation with a third rate economy. Freaking @(#holes!
md
September 28th, 2010
9:39 pm
“It’s just that some of us don’t consider unrestrained self-interest to be especially ethical.”
I certainly hope you are including the won’ts in your defintion of self-interest…….
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 28th, 2010
9:40 pm
“Radical conservatives” don’t run anything, retard, the Democrats have a hammerlock on all branches of government. Any “destroying” that’s going on is going on on the Idiot Messiah’s watch.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:41 pm
@md: Sure am. Don’t know many, though.
RW-(the original)
September 28th, 2010
9:41 pm
I’m not sure how people can calculate this difference the way NPR does. If you truly let all the tax cuts that went to those making over 250K expire then you would have to bump the first 250K up to 36% from 33%.
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 28th, 2010
9:41 pm
When I was running a business (for somebody else), we had 3 types of expenses, variable expenses, semi-fixed expenses, and fixed expenses. So not all expenses are equal. Some you can adjust fairly easily and some you’re pretty well stuck with. The trick is to bring in enough to cover them all and to be able to have a pretty good idea, how much you’re going to bring in, in a given period.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
9:42 pm
rb
Dry cleaners in georgia making 350k? Placing your emotions over intelligence does a disservice to any point that you are grasping to make. Thank god my vote will cancel out yours.
Kamchak
September 28th, 2010
9:43 pm
…the Democrats have a hammerlock on all branches of government.
The Democrats control SCOTUS?
md
September 28th, 2010
9:43 pm
“and what part of “as long as they can pay their bills” did you not understand?”
“They could, actually, stay afloat even without a profit – as long as they can pay their bills.”
A bit hard to do one without the other. If he has a huge cash stash, he ain’t hurting and we aren’t discussing him.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:45 pm
Barry: Go back (well, a looong way back) and check out just who has the “hammerlock” in the Senate.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 28th, 2010
9:45 pm
Kamchak: The Democrats control SCOTUS
—————
There’s your sign.
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
9:46 pm
“He’s making less money, he’s making less profit, he’s paying LESS TAXES. Under the conditions you state, if he’s letting people go it’s because he doesn’t have ENOUGH BUSINESS to continue paying them. How much he’s paying in taxes has NOTHING to do with that decision.”
Are you really that stupid? Seriously? You do understand these tax bills are paid in real dollars don’t you? Not in Monopoly money. The only reason he’s paying less in taxes is because HE HAS LESS INCOME. From your reply, it would appear you think the business pays this person a salary and that salary has nothing to do with the health or profitability of the business. The business can make less money, but the rich guy still gets his money and should be able to fork over an additional $15K without missing it? Is that right? It doesn’t work that way in the real world, dude.
It’s quite clear most of you liberals have never owned a business or been in any position where you’ve been responsible for budgets and P&L’s, cause you’re clueless…….and dangerous. OMG!!
md
September 28th, 2010
9:47 pm
“Sure am. Don’t know many, though.”
Do you know what the national percentage of high school drop outs is??
It is 1/3. That is an awful lot of won’ts……….
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:48 pm
“the Democrats have a hammerlock on all branches of government. ”
didn’t actually READ Jay’s piece I see.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 28th, 2010
9:48 pm
Liberals don’t use logical thought processes, they are ruled by emotion, just like the women that they are or long to be.
Lil' Barry Bailout
September 28th, 2010
9:49 pm
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
————–
I’m sure you know all about Jay’s piece.
AmVet
September 28th, 2010
9:49 pm
Kam, the Messiah obsessed rarely makes much sense…
TaxPayer
September 28th, 2010
9:53 pm
Okay. So, taxes is the roots of all conservative’s evils, I guess, and the Republicans, while they controlled all three houses, passed legislation that gave out temporary tax cuts with the bulk of those tax cuts going to folks that were making millions and billions and they funded those tax cuts by skimming all the excess from the payroll taxes and by borrowing money from China and others and then in order to pay for the cuts, they set up the cuts to expire and then everyone that got cuts would start paying for them again. Have I got it right so far. I mean, I just want to get a good understanding of this most serious tax problem we got brewing here in these United States.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
9:53 pm
“The only reason he’s paying less in taxes is because HE HAS LESS INCOME”
Do you actually READ what you quote, before you reply? You just said EXACTLY the same thing *I* did: “if he’s letting people go it’s because he doesn’t have ENOUGH BUSINESS to continue paying them. How much he’s paying in taxes has NOTHING to do with that decision.”
