NPR interviews the millionaire job creators who will be hurt by the Millionaire Surtax - except they - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sickle;33672900]Sole propitiatory is shot, LLC is where its at. Murder someone with a company car, liquidate company. Get away with murder. Imagine rape with a company condom...[/QUOTE] The problem is that you would have to murder someone in a legal way, which is difficult since murder is by definition an illegal act. [editline]12th December 2011[/editline] Maybe you could start up a chemical company, poison a whole lot of people (including the victim) and then liquidate the company.

[QUOTE=Contag;33672945]The problem is that you would have to murder someone in a legal way, which is difficult since murder is by definition an illegal act. [editline]12th December 2011[/editline] Maybe you could start up a chemical company, poison a whole lot of people (including the victim) and then liquidate the company.[/QUOTE]Hey, it worked in India for Union Carbide Corporation. They even got a few employees to use as scapegoats.

It's an LLC

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33671248]It's only an outrageous claim to you because you [I]want[/I] to believe otherwise. The only outrageous thing is that some people still believe that millionaries+ are the ones making jobs How is it flawed? They went to the two largest sources of opposition to this, who were not able to justify why they oppose it by delivering some proof. Then they put an open request on the largest social networking site in the world. Opposition to taxing the rich isn't grounded in reality - it doesn't hurt the economy or kill jobs. It's ideology and fantasy pushed by those same rich people and you've fallen for it.[/QUOTE] If the idea is "fantasy pushed by the rich", then why didn't they respond to this article? There are only two possibilities: You're pulling shit out your ass or NPR is biased and only featured people that supported its ideology.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33673243]If the idea is "fantasy pushed by the rich", then why didn't they respond to this article? There are only two possibilities: You're pulling shit out your ass or NPR is biased and only featured people that supported its ideology.[/QUOTE] :what:

[QUOTE=Last or First;33659311]But... but... Liberal bias! Job creators! Patriotism! Socialism! Reagonomics! Communism! Trickle down! Nazis! [I]9/11[/I]![/QUOTE] Remember the Alamo?

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33673243]If the idea is "fantasy pushed by the rich", then why didn't they respond to this article?[/QUOTE]Because if the wealthy elite responded to it, then they would be called out for the blatant misinformation and lying. That and the fact that these people who would be negatively impacted are fictional, so its fairly hard for them to come forward and say anything.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33674218]Because if the wealthy elite responded to it, then they would be called out for the blatant misinformation and lying. That and the fact that these people who would be negatively impacted are fictional, so its fairly hard for them to come forward and say anything.[/QUOTE] How can they be both fictional and pushing for an agenda at the same time? Pick one or the other

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33674269]How can they be both fictional and pushing for an agenda at the same time? Pick one or the other[/QUOTE]Because they're separate people? That should be pretty clear by me referring to different groups, those being the wealthy elite who would not be negatively impacted, and the people who [B]would[/B] be negatively impacted and are fictional.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33674329]Because they're separate people? That should be pretty clear by me referring to different groups, those being the wealthy elite who would not be negatively impacted, and the people who [B]would[/B] be negatively impacted and are fictional.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter what you were referring to. The point still stands that either there are rich people out there that don't want to be taxed and the lack of coverage of this by the NPR indicates bias or there are no rich people that support this in the first place. They can't both be true

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33673243]If the idea is "fantasy pushed by the rich", then why didn't they respond to this article? There are only two possibilities: You're pulling shit out your ass or NPR is biased and only featured people that supported its ideology.[/QUOTE] and what exactly is NPRs ideology?

[QUOTE=Lazor;33674401]and what exactly is NPRs ideology?[/QUOTE] I don't know, I don't work for them. But if they purposely exempted a group from an article then that indicates bias in some direction.

you have yet to prove that

[QUOTE=Lazor;33674440]you have yet to prove that[/QUOTE] Yes, I have yet to prove that, but luckily the burden of proof is on the NPR to prove themselves trustworthy

which they've done again and again

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33674370]It doesn't matter what you were referring to. The point still stands that either there are rich people out there that don't want to be taxed and the lack of coverage of this by the NPR indicates bias or there are no rich people that support this in the first place. They can't both be true[/QUOTE]Now you're just blatantly ignoring what I and others have been saying. The fact that they may not want to be taxed does not mean that their ability to create jobs will be negatively impacted. The lack of coverage is on their heads for not coming forward when they had ample opportunity, not on NPR. There are plenty of wealthy individuals who push the idea, but they refused to come forward because they would basically have to admit that they are lying. If you somehow can't understand that, then you are intentionally disregarding what we're saying to try and keep up a dead argument. In that case, there is no further capacity for discussion because it is impossible to carry on one with somebody who just sticks their fingers in their ears to try and block you out. [sub][sp]And before you try to say it and make yourself look like you came out on top, I have not been ignoring what you're saying, hence why I have replied directly to it. But we both know that won't stop you from trying to make that argument, don't we?[/sp][/sub]

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33674458]Yes, I have yet to prove that, but luckily the burden of proof is on the NPR to prove themselves trustworthy[/QUOTE] The burden of proof is on them to prove that they couldn't find anyone? I believe that the burden of proof is on you to find people whose hiring rates [I]would[/I] be affected.

