Obama, the Wall-Street sellout

[woolfe9999]

During the 2008 campaign, I said the US needed another FDR, and that I had real concerns whether Obama fit the bill. I hoped he would. He wasn't my first choice, or second.

Snipped for brevity.

Much of this is correct. However, the more loudly progressives criticize Obama, the more likely we are to see an R in the Whitehouse come 1/2013. Remember, it was basically the progressives who either stayed home, or voted for Brown, in Mass, due to their dissatisction with the healthcare bill not being far enough to the left, that cost the D's that seat. You might also consider this: while Obama is a disappointment to the left, there is at least a chance he would govern further to the left in a second term because he'll have no concerns about being re-elected. Compare that to electing the R, then think twice about rhetoric that may cause a lot of dem voters to sit the next election out, or vote for some far left third party candidate.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Another way is to stop federal taxes and let the gov't starve itself. Of course, it will start just taking on more debt like it does right now anyway. I guess the best way is to ratify a constitutional amendment to institute the changes but that takes a very large consensus.

Somehow I hear Yakov Smirnof saying "In America, government starves YOU!"

The federal government now borrows roughly half of every dollar it spends. We'd have an easier time starving a rabid wolverine with a jet pack.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Obama is being called out for 'forgetting' his 2008 campaign pledge to fix the hedge fund loophole (as Keith Olbermann IIRC pointed out last night, having just 25 hedge fund managers pay the same income tax rates as others - as they did before the loophole was given to them as part of the 2001 Bush borrowed tax cuts - it would raise $4 billion per year). Not going to fix the deficit, but this is 25 people.) And he's being called out for not having the Justice Department go after *crime* from the crash.
-snip-

Sigh, Craig234.

The Carried Interest Provision (CIP) was NOT part of the 2001 Bush tax bill.

Jeebus man. You should know by now how much I hate that thing, but damn, stop the lying.

The Carried Interest provision goes back to the early 90's. I don't believe the C.I.P. was intentional. It evolved from law and court cases. There is no "CIP" in the code. It is truly a "loophole". The term loophole is horribly mis-used here (and elsewhere). A loophole is an unintended consequence of a written tax law, or an unintended consequence where several different provisions interact - which I believe to be the case here (sections 83 and other section in 7701 etc that work together to define it as long term capital gain).

Fern

 

[Fern]

People criticize Obama's recent hyping of 'ending corporate jet subsidies' as somehow aimed against the right - but for what purpose?
-snip-

I'd criticize it for being utter bullshit.

There is no "corporate jet subsidy". Use of a jet can only be deducted under section 162 'ordinary and necessary business expense'. I.e., it's a valid expense in earning net income.

For the millionth time - deduction /= subsidy.

Fern

 

[sportage]

Well… I’m taking an unusual stance on the "corporate jet subsidy" (unusual for me).
I don't see anything wrong with "corporate jet subsidies".
As I left work, and looking to my right at the mini air port next to our company,
there was our one corporate jet sitting there.
Operating in 10 surrounding states, the corporate jet comes in handy.

No one uses it to fly to Hawaii for vacation, or some tropical weekend getaway.
Or to attend baseball games, or pick up Chinese takeout two state over.
Our corporate jet is an important and valuable tool helping to streamline operation
of the company. In today’s world of business, time and time wasted can make or break a company. I can't imagine driving to the airport, waiting for the next available flight, paying thru the nose for that flight, and repeating the process over and over all day long.

No one gets upset about rail, trucking or shipping subsidies, and I’m sure they all exists just as well. We're not talking about John Travolta's jet here, were talking about that company the does business throughout the state, or throughout the country.
The corporate jet is part of the company lifeline.

I don't see the big stink with giving companies subsidies for operational related business expenses.
If the business salesman travels, they usually keep their receipts for food and hotel rooms. Then turn them in to the company. The company can then take advantage of tax breaks for expenses like this. Their costs related to simply doing business.

When people hear this stuff on corporate jet subsidies, somehow they relate this to fat cats flying around for personal pleasure. That is not the case. Not for 99% of US businesses. Their corporate jet is a valuable tool, as valuable as their office furniture, trucking fleet, their building, or the employee.

