Republican Honesty in Action
H. R. 3309- the "Small Business Job Security Act"
What does it do? Prevent the minimum wage from being raised for another year.
What does it do? Prevent the minimum wage from being raised for another year.
It's Okay, Never Mind
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Comments
The minimum wage does nothing but harm businesses. It doesn't solve anything. Business are forced to raise wages, which increases costs, which means they either:
a) lay off some workers, putting larger workloads on the remaining employees
b) cut hours for employees, thus placing larger workloads on their backs
c) raise prices
note how none of these benefit the employees. If costs go up, the poor have no more buying power than before, and on top of that, many are without jobs or sufficient hours. Everyone else has to pay the higher prices as well, thus making it a net negative.
I have an idea. How about we institute the fair tax, thus fixing the economy and filling the deficit. Once we have a surplus, we can provide cheap tuition to state schools for those who cannot afford it.
Sound good? Awesome.
Once again, you are just repeating Republican talking points. There has never been any proof that any of these claims has any foundation in reality.
Now as to the "fair" tax: May I point out that this name is as cynical as the "Small Business job security act." The flat tax is simply a way to lower taxes for the rich. They pay the highest tax rates, so who do you think is going to benefit by making everyone pay the same rate? It's all Republicans ever care about, and Derek, unless you have a hundred million dollar trust fund that you haven't told us about, it's bad for you too.
Well the minimum wage keeps going up and poverty keeps either staying the same or increasing. Welfare is just as bad. After welfare reform, poverty DECREASED. Less welfare, less poverty. After the last minimum wage increase, prices went up as well. Unemployment is expected to climb due to the minimum wage increase.
You are the one without the fact and ignoring truth. Call it a Republican talking point all you want, it is still the truth.
"Small Business job security act."
Like the economic recovery act of 2009?
"The flat tax is simply a way to lower taxes for the rich."
The flat tax is not the fair tax. And might I note, the rich were paying more than ever under GW Bush, not less. The poor were paying less, the rich paying more.
"They pay the highest tax rates, so who do you think is going to benefit by making everyone pay the same rate"
This is neither the fair tax, nor the flat tax. The flat tax is based on income brackets. If your bracket earned 5% of all the wealth, guess what, your bracket will pay 5% of all the taxes. The top 1% actually holds a larger burden than they should based on this model. The bottom 50% basically doesn't even pay income tax. 44% of Americans MADE MONEY on their taxes in 2006. That means that the top 56% not only were paying all the taxes, but were also giving money to the bottom 44%. The bottom 50% seems to have it pretty good, so don't act like life isn't fair for them. What isn't fair is having a business that you work hard for, then having to give half your profits to the government, just so they can give money to the guy who doesn't work.
The fair tax is a nationwide sales tax. It isn't based on income, but rather consumption. The lowest earners can still be made exempt. So if Mr. Moneybags wants to enjoy his wealth, he is going to have to pay more in taxes. This system not only allows people to have more money to invest and purchase goods, but also eliminates the whole "I deserve a tax cut" talk.
"It's all Republicans ever care about, and Derek, unless you have a hundred million dollar trust fund that you haven't told us about, it's bad for you too."
You keep trying to make this class warfare, but what is good for one group isn't necessarily bad for the other. The rich benefit and the poor benefit as well. No, I make less than $10K a year as a student. Around $18K if you count room and board as an RA, but that is in savings, not earnings. The fair tax allows me to keep more money and makes more jobs available for me to pursue.
I'd love an explanation for how taxes are unfair for the poor.
No one has ever been able to produce any statistical evidence that raising the minimum wage cuts the number of jobs. Believe me, it's not that they haven't tried. It's because there is no evidence.
The argument that the rich were paying more under Bush is a colossal example of dishonesty. Do you deny that Bush massively cut upper level tax rates, and corporate taxes? The only reason that the rich paid more in the aggregate is that their incomes increased massively while the incomes of the lower 90% of the population were essentially stagnant. The rich paid more because they had so much more money.
A nationwide sales tax is the most regressive form of taxation known. It would do nothing but transfer tax burden from the rich to the poor. Surely you are not so blinded by ideology that you cannot see that?
Really? No numbers? From a government website, the minimum wage hurts employment, increases prices, hurts capital stock, and does more harm than good.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/23/raising-minimum-wage-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
Forbes column.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12952733/Minimum-Wage-Effects-on-Hours-Employment-And-Number-of-Firms-the-Iowa-Case
More proof.
Honestly GE, do you truly believe the crap you spew? You pull info from no where and never back up the claims. One by one, I go through and prove you wrong time and time again. Each time, you call me a liar, ignore me, or brush it off as "republican jargon" .
Time for some integrity. Prove the info I have provided wrong.
"The argument that the rich were paying more under Bush is a colossal example of dishonesty"
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba606
"Since the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax reforms, the share of total income received by the wealthy has increased; however, their share of the total tax burden has increased even more than their income share. In other words, Bush's reforms have helped mitigate the income gap between rich and poor by increasing the progressivity of the income tax system."
Again, I prove you to be ignorant. Prove me wrong if you have an ounce of integrity.
"while the incomes of the lower 90% of the population were essentially stagnant."
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=289527073199247
Proved wrong yet again. You also forgot that unemployment went down to lower than Clinton-era levels, and stayed there, until this recession.
"The rich paid more because they had so much more money."
No, their share of the tax burden INCREASED, meaning, they paid more than their share of taxes.
"It would do nothing but transfer tax burden from the rich to the poor."
If you'd give me an explanation as to how a sales tax, under which payment would be based on consumption, somehow hurts the poor, many of whom would be exempt, more than the rich, who spend a hell of a lot more than the poor, that'd be dandy.
You time and time again prove yourself to have no integrity. GE, proving his intellectual bankruptcy goes "NUH UH!".
You know, I don't think you have ever provided a link to back up your claims. Not once.