The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for October 24th, 2010

Video: Obama Economic Advisor vs Bush’s

Posted by iusbvision on October 24, 2010

Its Obama Economic Advisor Austan Goolsbee vs. Bush Economic Advisor Keith Hennessey

First of all neither side represents their case very well. Goolsbee omits key facts and represents the graph in a misleading way. To Hennessey’s credit he points this out, but Hennessey fails to point out a key economic points and two of the Obama Administrations glaring fallacies. Hennessey overlooks some great and legit opportunities for good refutation here, which is why I have said that the Bush Administration had a terrible communications machine.

I sent this note to Austan Goolsbee on his youtube channel:

Austan – with all due respect. When there is a large shock to the economy you see the pattern that you have on the board. It falls to bottom, recovers some and then starts to level off. The same pattern on your board would have happened if you did nothing. You know this as well as anyone. In fact nothing would have been better than the uncertainly the leadership has created. You also left out that we need 1.5% growth just to absorb new young people coming into the job market. – cont –>

Austan – lets talk about what policies got us here. In 1999 the NYT warned about a possible collapse in the mortgage industry. In 2001 the Bush Admin and a group of GOP Senators led by Sunnunu and? Dole started introducing bills for mortgage reform. Dems in the? Senate used the filibuster and other tools to prevent passage year after year. OFHEO warned Congress that real reform was needed, Democrats called them names. Obama and Dodd took huge $ from Fannie Mae to keep the status quo. [See our Mortgage Crisis category for the evidence – Editor]

There is a second reason why Goolsbee keeps the graph he shows to such a short amount of time. The economic performance pattern of Goolsbee’s graph looks similar to this:

This is the pattern that is typical of what happens when an economic shock hits the economy. First you see the sharp fall. The damage starts to slow down as the economy starts to regain its footing after the slide down and if uncertainty or bad policies continue the economy basically flat-lines as it is now. As confidence is restored the economy starts to grow and jobs are created. But in a bad case if the government does NOTHING this is the worst pattern you will normally expect to see.

Hennessey forgets to point out that the Obama Administration promised that if it got the stimulus, the follow up porkulus bill and the rest of the spending, as is consistent with socialist Keynesian economic theory, that unemployment would not raise higher than 8.5%. Of course unemployment soared past 10% with the passage of all those bills. The problem is that governments and politicians don’t spend money for economic reasons they spend it for political reasons and new rules tend to be onerous, undermine certainty and help pick winners and losers with the winners sending money back to those in power  – Corruption: Stimulus Funds Spent in Democrat Districts…

Obama touted his policy as something akin to FDR’s New Deal, but due to the regulatory uncertainty and the inability of “central planners” to adequately manage a large economy non farm unemployment never dropped below 20% during the New Deal. WWII ending the New deal is what rescued the economy and at the end of 1946 government spending dropped massively and economic growth followed.

New Deal Non Farm Unemployment

Remember, once certainty is restored the economy will grow again instead of flat-line. The truth is that current economic policies are hindering job growth. No one knows what their taxes are going to be, no one knows the entire effect of ObamaCare, the EPA is threatening to regulate carbon all by itself if Congress doesn’t pass cap & tax. Obama is also waging war against small business with his rhetoric and the attacks of the Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB. Is that the kind of environment you would hire  or take other measured risks in? This is why I said that if the government did not do stimulus, porkulus, most of the bailouts, ObamaCare, all the new regulations and taxes the economy would be doing better because there would be a great deal more regulatory certainty. There are, of course, many smart incentives the government could have done to help get certainty and economic growth going, but that is not the nature of the far left. The result of bad policy is unemployment that has flat-lined at over 9.5% for 14 months.

Once again a Bush Administration official like Hennessey fails to point out that the Bush Administration fought for mortgage reform year after year after year while Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used YOUR money to line the pockets of Democrats to the tune of $200 million to preserve the status quo (with Chris Dodd and Obama receiving the largest amounts of cash); not to mention the $90 million that went to Frank Raines and the other tens of millions that went to other Democrat appointees who took jobs at Fannie Mae such as Johnson and Gorelick.

