by Frank James, updated at 11:15 am EST
In his new book about the Bush presidency entitled Dead Certain author Robert Draper chronicles, among other things, President Bush's rather intriguing choice two years ago to push for the privatizing of Social Security.
It's an effort which the president's veto of the children's health insurance program echoes, especially since Bush's actions, then like now, rallied his opponents in a way no Democratic leader could have on his or her own.
Draper writes how in early 2005, after having just lost the presidential election and losing ground in Congress, Democrats were at each other's throats and adrift, thoroughly crestfallen. Then the president unwittingly did them a favor.
This is how Draper describes the Democratic reaction to Bush's 2005 State of the Union speech:
And when the president stood before the federal government's legislative branch and reminded them that Social Security must be saved for the save of future generations, saying "[I]t should not be a small matter to the United States Congress," only one hand, the Republican hand, clapped…while Democrats sat there like a tribe of deaf-mutes staring back at him with predatory smiles.
This was stupefying to him. Bush, freshly reelected and newly mandated, believed now was the time to tackle something Big. Instead—and he just had to say it aloud that evening following the speech, as he and Rove and Laura rode the elevator to the diplomatic reception:
"They don't even think there's a problem !"
Such a simple, simple thing. And they couldn't see it.
Actually, the Democrats did see something. It was an opening. The president had touched the third-rail of American politics and they weren't going to do anything to rescue him.
They made mince meat of the president's planned Social Security revamp, with the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org and other groups bashing his proposal to death.
Bush was eventually forced to beat a retreat from his plans, to say in effect if not in the actual words of that great boxer Roberto Duran: "No mas, no mas."
As Yogi Berra would say, it looks like déjà vu all over again.
Some of the same groups that waged the fight against the president's Social Security proposals—including the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org--are gearing up to get the votes in the House to override the president's health-insurance veto, there appearing to be enough votes in the Senate. They' had a teleconference this morning to discuss their plans.
They plan a paid media campaign and grassroots action to change the minds of enough House Republicans to get the $35 billion, five-year expansion of the popular children's health-insurance program on the books. They contemplate spending as much as $5 million if the fight goes beyond Oct. 18, the day an override vote is expected in the House.
Chuck Loveless, legislative director for AFSCME, said "In my union's view, we really think this is the biggest fight we've had on a domestic issue since the showdown over President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. The president has essentially told American kids to drop dead and we quite simply are not going to let that happen."
Meanwhile, the predatory smiles are back on the faces of Democrats. You could see it yesterday on the countenance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who wore the kind of game face during a press conference yesterday that Michael Jordan used to wear before he burned the opponent for 50 points.
With most Americans, including Republicans according to recent polls, favoring the expansion, she made clear she was going to try and score points against the president and Republicans opposing the expansion everytime she had the chance. And she planned to provide herself with a lot of chances.
Here's the relevant exchange with reporters yesterday:
Q Yesterday, the president made a speech in Pennsylvania where he seemed to make an overture towards you and congressional Democrats saying if you want to talk about spending a little more money on SCHIP, then he's willing to talk about that. First of all, what is your response to that? And second of all, you've repeatedly said you're 15 votes short. How short are you today?
SPEAKER PELOSI: Fewer than that. (Laughs.)
Well, I'm not here to make any announcements about that, but we're making progress. As I said, the best thing that could happen for the president is if this bill were overridden, this veto would be overridden. Because the issue is not going to go away.
The president calls himself the decider. Does the president want to decide which children get health care and which do not? His proposal -- what the president has proposed reduces the number of children in our country who receive health care. His proposal reduces the number.
Our proposal, the bipartisan, overwhelmingly-in-both-house-passed SCHIP bill, doubles the number of children from where the president is in his bill and in ours. So we're saying to the president, we've compromised all we can compromise. There's still more children out there who need this health care, but this is what can pass in a bipartisan way, in both houses in Congress. This is what the president should sign.
