Small Businesses...Really?

[bullypulpit]

The GOP is making much about American small businesses, and the impact on them of letting Bush era tax cuts lapse. Well, guess what...They're not talkin' about the Mom & Pop store around the corner.

The SBA defines as a small business, any business which meets the following criteria:

- 500 or fewer employees for most manufacturing and mining industries (a few industries permit up to 750, 1000 or 1,500 employees)

- 100 or fewer employees for all wholesale trade industries

$6 million per year in sales receipts for most retail and service industries (with some exceptions)

- $27.5 million per year in sales receipts for most general & heavy construction industries

$11.5 million per year in sales receipts for all special trade contractors

)- $0.5 million per year in sales receipts for most agricultural, forestry and fishing industries (Source: <a href=http://www.fedaccess.com/what-is-small-business.htm>Federal Access</a>)

The GOP is talking about something else entirely. They are talking about Chapter S corporations. These corporations are defined by the following criteria:

* Must be an eligible entity (a domestic corporation, or a limited liability company which has elected to be taxed as a corporation).
* Must have only one class of stock.
* Must not have more than 100 shareholders.
o Spouses are automatically treated as a single shareholder. Families, defined as individuals descended from a common ancestor, plus spouses and former spouses of either the common ancestor or anyone lineally descended from that person, are considered a single shareholder as long as any family member elects such treatment.
* Shareholders must be U.S. citizens or residents, and must be natural persons, so corporate shareholders and partnerships are generally excluded. However, certain trusts, estates, and tax-exempt corporations, notably 501(c)(3) corporations, are permitted to be shareholders.
* Profits and losses must be allocated to shareholders proportionately to each one's interest in the business. (Source:<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation#Qualification_for_S_corporation_stat us>Wikipedia</a>)

These corporations are also known as "pass through" corporations, as corporate income or losses pass through to the share holders.

The real focus of GOP tax policy was made clear in a September 12 interview (5 minutes in) on <a href=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6859016n&tag=mncol;lst;3>"Face the Nation"</a> with House Minority Leader John "The Boner" Boehner(R-OH). Boehner admits that only 3% of small businesses would benefit from continuing the Bush era tax cuts. This 3%, however accounts for around half of all "small" business income. H&R Block has some 1.5.million small business customers, yet only about .005% of them would benefit from extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans...Tax cuts Boehner and the GOP are fighting tooth-and-nail for.

Some of the corporations that meet this loose definition of a "small business" include Koch industries...which is busy funding the pseudo-populist tea-bagger movement, Bechtel, the Chicago Tribune, and the list goes on, with some 20,000 S corps with more than $ 50 million in receipts in 2008. Small, not in terms of income, or number of employees, but in the number of owners.

And it is this 3% of "small businesses", which account for 50% of small business income that John "The Boner" Boehner and Mitch "McChinless" McConnell are interested in benefiting. Sound familiar? It should. The Bush era tax cuts...The same ones the congressional GOP leadership want to extend...saw the greatest benefit go to the top 2-3% of income earners in this country.

SO when you hear The Boner or McChinless talk about "small business"...It's not the small business owner who come to fix your plumbing or do your landscaping, or owns the diner down the street where you meet your neighbors for coffee. They're talking about, as usual, the wealthiest Americans who hold more of the national wealth than at nearly any time in US history.

<a href=http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html>Wealth, Income, and Power</a>

[red states rule]

Once again BP you are pulling out the class warfare card. It is a fact tat 2% already pay about 45% of ALL federal income taxes collected. They are paying MORE in taxes after the Bush tax cuts

Polls show a majority of people want tax cuts for ALL taxpayers

Only in the land of Liberalville it makes perfect sense to raise taxes in a slow (and near lifeless) economy

But what else is new? Under Obama trillions have been spent to "stimulate" the economy and what do we have to show for it?

Higher unemployment, record people on food stamps, foreclosures at new highs, the cost of health care insurance going up, and all libs can do is tell us things are getting better (and it will get worse if you vote for the other guy)

BP, you have no basic understanding of the free market. When government takes money out of the private sector it only slows the amount of economic activity

I suspect you will hang around for maybe 3 more posts then you will run away from another hit and run thread you started

[Gaffer]

After three posts he runs out of moveon talking points and has to fall back on attacks of the posters so runs away. Always the same MO.

[Noir]

Well no, they are talking about 'mom and pop' businesses, but they're also talking about larger businesses that may have a few hundred employees.