Related –

“The Forgotten Deprerssion” and How President Coolidge & Harding Turned America Around. Glenn Beck, Reagan Budget Advisor Art Laffer, and Chris Edwards from the CATO Institute.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

Flashback White House Communications Director: The political philosopher she turns to most is the greatest mass murderer in world history

Posted by iusbvision on October 24, 2010

In school they teach about Hitler, because he was a leftist who opposed communism (based on an ideological quirk) and  he started WWII, but public schools do not teach much about communist mass murderers such as Mao – 70 million dead, Stalin  35-50 million dead, and Pol Pot 2-3 million dead. As they say in France, “no enemies on the left”.

Anita Dunn resigned from the White House shortly after Beck called her out. Her husband currently works for the administration.

Interestingly enough she was not the only White House appointee who praised Mao.

So who is Ron Bloom? Jammie Wearing Fool wrote this about the former SEIU negotiator who is now Obama’s “Manufacturing Czar” (via Gateway Pundit):

The name Ron Bloom is one that we need to start paying attention to. He has a long history of being the negotiating face of unions in a suit. He is a Harvard Business School graduate who has worked for the unions beginning with SEIU for decades.The most recent union he represented was the United Steel Workers (USW) before becoming a part of the automotive team that Obama put together. You know the one that had the head Steven Rattner having to resign over some questions about his personal finances mixed in with a little fraudulent money gifts.Rattner was replaced by Ron Bloom, and voila the United Auto Workers (UAW), got a sweetheart deal backed up by the power of the federal government to try and stave off bankruptcy.

So let me ask you, is it likely that these people were radicalized before they graduated high school, or did it happen at college?

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

English Teacher: Students don’t know how to tie facts into their statements/arguments

Posted by iusbvision on October 24, 2010

The English Professor:

By the time that the students got to the research unit in my class, their stark underpreparedness for the task had already begun rearing its ugly head.  As the article states, there is way too much emphasis in writing curricula across the U.S. on “self-expression” and creative writing.  Students had not been trained to use facts to develop an idea.  They had been fed garbage throughout their entire academic careers – the garbage that whatever they write down is OK and that their ideas matter.  Students were aghast when I suggested that their ideas didn’t matter unless they had hard, concrete facts to back them up.  Students had also not learned how to tie in facts to their statements – they would simply make a statement and list random facts that may or may not have supported it.  So, while trying to teach the students how to use MLA format, create a proper Works Cited page, include in-text citations, and find information relating to their topics, I also had to teach basic expository writing skills that they should have learned many years ago.  This proved impossible to do in the small time frame I had to do it. I was basically playing catch-up for years of writing training while at the same time teaching a complicated skill set that was brand new to practically all of the students in my class.

Teacher training is also grossly to blame.  I attended a prestigious educational school (which did prepare me adequately on many levels), but I found many of my education classes to be highly lacking.  My “Teaching Writing” course focused very little (if at all) at actual methodologies for teaching the various types of writing.  Instead, it focused on “creating a community of writers” and “not focusing on the grammar or style – helping students to find their unique voices” and “allowing students to choose meaningful topics that will showcase their personal experiences”… you get the point.  It would not be a gross inaccuracy to say that I learned absolutely nothing in my English education courses that would allow me to properly train students on this quite important skill.

Well I have news for this English teacher; this problem has gone on for so long that it is not just students who are struggling with this.

This is a critique that I have heard before from several teachers at IUSB. It is also something that I have witnessed first hand.

I have engaged in hundreds of political/economic discussions with students and professors in my years at IUSB and the English teacher is spot on. If you look at the arguments in the comments section of this web site up to the year 2009 it is also obvious that students cannot tie facts into their arguments. To them XXX statement they make is so because they say so and in their mind they have just proved the article writer wrong without even attempting to address a host of verifiable facts in said article. If you think I am mistaken just start looking at the comments section starting in 2006.

Before I started writing here at IUSB Vision I owned Page Two of The Preface, once again the feedback I received from detractors were mostly personal attacks, unsupported statements or some random fact that they could not tie into their argument.

During my last year on campus no less than four professors pulled me into their office and asked me if it was difficult to pass their class or do the assigned papers. In most of these classes the assignments ranged from not challenging to moderately challenging. These professors are baffled that so many kids fail out and cannot do assignments that are relatively easy. While for sure it is a case that some students just would not do the work, it was becoming clear that recent local high school graduates just couldn’t.

