marks2065

Since he is taxed on the 600k, that would leave about 450k, and he said most of that goes back into his businesses. That would leave about 200k for his personal expenses. try again Bill. and were did he say he was hurting or struggling? The argument is if Obama raises taxes what would he use to continue and expand his businesses and who would suffer in the end. Actually, he's probably not taxed on the $600,000 since his corp world be paying the taxes on the $6.3 million. However, his family must be pretty fat if it takes $200,000 to feed them. I guess he could go out and get a second job; oh wait, he does have a second job and it also pays him a six figure salary! taxes are paid on profit calculated from reciepts minus costs leaving about 600k. I would also say he employs alot of people, even in his own home.

yep and the yacht builder doesn't have enough to pay his employees now, the yacht captain doesn't have one to sail, the made doesn't have one to clean, I guess more layoffs is what you wanted anyway.

I like how they spin the "earnings" He did not earn $6m he earned About $600k and he uses most of that to reinvest in his companies. The more the gov takes the less he will have to buy things for his businesses. Only the stupid would take his capital from him and let the business suffer. I am working on 2-4% profit to reinvest in equipment and supplies for my business and if I got an increase in taxes it would possibly bleed me to bankrupcy in a few years. This guy is working on about a 6% margin for reinvestment capital, if you take 3% more from him (half the profit) the employes and supplies are the 2 largest pices of the pie to pull the needed money from. I would take it from the employee part of the pie because I would not take it from the supply side because that would reduce the quality of my product. the class war that is being stirred by the left is assinine and will cause more loss of jobs and a further erossion of the middle class. I wonder how much he and so many others have "spun" all kinds of things as "business expenses" that would not stand up under scrutiny from the IRS on closer inspection as so many patriotic Ameican business owners do every year.... as long as they get away with it.. its just business right?? get rid of deductions and have everyone pay 25% tax

Enjoy? Well, you certainly have a strange way of stating things, but no. I, for one, did not enjoy most of the "benifits" of our national defense system. Certainly not to the extent the military industrial complex did. The weapons manufacturers became billionaires, as did the contractors like Black Water and the military supply chain like Exxon. The national defense I enjoyed wasn't located in Afghanistan or Iraq. The national defense system I enjoyed was comprised a tiny fraction of the defense budget. Again, no and certainly not to the extent commercial operations like the shipping industry does. Me? I barely use the interstate highway system at all compared to say, FedEx. I barely use that either. The only time I've been in a court is to fight a traffic ticket and serve on a jury. There are entire companies however, whose entire business model is based on lawsuits. Them tying up the court system is an enormous drain on society and of absolutely no benefit to me. Yep, but I know people that have never been on a plane in their lives. Meanwhile there are others that make their living there. I really don't believe you're malicious in your comments, but I do believe you've overlooked corporate welfare by a LARGE margin. It's absolutely not equal, but in ways you've never considered. since you are not speeking german or some other language I think you have benefitted from national defence. if you buy any product from a store you have used the transportation system (how did your computer get to you?). If any criminals have been taken off your street and nieghborhood you have benifitted from the legal system. so you have used the fed gov for things just like everyone else, therefore you, just like everyone else should pay your fair share. These are the common things that all people use no matter what you think. the rich (250k or more )pay for 30-40% of this bill. doesn't seem fair does it? Why does someone that makes $40k not pay anything? what is their fare share?

Your idea of "fair" does not seem to jive with reality. So if you and your wife have a car and I need one it is "fair" to take one of yours? he also probably has 2 tv's and some other extra stuf we could share

Since he is taxed on the 600k, that would leave about 450k, and he said most of that goes back into his businesses. That would leave about 200k for his personal expenses. try again Bill. and were did he say he was hurting or struggling? The argument is if Obama raises taxes what would he use to continue and expand his businesses and who would suffer in the end.

When you add in the fact that he is paying for all his bills and not being suplemented by the government like many that earn 40k a year or less, he is correct. Many that earn less than 40k a year get earned income credit, subsudies for school and college, food stamps, lower tax rate or no tax, health care assistance from medicare and other forms of government programs, utility reinbursement, and many other programs that have been abuse to offset the income difference.

Oh I beg to differ. Everyone is not eating $20 steaks; not even hypothetically. how do you figure, did everyone not enjoy the benifits of our national defence? Did everyone not use our interstate highway system? how about our judicial system? were people kept safe in the skies? You are correct that it is not completely equal, the less you make generally the more you take, like welfare and earned income credits ect, but those people are getting the bigger stake and not paying for it.

You need a little leason here, the problem is not the difference between eating a $20 steak and a $2 salad. Everone is using everything pretty equally ( both eating $20 steaks)but only 1 person is paying, and it is the freeloading moron calling for for the hard working tax paying citizen to pay for both meals. The rich don't mind paying for a larger share of the meal, they are just getting sick and tired of paying for ALL the meals. Make everyone, including those making $2k a year pay something and you will see the voting change to the right in a hurry.

I like how they spin the "earnings" He did not earn $6m he earned About $600k and he uses most of that to reinvest in his companies. The more the gov takes the less he will have to buy things for his businesses. Only the stupid would take his capital from him and let the business suffer. I am working on 2-4% profit to reinvest in equipment and supplies for my business and if I got an increase in taxes it would possibly bleed me to bankrupcy in a few years. This guy is working on about a 6% margin for reinvestment capital, if you take 3% more from him (half the profit) the employes and supplies are the 2 largest pices of the pie to pull the needed money from. I would take it from the employee part of the pie because I would not take it from the supply side because that would reduce the quality of my product. the class war that is being stirred by the left is assinine and will cause more loss of jobs and a further erossion of the middle class.

