Town Square

Post a New Topic

Breaking news! If you make over $200,000 per year or are a small business owners the Dems say you are a millionaire or a billionaire!!!

Original post made by Pablo on Sep 26, 2010

Web Link

Comments (18)

Posted by m, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 26, 2010 at 5:09 pm

Agreed Pablo!

And if I am not mistaken, that $200k figure is "gross" not net. Very few small business owners who gross $200k would consider themselves well-off after they've paid employees plus expenses.

This Obama Admin plus its Democrat Congress is the most, absolutely the MOST anti-business, anti-free market, job destroying Administration and Congress EVER!

Kick McNerney the hell out!!!


Posted by Without representatives, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 26, 2010 at 7:02 pm

Boxer, Miller, McNerney, Giramendi, NO officials in the Bay Area actually 'represent Bay Area residents.....just 'go-along' puppets mouthing their party line. It's very UNjust to use NATIONAL CHARTS for all national purposes. Be it UNemployed REtraining for semi-professionals, or mortgage adjustment for losing a LONG-term (NOT people who never worked anyway !), ED financial aid for kids of NEWLY UNemployed (again, NOT the families who NEVER worked anyway)... ANY program, idea, never applies to responsible.Bay Areans..because MIDDLE-class here are called RICH by ARBITRARY NATIONAL chart averages ! ! OUR incomes and houses are double the rest of the country, so we're never included in anything national.
$100K here, with commute costs, houses etc, is just getting by and cannot pay college tuition..BUT Obama's new financial aid does not cover us.. BUT, IN Memphis, Toledo,Boise, & Tulsa, those earning $100K would be Pres of the Country Club. All pockets in the are treated accordingly....BUT it never occurred to officials in our area to ACTUALLY REPRESENT US... Are they not smart enough to see if programs are equal for all engineers equally across, or is it about homeless equally. There ARE GEOGRAPHICAL differences that GOVERNMENT IS TOO DUMB TO GRASP. MAYBE THAT'S WHY IT'S A GOOD IDEA THAT GOVT SHOULDN'T BE PICKING FAVORITES .... and TAXING others to pay for government's favorite lucky picks....IN THE FIRST PLACE. Government ends up making matters worse and is UNjust in the process....always. Are there any representatives smart enough to get it ??


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 26, 2010 at 7:22 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Both parties want to extend the tax cuts for the vast majority of Americans: 98%. The argument comes down to the last (or top) 2%. I mean, what the hell? A majority agrees to extend the tax cuts for a majority!

But then one starts to wonder something. How will we pay for the tax cuts? Both Republicans and Democrats seem far divorced from the idea of linking spending and revenue streams. We've had great expansion of government under Bush with no regard as to how it will be paid for. I do not trust the Republicans to say they will cut spending in order to pay for the tax cuts. And it seems like businesses little suffered during the Clinton years before we had these tax cuts.

Let's remember that these are tax _cuts_ we're talking about. The baseline number is what the tax should be at, considering that these so-called cuts were temporary. And the timing of their expiration (2010) is certainly politically motivated.


Posted by Pleasanton Parent, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Sep 26, 2010 at 8:22 pm

I'm no so concerned with the ending of the tax breaks, I'm more concerned about where the line is drawn. $250k for a family is too low IMO. Two working professionals in the bay are pulling down $125k ea is not too unreasaonable


Posted by Chet, a resident of San Ramon
on Sep 26, 2010 at 8:28 pm

The tax cuts were all set to expire in 2010. Due to our poor economy as we recover from the Great Bush/GOP recession is is proper for Congress to extend the tax cuts for the people that need it the most the middle Class. They are also the ones who out of necessity are our biggest consumers and this will help to get our economy growing at a faster rate. We tried the failed GOP top trickle down policy and it did not work. We will never be fooled again and return to GOP polices. Today if the GOPers really wanted to help small business owners they would support the Obama small business tax break proposals. But since they are the party of no I expect they will just get in the way of helping small business and America.


Posted by Mary, a resident of Country Fair
on Sep 26, 2010 at 8:40 pm

Everyone needs to pay taxes so that they are all in so to speak. In California Arnold said 40% of the population pay zero income tax!!!! That is ridiculous. Why do you think all of the movie stars have Wyoming or Florida residency? No income taxes!!! I am not in the impacted group if it goes through by why is Obama insisting on raising taxes on the very people who employ us? Makes no sense at all.


