The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

By the way, here's the President's White Paper on corporate tax reform from earlier this year. It's not a perfect plan, but it specifically lists out deductions that the current administration would like to remove in order to pay for reducing the top level from 35% to 28%.

 

Released the same day, Mitt Romney's corporate tax reform plan is to lower the top level corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. There are no offsets for the rate deduction included, and no proposal for amending any loopholes. The only loophole he has cited closing in regards to tax reform is removing the tax deduction for 2nd mortgages.

[Y2HH]

Not all points of view are equally valid, of course. How about that article I've linked co-written by someone from AEI, a pro-corporate conservative think tank?

 

 

 

How is this "insane" to want to stop oil subsidies, which would be a relatively easy fix? You can advocate for starting somewhere as a starting point for tax reform. Promoting one thing does not mean that you are ignoring everything else.

 

Is this comparably "insane" to the anti-gay bigotry from the GOP? Or the absolutely-no-tax-revenues-increase-EVER pledge that most of them sign?

 

 

 

Eliminating oil subsidies is a part of fixing the tax code. Do you think it'd be more pragmatic to address what may possibly stand a chance of passing Congress instead of only proposing huge reform packages that have no hope of passing?

 

Is there anything comparably insane to the GOP candidates saying they'd turn down a budget deal that was 10-1 spending cuts vs. revenue increase? Is there anything comparably insane to the opposition to the Grand Bargain proposals that Boehner and Obama tried to work out over the summer but were stridently opposed by House members? Comparable to being one of if not the only major political party in the developed world the rejects the entire field of climate science outright?

 

It's insane to target oil subsidies because the same people will foot the bill...whether it's through those tax subsidies or at the pump. It comes down to the same outcome, just in two different ways...and as I said, accomplishes nothing.

 

What may possibly stand a chance of passing congress? I have some news for you, neither have a chance...so what exactly was your point? You had none.

 

You keep making it look like I'm defending the GOP. They are insane...but so are all the DNC.

 

And I almost forgot, the anti-gay bigotry and vow to not increase taxes by the GOP is f***ing stupid.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

By the way, here's the President's White Paper on corporate tax reform from earlier this year. It's not a perfect plan, but it specifically lists out deductions that the current administration would like to remove in order to pay for reducing the top level from 35% to 28%.

 

Released the same day, Mitt Romney's corporate tax reform plan is to lower the top level corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. There are no offsets for the rate deduction included, and no proposal for amending any loopholes. The only loophole he has cited closing in regards to tax reform is removing the tax deduction for 2nd mortgages.

 

I read up on that plan earlier in the year, and from what I understood, it left huge holes in the code...and accomplished almost nothing when broken down. It's not a fix...it's barely a band aid.

 

And Romney's alike accomplished nothing. Just as stupid.

 

But that's what we get...we're so used to getting half assed "fixes" to everything, that we accept them. I'm beyond annoyed by it and I'm done accepting it. Both parties need to be called to the carpet.

 

But that will never happen so long as people like you continue to defend one party or the other.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

I read up on that plan earlier in the year, and from what I understood, it left huge holes in the code...and accomplished almost nothing when broken down. It's not a fix...it's barely a band aid.

 

And Romney's alike accomplished nothing. Just as stupid.

Which holes are you referring to that wouldn't be closed?

 

My main issue with it is that it still holds to the idea of giving some sectors tax code preference over others...in that case, manufacturing continues to maintain its substantial tax subsidy...and if you're subsidizing business through tax exemptions, then lobbyists will continue to write in other exemptions eventually, leading rapidly to the same problem.

[Y2HH]

Keep your liberal minded excuses coming, though...they make for great comedy.

 

It bothered me that I said this...so I've returned to reply to my own stupid post.

 

It's not a "liberal minded excuse", it's a "party minded excuse", because I see party line voters on both sides make excuses for their failed parties over and over again.

[Y2HH]

Which holes are you referring to that wouldn't be closed?

 

My main issue with it is that it still holds to the idea of giving some sectors tax code preference over others...in that case, manufacturing continues to maintain its substantial tax subsidy...and if you're subsidizing business through tax exemptions, then lobbyists will continue to write in other exemptions eventually, leading rapidly to the same problem.

