I agree with Senator Dean.

But thank dog, someone on the board besides Adak has at last come to defense of the poor, down trodden upper 2% in wealth. You go, Classic!

If the math doesn't lie, then give us the god damn numbers, and at the very least, use ones put out by the CBO - not ones drawn out of the thin air by some outfit like the Heriage Foundation. Give us ANYTHING besides an uncollaborated statement.

The average median household income was around $51000 in 2011, a mere $200,000 below the income level targeted for a return to the Clinton era rates. Today Donald Trump and tomorrow Ibby. :eek:

Please define what you would consider a "fair share" of taxes, too. What? 5% for Trump and 0% for everyone else, or better yet, 0% on Trump and 5% on single Moms earning less than $10,000/year? Whatever because the US doesn't really need a government, anyway, since Goldman Sachs is already doing the job?

Also, since you seem comfortable using Tea Party terminology, could you please define what you mean by "small businesses" - especially the SMALL part? Seriously, I really want know.

Another question I have is why are you upset by the thought of cuts to defense spending? The war in Afghanistan is winding down. Mission accomplished in Iraq. (ahem) Maybe you'd like the US to declare war on the remaining two members of the "axis of evil": Iraq and North Korea? Why not declare war on Canada as well? We could get all that oil, and I bet the Canadian army would be a push over.

What are you a defense contractor or something?

Now, since we are at war on the Canadian and Iranian and N. Korean fronts and Goldman Sachs has decided to outsource the Army to Rwanda, what do you suggest happen to the earned benefits that the American people paid all those taxes for out of their hard earned paychecks? That amount comes to quite a bit and every last one of us who worked for even a day or two paid into those funds.

Oh, I forgot. Those are now called "entitlements" and that money was given to Donald Trump, so he wouldn't have to pay an extra .001% toward the cost of our Rwandan mercenaries.

Good thing we no longer have to worry about the government throwing money at such fripperies as education, infrastructure, and disaster relief for worthless states on the stupid East Coast like New Jersey.

And it's a relief to be rid of all those old people and the disabled ones, too - bunch of worthless parasites. Glad we took away their housing and medicaid and put 'em out on the street to die.

We'll show YOU, Howard Dean!

Small business?
Hows this, firms that have fewer than 50 employees. 96% of all firms in the United States or 5.8 million out of 6 million total firms. These 5.8 million firms employ nearly 34 million workers.

Ok, but I still need a more precise definition. I'm wondering about profit margins. Could you give me the link where you found this information?

Like, I can understand that a firm with 50 or so employees might rake in a profit of a million dollars or more. Financially speaking, how much in profits defines a small business as opposed to a large one?

And what's the percentage of small businesses that have 10 employees or less? The percentage of the ones run by a sole proprieter? Do small businesses on this end of the spectrum typically show a profit of a million dollars or more?

The Republicans seem to want us to believe that Joe of Joe's plumbing is going to be taxed at the same rate as Donald Trump. Not so.

For example, I read that the typical Mom and Pop eatery brings in an average income of $36,000/year. Was that a lie? If so, what is the real average? If a business earns enough money to fall under the Dem's proposed repeal of Bush era tax cuts, how can it be defined as "small"?

This is what's making me dig in my heels:

However, this comes from a populist site, and if I'm going to request that people use non partisen sources, then I have to do the same. I've read similiar things from other sources, but are these statements lies? There must be somewhere that gives the sums involved where the Dems want to repeal the Bush era tax cuts on businesses worth X amount. There must be somewhere that gives the Republican monetary definition of a "small business," but I can't find that either.

I'm so sick of smoke and mirrors.

A hedge fund manager and their secretary are a "small business" if measured by employee count. It makes more sense to measure a small business by its revenue, rather than its employee count, especially when discussing the effect of income tax rates on them.

And if a business not only makes $250,000 in taxable income, but makes enough over $250,000 that a few percent increased rate on that money is a significant amount, that is no small business.

I found that in a pdf on a government site a few days ago. I can't give you a link, as I only could quote it because I put in in an email I sent at the time.

Another thing I found there;

Sam - You are arguing with Howard Dean, NOT ME!
He said all those things. you may now take your shitting fucking attack attitude and stick up your ass. I neither attacked nor defended anyone. Typical bullshit not worthy of a response.

Accusing us of wanting the tax cuts for the rich to be rescinded to fix the budget problems is wrong. It's because the rich are paying a lower rate than the rest of us which isn't fair. We're well aware that isn't the final solution to our fiscal bloat.

Try reading your PM's.

If you did already check them and then went ahead and posted the above anyway, oh well. At least you'll be pleased to know that I'm leaving the Cellar for an indefinate period of time.

Sam, Got it and responded.

Somehow this sounds familiar...

Boehner offers millionaire tax hike, Fox News confirms
Oh yeah, now I remember

AP is reporting that the house of Representatives will miss the deadline to vote on any deal with respect to the fiscal cliff.

*checks watch*
well, yeah...

They suck. Seriously. The fuckers.

There is only one immediate downside to going off the cliff: unemployment insurance checks may stop going out between now and a deal. Every other change can be retroactively fixed.

Now, the Democrats have even more leverage. Polls show that the nation blames the republicans for obstructing, not the democrats. We'll see a deal in the next five days, i promise you - and it'll be a deal that, while not ideal, will reflect an actual compromise, not the stupid move-the-goalposts-further-and-further-right compromise we've seen so much of lately.

I am happy to quote go over the cliff quote. Too many reasons to list via phone but it will all be alright.