Rise of the Tea Party

[buckethead]

Yes to coerce those who get the loopholes to do worthwhile things for society such as a "green tax break".  The system however has been corrupted as in lobbyists give contributions to legislators who pass loopholes favorable to whomever hired the lobbyists.

It was a trade off.

Conservatives promised that wealthy corporations and individuals were better at helping the poor and serving society.

If we would only give them tax breaks for doing good things for the country and for the poor, we were told, then they would dutifully make sure that the safety net was maintained at a fraction of the cost that it was taking to government to do so.

Unfortunately there were never any consequences built into the tradeoff,  If the wealthy or the corporations weren't able to 'better administer' the social safety net, there was no provision built in that the government would resume these functions of government.

Now that the middle class is disappearing, and the social safety net is leaving millions of people without shelter, health care, or even basic nutrition and safety, the tea party -------ignorant of the original tradeoff, as are most news cycle short attention span americans----wants to treat these basic government services as a 'new' form of 'socialism'.

Or bitch about the 'loopholes' that were created solely on the myth that wealthy people and corporations are somehow more 'noble' than government or democracies.

The mantra I recall was slightly different. Conservatives espoused that private charities and individuals were generous enough to provide for the needs of the underclass.

They suggested that liberal policies had failed to help the poor help themselves. In fact, conservatives believed that federal welfare policies had actually hurt the poor by making them dependent.

It is a valid argument. Not comprehensively reality based, but neither are any factious arguments.
Ultimately we find ulterior motives in every faction.

[BridgeTroll]

So let's close the loopholes and if it is revenue positive enough we can lower rates.

We agree again Jeffrey!  These loopholes are not a recent phenomenon nor are they the invention of republicans.  They have been used over the past decades by BOTH parties to get reelected, or to prove they are "doing something" for their constituents, or in the past life were a lobbyist for them.  Many of the loopholes began innocently enough... an incentive here... a tax break there... to promote jobs or lure a company from somewhere else.  But like many laws... they never time out or end... so the loopholes just pile up.  More and more tax revenue is lost and what is worse... now the company actually RELIES on the tax breaks and loopholes as part of the profitability model for the company.  IT IS NOW INSTITUTIONALIZED!  Tell GE that after paying no taxes this year they will have to pay the full 35% next year.  Kinda messes up the model huh...

[finehoe]

Tell GE that after paying no taxes this year they will have to pay the full 35% next year.  Kinda messes up the model huh...

No problem.  Then they just blackmail the state with the threat that they will move somewhere else, like Caterpillar in the piece you posted.

[BridgeTroll]

Tell GE that after paying no taxes this year they will have to pay the full 35% next year.  Kinda messes up the model huh...

No problem.  Then they just blackmail the state with the threat that they will move somewhere else, like Caterpillar in the piece you posted.

ding ding ding... We have a winner!  I bet Caterpillar does not think it is blackmail... The breaks and loopholes they have are now part of their business model.  Threaten to to take x% away and it might make sense to move.

[buckethead]

I agree wholeheartedly.

Many of the imprisoned are there for minor drug violations. A huge waste of human capital as well as resources and energy.

How much each year is spent processing, prosecuting, feeding, clothing, housing etc... ?

[BridgeTroll]

Tell GE that after paying no taxes this year they will have to pay the full 35% next year.  Kinda messes up the model huh...

No problem.  Then they just blackmail the state with the threat that they will move somewhere else, like Caterpillar in the piece you posted.

ding ding ding... We have a winner!  I bet Caterpillar does not think it is blackmail... The breaks and loopholes they have are now part of their business model.  Threaten to to take x% away and it might make sense to move.

hmm.  the law of unintended consequences eh?

Doesnt sound like a very good idea for 'conservatives' to have implemented does it?

It wasnt.  Nor was it simply "conservatives".  There are plenty Charlie Rangel examples to go around.

[BridgeTroll]

I have no idea what you are talking about.  New Deal and conservatives...what?

[BridgeTroll]

Im discussing this...

So let's close the loopholes and if it is revenue positive enough we can lower rates.

We agree again Jeffrey!  These loopholes are not a recent phenomenon nor are they the invention of republicans.  They have been used over the past decades by BOTH parties to get reelected, or to prove they are "doing something" for their constituents, or in the past life were a lobbyist for them.  Many of the loopholes began innocently enough... an incentive here... a tax break there... to promote jobs or lure a company from somewhere else.  But like many laws... they never time out or end... so the loopholes just pile up.  More and more tax revenue is lost and what is worse... now the company actually RELIES on the tax breaks and loopholes as part of the profitability model for the company.  IT IS NOW INSTITUTIONALIZED!  Tell GE that after paying no taxes this year they will have to pay the full 35% next year.  Kinda messes up the model huh...

and this...