[red states rule]

After three posts he runs out of moveon talking points and has to fall back on attacks of the posters so runs away. Always the same MO.

During the Bush years BP was here constantly. He was foaming at mouth in nearly every post

Now that his team is in power and have clearly fallen on their ass (and taken the country with them) he is a drive by poster

Actually, I dman near pity him. Like other liberal I know who were gidy and excited by Oama's electionl and unchecked Dem power in Congress; they know deep down how badly they have screwed up

Now all they can look forward too is going back to their usual attack dog mentality.

They are like the spurned lover. If they can't have America then nobody can

[DragonStryk72]

Well no, they are talking about 'mom and pop' businesses, but they're also talking about larger businesses that may have a few hundred employees.

Yeah, I agree, I mean, even a small construction company can employ hundreds of workers right off the top by the very nature of the job.

[red states rule]

Yeah, I agree, I mean, even a small construction company can employ hundreds of workers right off the top by the very nature of the job.

Some of the things stopping them may be the cost of Obamacare, and the higher taxes coming Jan 1, 2011

[bullypulpit]

Once again BP you are pulling out the class warfare card. It is a fact tat 2% already pay about 45% of ALL federal income taxes collected. They are paying MORE in taxes after the Bush tax cuts

:link:


Polls show a majority of people want tax cuts for ALL taxpayers

Really?


Only in the land of Liberalville it makes perfect sense to raise taxes in a slow (and near lifeless) economy

Just on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Saves $700 billion over 10 years. Can't cut deficits by cutting taxes. Trying to do just that is voodoo economics.


But what else is new? Under Obama trillions have been spent to "stimulate" the economy and what do we have to show for it?

Higher unemployment, record people on food stamps, foreclosures at new highs, the cost of health care insurance going up, and all libs can do is tell us things are getting better (and it will get worse if you vote for the other guy)

All fallout from the deregulation of the financial markets by the Bush administration.


BP, you have no basic understanding of the free market. When government takes money out of the private sector it only slows the amount of economic activity

Laissez-faire capitalism presupposes a rational society...something which has yet to make an appearance on the face of this earth. Until it does, government regulation of markets and industry is a necessary evil in protecting the average citizen from the worst excesses of unregulated free markets. You might, at some point in a dim and distant past, have had a nodding acquaintance with how free markets work. But I doubt it.


I suspect you will hang around for maybe 3 more posts then you will run away from another hit and run thread you started

Run away? Hardly. You mistake the boredom from arguing with brain-dead, purblind ideologues...such as yourself...that I experience, for running away. But if my boredom with your bullshit constitutes some kind of "victory" for you Red, you are more than welcome to it. But it's really kinda pathetic, and leaves me feeling kinda sorry for ya.

G'nite.

[DragonStryk72]

:link:
Those are commonly known stats, BP. You just don't have a counter


Really?

Yes, really. The majority of Americans would rather see the government actually curbs it's massive spending, and be allowed to hold onto more of the money they themselves have earned. You're one of them, in fact, who has called for repeal of Bush spending bills.

Hell, I expected there to be almost a conga line of bills repealing the Bush programs. If they had done that, there would be no contest in the upcoming elections, but no, no attempts to save money, just more spending and higher taxes.

Just on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Saves $700 billion over 10 years. Can't cut deficits by cutting taxes. Trying to do just that is voodoo economics.



All fallout from the deregulation of the financial markets by the Bush administration.

What color is the sky in your world? Are you honestly trying to say that the housing market collapsed to deregulation, as opposed to the massive entitlement program that made it so people who couldn't possibly support a home were able to buy one with no money down, regardless of their credit? Or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Then there were the Obama bailouts, which regardless of how the problem started, he's still responsible for how he handles them.

Laissez-faire capitalism presupposes a rational society...something which has yet to make an appearance on the face of this earth. Until it does, government regulation of markets and industry is a necessary evil in protecting the average citizen from the worst excesses of unregulated free markets. You might, at some point in a dim and distant past, have had a nodding acquaintance with how free markets work. But I doubt it.

Really? maybe a :link:? Yeah, don't like when you get the same back. Actually, the Roman economy was excellent until the overbuilding of the government destroy the infrastructure. Yeah, a certain amount of regulation is good, but there have to be limits to how regulated an economy is.