 

[Craig234]

It's not just you guys that are p*ssed about the carried interest loophole. Plenty of conservatives including myself are on record as being against that as it is wholly unfair.

It's good some are, but not nearly enough. Republicans in Congress are nearly united against changing it, it seems, while the main movement for it is progressives, as usual.

But I'm not sure that was part of the Bush 2001 tax cuts. It may have found its way in to an earlier bill...

I haven't confirmed it but I saw an article claiming it was.

and Chuck Shumer, a NY Dem in bed with Wall St, has largely stymied any effort to repeal that as well so you can't blame only the Repubs here.

From the bit I recall, my impression is that Shumer is a Wall Street whore and a disaster.

As for blaming 'only Republicans', check the title of the thread. Don't fall for the fallacy that a 95%/5% split means 'they're equally guilty' - aka false equivalency.

95%/5% is making a point, not saying that's the actual figure. Dems have more problems than that in the corporate wing.

Nearly all the people with the right agenda are progressives, but some on the right do seem to sometimes back some Wall Street reform. Some voted against TARP.

Regardless, one thing I do agree with Obama on is that no one is entitled to get 100% of what they want -- neither Dems nor Repubs.

I don't think that's right - if someone wants the right things, they should get 100%, and if they want wrong things, 0%. Compromise for the sake of compromise is bad.

And it causes game playing leading to bad deals, where a side asks for ridiculous things planning to bargain them away.

 

[Craig234]

Well… I’m taking an unusual stance on the "corporate jet subsidy" (unusual for me).
I don't see anything wrong with "corporate jet subsidies".
As I left work, and looking to my right at the mini air port next to our company,
there was our one corporate jet sitting there.
Operating in 10 surrounding states, the corporate jet comes in handy.

No one uses it to fly to Hawaii for vacation, or some tropical weekend getaway.
Or to attend baseball games, or pick up Chinese takeout two state over.
Our corporate jet is an important and valuable tool helping to streamline operation
of the company. In today’s world of business, time and time wasted can make or break a company. I can't imagine driving to the airport, waiting for the next available flight, paying thru the nose for that flight, and repeating the process over and over all day long.

No one gets upset about rail, trucking or shipping subsidies, and I’m sure they all exists just as well. We're not talking about John Travolta's jet here, were talking about that company the does business throughout the state, or throughout the country.
The corporate jet is part of the company lifeline.

I don't see the big stink with giving companies subsidies for operational related business expenses.
If the business salesman travels, they usually keep their receipts for food and hotel rooms. Then turn them in to the company. The company can then take advantage of tax breaks for expenses like this. Their costs related to simply doing business.

When people hear this stuff on corporate jet subsidies, somehow they relate this to fat cats flying around for personal pleasure. That is not the case. Not for 99% of US businesses. Their corporate jet is a valuable tool, as valuable as their office furniture, trucking fleet, their building, or the employee.

I don't think you understand what the 'corporate jet subsidy' is.

First, I'm not sure exactly what Obama is talking about, but I'm going to mention *a* corporate jet subsidy I assume he's talking about.

Second, they'll continue to get a business deduction for corporate jets - which is what you are defending.

The corporate jet subsidy means that if the executive DOES use the corporate jet for personal travel - which is pretty hard to do considering how easy it is to make up some phony business excuse for a personal trip, but say Hawaii or Chinese takeout - then that trip is income from the business to the executive.

Now, how is it valued? Well, it costs a hell of a lot. The loophole is that the executive only has to count a small fraction of the cost - he can declare *only the price of a first class commercial airline ticket* as the value of the trip. SO, for nothing but taxes on the price of a COMMERCIAL ticket (not the cost of a commercial ticket, just the taxes on the value), he can have the company buy him a very inexpensive personal trip.

This is a big reason why executives see strong need for corporate jets.

Closing the loophole would treat the personal trips as income valued at what it actually costs, to be taxed.

 

[Craig234]

I'd criticize it for being utter bullshit.