By 2008, however, concern over the growing cost of overseas tax loopholes put G.E. and other corporations on the defensive. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, momentum was building to let the active financing exception expire. Mr. Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee indicated that he favored letting it end and directing the new revenue â€" an estimated $4 billion a year â€" to other priorities.

G.E. pushed back. In addition to the $18 million allocated to its in-house lobbying department, the company spent more than $3 million in 2008 on lobbying firms assigned to the task.

Mr. Rangel dropped his opposition to the tax break. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, said he had helped sway Mr. Rangel by arguing that the tax break would help Citigroup, a major employer in Mr. Crowley’s district.

G.E. officials say that neither Mr. Samuels nor any lobbyists working on behalf of the company discussed the possibility of a charitable donation with Mr. Rangel. The only contact was made in late 2007, a company spokesman said, when Mr. Immelt called to inform Mr. Rangel that the foundation was giving money to schools in his district.

But in 2008, when Mr. Rangel was criticized for using Congressional stationery to solicit donations for a City College of New York school being built in his honor, Mr. Rangel said he had appealed to G.E. executives to make the $30 million donation to New York City schools.

G.E. had nothing to do with the City College project, he said at a July 2008 news conference in Washington. “And I didn’t send them any letter,” Mr. Rangel said, adding that he “leaned on them to help us out in the city of New York as they have throughout the country. But my point there was that I do know that the C.E.O. there is connected with the foundation.”

In an interview this month, Mr. Rangel offered a different version of events â€" saying he didn’t remember ever discussing it with Mr. Immelt and was unaware of the foundation’s donation until the mayor’s office called him in June, before the announcement and after Mr. Rangel had dropped his opposition to the tax break.

Asked to explain the discrepancies between his accounts, Mr. Rangel replied, “I have no idea.”

[JeffreyS]

So Stephen it sounds like the conservatives here are saying close the loopholes and you just want to beat them up for it being a conservative mistake in the first place.  How about we just move on as a unified voice for closing the loopholes.

[BridgeTroll]

I understand what you are trying to say, and its absurd.

Charlie Rangell has nothing to do with the reasoning behind the passage of tax loopholes.

So this is just... a lie?  Not blaming Charlie at all.  He is the target dujour.  All of Congress does it... and ALL are responsible.  Your ideological finger pointing is counter productive.

By 2008, however, concern over the growing cost of overseas tax loopholes put G.E. and other corporations on the defensive. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, momentum was building to let the active financing exception expire. Mr. Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee indicated that he favored letting it end and directing the new revenue â€" an estimated $4 billion a year â€" to other priorities.

G.E. pushed back. In addition to the $18 million allocated to its in-house lobbying department, the company spent more than $3 million in 2008 on lobbying firms assigned to the task.

Mr. Rangel dropped his opposition to the tax break. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, said he had helped sway Mr. Rangel by arguing that the tax break would help Citigroup, a major employer in Mr. Crowley’s district.

[JeffreyS]

I don't think GE did enough social spending on the poor to reconcile not paying taxes on 14bil in profits plus another 3.5 in credits toward GE.

[BridgeTroll]

Bridge Troll, youve already admitted that you don't know what is being discussed, so why not just stay out of the debate until you can read up on it.

Would you consider yourself a follower of the norse religion?

I know exactly what WAS being talked about.  Your efforts to cloud the issue is... well... prdictable and we have seen it all before.

Back to the topic...

By 2008, however, concern over the growing cost of overseas tax loopholes put G.E. and other corporations on the defensive. With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, momentum was building to let the active financing exception expire. Mr. Rangel of the Ways and Means Committee indicated that he favored letting it end and directing the new revenue â€" an estimated $4 billion a year â€" to other priorities.

G.E. pushed back. In addition to the $18 million allocated to its in-house lobbying department, the company spent more than $3 million in 2008 on lobbying firms assigned to the task.

Mr. Rangel dropped his opposition to the tax break. Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, said he had helped sway Mr. Rangel by arguing that the tax break would help Citigroup, a major employer in Mr. Crowley’s district.

[JeffreyS]

I don't think GE did enough social spending on the poor to reconcile not paying taxes on 14bil in profits plus another 3.5 in credits toward GE.

exactly. They didnt keep their end of the bargain.  And there's nothing in place to replace that safety net.

If they aren't keeping their end of the bargain then why keep the loopholes?

[buckethead]

At least our Democrat President will hold GE's feet to the fire.

Or give GE a fireside foot rub... I forget which.

[JeffreyS]

Oh don't you sound like all of us partisan shot takers. Bucket I thought you were our high road guy. Good line though.