 

I can't recall at the moment...there were some articles I read earlier when that was proposed about it, written by former IRS agents that said it would accomplish almost nothing because it left too many easy openings for them to exploit. I'd have to go back and research it all over again, but I don't have the time right now.

 

I believe it came down to corporate wording of the tax code where they could easily gain those tax preferences by changing a few simple things they perform to do business...somewhat like how Jack Abramoff said the rules are so lax and have so many holes in them that although you can't give a congress person 3000$, because it's illegal...it's not illegal if you bring a few people to dinner and call it a fundraiser, and give them the same amount of money.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

It's insane to target oil subsidies because the same people will foot the bill...whether it's through those tax subsidies or at the pump. It comes down to the same outcome, just in two different ways...and as I said, accomplishes nothing.

 

So why not just completely subsidize them then? For this to be true, you'd have to have 100% tax incidence. Either way, bad policy is not necessarily insane policy.

 

What may possibly stand a chance of passing congress? I have some news for you, neither have a chance...so what exactly was your point? You had none.

 

You have a point that literally nothing will get done. This is now a quibble over effective political strategy, not really whether something is "insane" or not.

 

However, one aspect of the GOP insanity is their unprecedented obstructionism. Both parties have ratched it up over the past decade+, but it shot up exponentially in 2009. The night of Obama's inauguration, GOP leaders got together and worked out a strategy on how to oppose anything and everything Obama and the Democrats proposed. As much as the Democrats disliked Bush, he never faced complete opposition to every proposal, even if those proposals were previously-Democratic ideas. The reaction to Obama has been unique.

 

You keep making it look like I'm defending the GOP. They are insane...but so are all the DNC.

 

And I almost forgot, the anti-gay bigotry and vow to not increase taxes by the GOP is f***ing stupid.

 

I'm asking you to point out anything comparably insane. So far, you've got that they want to eliminate oil subsidies for companies making record profits. This is supposedly insane because the subsidy amount will be completely passed through to the customer (if they can charge a higher price equivalent to the subsidy difference, why aren't they doing that right now?) and because the whole tax system needs to be overhauled. The Republicans on the committee even voted against Simpson-Bowles, which was a very right-friendly proposal.

 

You can argue that it's ineffective to focus on these small items like the Buffet tax or the oil subsidies or even that they're bad policy, but they're not insane policies in the same way that garbage like anti-gay hatred and the Norquist pledge are. Those are categorically non-sane, unreasonable absolutionist policy positions.

[Balta1701]

I can't recall at the moment...there were some articles I read earlier when that was proposed about it, written by former IRS agents that said it would accomplish almost nothing because it left too many easy openings for them to exploit. I'd have to go back and research it all over again, but I don't have the time right now.

 

I believe it came down to corporate wording of the tax code where they could easily gain those tax preferences by changing a few simple things they perform to do business...somewhat like how Jack Abramoff said the rules are so lax and have so many holes in them that although you can't give a congress person 3000$, because it's illegal...it's not illegal if you bring a few people to dinner and call it a fundraiser, and give them the same amount of money.

So, I spent some time looking for former-IRS agent commentary and this is about all that I got...a good, legitimate discussion over whether the tax plan should be favoring manufacturing as it does.

 

In terms of "Wording of the tax code", it's darn near impossible to extract that from a Presidential proposal because the President very rarely actually writes specific bills. Congress typically does not react well to legislative text coming from the President. I struggle to see how you could say that from a Presidential Proposal...but I totally believe it's how things would end up, because a few well connected lobbyists would make sure that enough of that language stayed in the final bill to make sure that they had their loophole preserved.

 

Then again, a few well connected lobbyists are why tax reform won't even get considered at all and never would, because a multi-billion dollar loophole for one business is enough to fund decades worth of lobbying.

[StrangeSox]

BTW you can admit that the modern GOP is insane and dysfunctional without rejecting conservative ideology in toto.

[Y2HH]

BTW you can admit that the modern GOP is insane and dysfunctional without rejecting conservative ideology in toto.

 

I think our ENTIRE political system is insane. The part I disagree with you about is that you feel only the GOP is.

[Y2HH]

So, I spent some time looking for former-IRS agent commentary and this is about all that I got...a good, legitimate discussion over whether the tax plan should be favoring manufacturing as it does.