For those of us who graduated high school before the late 80’s what I just said is difficult to imagine, but it is a stark reality. This reality became even more stark for me when a young lady I have known almost since birth who is now in her early 20’s started attending classes at IUSB. She is failing out of W-131 because the concepts she is being asked to tackle and the assignments given are over her head. They are over her head not because said young lady is stupid, on the contrary she has comedian level rhetorical wit and is obviously intelligent, she is simply ignorant and unprepared due to a high school diploma that isn’t worth the paper it is written on.

One of the assignments she was given dealt with the communist/Marxist conflict theory polemic which is a theme in college that is crammed down most student’s throats semester after semester. When I mentioned the words “communist” and Marxist she had no idea what they were and it seemed clear that she had never been exposed to these two words before.

I experienced something similar from the opposite side when I took W-131. The instructor I had for w-131 is truly a brilliant man. I realize that the word “brilliant” is bandied about on a college campus but in his case the word fit like a glove. This was my first semester at IUSB. After the first assignment when the teacher asked a question that compared the two assigned readings no one raised their hand, so I raised mine and gave an answer to me which seemed perfectly obvious. After the class the teacher pulled me aside and asked me not to participate in class discussion any longer and that I was to speak about the assignments with him one on one. When I asked why this was his answer:

Chuck it is important that you understand that W-131 is not just a lit class that is designed to help teach you how to write college papers. It is largely used as an introduction to critical thinking. You are a critical thinking prize-fighter and the answers you give are more than just correct, you knock them out of the park. The students in this class by and large cannot do what you just did and with you giving answers like that they will feel intimidated and perhaps even inadequate. They will be intimidated into silence. What 19-year-old kid could hope to give an answer that could compete after your vocal dissertation. It is my job to coax them and to prod them into being able to do what you already do with ease, so from now on lets just talk about the assignments one on one.

At first I thought that the teacher was pulling my leg, but in time I realized how correct he was. The teacher and I ended up having an excellent intellectual relationship and have become friends. This was freshman level material. Students should not have been stumped by the assignments to the point where they were too afraid to raise their hand. In most of my classes I showed restraint in my answers after that. Only in a few of my political science classes and economics classes did I “let er rip”.

In another instance a Business & Professional Communication prof pulled me into the office and asked me to take an exam that said professor had just given to the class earlier in the day. The professor said that a great deal of the students failed the exam. I never took  the Business & Professional Communication course and all I knew about it was from personal experience and the couple of  days we discussed it in Dr. Lambert’s S-205 class. While a missed a few questions that posed exact questions about the reading material that I had not read, I passed the exam. As long as the communications student understood a few basic concepts and exercised what I thought was common knowledge, it is hard to believe that many could have failed the exam especially after having the benefit of class time and the textbook, but that is exactly what happened. It is not that I am some super brilliant wiz-kid student because I’m not, it is just that our public education system is graduating students that are woefully unprepared to deal with simple concepts and absorb them form the class reading and lecture. Most any average 35 year old who took this exam with no training or class time could have done almost as well. The exam was really that simple.

I KNOW that many of you professors feel the same way, if you wish to post anonymously your privacy will be respected and assured.

UPDATESTUDY: The Twilight Generation Can’t Read:

Boston, Mass., October, 2010. A newly released study by the Association of Literary Scholars, Critics, and Writers (ALSCW) strongly suggests that two factors—a fragmented English curriculum and a neglect of close reading—may explain why the reading skills of American high school students have shown little or no improvement in several decades despite substantial increases in funds for elementary and secondary education by federal and state governments.

The ALSCW report, entitled Literary Study in Grades 9, 10, And 11: A National Survey, analyzes the responses of more than four hundred representative public school teachers who were asked what works of literature they assign in standard and honors courses, and what approaches they use for teaching students how to understand imaginative literature and literary non-fiction.

Among the study’s major findings:

(1) The content of the literature and reading curriculum for students in standard or honors courses is no longer traditional or uniform in any consistent way. The most frequently mentioned titles are assigned in only a small percentage of courses, and the low frequencies for almost all the other titles English teachers assign point to an idiosyncratic literature curriculum for most students.