But don't take it from me; just listen to what Senator Grassley is saying, former chair of the Finance Committee, prominent Republican in the Senate, and Senator Hatch. This is the right thing to do. So we're not going to go down a path where -- reducing the number of children, even from what -- the number who are covered today.
Q (Off mike.)
SPEAKER PELOSI: It would be interesting to see. I mean, we're always willing to talk, and I wish the president had made some of those overtures earlier on. He might more fully understand what is in the bill.
Recognize this. In this bill that the president said, "I forbid 10 million children to receive health care" -- in one year, insuring 10 million children costs what it costs to stay 40 days in Iraq; 10 million children, one year -- 40 days in Iraq. Also, in this legislation that the president vetoed, the president vetoed the family and medical leave for caregivers to our returning troops who are injured. There is a provision in the bill that gives a six-month unpaid leave -- family and medical leave for the caregivers for our wounded troops; the president said, "I forbid." The president said no.
So this is not -- the president is in a difficult place, which is very hard to understand or explain. But one thing is for certain -- we will fight for as many children to have health care in our country for as long as it takes. And as I said, it would be more efficient if the president would just accept the fate that the bipartisan majorities in the House and the Senate have sent to him in this compromise bill in this week of the proclamation of Children's Health Day.
Note how Pelosi compares the $35 billion for child-care insurance with Iraq war spending. This is going to be a key part of the growing campaign against the president's veto.
They plan to make the veto as unpopular, nay even more unpopular, than the war, if that's possible.
"If he gets his way, his decision to eliminate health-care for children across this country while continuing to spend billions and billions a week in Iraq will go down as potentially less popular than the war in Iraq itself," said Brad Woodhouse of Americans United for Change during this morning's telephone briefing by the liberal groups that are targeting House members in over to override the veto.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
It really is simple:
The "Owenership Society" vs. "The Handout Society"
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 10:38 AM
Bush had a mandate after 2004????
The guy BARELY won reelection - and we all saw how far his "mandate" got him
Posted by: BobinATL | October 5, 2007 10:44 AM
Terry,are you talking about all the handouts your party gave to Iraq,Big Biz,and Rich people????
PS,almost forgot the Corp farmers.
Conservative my ass!!!!
Posted by: Raving Loon | October 5, 2007 10:53 AM
The United States - the ONLY Western society without universal health care because the government has convinced us to be afraid of it. If you have not seen the movie SICKO you are not informed.
Posted by: JIm | October 5, 2007 10:56 AM
This veto is about the dumbest thing Bush has done all week, and that is saying something!
Terry
I know how you Goopers love your stupid two-word sound bites but this whole "ownership society" thing isn't convincing anyone outside of the 26% whom still support "the Decider Guy."
Posted by: nisleib | October 5, 2007 11:00 AM
Nislib,
After reading your posts on thing, I know your education hasn't taken you far.
Crazy Duck,
Handouts for all that ethanol that is going to save the planet?
Contracts are needed in Iraq when the stripped down military cannot handle the work load.
Be more specific on the big Biz and Rich people handouts. I can't comment on generalities. Give examples.
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 11:44 AM
Well, let's see if that useless Bush appendage, Judy Biggert, will vote to help American children, or to continue her rubber stamp ways.
No, I'm not taking any bets. She's as gutless as they come. A truly fake 'moderate'.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | October 5, 2007 11:57 AM
Terry says:
Nislib,
After reading your posts on thing, I know your education hasn't taken you far.
A) You misspelled my name.
B) "your posts on thing..." What is that supposed to mean? You’re accusing me of being uneducated?
I'm better educated than you are and probably make a lot more money.
You, and people who still carry water for the Moron in Chief, are a bunch of idiots.
Posted by: nisleib | October 5, 2007 12:11 PM
Universal health care is necessary to keep American businesses competitive. Just look at how much of the cost of an American-made automobile goes to health care costs (the number is around $1500 I believe).
Unfortunately, folks like Terry are too myopic and "ideologically pure" to actually understand that far from being a negative for those that really matter- big business, universal health care would be a huge boon to the economy as a whole.