Posted by Mary, a resident of Country Fair
on Sep 26, 2010 at 8:42 pm

Actually the more I think about it the more I think we should have a flat tax and everyone would have a hand in the pie and more money would be available for those who actually employ people.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 26, 2010 at 8:48 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Mary asked: "why is Obama insisting on raising taxes on the very people who employ us?"

Because Bush and the GOP handed out tax cuts to everyone then increased Federal spending instead of cutting spending. And this was a time during which we had the housing bubble and the economy was growing!

Read this: Web Link
"LIMITING GOVERNMENT: THE FAILURE OF "STARVE THE BEAST""

"Assuming no change in the defense and net interest spending shares
of GDP, current receipts of 19.9 percent of GDP—a tax increase of
about 2.1 percent of GDP relative to 2005—would be necessary to
balance the budget within five years. A reduction of defense spending
on completion of the U.S. military role in Iraq may be the only way
to balance the budget without increasing current federal receipts
above 19 percent of GDP. This reduction is well within the range of
recent experience: spending for defense and net interest payments
declined by 1.2 percent of GDP from 1992 to 1994 and by 3.3 percent
of GDP from 1992 to 2000."

"...too many conservatives and libertarians [became] casual about
the sustained political discipline necessary to control federal spending directly, succumbing to the fantasy that tax cuts would solve this problem. President George W. Bush, for example, has proposed and won the approval of most congressional Republicans for large increases in federal spending for agriculture, defense, education, energy, homeland security, medical care, and transportation, and he has yet to veto a single spending bill. As a consequence, real per capita federal spending during the Bush administration has increased at the highest rate since the Johnson administration."


Posted by Mary, a resident of Country Fair
on Sep 26, 2010 at 9:20 pm

Stacey,

Bush was not exactly the standard bearer for a balanced budget but you failed to mention Obama's runaway spending without any return, stimulus, healthcare, war in Afghanistan. Please come up with some solutions rather than just jumping on the Bush bandwagon. He is gone and Obama needs to go also. I used to like your writings but this one seems to give your opinions away a bit..........off with you!!!


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 26, 2010 at 10:01 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Mary,

You wanted to know why there was a need to return taxes to Clinton-era levels. So I gave you an answer. The article was written during Bush's time in office so it says, naturally, nothing about Obama.

Let's remember that business and the economy was quite strong under Clinton, the last time we had such tax levels. So the worry about "raising" taxes on "our employers" is not founded in good thinking. The real issue is jobs. Jobs lead to less reliance upon government spending because more people can pay their own way. Neither party has a handle on what constitutes good policy with regards to job creation. The GOP "Pledge to America" is just a joke that does little to address the job loss in this country. They just repeat the same old idea about small business over and over again. You or I could start a small business and we'd just end up getting our product made in China real cheap, thereby creating jobs in China.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 26, 2010 at 10:17 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

"Republican Party's 'Pledge to America' is a big disappointment" Web Link

"how do these newly converted deficit hawks propose to adjust the budget for the estimated $3.7 trillion the tax cuts will take out of government coffers in the next 10 years?"

"Using the Congressional Budget Office's math, and the GOP claims, the pledge would lead to higher deficits than President Barack Obama's plan (which includes letting the Bush tax breaks expire for the wealthiest Americans). On health care, the pledge keeps the very popular, and costly, bits of the plan, but junks the unpopular means to pay for it. "


Posted by Without representatives, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 26, 2010 at 11:12 pm

Clinton ? ? Remember, Clinton was only in charge for 2 years, then the majority House & Senate was all Repub with Repub Speaker !!....they rescued Clinton. Likewise with Bush, in his last 2 years, Congress (the money managers) was led by Congress MAJORITY leader SPEAKER Pelosi....almost 4 years now). Again, whether to tax or cut , it is all very arbitrary and unfair to use the same $$$ ranges for rural vs metro, or CA coastal vs. Kansas farmlands......the numbers treat different 'groups' differently, creating huge injustices.


Posted by SteveP, a resident of Parkside
on Sep 27, 2010 at 8:39 am

SteveP is a registered user.