(2) The works teachers assign generally do not increase in difficulty from grade 9 to grade 11.

(3) Teachers do not favor close, analytical readings of assigned works. They prefer such non-analytical approaches as a personal response or a focus on a work’s historical or biographical context (for instance, class discussions of To Kill a Mockingbird that emphasize the Scottsboro Trials or Jim Crow laws in the South, rather than the novel’s plot, characters, style, and moral meaning).

“These findings suggest that the way reading and writing are taught today by many high-school teachers may be impeding college-readiness for many public high school students,” said Sandra Stotsky, Professor of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, and the study’s principal author.

“College courses not just in English but in many disciplines routinely assign difficult texts and expect students to understand, analyze, and write coherently about them. According to ACT, a major reason why college students end up in remedial courses or drop out of college is their inability to comprehend and analyze complex texts. An incoherent high-school curriculum that rarely advances beyond 9th-grade-level texts and that expects little more than impressionistic responses to them is a prescription for educational underperformance or outright failure at the college level,” Prof. Stotsky said.

Susan J. Wolfson, President of the ALSCW and Professor of English at Princeton University, said: “Beyond college readiness, skill in literary analysis—especially close attention to the artifacts and designs of language—is vital to an informed, capable citizenry. This important study should, in my view, be required reading by high-school English teachers, high-school administrators, and boards of education throughout the nation.”

The ALSCW recommends that:

(1) high schools revise their English curriculum to incorporate a progressively more challenging core of literary and non-literary texts with cultural and historical significance for our own country and other countries;

(2) English departments at colleges and universities emphasize the analytical study of literature, especially for those students planning to become secondary English teachers;

(3) the U.S. Department of Education and state legislatures give priority to the funding of professional development programs that emphasize teaching close, careful reading.

The complete, 36-page report (and its appendices) may be read on, and downloaded from, the ALSCW’s website, at


In other words, we need to pursue excellence, get back to a classic liberal arts education, and ditch the pop-culture based feel good gen-ed nonsense being taught now.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton | 1 Comment »

The Education “Cartel” Released December 1, 2010

Posted by iusbvision on October 24, 2010

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

Mike Huckabee: I Will Debate Any Democrat on the Fair Tax

Posted by iusbvision on October 24, 2010

No Democrat would take Huckabee on. The left counts on its own constituents being largely ignorant of the goals of their central plans.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes | 1 Comment »

What is it like trying to debate with a far left academic?

Posted by iusbvision on October 24, 2010

This is pretty close…

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

Big Business Buying Influence With Democrats: Google Pays 2.4% Federal Taxes

Posted by iusbvision on October 24, 2010

This post is another in our series of how big business loves big government. As we have shown you so many times before in our “Corporatism” category it is not the Republicans who are favored by large corporations. In spite of the constant rhetoric from the Democrat Leadership it is Democrats who receive overwhelming favor from Wall Street, the banks, and international business:

Top 20 Industry Money Recipients This Election Cycle – Who is in the back pocket of Wall Street?

And who says that spreading the cash around doesn’t buy influence; the Goldman Sachs guys and lobbyists are all over the White House. In fact after making promises to reign in the corporate lobbyists in the 2008 campaign, Obama and the Democrats relaxed the restrictions on them. Of course this influence peddling and kick backs was all over the mortgage crisis as well:

Corruption You Can Believe In: Failed Sub Primes and Mortgage Fraud Lenders Funneled Money to Dodd & Obama the Most. Fannie & Freddie Gave $200 Million to Partisans-Most Went to Democrats! Dodd, Obama Among Top Recipients. Republicans Attempted to Pass Reforms-Blocked by Democrat Leadership!


Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paying $210 million in bonuses with your money and no outrage why…..

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has faced no scrutiny in the new financial regulations even though it was the single largest reason for the economic collapse. After already receiving $148.2 billion of your money Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac is now set to receive another bailout of between $154 to $215 billion. Democrats are expected to pass the bailout during the upcoming lame duck session of Congress after the election.   And of course do you remember the how AIG was using YOUR bailout tax dollars to pay their execs big bonus cash:

Democrats put language in the ‘Stimulus Bill’ to protect AIG executive bonuses. Dodd and Obama were the number one recipients of money from AIG. Distraction in full swing & Congress’ plan to tax the bonuses at 100% wont pass constitutional muster.

