Posted on 02/04/2009 9:40:24 PM PST by rabscuttle385
WASHINGTON - Sen. Jim DeMint and Gov. Mark Sanford urged members of the Senate on Wednesday to reject President Barack Obama's economic-stimulus bill, as DeMint introduced a rival measure he said required only tax cuts.
Sanford, in Washington for a Republican Governors Association meeting, asked Republican senators at a Capitol Hill lunch convened by DeMint to follow the lead of House Republicans who voted against the $819 billion stimulus measure last week.
The bill passed the House by a 244-188 margin without a single Republican vote. It would bring South Carolina $3.2 billion, including a $905 million to eliminate a state budget deficit and $830 million to build and repair roads, bridges, schools, colleges, universities, water-treatment plants and other infrastructure.
Sanford and DeMint said they are joining forces in a bid to try to spark the kind of national outcry among conservatives that led to the defeat of a major Senate immigration-reform bill in 2007.
(Excerpt) Read more at beaufortgazette.com ...
Nor I.
McCain is, literally, a loser. He has the taint of recent defeat upon him.
He may get support from a few other RINOs but who cares?
P.S. Welcome back to my Free Republic.
The problem now is that the GOP can't afford a stampede, all it takes is a handful to support the "dopey alternative."
I'm on your Free Republic daily. Have I told you that I like you because you're spunky?
I don't see any GOP stampede toward McCain's dopey alternative.
McCain is, literally, a loser. He has the taint of recent defeat upon him.
He may get support from a few other RINOs but who cares?
P.S. Welcome back to my Free Republic.
The problem now is that the GOP can't afford a stampede, all it takes is a handful to support the "dopey alternative."
I'm on your Free Republic daily. Have I told you that I like you because you're spunky?
What you say is true of course, but not all democrats are going along with Bella and Dingy’s ill conceived hand out plan.
A rather unusual portrait of the modern RINO indeed. But not every one on our side of congress fits that bill. There are still a few conservatives left. They must take the lead and show their piggies the errors of their ways.
Well, we have that in common.
We're gonna lose some RINOs, regarding the porkulus bill.
Five or less, hopefully.
I agree
“since the majority of all jobs created in the US are from small business?”
Isn’t this because of targeted tax cuts? Tax cuts that keep small businesses out of all the nasty taxes and regulations that big companies have to comply with?
It used to be that all American businesses created jobs.
NVDave,
I am trying to understand your logic. While it is true that the mortgage deduction (thank you realtors and bankers) has encouraged more debt risk, how does revoking it improve the position of real estate?
It would cause immediate depreciation in the value of real estate to take it away. The current tax system is gamed and so screwed up that only lowering the tax burden makes sense. Raising during this crisis will just worsen the crisis.
No but it lessens the tax burden. In CA you pay a hefty sales tax on a new car.
The issue of whether you own a house or not should be tax-neutral.
The policy of the US Congress has been that “owning a house is what we want people to do, and we want them to be in debt to do it, so we’ll allow them to deduct their mortgage interest.”
This should not be a decision into which the tax system is injected. People should decide whether they own a house or rent a dwelling/apartment purely based on their personal issues at the time they make the choice.
The mountain of real estate debt (and the collapse of same) has led to a depreciation in the value of real estate. It is time to kick the NAR out of the halls of Congress and cease trying to game the real estate markets. The Congress should put in a phase-out of the mortgage deduction completely over a period of say, 5 to 10 years. Taxes paid on real estate should be deductable, just as the sales taxes, property taxes on cars, etc are deductable. If people want to buy a house, that’s fine and well, but we should not be encouraging the use of debt to buy houses; if anything, we should encourage people to go into debt as little as possible going forward.
No, it is because large companies become ossified and more static over time. Their ability to rapidly respond to growth in sectors/markets is hampered by their very size and ponderous management structure. While they might have thousands or 10’s of thousands of employees, the
Small companies respond to economic conditions much more quickly, have lower overheads and more rapidly deploy capital into niches in the economy than large companies.
As for small businesses avoiding taxation: not so. There’s a large barrier to entry to any business employer at the very first employee hired. There are regulations that small businesses do not need to comply with that large companies do (usually with regards to affirmative action reporting and things of that nature), but small companies must file all the taxation of larger companies.
The difference in tax complexity of small vs. large companies has much less to do with how many employees a company has and much more to do with their structure. A larger company is typically a C-corporation, while a smaller company is a S-corporation, LLC, sole proprietorship or partnership - ie, pass-through organizations. The large companies are C-corps because they chose that structure in order to take the company public. There’s no requirement that a company employing 10,000 people be a C-corp instead of a S-corp or LLC.
The C-corp’s filing is more complicated by far, but the S-corp or LLC is paying plenty of taxes - because of the pass-through nature of these structures, the taxes are paid on the shareholders’/partners’ 1040s, rather than on a C-corp’s tax return. The employment costs (FICA, Medicare, etc) are imposed on the small business just the same as on a larger business. The larger business is required to electronically file the withholdings for the payroll deductions, while the small company (payroll < 50 employees) can still file the withholding on paper with the paper coupons at any bank.
A relatively small change in the business tax law would allow large benefits to small companies. Two examples:
1. Allow all small companies to deduct medical insurance costs for owners as well as employees. Sole prop. firms like farms and ranches have been able to deduct their own medical insurance for quite a while; it would be nice to give this tax treatment to all sole prop. businesses.
2. Increase the Section 179 expense deduction to $250K permanently going forward, simplify the capital asset depreciation schedules, allow expensing of computer/office equipment up to some limit, provide more rapid depreciation of autos used in businesses, etc.
Bump and thanks...
Ping-arooney...
I was one of the mentally impaired that voted for McCain (and Sarah!) in 2008.
I am now one of the mentally impaired that will ignore McCain, and probably contribute to anyone trying to unseat him in his next election. He is truly befuddled and a danger to constructive partisanship!
I was one of the mentally impaired that voted for McCain (and Sarah!) in 2008.
I am now one of the mentally impaired that will ignore McCain, and will activelhy support anyone trying to unseat him in his next election. He is truly befuddled & confused and a danger to a constructively partisan government.
Wow, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
My favorite candidate is whomever runs against McCain in the 2010 GOP primary!
At least the clown is consistent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.