I think this is kind of a stretch here.... I'm pretty sure what this all means is business jets (IE: G4/5, Citation, Galaxy, Global Express, etc, etc) operating 91 and especially 135 at high altitude sectors via IFR flight plan are going to be the ones taking the hit. Airlines operating on the same J routes pay federal taxes on each ticket sold. I a not sure exactly what the private business guys pay, and I guess that's what this is sorting out. I really doubt this means every skydiving load that takes off is going to get hit with this. have you ever done formation loads that go to 18000? how about places like mile high and Moab that consistantly go to 17000 - 18000 msl

If your kids are vaccinated, why are they in danger?

LOL

So, something perry did not do, in a state that people support capital punishment, makes him look like a dick? I could see coming down on the person that used race at the sentencing hearing and havig a judge review it, but this does not make perry a dick. This make Perry look like someone that upholds the laws that the people of his state support. Perry knew about the statements made and it was pointed out to him how it could have influenced the jury during sentencing. He could have granted the stay and ordered a review but he chose not to. He chose to allow a man to face execution knowing full well that he may not have received a fair sentence. That does not make him look like a dick. It only comfirms what people already know...that he is a dick. no he allowed the legal process to work, or are you all about over riding the legal process?

to bad you didn't say that when Obama said "jobs saved" in his report

So, something perry did not do, in a state that people support capital punishment, makes him look like a dick? I could see coming down on the person that used race at the sentencing hearing and havig a judge review it, but this does not make perry a dick. This make Perry look like someone that upholds the laws that the people of his state support.

Obama didn't quit his job, he went into the bosses office and robbed him

The country cannot afford more Obama spending and barrowing from future generations. Drilling a bigger hole in the boat doesn't make it float, plugging the hole does. It is time to plug the hole in Obama's budget. cut up his credit card and send him packing.

the problem in indreasing taxes is that the government then increases spending, always has and always will. the only way is to make the feds only spend what they have and no more no matter what. Do not give the feds more until they learn to use what they have properly. If you spent more than you have would your boss give you a raise to cover the increase? No he wouldn't and we should be the same with our government.

the previous stimulous was mostly not infrastructure and failed, this one is mostly not infrastructure spending. What good is a tax break to an employer that can not afford another employee? the tax break ends in a couple months and then has to pay full price for that employee. I would not hire an employee at 30k to 60k a year for a 2k to 4k discount. What we need is to reduce costly regulations and make the tax code permanent so employers know what it will cost them to do business in 2 to 10 years. A smart employer understands the costs of doing business and sets aside the money that they will need. knowing that the epa is adding over 300 new regulations that will cost businesses over 9 billion to implament, Obama care taxes to start kicking in in 1-3 years, and the tax cuts to expire in 2012 means that you need to have substatial capital to cover these costs. If you hire extra employees over what you absolutlely need will cut into your reserve and leave you open to shortages in the near future. What smart business owner would hire more employees they do not need and reduce their cash knowing these costly things my bite them later?

That makes no sense. Why? because the government is taking the money and spending it? look what happened in the 40's, the government spent the money and the depression continued and got worse. when the government ballance the budget and started to pay down it's debt the depression went away. As long as people are unemployed the recesion will continue and people will stay unemployed until it is better to take a job than to sit on the couch taking handouts.

Now that is hitting the nail between the eyes. I remember in 2009 when GM was given the bailout money (to keep the union contracts afloat no doubt). Since when is someone with a GED worth $85.00 per hour to install car seats??

Maybe because every economist in the country knows that slashing government spending during a recession would only deepen the recession. Why is it that nobody wants to pay for what we need? you are correct that slashing government spending would deepen the recession, but that is what is needed is to stop government from spending our future now. The extended length of this recession is caused buy the government because it won't let the recession finish it's course and government is robbing our future income to slow the course of the recession. If the government had not spent the 5 trillion over budget in the last 5 years we would be out of the recession by now or at least close to it. The weak companies would have failed and the stong lean companies would take over. This is a repeat of what happened in the 30's and 40's under Roosevelt. After the new deal under Roosevelt the depression got worse and unemployment went up in his second term because the stimulous dried up and we will see the same again. I cannot believe the left would do the same thing and expect different results! At least with the new deal the money was mostly spent on infrastructure. Bottom line is we need to tighten our belts and become lean and fiscally conservative and let those that want handouts suffer until they realize that they will need to take any jobs available to feed themselves. Why would anyone go back to work when unemployment and welfare pays more than a job? The takers are running out of people to take from and the real suffering is about to begin. Obama and his buddies have just about spent our futures. How much debt will it take to satisfy them? When nobody has any retirement left? when all the major companies have left the US? When all the people with money are broke? It is sad to see the government destroy so many peoples futures under the cover of "helping the less fortunate". The less fortunate would be better off just taking a meanial job and struggling than to accept any government handouts.

California comes to mind here... "Leading the way", as Pelosi put it, ....to economic ruin... I am starting to think that the progressives are trying to break the bank to put the federal government in control of everything making us a socialist country. Why would Obama continue to try to do the same thing (more spending) knowing the results would be the same as before (continued high unemployment and greater debt).

The current state of your economy does not seem to support that statement. Take out the government spending and regulations from the epa it would be great.