Topic: GOP rep: "By the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400k left over"
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w started this discussion 15 years ago #12,088
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/19/322405/gop-rep-whines-400k/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW2VW-Z1M94&feature=player_embedded#!
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) appeared on MSNBC with Chris Jansing this morning to attack President Obama’s new deficit reduction plan, which includes some tax increases on the wealthy. Taking up the typical GOP talking point, Fleming said raising taxes on wealthy “job creators†is a terrible idea that kills jobs because many of these people are small business owners who pay taxes through personal income rates.
Fleming is himself a businesses owner, so Jansing asked, “If you have to pay more in taxes, you would get rid of some of those employees?†Fleming responded by saying that while his businesses made $6.3 million last year, after you “pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment, and food,†his profits “a mere fraction of that†— “by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over.â€
[...]
And how hard does the congressman work to make the equivalent of eight median household incomes? Fleming told the Wall Street Journal that “he spends very little time on day-to-day management, though he weighs in on broad strategy decisions.†“I monitor the reports. I’m certainly in communication with the managers,†he told the paper.
Fleming is himself a businesses owner, so Jansing asked, “If you have to pay more in taxes, you would get rid of some of those employees?†Fleming responded by saying that while his businesses made $6.3 million last year, after you “pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment, and food,†his profits “a mere fraction of that†— “by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over.â€
[...]
And how hard does the congressman work to make the equivalent of eight median household incomes? Fleming told the Wall Street Journal that “he spends very little time on day-to-day management, though he weighs in on broad strategy decisions.†“I monitor the reports. I’m certainly in communication with the managers,†he told the paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW2VW-Z1M94&feature=player_embedded#!
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #217,663
I guess Mr. Moneybags won't be able to afford that new 144" plasma TV for each of his children this Christmas.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,665
OH MY GOD; THAT POOR, POOR MAN.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,667
Only $400,000 left over after barely lifting a finger on his part?
What a poorfag.
What a poorfag.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,669
> teatards' faces whenAnonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,671
> jealousy detected
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,674
> If you're poor, and you vote republican, I seriously think you need to see a doctor about headupyourassitus. typicalliberalfuckface.png
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 12 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,682
> Democrat logic
You get less from the government, so you should pay more!
You get less from the government, so you should pay more!
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,704
OP, it's because he has jobs to offer people. If you had jobs to offer people you too could be rich. And if everyone had jobs to offer people we wouldn't need more government rape.
Maybe people who don't like rich people should shut up and make some jobs. I know it sounds simplistic but I really think it just might work.
Maybe people who don't like rich people should shut up and make some jobs. I know it sounds simplistic but I really think it just might work.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,708
@previous (H)
Do you really think this guy, who whines about $400k in discretionary income being too low, would hire more people if he had $600k or a million a year to blow?
He runs fucking Subway shops.
Do you really think this guy, who whines about $400k in discretionary income being too low, would hire more people if he had $600k or a million a year to blow?
He runs fucking Subway shops.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,710
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I think if people are willing to work at Subway there must not be enough jobs, which can only mean he is producing a rare and valuable commodity.
Do you really think it's fair to shit on someone for producing something people obviously want. If his employees would stop bitching and take some initiative in life they wouldn't be making him rich anymore, now would they?
I think if people are willing to work at Subway there must not be enough jobs, which can only mean he is producing a rare and valuable commodity.
Do you really think it's fair to shit on someone for producing something people obviously want. If his employees would stop bitching and take some initiative in life they wouldn't be making him rich anymore, now would they?
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,712
@previous (H)
It's not shitting on him to close tax loopholes, it's just squaring up a tax code that has unduly punished working people for a long time. In reality, there are just as many super-wealthy democrats as repugs, so nothing too onerous would ever get passed. (Nor could it, with the balance of power currently.)
Do you think there's a budget problem? What's your solution?
It's not shitting on him to close tax loopholes, it's just squaring up a tax code that has unduly punished working people for a long time. In reality, there are just as many super-wealthy democrats as repugs, so nothing too onerous would ever get passed. (Nor could it, with the balance of power currently.)