[QUOTE=Last or First;33674515]The burden of proof is on them to prove that they couldn't find anyone? I believe that the burden of proof is on you to find people whose hiring rates [I]would[/I] be affected.[/QUOTE] No, they should have featured both opinions, because the article said they only featured people that didn't think it would affect their hiring [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33674489]Now you're just blatantly ignoring what I and others have been saying. The fact that they may not want to be taxed does not mean that their ability to create jobs will be negatively impacted. The lack of coverage is on their heads for not coming forward when they had ample opportunity, not on NPR. There are plenty of wealthy individuals who push the idea, but they refused to come forward because they would basically have to admit that they are lying. If you somehow can't understand that, then you are intentionally disregarding what we're saying to try and keep up a dead argument. In that case, there is no further capacity for discussion because it is impossible to carry on one with somebody who just sticks their fingers in their ears to try and block you out. [sub][sp]And before you try to say it and make yourself look like you came out on top, I have not been ignoring what you're saying, hence why I have replied directly to it. But we both know that won't stop you from trying to make that argument, don't we?[/sp][/sub][/QUOTE] You're an idiot, no one would have to admit they're lying if they gave their opinion what the fuck are you talking about

...because they couldn't actually [b]find any "job creator" millionaires with the other opinion[/b] jesus, can you read?

I personally prefer the NPR's article over the article in the OP. I'll post it here for those too lazy to click the link themselves: [quote=NPR]For the second week in a row, the Senate on Thursday voted down proposals to extend the payroll tax holiday through next year. In the case of the Democrats' proposal, Republicans objected to the "millionaires surtax" that would be used to pay for it. Ever since the idea of the surtax was introduced weeks ago, Republicans in Congress have railed against it, arguing that it is a direct hit on small-business owners and other job creators. The argument is that many small-business owners report company profits on their individual taxes because of the way their businesses are structured. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., says the surtax would hurt their ability to hire. "It's just intuitive that, you know, if you're somebody who's in business and you get hit with a tax increase, it's going to be that much harder, I think, to make investments that are going to lead to job creation," says Thune. We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. So, NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview. So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to. A group called the Tax Relief Coalition said the problem was finding someone willing to talk about their personal taxes on national radio. So next we put a query on Facebook. And several business owners who said they would be affected by the "millionaires surtax" responded. "It's not in the top 20 things that we think about when we're making a business hire," said Ian Yankwitt, who owns Tortoise Investment Management. Tortoise is a boutique investment firm in White Plains, N.Y. Yankwitt has 10 employees and in recent years has done a lot of hiring. As a result, Yankwitt says he's had many conversations about hiring, "both with respect to specific people, with respect to whether we should hire one junior person or two, whether we should hire a senior person." He says his ultimate marginal tax rate "didn't even make it on the agenda." Yankwitt says deciding to bring on another employee is all about return on investment. Will adding another person to the payroll make his company more successful? For Jason Burger, the motivation is similar. "If my taxes go up, I have slightly less disposable income, yes," said Burger, co-owner of CSS International Holdings, a global infrastructure contractor. "But that has nothing to do with what my business does. What my business does is based on the contracts that it wins and the demand for its services." Burger says his Michigan-based company is hiring like crazy, and he'd be perfectly willing to pay the surtax. "It's only fair that I put back into the system that is the entire reason for my success," said Burger. For the record, both Burger and Yankwitt have made campaign contributions to Democrats in the past, but they say their views on the surtax are about the economics of their businesses and not their politics. And they're not alone. "I, like any other American, especially a business owner, I want to make as much money as I can and I want to keep as much money in my pocket as I can, but I also believe in the greater good," says Deborah Schwarz, who owns LAC Group, an information management firm with offices nationwide and in London. Surtax or no, Schwarz says she hopes to keep hiring. "We're going to keep on writing proposals, going after contracts, hopefully winning them, and when we do we're going to continue to hire people," says Schwarz. All of this contradicts the arguments about job creators being made by Republicans in Congress. "Those I would say were exceptions to the rule," responds Thune. "I think most small-business owners who are out there right now would argue that raising their taxes has the opposite effect that we would want to have in a down economy." But those small-business owners apparently don't want to talk.[/quote] Though I will admit I am a bit skeptical that they couldn't find a [b]single[/b] person who thought that the surtax may even [b]possibly[/b] hurt their hiring. But then, I am skeptical about almost all polls and studies. It's easy to fabricate or manipulate data. Without a raw list of all those major institutes they requested to find millionaire job creators who'd be hurt (and their response), and a raw list of all the small businesses they talked with (and the transcripts), I'll always be a bit skeptical. The NPR article only focused on two or three businesses. This is obviously because it's a news article, and needs to be fairly short. Still, though, I would like to see a complete list of everyone they talked to. If by "lots of small-business owners" they mean "40 or 50 small-business owners" then that's obviously a pretty small sample. Also note that both people whose comments were placed in the article were Democratic supporters (the article even says as much). I'd like to see some feedback from some small-business owners who are Republican supporters - and I [b]highly[/b] doubt [i]those[/i] don't exist.