In fact, our own economy flourished for decades after we became a nation, till we got up to the Civil War Era, and then there were complications of course, then the north pretty much ground down the entire southern economy for 40-50 years in the post-war

Run away? Hardly. You mistake the boredom from arguing with brain-dead, purblind ideologues...such as yourself...that I experience, for running away. But if my boredom with your bullshit constitutes some kind of "victory" for you Red, you are more than welcome to it. But it's really kinda pathetic, and leaves me feeling kinda sorry for ya.

Okay, so if we're so horrible to talk to, and too onerous to debate, why are you still posting threads here?

;

[red states rule]

:link:



Really?



Just on the wealthiest 2% of Americans. Saves $700 billion over 10 years. Can't cut deficits by cutting taxes. Trying to do just that is voodoo economics.



All fallout from the deregulation of the financial markets by the Bush administration.



Laissez-faire capitalism presupposes a rational society...something which has yet to make an appearance on the face of this earth. Until it does, government regulation of markets and industry is a necessary evil in protecting the average citizen from the worst excesses of unregulated free markets. You might, at some point in a dim and distant past, have had a nodding acquaintance with how free markets work. But I doubt it.



Run away? Hardly. You mistake the boredom from arguing with brain-dead, purblind ideologues...such as yourself...that I experience, for running away. But if my boredom with your bullshit constitutes some kind of "victory" for you Red, you are more than welcome to it. But it's really kinda pathetic, and leaves me feeling kinda sorry for ya.

G'nite.

You are a very desperate liberal these days.

It is common knowledge, even in the liberal media, the top 1% pay a huge majority of income taxes. When you add in state and local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and all the other ways government has found to take our moeny - many in the top 1% hand over about 60% of their income to the government.

And even that is not enough for people like you

But since you are acting dumb (not sure if you are really acting) here is the link you will dismiss out of hand and lies even though the IRS provided the numbers




July 30, 2009, 2:26 pm
Top 1% Paid More in Federal Income Taxes Than Bottom 95% in ‘07
By CATHERINE RAMPELL
Update | 7:39 p.m. Update | 4:37 p.m. Added some additional data and link in response to reader comments.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.42 percent of total federal income taxes in 2007, according to the most recent data from the Internal Revenue Service.

This represents the second year in a row that the richest 1 percent paid more in federal income taxes than the bottom 95 percent (not, however, the bottom 99 percent). This was noted in a blog post from the Tax Foundation, an organization that promotes lower tax rates.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/





Bening a liberal BP, you never consider anything but tax increases to keep feeding government. Cutting spending never enters your mind. Government will keep getting bigger and costing more - so you continue to jack up taxes

Is is funny to see so many well know liberals who always supported tax increases on us - to get busted for not paying their taxes.

BP the only thing the people need to be protected from these days is do gooder liberals like you who want the damn government to decide how much health care I will get, what kind of car I will drive, what I will eat, how much salt I will put on my food, how cool/warm I keep my house, and how much water my toilet uses when I flush it

And once again you ran away from another thread where I posted the time line of Dems and the housing meltdown. You never replied (not surprised) and once again you ran away with your tail tucked between your legs. But keep blaming Bush BP for the mess we are in - you are in the minority once again

BP, you were hear constantly during the Bush years - now you are a drive by poster. I suspsect you will be gone for months after the November election. You were attacking daily when Bush was in office - now you come and go - toss out your insults - and leave

The first time you got bored was when I posted facts on how only three terrorists had been waterboarded and the same day you got "bored" and left your own thread

You got bored when I posted a NY Times article showing Dems loosening the credit requirements for Fannie and Freddie

Now you will get bored with the tax numbers

Much like a drive by shooter you do not have the guts to face people in the open.

[bullypulpit]

You are a very desperate liberal these days.

It is common knowledge, even in the liberal media, the top 1% pay a huge majority of income taxes. When you add in state and local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and all the other ways government has found to take our moeny - many in the top 1% hand over about 60% of their income to the government.

And even that is not enough for people like you

But since you are acting dumb (not sure if you are really acting) here is the link you will dismiss out of hand and lies even though the IRS provided the numbers




Bening a liberal BP, you never consider anything but tax increases to keep feeding government. Cutting spending never enters your mind. Government will keep getting bigger and costing more - so you continue to jack up taxes

Is is funny to see so many well know liberals who always supported tax increases on us - to get busted for not paying their taxes.