There is no "corporate jet subsidy". Use of a jet can only be deducted under section 162 'ordinary and necessary business expense'. I.e., it's a valid expense in earning net income.

For the millionth time - deduction /= subsidy.

Fern

Speaking of utter bullshit, why don't you explain how the following information from Pultizer-Prize winning tax writer David Cay Johnston is only section 162:

Johnston is best when he focuses on some of the least known and most egregious perks for the wealthy hidden in the tax code. There is an engaging section on the loopholes business executives use to get great deals on corporate jets. "Under the rules set by Congress," Johnston writes, "flying in the luxury of the company's Boeing 737 Business Jet is often cheaper than the middle seat in coach on a commercial airliner." Under the tax rules, executives pay nothing to use a company's corporate jet, even if they use it for pleasure (which Johnston says is not an uncommon practice). Instead, the executive pays only income taxes on the cost of the trip -- something like $500 for a flight from New York to Paris, for example. But such a trip would cost a company's shareholders at least $30,000, and since those shareholders get to deduct these expenses from their tax returns, "all taxpayers pick up 35 percent of the true costs," Johnston writes.

 

[1prophet]

Jerry Brown "it's all a lie"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlzYD4tk78

 

[ProfJohn]

The corporate jet thing is worth $300 million a year.

It is pathetic that we are wasting time talking about. It only serves as a way to distract people by talking about how evil the 'rich' are in their fancy jets.

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't think you understand what the 'corporate jet subsidy' is.

First, I'm not sure exactly what Obama is talking about, but I'm going to mention *a* corporate jet subsidy I assume he's talking about.

That is NOT the one he is talking about.

He is talking about the jet write off.

 

[Doppel]

I realized quickly in his term that he was taking no actions to prevent this from happening again. As that article mentions in OP's link, money thrown at wall street without meaningful provisions or threats. I think it's Obama's greatest failure. Until Washington is let off the leash from corporate interests the average joe will not be fairly represented again.

 

[Craig234]

Sigh, Craig234.

The Carried Interest Provision (CIP) was NOT part of the 2001 Bush tax bill.

Jeebus man. You should know by now how much I hate that thing, but damn, stop the lying.

The Carried Interest provision goes back to the early 90's. I don't believe the C.I.P. was intentional. It evolved from law and court cases. There is no "CIP" in the code. It is truly a "loophole". The term loophole is horribly mis-used here (and elsewhere). A loophole is an unintended consequence of a written tax law, or an unintended consequence where several different provisions interact - which I believe to be the case here (sections 83 and other section in 7701 etc that work together to define it as long term capital gain).

Fern

No, you need to back of the abuse of the word "lying". It's wrong, offensive and is your own lying.

I saw an article that made the claim. I might be correct and I might be incorrect.

As far as correcting an error, I appreciate that. False attacks of a lie make you a scumbag.

I can't quickly find confirmation quickly looking, but here's one link saying this loophole was passed in 2001:

http://econproph.com/2011/04/16/taxes-and-unshared-sacrifice/

It’s tax time so it’s appropriate to look at the fairness of the tax code. One of the greatest beneficiaries of the Bush-era tax cuts were hedge fund managers. Hedge fund managers are people on Wall Street who manage other people’s money, not primarily their own. In return, they get paid fees for managing the money. The more money they make for clients/investors, they more they get paid. Sounds like wages or income to me, and I suspect to you, too. But not to Congress. In 2001, they redefined things. The compensation these hedge fund managers is only taxed at less than half the rates other people pay for income. This is despite these incomes being at astronomical levels.

 

[Craig234]

I voted for Obama and my lesson was that voting is obviously pointless.

That's the wrong lesson, Obama is much better in some areas, but it was more 'pointless' than it should be - Obama using progressive phrases and then ignoring them creates cynicism.

 

[ProfJohn]

No, you need to back of the abuse of the word "lying". It's wrong, offensive and is your own lying.

Maybe you should stop using the term yourself since you are the number 1 offender.

 

[Craig234]

So Matt Taibii the plagiarist was referencing a piece by the NY Times theater critic?

What the hell is wrong with you, you demented libeler? Plagiarism?