[QUOTE=Lazor;33674603]...because they couldn't actually [b]find any "job creator" millionaires with the other opinion[/b] jesus, can you read?[/QUOTE] And why should I believe them? It also says the ones [b]featured[/b] had that opinion, not all the people that responded

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;33674656]And why should I believe them? It also says the ones [b]featured[/b] had that opinion, not all the people that responded[/QUOTE] and the NPR article says they couldn't find any congratulations, the burden of proof is now on you to prove that NPR is lying through their teeth

[QUOTE=Zeke129;33671248]It's only an outrageous claim to you because you [I]want[/I] to believe otherwise. The only outrageous thing is that some people still believe that millionaries+ are the ones making jobs How is it flawed? They went to the two largest sources of opposition to this, who were not able to justify why they oppose it by delivering some proof. Then they put an open request on the largest social networking site in the world. Opposition to taxing the rich isn't grounded in reality - it doesn't hurt the economy or kill jobs. It's ideology and fantasy pushed by those same rich people and you've fallen for it.[/QUOTE] I'm not talking about job creators or even believe the tax is wrong. I only see that NPR is being deceitful. You guys seriously are as bad as Republicans when you aren't able to critically think about sources you provide. This is all just mental masturbation with not a whole lot of truth. But I guess you don't want the truth, you want something that supports your own point of view at whatever cost to intellectual honesty. [QUOTE=Sam 01 1;33672065]They looked in very large places, and found no one. Based on what the average republican goes to to make their opinion the only one out there, I'd assume that one republican out of the hundreds of millions of people on facebook would have jumped at the chance.[/QUOTE] That's exactly what I'm saying. NPR was being deliberately deceitful by featuring only people who had a point of view that supported theirs. Either you make the claim that no small business owner would claim to be hurt, or you make the claim NPR is being dishonest. The most logical and probable answer is the latter. [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Lazor;33674705]and the NPR article says they couldn't find any congratulations, the burden of proof is now on you to prove that NPR is lying through their teeth[/QUOTE] No it isn't. If NPR doesn't provide any adequate evidence that doesn't shift the burden of proof. [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] And the article AFAIK never even said they [i]couldn't[/i] find anyone of Facebook, only that they didn't [i]feature[/i] anyone who differed in opinion.

[QUOTE=Contag;33669301]Where does it say that?[/QUOTE] [quote=Zeke129][release]These organizations were also unable to find any job creators [B]who would speak to NPR.[/B][/release][/quote] If you're even going to reply to the article, you might as well read it. Also the thread title is misleading, it should probably be changed

[quote]And the article AFAIK never even said they couldn't find anyone of Facebook, only that they didn't feature anyone who differed in opinion.[/quote] you talk about checking your sources when you [b]clearly never read the NPR article in question[/b] [editline]11th December 2011[/editline] [quote]NPR was being deliberately deceitful by featuring only people who had a point of view that supported theirs.[/quote] and what is NPR's point of view, exactly?

[QUOTE=Lazor;33677035]you talk about checking your sources when you [b]clearly never read the NPR article in question[/b][/quote] I did read it, and it did indeed say that. I said AFAIK because I read the quote, so I went to reread the source and the entire article was the quote. [quote]and what is NPR's point of view, exactly?[/QUOTE] In support of the surtax, obviously. Which isn't necessarily bad, but they supported it in an outright deceitful way.

The NPR article pretty much explicitly states that they couldn't find anyone to represent the other side. What aren't you getting about this?

[QUOTE=Lazor;33678388]The NPR article pretty much explicitly states that they couldn't find anyone to represent the other side. What aren't you getting about this?[/QUOTE] It explicitly says they only featured people who represented one side. It never said they "couldn't find anyone" from facebook. And even if they couldn't, they obviously did a very poor search.

[url]http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/09/143398685/gop-objects-to-millionaires-surtax-millionaires-we-found-not-so-much[/url] ctrl-f "feature" 0 of 0 come back when you [b]read the fucking article that is being discussed[/b]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;33678406]It explicitly says they only featured people who represented one side. It never said they "couldn't find anyone" from facebook. And even if they couldn't, they obviously did a very poor search.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should visit your nearest optician. Or read the whole article instead of just the bits that interests you.