BP the only thing the people need to be protected from these days is do gooder liberals like you who want the damn government to decide how much health care I will get, what kind of car I will drive, what I will eat, how much salt I will put on my food, how cool/warm I keep my house, and how much water my toilet uses when I flush it

And once again you ran away from another thread where I posted the time line of Dems and the housing meltdown. You never replied (not surprised) and once again you ran away with your tail tucked between your legs. But keep blaming Bush BP for the mess we are in - you are in the minority once again

BP, you were hear constantly during the Bush years - now you are a drive by poster. I suspsect you will be gone for months after the November election. You were attacking daily when Bush was in office - now you come and go - toss out your insults - and leave

The first time you got bored was when I posted facts on how only three terrorists had been waterboarded and the same day you got "bored" and left your own thread

You got bored when I posted a NY Times article showing Dems loosening the credit requirements for Fannie and Freddie

Now you will get bored with the tax numbers

Much like a drive by shooter you do not have the guts to face people in the open.

Borrrring. Same shit...Different post, Red. You're, at best a one trick pony. At worst a parrot. You really are a sad little man Red.

[red states rule]

Borrrring. Same shit...Different post, Red. You're, at best a one trick pony. At worst a parrot. You really are a sad little man Red.

Wow BP, you really did lay out alot of facts as to where I was wrong and how tax and spend liberal polices are the way to go

[Missileman]

Can't cut deficits by cutting taxes. Trying to do just that is voodoo economics.

Can't reduce the deficit by spending more either...and Bully...if you're really serious about deficit reduction, allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire will reduce the deficit by over 3 trillion.

[Pagan]

Can't reduce the deficit by spending more either...and Bully...if you're really serious about deficit reduction, allowing all the Bush tax cuts to expire will reduce the deficit by over 3 trillion.

Problem was that 'Dubya not only didn't cut spending but exploded it to become the biggest Pork spending in history, that is until this idiot we have now. But then again all Obama is doing is embracing and expanding the Bush Doctrine.

I still have yet to hear from any Obama supports what they think of Obama embracing and expanding the Bush Doctrine.

Bottom line is spending must be cut NOW, cut at least by a third this year and next years budget cut again, and again, and again, and again. What does that entail? roll back the Bush and Obama expansion of Government NOW then keep going on from there till we get Government down to a 1/4 of the the size it is now.

[red states rule]

Problem was that 'Dubya not only didn't cut spending but exploded it to become the biggest Pork spending in history, that is until this idiot we have now. But then again all Obama is doing is embracing and expanding the Bush Doctrine.

I still have yet to hear from any Obama supports what they think of Obama embracing and expanding the Bush Doctrine.

Bottom line is spending must be cut NOW, cut at least by a third this year and next years budget cut again, and again, and again, and again. What does that entail? roll back the Bush and Obama expansion of Government NOW then keep going on from there till we get Government down to a 1/4 of the the size it is now.

This may come as a major shock to you and your buddy Sweetness - but Bush is NOT Proesident anymore

It is really getting boring hearing how the mess we are in is Bush's fault - reminds me of how lbs excused Clinton's crimes by sneering how everybody does it

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi sent the spending bills to Bush, and they voted for the things that put us in the mess we are in. Many people like you overlook the fact Dems ran Congress the ast 2 years of the Bush administration

Now, people like you and Sweetness sneer when the Tea party talks about cutting government or dismiss the Republican's Pleadge to America. You love to talk about reform and change - and that is all you do

Talk

Here this will cheer you up son

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/purplek300x300/anim_EVERYTHINGBAD.gif

[Pagan]

This may come as a major shock to you and your buddy Sweetness - but Bush is NOT Proesident anymore

It is really getting boring hearing how the mess we are in is Bush's fault - reminds me of how lbs excused Clinton's crimes by sneering how everybody does it

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi sent the spending bills to Bush, and they voted for the things that put us in the mess we are in. Many people like you overlook the fact Dems ran Congress the ast 2 years of the Bush administration

Now, people like you and Sweetness sneer when the Tea party talks about cutting government or dismiss the Republican's Pleadge to America. You love to talk about reform and change - and that is all you do

Talk

Here this will cheer you up son

http://i669.photobucket.com/albums/vv56/purplek300x300/anim_EVERYTHINGBAD.gif

So the fact that the GOP became "The" party of big spending and big government has no relevance and you're ready to just vote them back in? :lame2:

Get a clue, and try looking at their voting/spending history before you vote them into office. You know maybe starting with that we could actually start cleaning up government, ya think? http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/sheep.gif