California is the most progressive state in the country. And what do you have to show for it? A huge budget problem and the second highest unemployment in the country.

No we're not, and our budget problems are largely due to the history of right-wing Prop 13 giving our maniacal Republicans the ability to block any tax and budget.

The budget FINALLY changed for the first time this year - and we got a budget done. It'd be a lot better, but Republicans refuse to *let the voters vote on any taxes*.

Why don't you progressives fix your state before pushing your ideas on the rest of the country.

The progressive policies are the ones with a history of working, which has been shown many times, which you dishonestly ignore.

And California has had all but one *Republican* governors since the 80's, until Brown.

Most recently, Arnold ran promising to fix the deficit - ya, right. Brown's doing a lot better.

Of course, we could talk about the great job right-wingers like Rick Scott are doing - balancing this years budget with tricks like pushing billions of schooling funding by one day into next year's budget and selling off state resources that will cost the state a lot for some short term cash, or last year's budget he balanced by cashing a huge stimulus check - on the same day he had a press conference promising not to take stimulus money.

 

[Craig234]

Maybe you should stop using the term yourself since you are the number 1 offender.

I use the term accurately. Why don't you disprove one time of the many you have had it used, because you deserved it?

 

[Craig234]

Really??

I thought he got impeached for lying under oath...

But wait a second... if he got impeached for Glass-Steagal and NAFTA then why did all the Democrats rush to his side after the impeachment vote? Are you saying that they support Glass-Steagal and NAFTA too??

You can't read. The point was that right-wingers did not rush to be Clinton's friend because he backed right-wing policies.

In spite of his backing examples like I listed, he was still impeached (for unjustified reasons) - he wasn't impeached BECAUSE of backing right-wing policies. The point was obvious.

 

[ProfJohn]

I use the term accurately. Why don't you disprove one time of the many you have had it used, because you deserved it?

Ok... proof that Craig lies (in bold):

And Al Gore, who won the presidency in 2000, and would have spent far less than Bush on things, not invading Iraq, not as much on 'homeland security'.

 

[Craig234]

Ok... proof that Craig lies (in bold):

Gore did win the presidency in 2000. Obviously, I'm referring to 'won it in terms of being the choice of most voters' - despite it being stolen.

Your calling it a lie is the equivalent of saying that my pointing out who actually won a contest, when the trophy was stolen, is a 'lie'. Wrong.

You are welcome to review any of my very complete posts proving he won.

You can read all about a voter felon list scheme, dienfranchising former felons illegally, different voting machine settings costing Gore votes, the accidental loss of thousands of votes to 'butterfly ballots' that caused accidental misvoting, and thousands more to confusing ballot instructions leading to people punching the Gore button AND writing his name, to the criminally negligent Supreme Court ruling, among other things.

You can repeat falsehoods. They have been proven wrong many times.

By the way, I invited you to prove one time YOU were accused of lying to be wrong. I notice you didn't even try. Smart move.

 

[ProfJohn]

What the hell is wrong with you, you demented libeler? Plagiarism?

Yes, plagiarism. Taibbi's recent piece on Bachmann used multiple quotes and anecdotes from other sources without attributions to those sources.

Check out this quote from the Taibbi piece:

Stillwater, a town of 18,000 near St. Paul, where they raised their five children and took in 23 foster kids. Stillwater is a Midwestern version of a Currier & Ives set piece, complete with cozy homes, antique stores — and no black people.

You know what is wrong with it?? Taibbi has NEVER been to Stillwater! How would he know what the town looked like unless he made the details up or stole them from another source. You can decide which one is worse.

Here is just one link about the details. There are many others if you don't like the source.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runni...michele_bachmann_rolling_stone_plagiarism.php
http://www.rippleinstillwater.com/2011/06/hot-shot-rolling-stone-writer-fakes.html

No we're not, and our budget problems are largely due to the history of right-wing Prop 13 giving our maniacal Republicans the ability to block any tax and budget.

So Prop 13 is a right-wing prop? How do you figure that? It passed 64% to 35% was the state of California 64% right wing at the time?
Massachusetts passed almost the exact same law two years later, is that a right-wing state too?