"Be more specific on the big Biz and Rich people handouts. I can't comment on generalities. Give examples."
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 11:44 AM
This is a pretty exhaustive list: http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Corporate%20Welfare but below are some others.
"So in the end, the corporate lobbyists and their allies got what they most wanted, a 30 percent increase in corporate depreciation write-offs in each of the next three years, tax breaks for multinational corporations that use offshore tax havens, and measures that make it easier for companies with lots of loopholes to apply for rebates of taxes paid in the past. These provisions are supposed to expire in a few years, but experience suggests they're more likely to be routinely extended in perpetuity.
The changes that Democrats accepted in such a blase manner will wipe out more than one-fifth of otherwise expected corporate income tax payments over the next three years. As a result, corporate income taxes are expected to fall to only 13 percent of the GDP this year and next. That's the lowest level since the early Reagan administration and the second lowest in the last six decades. No one should doubt that the number of big profitable corporations paying nothing (or virtually nothing) in taxes will skyrocket."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Corp_Welfare_Lobby.html
"The Interior Department has dropped claims that the Chevron Corporation systematically underpaid the government for natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico, a decision that could allow energy companies to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties.
The agency had ordered Chevron to pay $6 million in additional royalties but could have sought tens of millions more had it prevailed. The decision also sets a precedent that could make it easier for oil and gas companies to lower the value of what they pump each year from federal property and thus their payments to the government."
http://blackwhite.blog-city.com/the_gift_of_corporate_welfare.htm
GOP Bill Passes, Handing $155 Billion to Corporations While Millions of Children Go Uninsured
18-Jun-04
Corporate Welfare
http://archive.democrats.com/preview.cfm?term=Corporate%20Welfare
The Children's Defense Fund condemned the House's passage of the deceitfully named "American Jobs Creation Act of 2004" (H.R. 4520). The bill will dole out $155 billion in corporate welfare to a long list of special interests, incl. tobacco growers, movie studios, bourbon distillers, bank directors, software programmers, tackle box companies, sonar fish finders, and bow- and-arrow makers. Says CDF's Marian Wright Edelman: " For less than the cost of these tax breaks, Congress could have insured every uninsured child in America for the next decade. Instead they have chosen corporate special interests. As FDR warned, 'The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.' By passing this bill today, the House of Representatives clearly failed that test."
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 5, 2007 12:13 PM
It's such a simple thing. He needed the cooperation of the Democrats to make changes to Social Security. If you need the cooperation of a group of people to succeed in your agenda then it's not a good idea to spend all your time questioning their patriotism and their competence and trying to destroy them politically. Bush has always held the opinion that he doesn't need allies in order to succeed. We've seen it in the war in Iraq, we've seen it in his domestic agenda, we're seeing it with Iran. Forging alliances is just not part of his repertoire.
Posted by: CTurner, Durham, NC | October 5, 2007 12:19 PM
GWB is a punk. He got used to spending his rich daddy's money years ago and spends American's money any way he wishes - against the will of "The People". His 2 term presidency will forever be the worst in the history of the United States, and the world will remember it. He's a lame ass tyrant wannabe. I'd like to smack his punk ass to hell. America needs REVOLT!
Posted by: randy | October 5, 2007 12:32 PM
"WELL IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE HAS THEIR HAND STILL IN THE FORBIDDEN SOCIAL SECURITY SLUSH ACCOUNT"
No Immigration, Damn, now we really have to overhaul it. WE STOLE FROM IT FOR THE LAST 5 YEARS WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY!
Something Else Treasury Secretary Paulson will recuse himself of shortly!
HOW MUCH MONEY IS SITTING IN THAT OL IMMIGRANT SLUSH FUND?
THIS PRESIDENT GIVES THE HOUSE AND NANCY PELOSI IMPEACHMENT ORDERS EVERYTIME THEY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. WHICH IS EVERY DAY UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER!
