"Bachmann Explains Budgeting As Only She Can"

Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ]


Print view	Previous topic \| Next topic

Author

Message

sooz06

Post subject: "Bachmann Explains Budgeting As Only She Can"

Posted: 11/16/10 9:07 am • # 1

Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112

LOL ~ no one could make this stuff up ~

~ Sooz

BACHMANN EXPLAINS BUDGETING AS ONLY SHE CAN.... Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) makes no secret of her hatred for earmarks. The head of Congress' bizarre "Tea Party Caucus," Bachmann's far-right crusade has earmark elimination a top priority.

Except, of course, for those earmarks she likes.

Quote:

[W]hen it comes to her own district, she's in favor of a little earmark "redefinition." Because what is an earmark, after all?

"Advocating for transportation projects for one's district in my mind does not equate to an earmark," Bachmann told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune yesterday.

"I don't believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark," Bachmann continued. "There's a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway."

I see. An earmark is bad if Bachmann thinks it sounds like an unworthy idea, and an earmark is good if Bachmann thinks it sounds like an idea with merit. Got it.

Also yesterday, Bachmann talked to CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the budget, looking for "specific cuts" she would be willing to consider. Like most Republicans, Bachmann endorsed across-the-board cuts, returning to 2008 levels of discretionary spending (which, again, is a very bad idea).

A few seconds later, she added:

Quote:

"We can do across the board cuts, but I don't think that's prudent because there are legitimate projects that have to be done, bridges have to be built, water treatment systems have to be built. So I think, we don't wanna cut off our nose to spite our face. We have to be smart about this."

So, what have we learned from the leading right-wing Republican? Earmarks are bad, unless they're going to Bachmann's district, and slashing spending is good, except for the "legitimate projects that have to be done."

Dear Tea Partiers, I think your leader is having a tough time transitioning to life in the majority.

â€”[url=mailto:sbenen@washingtonmonthly.com]Steve Benen[/url] 2:45 PM November 16, 2010

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archiv ... 026666.php

Top

Quote

Sidartha

Post subject: "Bachmann Explains Budgeting As Only She Can"

Posted: 11/16/10 10:27 am • # 2

"Dear Tea Partiers, I think your leader is having a tough time transitioning to life in the majority."

More like: "Dear Tea Partiers, I think your leader is having a tough time transitioning to reality."

Top

Quote

sooz06

Post subject: "Bachmann Explains Budgeting As Only She Can"

Posted: 11/16/10 11:31 am • # 3

Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112

Unfriggingbelievable ~

Top

Quote

jabra2

Post subject: "Bachmann Explains Budgeting As Only She Can"

Posted: 11/16/10 12:21 pm • # 4

Administrator

Joined: 04/05/09
Posts: 8047
Location: Tampa, Florida

These are people who are carpet layers who may be employed two or three other guys, or a plumber, maybe himself and his brother, and it's $250,000 in gross sales for their business. Their the ones looking at massive tax increases.

Now she really removed all doubt!
I hope that plumber deducts at least the stamp to send in his tax declaration. But maybe she's talking about Joe the Plumber, who obviously doesn't pay license fees, insurance, vehicle expenses, material and supplies etc.

Top

Quote

macroscopic

Post subject: "Bachmann Explains Budgeting As Only She Can"

Posted: 11/16/10 3:26 pm • # 5

Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234

Well remember again what this is. It's a massive tax increase and its on the people who are job creators. And people want to think that these are millionaires sitting in leather chairs lighting their cigars with $100 bills, that's not what we're talking about. These are people who are carpet layers who may be employed two or three other guys, or a plumber, maybe himself and his brother, and it's $250,000 in gross sales for their business.

this is totally, unequivicolly and iretreivably false. one is not taxed on revenue. one is taxed on profit. and no business has a 100% profit margin.

the carpet laying business is competitive. i would imagine that if you are hella good at it, you might get 15-20% net out of that business if you were really good and budgeting jobs.
that means that you would have to do well north of $1M worth of carpet laying to bank on making $250k. you do the math. that is $20,000/week. i honestly don't think you could do that as a one man operation.
as soon as you hire out, you have insurance and overhead issues that you don't have as a sole operator. that will drive down your margins at least 5%. you would be lucky to net 10% in that situation.
in other words, to clear $2.5M, you would need a three man crew, a secretary, a warehouse, equipment, and a very well established business.

IF, by SOME MIRACLE you had all of that, the Clinton Tax level would not affect you until you SURPASSED $2.5M. and even then, it would only be 3 cents on the dollar.
in order to reach the level where you could hire another employee, you would have to bank another $300k in business or so.

but all of this overlooks a very important point. it is a point that is NEVER mentioned by EITHER Republicans OR Democrats.
profit is, BY DEFINITION, "that which is taken OUT of a business", or , if you prefer "that which is left over AFTER all expenses are met".
in other words, it is totally unrelated to employment, which is an EXPENSE. labor is a cost of goods sold. it is the first cost you deduct on your way to making $250k, NOT THE LAST.

no, what the tax cuts into is the DISPOSIBLE INCOME of the rich, NOT the expenses of a business. it might affect housecleaning. it might affect luxury goods. it has zero effect on employment.

_end rant_

Top

Quote

macroscopic

Post subject: "Bachmann Explains Budgeting As Only She Can"

Posted: 11/16/10 3:32 pm • # 6

Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234

Bachmann's argument for tax extension is, in one word, â€œbogus.â€

Last edited by macroscopic on 11/16/10 3:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top

Quote

Chaos333

Post subject: "Bachmann Explains Budgeting As Only She Can"

Posted: 11/17/10 3:26 am • # 7

Editorialist

Joined: 01/20/09
Posts: 8188

no, what the tax cuts into is the DISPOSIBLE INCOME of the rich, NOT the expenses of a business. it might affect housecleaning. it might affect luxury goods. it has zero effect on employment.

Bingo!

Now, can we please get someone on national television to repeat that 200 times a day so it can sink in?

Top

Quote

Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ]

New Topic Add Reply

"Bachmann Explains Budgeting As Only She Can"

Who is online