For shame

[Nuurzhaelan]

Speaker Boehner argues that tapping millionaires for revenue would hurt small businesses, the job creators. Interesting--very interesting.



http://factcheck.org/2011/11/boehner...mall-business/



Since Boehner argued the tax would hurt those who create jobs, here are two pieces of additional perspective from the report:

Small-business owners in general are often lauded as job creators. But “millionaires” make up only a tiny fraction of the small-business owners. How tiny a fraction? According to the Treasury experts’ “broad” definition, 1.4 percent, and according to the narrow definition, 0.5 percent.
And contrary to the “job creator” image, being a small-business owner doesn’t mean you actually employ anyone. In fact, most don’t. According to the Treasury report, “We also find that slightly more than one-fifth of small businesses conform to our definition of an employer.”



Whaddya know? Politifact argues the same point:



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...urting-small-/



The bill, which so far has been stymied in Congress, calls for a 5.6 percent surtax on incomes greater than $1 million to pay for tax cuts for workers, infrastructure spending, hiring incentives and cash for local governments to keep teachers and police from being laid off.

This is important stuff and:

only 0.5 percent of small businesses make that kind of money. More often, small businesses are small in every sense -- most have incomes of less than $50,000 and almost all have profits of less than $1 million -- and they wouldn’t be affected by the millionaires tax. We rate the statement False.



So what's the problem? Anything that helps make him look good cuts into their bottom line, which is:

[AKATheMack]

I use to check out politifact quite a bit because it was interesting to see how full of **** these politicians actually are. Anymore its just depressing. Even when confronted with their lies, they'll continue saying everyone else is wrong.

[Nuurzhaelan]

I use to check out politifact quite a bit because it was interesting to see how full of **** these politicians actually are. Anymore its just depressing. Even when confronted with their lies, they'll continue saying everyone else is wrong.

Ain't it the truth. Enjoy this satire. It starts out kinda weak, but it gets fairly amusing.

[ƒallenloki]

The solution isn't more taxes, it's less government. It's too big and not sustainable.

[Nuurzhaelan]

The solution isn't more taxes, it's less government. It's too big and not sustainable.

See the second cartoon in my signature. This is a sophisticated world. The problem is not binary. You're oversimplifying it.

The core role of government is protection. It's easy to want the government to stop protecting the people one is preying on, but the politicians who espouse less government always turn to it for help when it is expedient to their agendas.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_922851.html

Taken as a whole, the letters underscore what Bachmann's critics describe as a glaring distance between her campaign oratory and her actual conduct as a lawmaker. Combined with previous revelations that Bachmann personally relied on a federally subsidized home loan while her husband's business benefited from Medicaid payments, it appears that one of the Tea Party's most cherished members has demonstrated that the government does, in fact, play a constructive role -- at least in her life and district.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-po...timulus-money/

In 2009, lawmakers initially used stimulus money to fill most of a $3.3 billion hole in what was then the state’s current budget, the one for the 2008-09 biennium (Texas operates on two-year budget cycles, and by law the state budget must balance).

A cursory search for egregious financial hypocrisy by Paul yielded nothing, but that man is so out of touch with the the people that he believes all people have to do, in a complicated system, is be 'self reliant'. The system can keep people down and he doesn't acknowledge or recognize that, and neither do you. You would have to experience it to understand it, and that is what I mean by disconnected or 'out of touch'.

Furthermore, if Mr. Paul wants smaller government, shouldn't he set the example and stop living off of the government teat? If he believes in self reliance it hardly makes sense (to me anyway) that he is accepting taxpayer salary and benefits to represent them in a government he believes is too large. He should either find a way to refuse or donate his salary and benefits to charity, or discontinue advocating for smaller government.

I somewhat believe that he believes what he's saying and that he genuinely wants to help, but he is too libertarian. He has integrity, I think, but that does not make him right or make his ideas good for the country.