If prop 13 is so bad why not try to repeal it?

And California has had all but one *Republican* governors since the 80's, until Brown.

"Except for the period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since the 1970 election (even while the governor's office has gone back and forth between Republicans and Democrats). The Senate has been in Democratic hands continuously since 1970."

So Democrats have controlled the legislative branch for 40 straight years, but it's the Republicans fault for budget issues?

Oh look... "Wilson left California with a $16 billion budget surplus." Damn Republican, leaving a surplus...

Pathetic.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Gore did win the presidency in 2000. Obviously, I'm referring to 'won it in terms of being the choice of most voters' - despite it being stolen.

Somebody call the waaaaahbulance. Seriously are you still holding a grudge that your silly recounts didn't somehow dig up more votes? All it really did was make Al Gore and his supporters look like sore losers.

 

[Craig234]

Yes, plagiarism. Taibbi's recent piece on Bachmann used multiple quotes and anecdotes from other sources without attributions to those sources.

And let's quote your own source, showing how dishonestly you posted on this:

Rolling Stone editor Eric Bates admits it was his bad -- he took out Taibbi's attributions "due to space concerns," but added links in the online version of the story.

"I did not see that those attributions had been removed," Taibbi told Yahoo's Cutline. "They did good work in that piece and deserve to be credited. But you should know also that this isn't plagiarism -- it's not even an allegation of plagiarism. It's an attribution issue." He's right, but it's also indicative of some misleading tactics and reporting laziness, of which Taibbi has been accused of before, though it's frequent criticism for anyone taking on huge subjects like Goldman Sachs, as he did most famously.

But Taibbi's own reputation is likely why the word "plagiarism" has even come up, when he was clearly not trying to pass off anyone's ideas as his own; it was an editing error.

This author YOU QUOTE says it's "right" that this is "not even an allegation of plagiarism" and that Taibbi INCLUDED the attributions that were removed by an editor.

So Prop 13 is a right-wing prop?

Yes. It snuck in right-wing policy changes by having them ride on a very popular bill to reduce residential property taxes - not only also reducing commercial property taxes that had no business being there, because they can often go many decades without any tax adjustment as the corporation owning them changes hands, but specifically it put in the change requiring 2/3 instead of majorities to pass any tax increase, making California one of the minority of states with that bad requirement.

It was made up by radical right-wingers, leaders of an anti-tax group, and paid for by right-wing interests.

It passed strongly because it had the residential property tax reductions that were very popular.

So Democrats have controlled the legislative branch for 40 straight years, but it's the Republicans fault for budget issues?

Learn to read. Giving the Republicans *veto power* made the majority not enough.

Oh look... "Wilson left California with a $16 billion budget surplus." Damn Republican, leaving a surplus...

Pathetic.[/QUOTE]

Whaddya know, Democrat Jerry Brown, governor when prop 13 passed, then had the biggest surpluses in the history of California. Things worked pre-prop 13.

"The American Conservative later noted he [Jerry Brown] was "much more of a fiscal conservative than Governor Reagan.""

And oops, Pete Wilson, then mayor of San Diego when Prop 13 was voted on, *opposed* it at the time.

Pete Wilson was more of a 'moderate Republican' back when we had those, but not all his policies for a surplus were good.

For most of his time as the Governor, Wilson reduced per-capita infrastructure spending for California, much as he had done as the Mayor of San Diego. Many construction projects - most notably highway expansion/improvement projects - were severely hindered or delayed, while other maintenance and construction projects were abandoned completely.

 

[Craig234]

Somebody call the waaaaahbulance. Seriously are you still holding a grudge that your silly recounts didn't somehow dig up more votes? All it really did was make Al Gore and his supporters look like sore losers.

You're an idiot who doesn't care about democracy.

 

[SparkyJJO]

You're an idiot who doesn't care about democracy.

Good thing for you that the rules of the forum don't get applied too well here in P&N. If the best you can do is just attempt to insult me, well... Meh, I don't really expect anything more from you, quite frankly. I don't know how you can live day in and day out fuming and spewing hate and and anger constantly, but whatever.