And you even QUOTED it. Sheesh.
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
9:53 pm
Mick, your argument is that dry cleaners don’t make $350K in Georgia? Really? If you can’t form a more relevant arguement for a tax increase than that, stay out of the discussion. You’re not qualified to be here. Go share your opinion at the Simpson’s blog or something.
Just so you get the point, it doesn’t make any difference if the person owns a dry cleaner, a sub shop, an oil change place or a dentist office, the facts I presented to you don’t change. If you want to debate the facts of the impact of your tax increase on these people, feel free, but debating how much dry cleaners make is STUPID. Man up or move on.
Matti
September 28th, 2010
9:54 pm
Work hard, do well, and carry the nation on your back.
Maybe I’m inferring to much here, but this is offensive. Income is NOT necessarily proportionate to how “hard” somebody works, and those who “do well” don’t do it alone, they do it because they live in a society where it’s possible.
Only the “over taxed” work hard? Please. Policemen work long hours in hot synthetic fabrics and put themselves between us and all manner scum, risking their lives to protect the community, and most of them have to work 20 or more hours of overtime and second or third jobs just to make ends meet. Teachers put in more hours than you even want to THINK about for less than you want to live on. $10/hr manual laborers are thrilled to get that in this economy, and by the time they get to the cheap dinner they can afford, they surely know they worked for it. They’re carrying the nation on their backs too. So am I, middle-class mom, putting every last friggin dime that comes in back into the economy, and as much into my local community as I can. Six months w/o a job would wreck my family, and I assure you, I pay plenty of taxes and carry my part of the weight. People who are blessed right now while everyone else struggles need to stfu already and stop acting like they cranked the cash out of their very own behinds with nobody’s help. What a disgrace!
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
9:55 pm
Gee:RB, the small business guys I worked for did exactly that: paid themselves and the relative employees a salary out of the profit on the business. If times got hard, they might decide to pay themselves less or to lay somebody off. I don’t remember any of them taking home over 250K in income: the business might well have that much or more in sales, but sales aren’t profit. To incur an additional 15K in annual taxes, he’d have to be making way more that 250K a year, and he’d be able to hire a fancy accountant and a tax attourney to make sure he didn’t pay a dime.
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
10:01 pm
“with the bulk of those tax cuts going to folks that were making millions and billions ”
Another LIE sold to the dunces. 47% of the people in this nation do not pay federal income taxes today. Any tax cut given is by SIMPLE MATH going to have a higher impact on people who make more money. Tired of hearing this stupid arguement. You’re either one of the dunces this LIE is intended to fool or you’re one of the LIARS telling it. Take your pick.
BTW, I still don’t get your point about the guy paying less in taxes because he has less income. If you made a lucid point at all, please explain. And also explain how taking an additional $8K from him is going to make him want to run out and hire people when he’s already having to drop expences and headcount. You can’t pick and choose which effects of your TAX INCREASE you want to consider.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
10:02 pm
md; I currently make (pause for laughter) a living trying to teach those kids who drop out. A few of them “won’t”, many of them “can’t” in the environment we provide for them, and some of them are never really given a chance. But they are emphatically NOT the intentional parasites you suggest.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
10:04 pm
RB; How many of that 47% don’t have an income? How many make a living from capitol gains that are not taxed as income. How many are under 18? Your number is meaningless.