Here's the history of Pork Spending since 1960 -

http://reason.com/assets/mc/mwelch/2010_09/regulation_chart.png

http://www.rejecttheherd.net/sites/rejecttheherd.net/files/smileys/koolaid.png

[red states rule]

I am sure it is an "oversight" your chart does not include Obama and the Dems

Obama has added more to the debt then all President thru Reagan COMBINED

Of course you also ignore what Republicans are proposing to curb the spending and debt problem

I am not surprised




snip


Now, if only Obama would follow Mr. Boehner's economic policy plan, described in the Republican Pledge for America, released yesterday in Sterling, Va.

Rather than tax increases in 2011, the Republican plan would make all current tax rates permanent, to reduce uncertainty for consumers and employers.

It would cut non-security discretionary spending to 2008 levels. Cuts include ending the Troubled Asset Relief Program; rolling back this year's 5.8 percent increase in Congress' budget; and placing a hiring freeze on all non-security government workers.

In addition, Republicans suggest reforming the congressional budget process to make it easier to cut spending. Current rules are rigged to make it easy to spend money unnecessarily, and not so easy to cut spending.

New proposed rules include a mandatory three-day online review period for all bills, and changes to rules to make it easier for members of Congress to get a vote on amendments that would cut spending.

Many businesses across America would applaud repealing the new health care law, freeing them of the upcoming requirement to pay $2,000 per worker per year beginning in 2014 if they don't offer the right kind of health insurance.

Since the rule applies only to businesses of more than 50 workers, every 50-person business is trying to figure out how not to hire any more workers, and every 55-person business is trying to figure out how to lay off five workers. With a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, that's precisely the opposite of what's needed.

The Republicans would end the new requirement, effective 2012, to file a tax form every time they spend more than $600 per year at any one company, such as an office supply store or a gas station.

The Republican plan is well-timed because just this week the National Bureau of Economic Research officially declared the recession was over -- in June 2009.


But 15 months later, with the unemployment rate near double digits and 42 percent of the unemployed out of work for six months or more, no one believes the recession is over, or that hiring new lieutenants will get the Titanic off the iceberg.

The problem is that the administration's policies are anti-business, and changing personnel isn't going to have any effect unless policies change.


In contrast to the Republican plan, Obama calls for raising taxes and additional mandates on employers.

Obama assumes that government can tax the most productive people in the economy without negative consequences for others -- that actions of top income groups don't affect the well-being of people making less.


This is clearly incorrect. High earners, as well as buying goods and services, own or manage businesses that employ other Americans -- 48 percent of small-business income on individual returns accrues to unincorporated businesses making more than $250,000 per year. They have capital investments that fund businesses that create jobs.

In 2007, the latest year available, the top 1 percent of tax filers earned 23 percent of adjusted gross income but paid 40 percent of federal income taxes, money that is distributed to lower-income families through government benefits.

Obama's anti-growth agenda is the main reason why unemployment is stubbornly high, job growth has been weak, and the percentage of Americans who report they are working or looking for a job has declined to 1985 levels.

America's economy needs more than a new economic team. It needs a new direction, and the Pledge for America is the place to start

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/GOP_s-agenda-counters-Obama_s-big-spending-anti-growth-strategy-975873-103658074.html

[Pagan]

I am sure it is an "oversight" your chart does not include Obama and the Dems

Obama has added more to the debt then all President thru Reagan COMBINED

Of course you also ignore what Republicans are proposing to curb the spending and debt problem

I am not surprised

Aaah content there Slick, what was I addressing?

"So the fact that the GOP became "The" party of big spending and big government has no relevance and you're ready to just vote them back in?

Get a clue, and try looking at their voting/spending history before you vote them into office. You know maybe starting with that we could actually start cleaning up government, ya think? "

And your claim of -

"Many people like you overlook the fact Dems ran Congress the ast 2 years of the Bush administration"

Notice the Chart there Slick? 'Dubya exploded it even higher his first term than his second when he had the Republican majority.

[bullypulpit]

This may come as a major shock to you and your buddy Sweetness - but Bush is NOT Proesident anymore

It is really getting boring hearing how the mess we are in is Bush's fault - reminds me of how lbs excused Clinton's crimes by sneering how everybody does it

Obama, Reid, and Pelosi sent the spending bills to Bush, and they voted for the things that put us in the mess we are in. Many people like you overlook the fact Dems ran Congress the ast 2 years of the Bush administration

Now, people like you and Sweetness sneer when the Tea party talks about cutting government or dismiss the Republican's Pleadge to America. You love to talk about reform and change - and that is all you do

Talk

Well, Red...If y'all were more willing to hold Bush accountable, us libruls wouldn't have to be the ones to point how just how badly he and the GOP controlled Congress DID fuck things up.

As for who does better by the shrinking middle class...well...

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/10.gif

[red states rule]

Well, Red...If y'all were more willing to hold Bush accountable, us libruls wouldn't have to be the ones to point how just how badly he and the GOP controlled Congress DID fuck things up.

As for who does better by the shrinking middle class...well...

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2265681/2266156/10.gif

Actually BP, the tax cuts helped the middle class - ublike Obamnomcis which is destroying the middle class





The 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief: The Benefit of Lower Tax Rates
by Robert Carroll


Summary


Recent research on President Bush's tax relief in 2001 and 2003 has found that the lower tax rates induced taxpayers to report more taxable income. In particular, the reduction in the top two tax rates induced taxpayers to report more taxable income—an increase in the size of the tax base—to such an extent that this positive behavioral response likely offset roughly 25 percent to 40 percent of the static revenue loss of lowering the top two tax rates. This research illustrates that, while the lower tax rates have not paid for themselves, they do provide important economic benefits and can expand the tax base to such an extent that they cost the federal government substantially less revenue than the casual observer might think. Moreover, this research may provide valuable insights into the harmful effects of high tax rates as the Presidential candidates' tax plans are evaluated.

Economic Effects of the 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

The central component of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief was lower individual income tax rates. For example, the 15 percent rate was lowered to 10 percent for low-income taxpayers and the top tax rate faced by high-income taxpayers was lowered from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. The 10-percent bracket accounted for nearly one quarter of the individual income tax relief. This tax change, combined with the reduction in the marriage penalty and the expansion of the child tax credit, provided a short-term economic stimulus by letting taxpayers keep more of their income. Nevertheless, even though these provisions increased taxpayers' after-tax incomes, they did little to improve economic incentives. Indeed, to the extent these tax provisions were financed with additional government borrowing, they may well have detracted from economic growth in the longer term by adding to the deficit and increasing long-term interest rates.

In contrast, the reduction in the top income tax rates helped spur the economy in the longer term by improving the incentives to work, produce and save, and by reducing a variety of other economic distortions associated with high tax rates. High tax rates interfere with the economic decisions of households and businesses in many ways. They induce individuals to work less, to undertake different jobs and entrepreneurial activities, to receive their compensation in different forms, and to reduce saving and investment. They also affect the composition of taxpayers' investment portfolios, the amount of charitable giving, and the financing arrangements of homes and business. Sound tax policy seeks to let household and business decisions be based on economic merit, not tax considerations, to the greatest extent possible.

[Sweetchuck]

This may come as a major shock to you and your buddy Sweetness

I'm so in this asswipe's head.

[red states rule]

I'm so in this asswipe's head.

Looks like you are not use to people calling you out on your "conservatives" principals Sweetness

The Dem Underground is still up and running if you are looking for pats on the back

[Sweetchuck]

Looks like you are not use to people calling you out on your "conservatives" principals Sweetness

The Dem Underground is still up and running if you are looking for pats on the back

Only people who have intellectual credibility.

[red states rule]

Only people who have intellectual credibility.

It is not to late for you to learn. It may take you awhile however

[Sweetchuck]

It is not to late for you to learn. It may take you awhile however

A response fitting of your intellect. Childish and poor grammar.

I wouldn't expect anything more.

[red states rule]

A response fitting of your intellect. Childish and poor grammar.

I wouldn't expect anything more.

Still waiting for you to talk about your "conservative" principals.

I better pack a lunch :laugh2:

[Sweetchuck]

Still waiting for you to talk about your "conservative" principals.

I better pack a lunch :laugh2:

You wouldn't understand it anyway.

All you're capable of doing is cutting and pasting and repeating shit you hear on talk radio.

Here's a thought, instead of stalking me around in your fear-smear campaign, try comprehending my replies. But that's not your agenda, is it?

Here, I'll try to begin a rational discussion with you. Probably a mistake, but I'm clearly the more reasonable and rational person so I have to take the initiative.

Explain to me what it means to be a conservative. Simple question.