This obamarecession will end more quickly is we keep taxes at their current rates and repeal healthcare, for a start. It's the uncertainty that is keeping many employers from hiring. Why do you think large companies are being criticized for holding onto piles of cash? They won't hire people until they know they can at least make a reasonable profit without the govt bleeding them dry.


Posted by Freedom, a resident of Danbury Park
on Sep 27, 2010 at 8:53 am

We have way to much government involvement in our daily lives. I saw a John Stoesel show and he went through from a Libertarian point of view what they government should and should not be involved in and I tend to agree with him almost 100%. The governments role is to defend us against foreign enemies and enforce the law and that is really it. We should be out of all of these global adventures which cost a fortune we do not have, the united nations, etc. Just leave us alone.


Posted by Without representatives, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 27, 2010 at 10:29 am

Jphn Stossel was always SO great on abc's Fri nite 20/20. But after Obama's first 6 months, Obama started his silence all criticsm movement, and had both much-watched Lou Dobbs and John Stossel fired. That was when he thought that Freedom of Speech should be removed from Fox. He has since been told that's a no, no....they must be allowed to speak.
Clinton WAS lucky to have an all REPUB Senate & House as the money managers for 6 of his 8 years. Bush wasn't so lucky with his Congress...he had to do as he was told by PELOSI's Congress his last 2 years in office. Four years now of her all DEM team is getting tiresome.


Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 27, 2010 at 11:00 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Sounds like Bush sure had his arm twisted to never veto one spending bill! The guy thought he was Reagan. Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?


Posted by Freedom, a resident of Danbury Park
on Sep 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm

Without Representatives,

I think you might be on to something. Many of the democratic incumbants running right now are distancing themselves from Pelosi, Obama, and Reid because it is hard/impossible to be reelected when you have been in bed with those 3. Kind of like Charles Manson preaching about no to drugs! Not a good time to be an incumbant for either side. Any new face with a message of fiscal responsibility and hardwork is going to win this time. Either way, it does not really matter because the election results are going to bring Obama to a dead standstill for the time he has left in office.


Posted by ARealConservative, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 28, 2010 at 12:04 am

Whatever happened to the "real" conservatives that support our President.

Anyway, it's $250,000 and I guess after paying your wife, son and daughter and buying all your "company" toys and if your "company" is still making $250,000 you will have to pay fewer taxes than under President Reagan....surprising isn't it.

As for smaller government here are some good ideas:
Get rid of the FDA (food and drug administration), then we can get rid of the high cost of medicine because most of us won't make it past 30. {Oh those good old days when chemists would ride into town with their latest syrup to cure everything....then leave just as quickly).
Get rid of Department of Transportation (eliminate seatbelts in car: we can lose another 10% of our population there)...no speedlimits (move over pops) and stuck accelerator...sorry. Highway dividers, sorry kids (without your car seats the ambulance took 2 hours to reach you....it broke down).
Get rid of the EPA (environmental protection agency): and we can get rid of another 20% of our population maybe out to 40 years (if you don't live near the smelly burning rivers). Yes I can guarantee that they'll be lead in your paint, cups, dishes...and toys.
And who was there to discourage smoking or discovered the link between cancer and smoking...bye, bye auntie.
Dept. of Education wad's tat...and wat's english....
Yes and if you are Libertarian...an interesting experiment (like Marxism, but this one was never tried). Pure libertarians do not believe in standing armies. As for legal recourse (that's when your "chemist" gave you that drug and left town and your crippled brother is left dying). Well you can take the chemist to court and sue. The only problem is we all know why corporations are incorporated...to protect the executives from legal action. Does anyone remember Enron? You probably remember rolling black outs and high electric bills (from Texas)? Remember all those folks whose pensions disappeared...pure libertarianism. From the left it's called Anarchism (yes that's right free drugs and a party next store that goes all night). Graffiti on Main Street...why not! Is this the Conservative (traditional) America that worked so hard and fought in two world wars to preserve liberty and freedom in Europe, Asia and the rest of the world. America stand up, preserve your traditions and fight for what is right! A just society! Stop your whining and get to work! And together we will overcome! God Bless our country and it's government!


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 36 comments | 1,181 views

Political posturing about water
By Tim Hunt | 7 comments | 850 views

Backpacked with care is back
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 527 views