Jay
September 28th, 2010
10:05 pm
You know, the envy of the prosperous toward those too poor to pay income taxes is truly something amazing to see.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
10:06 pm
“Any tax cut given is by SIMPLE MATH going to have a higher impact on people who make more money”
and who can better afford to pay it
Mick
September 28th, 2010
10:06 pm
rb
Its pretty hard to debate a dumb head ding a ling such as yourself…I was using dry cleaners as an EXAMPLE….still you never were quite able to answer the question, show me a small business on main street anywhere in georgia that is making over 250k in profit? I’m sure thee are a few but the other 98% are no where near. How is a 3% tax increase going to impact them? The simple answer is – it won’t….you are spinning your wheels for nothing….
TaxPayer
September 28th, 2010
10:06 pm
You claim I’m lying, RB. Well, what did I lie about in my post, RB. Did I lie when I said that the Republicans controlled all three houses when they passed the legislation that gave out those temporary tax cuts, tax cuts that expire by design in order to pay for themselves, tax cuts that had no corresponding spending cuts and therefore had to draw on other tax revenues and borrowing in order to fund them. Really, RB.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
10:06 pm
BTW RB, it works like this. If he can make an additional 32K from the guy he hires, and pays an additional 8k in taxes, he pockets 24K. Not that hard when you think about it.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
10:07 pm
“You know, the envy of the rich toward those too poor to pay income taxes is truly something amazing to see”
No kidding! And it would be SO easy for those who are so jealous to join them and be one of those who don’t pay taxes. Wonder why they won’t make the effort? Too lazy maybe?
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
10:09 pm
Doggone: many of them already have.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
10:11 pm
“Doggone: many of them already have”
Then they don’t come under the heading of “the prosperous” who envy those who pay no taxes, now do they?
AmVet
September 28th, 2010
10:12 pm
Wags gets 3 Ks in the 9th.
Still hanging and hoping for October baseball…
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 28th, 2010
10:12 pm
Does anybody know, if there is some standard definition of a “small business”? Some people consider it to be say 5-10 employees, while I’ve seen businesses with 1000 employees, listed as a small business. Not asking this to be a smart ass, I’m really curious, how it’s defined.
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
10:14 pm
“and he’d be able to hire a fancy accountant and a tax attourney to make sure he didn’t pay a dime.”
Another LIE told for the benefit of the dunces.
Unless he’s an idiot, his accountant was already doing everything he could to reduce the man’s taxes. There is nothing the accountant can do to make 36% into 33% unless he chooses to act like a cabinet level Democrat and simply doesn’t pay his taxes.
Again, you are either the LIAR trying to fool the dunces or you are the dunce being fooled by the LIE. Take your pick.
Enoch
September 28th, 2010
10:15 pm
The founding fathers would indeed be aghast. At the overreaching arrogance of the democrats who freely admit they are not bound by the constitution. They don’t even understand it.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
10:15 pm
Dog: My point was the very rich don’t pay taxes, at least if they’re smart.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
10:17 pm
“My point was the very rich don’t pay taxes, at least if they’re smart.”
sorry…I was reading is as “some of them have fallen to that level”
TaxPayer
September 28th, 2010
10:17 pm
Hedge fund managers would have to pay 15% on their billion dollar earnings if they did not have loopholes that allow them to pay no taxes. Perhaps they have good reason to be upset with the expiration of those temporary tax cuts. They might actually get stuck with a one-time bill from their accountants to reconfigure their portfolios back to zero tax liability. Must be tough to be a billionaire.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
10:19 pm
HD – try this site:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Small+business&sa=X&ei=BKKiTKLPCMOC8gaN24zRCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CBIQkAE
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
10:20 pm
“RB; How many of that 47% don’t have an income? How many make a living from capitol gains that are not taxed as income. How many are under 18? Your number is meaningless.”
Why don’t you tell us what those percentages are so we can have a meaningful discussion about the issue? Hurry back with some actual numbers and not your bleeding heart opinions.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
10:23 pm
Hillbilly: The Small Business Administration defines a small business as less than 500 employees in manufacturing or less than 7M in revenue for non-manufacturing.
RB; where is the lie? If you want to debate reasonably, do so. If you want to engage in mindless invective, I’ve got better things to do.