Of course the Fannie Mae/Goldman Sachs lobbyists revolving door in the White House continues.

And do you remember how British Petroleum got all those safety waivers for that oil platform from the Obama Administration leading up to that big oil spill? Obama was top recipient of BP-related dollars in 2008 receiving almost double what John McCain received.

Tobacco and Food Giant Philip-Morris lobbied Democrats for on got new regulations and taxes on tobacco, but they were done in such a way that Philip-Morris benefited. You see the narrative from politicians and leftist academics is that “regulation is done for the benefit of the people to prevent the excesses of unrestrained capitalism (freedom)”, the reality is that like in this case, the Google case we write about below, Fannie Mae, banks etc etc the regulations are designed to pick winners and losers, they are slanted to help those who make donations and wield influence.  The result is corrupt “Chicago Style” regulation that leads to the very excesses that the Democrats used as an excuse to do more regulation and pick more winners and losers which results in more excesses.

Case in point is the new “Wall Street Financial Regulation Bill” and Democrats went on and on about how they “clamped down”, its pure nonsense. The new law gives the government new powers to shut down businesses without judicial review (no one should have that kind of power and it will not be the big donors who will be shut down, it will be there competition or those who donate to “the wrong side”. The new law also creates an ongoing, endless bailout fund that benefits Wall Street where as smaller businesses will not have access to it.

New Obama-Dodd Bill Makes for Unlimited Wall Street/Bank Bailouts

Unions and Communist Activists All Too Happy With Obama-Dodd Financial Takeover Bill

Caught: White House Political Collusion in SEC Investigation. White House Wants Unlimited Bailout and Siezure Power. Can anyone be trusted with that much power? UPDATE – All the president’s Goldman Sachs men

Rick Santelli blasts lack of Fannie Mae reform, the TARP rip-off, government lies and corruption

This brings us to Norton’s First Law:

Big business loves big government, which is why big business loves domestic taxes and regulation because it keeps the small and medium sized competition out of the competition. A result is higher prices, so ultimately it is you who pays and the poor who are hardest hit. (Big business often gets loopholes written in the laws for themselves such as Nancy Pelosi trying to get a part of the tuna industry exempted from the minimum wage law).

Ok so now onto our friends at Google.

Google brings in billions of dollars in revenue and odds are you pay a higher tax rate than they do. Bloomberg News:

Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes

Google Inc. cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the last three years using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda.

Google’s income shifting — involving strategies known to lawyers as the “Double Irish” and the “Dutch Sandwich” — helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries.

“It’s remarkable that Google’s effective rate is that low,” saidMartin A. Sullivan, a tax economist who formerly worked for the U.S. Treasury Department. “We know this company operates throughout the world mostly in high-tax countries where the average corporate rate is well over 20 percent.”

The U.S. corporate income-tax rate is 35 percent. In the U.K., Google’s second-biggest market by revenue, it’s 28 percent.

Google, the owner of the world’s most popular search engine, uses a strategy that has gained favor among such companies as Facebook Inc. and Microsoft Corp. The method takes advantage of Irish tax law to legally shuttle profits into and out of subsidiaries there, largely escaping the country’s 12.5 percent income tax. (See an interactive graphic on Google’s tax strategyhere.)

The earnings wind up in island havens that levy no corporate income taxes at all. Companies that use the Double Irish arrangement avoid taxes at home and abroad as the U.S. government struggles to close a projected $1.4 trillion budget gap and European Union countries face a collective projected deficit of 868 billion euros.

Countless Companies

Google, the third-largest U.S. technology company by market capitalization, hasn’t been accused of breaking tax laws. “Google’s practices are very similar to those at countless other global companies operating across a wide range of industries,” said Jane Penner, a spokeswoman for the Mountain View, California-based company. Penner declined to address the particulars of its tax strategies.

Facebook, the world’s biggest social network, is preparing a structure similar to Google’s that will send earnings from Ireland to the Cayman Islands, according to the company’s filings in Ireland and the Caymans and to a person familiar with its plans. A spokesman for the Palo Alto, California-based company declined to comment.