Posted by: Roger Morris | October 5, 2007 1:24 PM
GWB is a punk. He got used to spending his rich daddy's money years ago and spends American's money any way he wishes - against the will of "The People". His 2 term presidency will forever be the worst in the history of the United States, and the world will remember it. He's a lame ass tyrant wannabe. I'd like to smack his punk ass to hell. America needs REVOLT!
Posted by: randy | October 5, 2007 12:32 PM
Go get him Randy! The sixties live. Revolution!!!
Posted by: Abby Hoffman | October 5, 2007 1:24 PM
D and V, Nice post. I guess "Ownership Society" really means the government taxes us for the benefit of CEOs and business owners who pay them off with campaign contributions. Does that sound about right Terry?
Posted by: Tom O | October 5, 2007 1:50 PM
DV,
The websites you quote are rather questionable, but that aside, let's summarize what you listed:
Accelerated Depreciation
Off-Shore Tax havens
Oil and gas Royality payment reductions.
Tobacco Growers, Movie Studios, etc...
A little economics lesson:
Whether these tax breaks are legimate or not, I don't know and really don't care. Assume we wiped out these tax breaks, if only that happened, the profits of those corporations would decrease. Corporations are run by rational people and have to answer to shareholders. The corporations will try to raise the prices of their goods/services to recoup the money they lost since the shareholders do want a return on their investment - else the shareholder money goes elsewhere. Assume the market does not allow the price increase, then the corporation could become unprofitable and start laying off people and go out of business.
A little lesson on these tax breaks. They are put into the bills not just by mean ol' nasty republicans. Tax breaks for things such as corn based ethanol are brought to these bills by Senators such as Durbin. All the Senators look out for their own constitutants.
Who are the two biggest por-barrel senators - Stevens (R) from Alaska and Byrd (D) from West Va. Benfits for their corporate buddies know no party lines.
A couple of your issues I chuckled at:
Breaks for Tobacco farmers - guess which product gets tax up the rear-end. The tobacco edconomic chain contributes more to the revenue stream than they take.
Movie Studios - take away their tax breaks, it might make them charge more for the garbage they put out and thus less people will see the trash.
Checron Royality payments: look at the link below - it makes your point, but read it carefully on how the break came about.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/12/business/oil.php
'The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.' - Does this have to be done by gov't? Also, is there much difference between that quote and this one: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs"?
Nislib, nimrod, or whatever your name. If you are more intellgent and better educated - start showing it.
Also, what do you do for a living? - I notice you are pretty much posting 24/7.
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 2:19 PM
Bravo "Distrust and Verify" - I notice Terry has been completely stymied by those life-long enemies of the conservative: facts. Pesky facts always cause trouble when you're trying to steal from the poor to give to the rich. Thus we got "faith-based reality" and other such utter nonsense.
Posted by: Tactical | October 5, 2007 2:22 PM
Nancy Pelosi is running the boards to pave the way for Hillary socialized health care. America is not Europe and thank God for that. We don't need socialized medicine with rationing of care just to please the Dem socialists who are trying to bring all the children and parents too who make $82,000 or less.. The GOP was right and Bush is right in vetoing public sector health care if Hil has her way one-sixth of our economy will be the federal government health care system. Some posts on this site are definitely socialist if not communist rants. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | October 5, 2007 2:27 PM
"Government of the People, By the People, for the People." - Abraham Lincoln 1863.
"Government of the Corporation, by the Corporation, for the Corporation." Terry, 2007
How the Republican Party has fallen.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 5, 2007 2:41 PM
Whether these tax breaks are legimate or not, I don't know and really don't care. Assume we wiped out these tax breaks, if only that happened, the profits of those corporations would decrease. Corporations are run by rational people and have to answer to shareholders. The corporations will try to raise the prices of their goods/services to recoup the money they lost since the shareholders do want a return on their investment - else the shareholder money goes elsewhere. Assume the market does not allow the price increase, then the corporation could become unprofitable and start laying off people and go out of business.
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 2:19 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the logical extension of that argument Terry is that ANY tax of corporate entities is poor economic policy, right?