Do you think there's a budget problem? What's your solution?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #217,713
@217,704 (H)
I don't think he wants people to be sympathetic to the fact that he has $400,000 left over. He's just emphasizing the fact that it's not fair to pin that $6.3 million number to him, because that's not money in his pocket. If the dems want to tax that $6.3 million another 10%, that's another $630,000 he needs to come up with. Then he can say goodbye to that $400,000, as well as some more of his assets and probably some jobs. He could try to claim some of those things as tax deductable, and then people will bitch that he's a big business owner using tax loopholes to avoid taxes. Also, that $400K isn't really $400K in his pocket. That's money that he needs if he wants to expand his business and create more jobs. He made a good point when he said that class warfare never creates jobs. Without that $400K, he'd have to rely on loans to expand his business, which is one of the thing that fucked up and is continuing to fuck up our economy. He's being a good business man by keeping enough of his own capital on hand to expand his business rather than rely on carrying a constant debt. It's also cynical to assume that he never lifts a finger for his business.
No matter what business owners do, some people will never be happy.
I don't think he wants people to be sympathetic to the fact that he has $400,000 left over. He's just emphasizing the fact that it's not fair to pin that $6.3 million number to him, because that's not money in his pocket. If the dems want to tax that $6.3 million another 10%, that's another $630,000 he needs to come up with. Then he can say goodbye to that $400,000, as well as some more of his assets and probably some jobs. He could try to claim some of those things as tax deductable, and then people will bitch that he's a big business owner using tax loopholes to avoid taxes. Also, that $400K isn't really $400K in his pocket. That's money that he needs if he wants to expand his business and create more jobs. He made a good point when he said that class warfare never creates jobs. Without that $400K, he'd have to rely on loans to expand his business, which is one of the thing that fucked up and is continuing to fuck up our economy. He's being a good business man by keeping enough of his own capital on hand to expand his business rather than rely on carrying a constant debt. It's also cynical to assume that he never lifts a finger for his business.
No matter what business owners do, some people will never be happy.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #217,722
Some tax-loopholes and cuts for the rich were created by the Bush administration in order to 'stimulate job growth', the theory being that rich people would hire more employees or start more businesses etc. The fact is most new jobs are created new small businesses, the majority of which are not created by people that are already rich. This whole scheme is an unserious-fraud-scam, I'm baffled that people who vote can't see that, or maybe they don't care, but then why vote? Republicans always talk about 'less government' and 'less taxes', but all they have ever done is give the rich less taxes and add more government. Hell they even take away rights and no one blinks an eye. Sometimes I just don't know what to think...
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #217,735
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> 2011
> still pays attention to party politics
> I seriously hope you guys dont do this
Please focus on the candidates, not the party affiliations. People join a party because it greatly helps their chance of getting elected; not because they share every single belief with every single member of that party.
> 2011
> still pays attention to party politics
> I seriously hope you guys dont do this
Please focus on the candidates, not the party affiliations. People join a party because it greatly helps their chance of getting elected; not because they share every single belief with every single member of that party.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #217,737
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #217,742
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,764
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,776
@217,713 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Holy fuck did you just spend like 200 words explaining that higher taxes mean people have less money. No shit, we get that.
The bill is reversing some costly Bush tax cuts that clearly failed at their intended purpose to stimulate the economy. See Ks' post or details here.
@217,722 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Obama is going balls to the wall on this, and I like it. Dems are rallying.
Holy fuck did you just spend like 200 words explaining that higher taxes mean people have less money. No shit, we get that.
The bill is reversing some costly Bush tax cuts that clearly failed at their intended purpose to stimulate the economy. See Ks' post or details here.
@217,722 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Obama is going balls to the wall on this, and I like it. Dems are rallying.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,778
@previous (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
I spent 200 words explaining why I agree with him about why class warfare is wrong, condescending bitch. If I had posted that as anon you wouldn't have said shit, or you might have even agreed with me.
I spent 200 words explaining why I agree with him about why class warfare is wrong, condescending bitch. If I had posted that as anon you wouldn't have said shit, or you might have even agreed with me.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,790
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)Fair is warfare?
> condescending bitch
You guys don't like each other, it happens. This isn't gonna help. My instinct is to verbally bitch-smack you, but that'd just be shit in the pot. Chill before you make your next post, just stay on topic maybe.
cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,791
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,792
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,794
@217,791 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)
Just you. At least I don't scare off most of the user base. Sometime the shoe fits.
Just you. At least I don't scare off most of the user base. Sometime the shoe fits.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,813
Ever since Wall Street was bailed out with MY tax money, the "class warfare" argument became offensive. It rings less than hollow.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,922
Anonymous F double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,924
@217,776 (cccuuunnttt !nIGga.SL0w)> referencing Ks as an authority on political/economic issues
lol
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,926
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,928
@217,813 (E)
> Ever since Wall Street was bailed out with MY tax money, the "class warfare" argument became offensive. It rings less than hollow.
> Ever since Wall Street was bailed out with MY tax money, the "class warfare" argument became offensive. It rings less than hollow.