Transfer Pricing

The tactics of Google and Facebook depend on “transfer pricing,” paper transactions among corporate subsidiaries that allow for allocating income to tax havens while attributing expenses to higher-tax countries. Such income shifting costs the U.S. government as much as $60 billion in annual revenue, according to Kimberly A. Clausing, an economics professor at Reed College in Portland, Oregon.

U.S. Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee, and other politicians say the 35 percent U.S. statutory rate is too high relative to foreign countries. International income-shifting, which helped cut Google’s overall effective tax rate to 22.2 percent last year, shows one way that loopholes undermine that top U.S. rate.

Democrats always talk about taxing the “rich billionaires” but the truth is that huge Democrat contributors like Google, George Soros and John & Teresa Kerry will never pay much in taxes. This is why the tax code is 60,000 pages long and filled with loopholes and corruption. So who ends up paying all these taxes designed to stick it to “the rich”? It is small to medium sized business, and the producer class that is soaked. Remember what I said about how big business loves big government? Who can create an upstart company and actually compete with Google when they pay 2.4% tax and you have to pay 39.9%? How can you claim that you are for jobs when you are sticking it to those who employ the most people Democrats? Small business does almost 80% of all hiring in the United States.

I can hear the objection already “so are you saying that Republicans never added to or put a loophole in the tax code” of course I am not saying that, but what I am saying is that one party is way ahead in creating this mess and we all know what party that is. The GOP is the party that has been trying to repeal/reform the tax code or just replace it altogether with a Steve Forbes style flat tax or a Neil Boortz style Fair Tax. It is Democrats who have fought tooth and nail for the status quo.

Google has given Obama over $800,000 and $270,00 to Democrats in this election cycle alone. So while Obama attacks the Chamber of Commerce (2) which represents most small to medium sized business Google skips out on $60 billion in taxes with the Obama Administration not saying a peep.

Of course Google isn’t alone. US News:

Microsoft is the top contributor with 60 percent of its nearly $1.3 million in contributions going to Democrats. This number reflects contributions made to incumbents, challengers, and national party committees. [See where Chuck Schumer’s campaign cash comes from.]

Contributions from those associated with Cisco make it the second highest contributor in the industry with $557,919 in donations, 67 percent of which went to Democratic candidates and committees. Google is next, with $456,119 in contributions, 75 percent of which went to Democrats, followed by Intel, with 57 percent of its $373,205 in contributions going to Democrats. The fifth-most-prominent computer/internet company, Hewlett-Packard, also favored Democrats, despite the fact that its former CEO, Carly Fiorina, is running as a Republican in California’s high-profile Senate race. Those associated with Hewlett-Packard gave $367,460, with only 40 percent going to Republican candidates and parties.

Google’s help to the Democrats doesn’t just go as far as campaign dollars. Google has often delisted Conservative stories and news sites from searches of Google news. Google owned YouTube has removed video’s from conservative pundits including Michelle Malkin. David Zucker had his video flagged as “18 and over only” until it created a big enough fuss where Google relented (LINKLINK). This very author has been threatened by YouTube as well, which is why I have stopped posting on my YouTube channel which so far as gotten 1.5 million views. I am now posting at DailyMotion and

McDonalds and 29 other large corporations have gotten ObamaCare waivers because the new law makes health insurance costs so expensive. Where are the waivers for the smaller companies that still have over 50 employees and are getting creamed by this new law?

So lets meet the evil rich shall we?

Lets start with Leland Furniture Company in Grand Rapids, Michigan

Indeed this small business is in the top tax bracket because they bring in on paper over $250,000 a year. Of course most of that money goes back into the business paying his 25 employees, buying material and tools, paying property taxes etc.

On paper most small businesses that employ more than a dozen people hit $250,000 on paper. The truth is that there are few people who make over $250,00 per year in taxable wages, the vast majority who qualify for the top marginal tax rate in this category are small business S-corps that do most of the hiring. Think of a family business that owns 3 pizza shops and works 11 hours a day keeping the business running? With that kind of hard work shouldn’t they have a tax rate that looks more like Google’s?

Posted in 2012, Big Bizz Loves Big Govt, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »