Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Did any of you South Carolinians actually look at the Demint Amendment?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,852 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 03:15 PM

During the stimulus debate, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) proposed that we get rid of all of the government spending and replace it with the following

How it works:
1) Defuse the 2011 tax bomb: Stop tax increases set to hit the economy in 2011.
o Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;
o Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;
o Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;
o Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
o Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
o Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.
2) Long term, broad based tax cuts for American families and businesses.
o Lower top marginal income rates – the one paid by most of the small businesses that create new jobs – from 35 percent to 25 percent.
o Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.
o Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent. The U.S. corporate tax rate is second highest among all industrialized nations, driving investment and jobs overseas. Lowering this key rate will unlock trillions of dollars to be invested in America instead of abroad.
o This is not only good economic policy, but a matter of fairness. No American family should be forced to pay the federal government more than 25 percent of the fruits of their hard labor.

36 of 41 republican senators supported this

That looks to be the biggest tax giveaway to the rich, ever. Krugman estimated this would cost 3.1 trillion.

if this does not end up in a political ad in 2010 i will be amazed

if you vote for him again, do it knowing that this man does not represent your interests.

#2 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,153 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 10 February 2009 - 03:29 PM

This is a better plan than giving every man, woman and child a check for $1K and hoping they spend it on wolf t-shirts at Wal-Mart. Why not reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25? You want to create jobs? Make it so corporations and small businesses can afford to hire, train, and maintain people. Sending a bunch of money into the economy and creating temporary government jobs for partisan projects is not going to stimulate the economy. Making it so U.S. companies, big and small, can afford to innovate, grow and compete with competitors around the world is what will stimulate job growth.

This plan is conservatism. Conservatism works. Liberalism and socialism do not work.

Just curious what you would rather see Fiz?

#3 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,852 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 03:31 PM

southcakpanther im about to go out but i'll answer that question in this thread later i promise

#4 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,153 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 10 February 2009 - 03:33 PM

southcakpanther im about to go out but i'll answer that question in this thread later i promise


Good deal man.

#5 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,874 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 03:45 PM

I don't see this as helping the rich, nearly as much as helping the middle class.

That would help me, and I am certainly not rich.

#6 Murph

Murph

    Joe Cool

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,886 posts
  • LocationRound about here

Posted 10 February 2009 - 03:48 PM

I don't see this as helping the rich, nearly as much as helping the middle class.

That would help me, and I am certainly not rich.


Ditto

#7 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,187 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 04:07 PM

As a single person that plan sucks.

#8 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,025 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 10 February 2009 - 04:15 PM

During the stimulus debate, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) proposed that we get rid of all of the government spending and replace it with the following

36 of 41 republican senators supported this

That looks to be the biggest tax giveaway to the rich, ever. Krugman estimated this would cost 3.1 trillion.

if this does not end up in a political ad in 2010 i will be amazed

if you vote for him again, do it knowing that this man does not represent your interests.


Where is the giveaway to the rich? What the f**k does Krugman know? It's a hell of a sight better that what Obama just rammed down our throats.

#9 Matt Foley

Matt Foley

    Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,983 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 04:16 PM

Where is the giveaway to the rich? What the f**k does Krugman know? It's a hell of a sight better that what Obama just rammed down our throats.


A lot of liberals just got turned on.

#10 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,852 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 10:35 AM

Good deal man.


after giving this some thought I've come to the conclusion that it's really impossible to answer. It's just too broad.

I thought about going into the historical history of corporations and how they've traditionally been platforms of untold pain and suffering, and that these very same ones that people seem so dependent on for work would ship their job to another country at a moments' notice, and that if you try to restrict that then you're actually restricting the point of a corporation, but it's really just too hard.

the people that speak loudest for them are the people that are hurt most by them, so you can't really go into an intelligent discussion about this without a serious amount of background information, and this really isn't the place to discuss labor theory of value or the destruction wrought by neoliberal policies around the world.

#11 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,025 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 11 February 2009 - 10:46 AM

after giving this some thought I've come to the conclusion that it's really impossible to answer. It's just too broad.

I thought about going into the historical history of corporations and how they've traditionally been platforms of untold pain and suffering, and that these very same ones that people seem so dependent on for work would ship their job to another country at a moments' notice, and that if you try to restrict that then you're actually restricting the point of a corporation, but it's really just too hard.

the people that speak loudest for them are the people that are hurt most by them, so you can't really go into an intelligent discussion about this without a serious amount of background information, and this really isn't the place to discuss labor theory of value or the destruction wrought by neoliberal policies around the world.


So, bottom line is that you think the government should just provide for us all and be done with it ...

#12 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,852 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 10:48 AM

So, bottom line is that you think the government should just provide for us all and be done with it ...

shut up you child

#13 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,025 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 11 February 2009 - 10:48 AM

shut up you child


;)

#14 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,153 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 11 February 2009 - 10:52 AM

after giving this some thought I've come to the conclusion that it's really impossible to answer. It's just too broad.

I thought about going into the historical history of corporations and how they've traditionally been platforms of untold pain and suffering, and that these very same ones that people seem so dependent on for work would ship their job to another country at a moments' notice, and that if you try to restrict that then you're actually restricting the point of a corporation, but it's really just too hard.

the people that speak loudest for them are the people that are hurt most by them, so you can't really go into an intelligent discussion about this without a serious amount of background information, and this really isn't the place to discuss labor theory of value or the destruction wrought by neoliberal policies around the world.


Fair enough. But most of the 700+ companies I deal with in my association that are based in America would like to keep jobs here domestically. But government has taxed them out of profitability, union wages have played a large role in some decisions, health care costs have played a large role in others.

Tangent- And a large number of Americans are not willing to work for their money to be honest with you. You'd be amazed, especially here in the south, how much difficulty some of my customers have in hiring and keeping a lift truck driver employed for more than two weeks.

If an American company could successfully produce a widget in America and achieve the same profit, why wouldn't they? We should help them bring jobs back to America and create new jobs in America. I'm not sure if this stimulus package will achieve that.

#15 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,852 posts

Posted 11 February 2009 - 10:57 AM

Fair enough. But most of the 700+ companies I deal with in my association that are based in America would like to keep jobs here domestically.

of course they would, but in essence, they're saying that they would prefer for the american worker to work for as little as they do in other parts of the world, not expect any job protection, and be alright with hired goons keeping them from organizing.

that would never happen here.

so when corporations say "oh gosh we'd love to work here" realize what they're actually saying. corporations have zero obligations to this country; all of their obligation goes to their shareholders. people are very naive to think that their work value is somehow important to them for patriotic reasons.

But government has taxed them out of profitability, union wages have played a large role in some decisions, health care costs have played a large role in others.

these are things that have developed over the centuries in the western world to protect workers from their employers.

i'm constantly amazed that western workers want to strip away their own rights that those who came before them worked and died for, just so a bunch of people at the top can get a bigger percentage.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.