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
10:24 pm
“and who can better afford to pay it”
Nothing more than weath envy. You have no knowledge of the finances of these people. You don’t know that they’re struggling to pay their mortgage because their business is suffering. The only thing you know is they make more money than you and you’re entitled to some of it.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
10:28 pm
“Nothing more than weath envy.”
Actually, no it isn’t. I wouldn’t even WANT to make the kind of money that is affected by the 3% tax raise. But I do believe that the people who get the most benefit out of our society have a responsibility to contribute more to it – precisely BECAUSE they can better afford it.
” You have no knowledge of the finances of these people.”
And, you do? Each and every one of them?
” You don’t know that they’re struggling to pay their mortgage because their business is suffering.”
Well, that makes us equal…so am I.
” The only thing you know is they make more money than you and you’re entitled to some of it.”
Nope, never said anything like that and if you try for the rest of your life you’ll never find anything I said that can even be twisted that way. I *do* however, think that our SOCIETY, that enabled them to become that rich, is entitled to some of it – so that it can continue to function and continue to provide them with the opportunity to make even more.
Jay
September 28th, 2010
10:29 pm
So RB, let me get this straight:
This couple that is struggling to pay their mortgage, and whose business is suffering, is nonetheless making taxable, after deduction income of, say, $300,000, on which they can’t afford to pay another $734?
Is that the scenario you are trying to craft?
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
10:30 pm
RB: Here’s your link, but I don’t expect you to believe it.
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/apr/28/allen-west/west-says-nearly-half-americans-pay-no-taxes/
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
10:31 pm
“Is that the scenario you are trying to craft?”
Nah, not really…he just waits for a chance to throw that “wealth envy” bit because he thinks it actually means something. I don’t know what he thinks it means…but it MUST mean SOMETHING.
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
10:32 pm
“Dog: My point was the very rich don’t pay taxes, at least if they’re smart”
There’s a LIE for you. I take it you’re one of the targets of the lies since you appear to have bought into it.
Mr_B
September 28th, 2010
10:32 pm
Gotta go, gang. Its been fun.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
10:33 pm
**The only thing you know is they make more money than you and you’re entitled to some of it.**
There’s your problem in a nutshell, no one begrudges those with wealth. However, after a ten year tax holiday which was sunset by a repub congress and bush in the white house, its time to pay the piper. Unless you think we should bail them out with more borrowing from china, why do they deserve a pass? Try to be civil…..
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 28th, 2010
10:36 pm
Well, from looking at the link Doggone supplied, it appears that everybody has their own definition of a small business. Mr_B’s SBA definition is one, while the SEC has a quite different one. For SEC purposes, small businesses are defined as domestic companies with revenues of under $25 million, and not investment companies. Subsidiaries of larger companies do not qualify as small businesses.
So, I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder. Thanks for the info.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
10:36 pm
“Try to be civil…..”
You’re not holding your breath, I hope!
TaxPayer
September 28th, 2010
10:38 pm
Is that Joe Wilson fella moonlighting or something. Maybe teaching a class on his use of the words, “You Lie!”, and how you can use these two simple words in everyday conversation too.
Doggone/GA
September 28th, 2010
10:39 pm
Later than I realized…night all. Don’t let your wealth envy keep you awake!
Jay
September 28th, 2010
10:39 pm
If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect that RB was Nathan Deal’s accountant.
Mick
September 28th, 2010
10:40 pm
Doggone/GA
RB may be too passionate for his own good. It’s fine to disagree but one needn’t burst a blood vessel because they are convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong. Many here can make a good point without the invective. Alas, we try…
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
10:41 pm
Jay, what was the couple’s income before the economy tanked and what level of income are their expenses based on? When you return with that answer, we’ll discuss whether or not they can afford another $800. You don’t have a right to only look at their income and not consider the other real factors in their life. That’s not your right and it’s not your right to take their money because it’s your opinion they can afford to pay it.
You simpletons just don’t get it do you? You might do yourself a favor by thinking for a change.
RB from Gwinnett
September 28th, 2010
10:43 pm
“no one begrudges those with wealth”
Puhleaseee……… Go sell that crap somewhere else.