The Conservative arguments when it comes to treatment of corporations are inconsistent and full of loose ends. They want corporate entities to be legally treated as individuals when suits the needs of Corporate America (asset ownership rights, contract signage authority, many of the protections of law accorded individuals, etc.), but they DON'T want it treated as an individual when it comes to taxation or punitive law.
Taxation is an individual OR business entities price of admission for entry into our society.
How much profit do you think these Corporations would make in an anarchic environment, Terry?
How much profit would they make with no law enforcement (paid for by taxes)?
How much profit would they make without a federally controlled and managed currency (paid for by taxes)?
How much profit would they make without a functioning national infrastructure (paid for by taxes)?
I could go on and on.
The Corporation needs Government structure and security just as much (if not more) than the individual citizens and, as such, is morally as or even more responsible for burdaining the tax load as individual citizens are.
Be careful warshipping only profit motive, Terry. It's not a sustainable social or economic system if that's the only angle on everything.
Posted by: davidk | October 5, 2007 2:54 PM
Some posts on this site are definitely socialist if not communist rants. Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | October 5, 2007 2:27 PM
Alrighty there Joe McCarthy... Did you just get done watching Rocky IV or something? Have you been in a coma since 1984?
Listening to you call everyone who's not on the extreme right a Commy is like watching an episode of Laverne & Shirly... it makes ya chuckle from it's quaint time-capsule-esque, folksy, non-contemporary, out of touch nature.
It's like an ambered memory of the crotchety old men of my youth.
Posted by: davidk | October 5, 2007 3:06 PM
DavidK,
That is your conclusion. The point is that taxes are just another cost of the product/service that the corporation provides and thus will be passed on to the consumer. Bottom line is that the corporation is only collecting the income tax from their customers - that would be us.
The easy example is that of corn based ethanol and the tax breaks that they receive in order for it to be competitive with gasoline.
Also, go look at any corporations 10K filing with the SEC and compare what they pay in taxes in what they make in net income. Especially do this when Hillary when be screaming for windfall profit taxes on "Big Oil".
Tactical,
My response was two hours later - hardly "Stymied".
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 3:36 PM
GWB got used to spending other peoples money like his dad's and now he is spending our money. he has put us into more than 8trillion dolars of debt!
Posted by: anounomus | October 5, 2007 3:45 PM
Also, what do you do for a living? - I notice you are pretty much posting 24/7.
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 2:19 PM
What are you, projecting? You've posted half a dozen times today, Trickle Down. Feeling guilty? What do YOU do, jacka$$?
I'd suggest you are wasting your time worrying about me, Trickle Down. I pay my taxes at the top rate, but unlike you I am capable of acknowledging that those taxes actually pay for things, in particular, the greatest corporate welfare project of them all: the Iraq War.
davidk does a strong job of batting down your childish Ayn Rand myopia, so I won't belabor your paen to corporate welfare.
I will point out, though, that most people grew out of Rand's "selfishness is godliness" philosophy at about the age of 12. There's a big, diverse world out there, Trickle Down. Maybe you should journey down from your Ivory Tower every now and again and check 'er out.
"A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens."
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/170688
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 5, 2007 3:59 PM
DavidK,
That is your conclusion. The point is that taxes are just another cost of the product/service that the corporation provides and thus will be passed on to the consumer. Bottom line is that the corporation is only collecting the income tax from their customers - that would be us.
The easy example is that of corn based ethanol and the tax breaks that they receive in order for it to be competitive with gasoline.
Also, go look at any corporations 10K filing with the SEC and compare what they pay in taxes in what they make in net income. Especially do this when Hillary when be screaming for windfall profit taxes on "Big Oil".
Tactical,
My response was two hours later - hardly "Stymied".
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 3:36 PM
Terry, I look at 10K's and 10Q's plenty. And I also understand that tax expenses will be baked into the price of a product or service. As well it should be... the fruits of our taxes are baked into the value of that product or service. The Corporation should not steal our tax benefits for themselves as profit. They should pay for what they use and derive profit from services rendered or value added by the fruits of their labor, not from internalizing the benefit of taxation while externalizing the cost. Laundering tax revenues for private gain should NOT be the purpose of a corporation in our society.
