I bring it up because YOU keep implying how you're unselfish purely because you support higher taxes.
No, I'm pointing out that the right wing here seems to have one thing in common - me, me, me. And I believe it's time to talk about we, we, we the people for a change.
The right-wing believes in DO-ing. You believe in talking. It's easy for you to talk about "we" the people, it's quite another thing to DO for the people.
So on the one hand, you object to me bringing up the fact that I give a lot to charity and already pay a lot more in taxes than most people but on the other hand, you argue that you are "unselfish" and think it's time to talk about "we" based purely on your support of increasing taxation.
Wealth gets spread around regardless. The question is who is deciding how the wealth is spread. Right-wingers believe that the people who earn the money are more competent to spread the money than 435 people in Washington DC.
You have post after post about Ayn Rand level "every man fend for themselves" and "you can't take MY money to help THEM" (which represent your BELIEFS), yet you keep posting how much you give to charity and how much you pay in taxes (which represents your ACTIONS).
I respect your actions (and I've said so many times now) but I definitely have disagreements with your beliefs. And, unlike you, there is no contradiction between my actions and my beliefs.
Ayn Rand believed in indivdiualism. That is, people are noble enough to decide what is best for themselves and know when it is wise to aid someone else and when it was foolhardy. The government, by contrast, has no vested interest in such wisdom because their only job is to keep their job.
You say there is a contradiction between my beliefs and my actions. How is that? I believe in individuals because I believe people to be inherently good and compassionate and intelligent.
So please tell me, how are my beliefs and my actions in contradiction?
But I am telling you, flat out, that without the Bush tax cuts, we would not have been able to hire as many people as we have hired.
I don't dispute that, since more money in your hands is a good thing, if you indeed pass it down to your employeers. No disagreement there.
What do you mean "if" I pass it down to your employees? Money I earn is spent somehow in some way. I don't take it and bury it in the back yard. If I hire more people directly then I am increasing opportunity. If I give raises to people, their ability to contribute to the economy increases. If I build a new house then I am creating jobs and opportunity for construction workers. If I buy more space in the building we are in and build it out, I'm creating jobs and increasing future growth opportunities.
So where is the "if" come in? Is there some poor way to spend that money? The "wealth" gets spread. The question merely is whether I can spread it in a way that is more efficient and better for society than 435 members of congress and I think the answer is resoundingly yes.
And yet, how many employees have you lost the ability to hire because of runaway health care costs? You seem to have ignored my entire point about this. My guess would be that a 2% shift in net taxation is far less money than the doubling and tripling of health care premiums has cost you. I assume you provide a full benefits package to your employees, of course.
None. Our health care costs per employee have decreased overall. We provide great benefits to our employees. You are simply buying into too much left-wing nonsense about health care premiums. There's been a lot of improvements to health care insurance over the past few years.
In addition, you make a huge assumption that it would only take a 2% shift in taxation to cover everyone's insurance. A HUUUGE assumption that I don't think would be backed up by reality should it come to pass.
So, I'd argue this is a penny-wise, pound foolish position for any businessman to take. I'd gladly like to see more income and lower health care costs in exchange for a POSSIBLE return to a "not nearly as onerous as you are stating" pre 2000 tax rate.
Again, you are making an almost ridiculous assertion that the federal government of the United States could pick up the tab for 260 million Americans health insurance in exchange for going back to the pre 2000 tax rate. Actually, no, it isn't almost ridiculous, it's an outright insane assertion.
Considering that Bush has utterly tanked the economy, I'm not sure how you can support the lower taxation as a proven remedy to financial downturns.
How -- specifically -- did Bush tank the economy. What economic policy do you think caused this? Please be specific. What economic policy of Clinton's caused the Dot-com bomb?
Giving the federal government credit or blame for economuc upturns or downturns is a lot like believing that eclipses are ill omens.
The bottom line is we borrowed $7 trillion from the Chinese et al. and the piper has now come to be paid. And I believe that is going to affect you, your company, and your employees in the negative far more than the Bush tax cut affected you in the positive.
I think Obama knows this and will be addressing things in a manner that will be a NET POSITIVE for all businesses.
I don't even know what to say to this.
It's amazing how much blind faith people will put into the judgement of a first-term senator with no economic background but how little trust they'll put into a successful self-made business owner when it comes to business and economics. It does, however, explain how things got to the state they're in.