 

In terms of "Wording of the tax code", it's darn near impossible to extract that from a Presidential proposal because the President very rarely actually writes specific bills. Congress typically does not react well to legislative text coming from the President. I struggle to see how you could say that from a Presidential Proposal...but I totally believe it's how things would end up, because a few well connected lobbyists would make sure that enough of that language stayed in the final bill to make sure that they had their loophole preserved.

 

Then again, a few well connected lobbyists are why tax reform won't even get considered at all and never would, because a multi-billion dollar loophole for one business is enough to fund decades worth of lobbying.

 

Lobbying needs to be outlawed. Period. And you just highlighted why. This is exactly right...whatever proposal they put forward, lobbyists will have language inserted into the bill that negates it, or creates a legal loophole...and it'll sneak through for one very important and very specific reason...

 

None of them will read it before they vote on it.

 

Our 3 branches of government vote yes and sign bills based on the title of the bill...not on the actual contents...and this is a problem. But...I guess it doesn't matter since they keep getting away with it.

[StrangeSox]

Lobbying is free speech.

[Y2HH]

Lobbying is free speech.

 

Of course it is.

 

Like I said...our ENTIRE political system is insane.

[StrangeSox]

Of course it is.

 

Like I said...our ENTIRE political system is insane.

 

That's not our political system as much as it is our Constitution.

[StrangeSox]

 

"Ambition" here is symbolized by a beast of burden tricked with a prize it will never claim into serving the sloth of its rider, a fitting analogy for the lot of most workers in America. Welfare payments offer a relief and alternative to unrewarding servitude. A good cartoon.

[mr_genius]

Obama tries to remove Buy American act, congress rebels.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/o..._n_1475277.html

 

Since the 1930s, the American government has offered preferential treatment to American producers in the awarding of federal contracts.

[Balta1701]

Obama tries to remove Buy American act, congress rebels.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/o..._n_1475277.html

A group of 68 House Democrats and one Republican

 

That's not Congress rebelling.

[mr_genius]

That's not Congress rebelling.

 

it's a partial rebellion. what about Obama wanting more manufacturing in the US? I suppose it was just another campaign slogan. When it comes down to it, he doesn't mean it.

[Balta1701]

it's a partial rebellion. what about Obama wanting more manufacturing in the US? I suppose it was just another campaign slogan. When it comes down to it, he doesn't mean it.

Yeah, he's a Centrist Democrat who will favor so-called Free Trade over domestic, union jobs when it comes down to it. He's established that many times.

 

Of course, that's not a message that gets publicized. And 68 Democrats in Congress aren't going to matter unless you can somehow get the Republican Majority to come out against a "Free trade" proposal that makes big money for big business and hurts worker rights.

[mr_genius]

favor so-called Free Trade over domestic, union jobs when it comes down to it.... proposal that makes big money for big business and hurts worker rights.

 

oh, but that's ok, because that's not an important issue right? so i should still vote Obama.

 

because i mean Romney is a total radical and he would hurt worker rights. oh wait. so will Obama. looks like a lose lose for your pro-labor ideals. but thats OK, because Obama has compromised and is being a moderate, and that's all that matters.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, he's a Centrist Democrat who will favor so-called Free Trade over domestic, union jobs when it comes down to it. He's established that many times.

 

Of course, that's not a message that gets publicized. And 68 Democrats in Congress aren't going to matter unless you can somehow get the Republican Majority to come out against a "Free trade" proposal that makes big money for big business and hurts worker rights.

He's a crappy neoliberal like Clinton.

[StrangeSox]

oh, but that's ok, because that's not an important issue right? so i should still vote Obama.

 

because i mean Romney is a total radical and he would hurt worker rights. oh wait. so will Obama. looks like a lose lose for your pro-labor ideals. but thats OK, because Obama has compromised and is being a moderate, and that's all that matters.

I'm confused why Republicans here still make these sorts of posts.

[mr_genius]

He's a crappy neoliberal like Clinton.

 

you said it not me

[southsider2k5]

I'm confused why Republicans here still make these sorts of posts.

 

Because we are all insane.

[StrangeSox]

Because we are all insane.

Nah.

 

But it's not like Obama doesn't catch plenty of s*** here from me, balta, bs etc. granted it is from the left, but theres not unwavering praise.