What I am saying is that Corporations use our infrastructure (in fact, commercial enterprise wears down our infrastructure much moreso than the movement of private individuals) and they benefit from our law enforcement, and our monetary policy, and our military etc. etc. etc. The Corporation should not benefit from all these things on one hand, and externalize the cost of them all on the citizenry on the other.
In a just society, Corporations must pay their fair share of taxes as well.
If they don't then you are basically taking money from 100% of us (taxpayers) and giving it to the richest among us (those who own corporations). And don't try and tell me that many people own 401k's, so we're all owners. The wealthiest 20% in this country owns 94% of corporate wealth.
What is a "fair share" for corporations to pay is debatable, but your simplistic "corporate taxes are bad" take on this issue is naive and, if implemented, immoral.
Posted by: davidk | October 5, 2007 4:28 PM
DavidK
The last time I heard tax revenue raised from corporations was around 7.4% of total taxes raised. That seems a little low.
Corporations also get preferential treatment. Do you know how hard it is for an American with over 2M in assets to expatriate? It's not easy, I had a client that wanted to move to Aruba and didn’t because of the tax rules. Corporation move overseas all the time without any repercussions. To me, that is just wrong.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html
Posted by: nisleib | October 5, 2007 4:52 PM
DavidK
The last time I heard tax revenue raised from corporations was around 7.4% of total taxes raised. That seems a little low.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97245,00.html
Posted by: nisleib | October 5, 2007 4:52 PM
That's because it is a little low...
And that doesn't even include the lost federal revenue from the virtual elimination of tariffs by the free market globalization ideologues. The bottom line is that 28 years of neoconservative economic rule (and yes, that includes the Clinton Administration) has the middle class bearing so much more of the tax burden than is healthy for anyone, all while their means of survival is undermined..effectively squeezing the middle from the top and the bottom at the same time.
Posted by: davidk | October 5, 2007 5:45 PM
I don't want Bush doing me anymore favors.
Posted by: Rick/Sneads Ferry, NC | October 5, 2007 7:57 PM
"A society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens."
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 5, 2007 3:59 PM
Not any more. AmeriKKKa Uber Alles!!!
Zen fascists will control you
100% natural
You will jog for the master race
And always wear the happy face
Close your eyes, can't happen here
Big Bro' on white horse is near
The hippies won't come back you say
Mellow out or you will pay
Mellow out or you will pay!
Now it is 1984
Knock-knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool niece
Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower.
DIE on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will croak, you little clown
When you mess with President Bush
When you mess with President Bush
Posted by: Jello | October 5, 2007 9:21 PM
davidk,
Who knew the greatest threat to the American middle class since international communism would be.....unfettered global capitalism.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 5, 2007 9:46 PM
DV (Tony),
Finacial Analyst for a Fortune 500 and you?
Pay taxes at top rate - inherit daddy's business. I've seen your post - you don't have the intellgence to be making that on your own.
Ayn Rand mentioned a lot today - read a book?
BTW if corporations pay 13 percent of the GDP, what is the % of the remaining taxes paid as compared to GDP?
I am have the day off. Look at my trend of postings before you flap your gums.
davidK,
What I am telling you is that we as consumers pay all those taxes paid by corporations - and generally its regressive.
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 11:16 PM
Well, regardless of whether this was the right thing to do, I think everyone can agree that this really is bad politically for the GOP and for Bush. 3 Republican Presidential nominees came out for this Veto and they had no choice but to do it because we're still in the primaries. But the problem is that this bill is extraordinarily popular in the middle and on the left, and even with some on the right.
The candidates on the Dem side aren't saying anything right now, but if one of the three GOP contenders who agreed with the Prez on the veto, gets the nomination, it will be a crap shoot on whether their support for the veto or the Iraq War gets into more campaign ads from the left.
Disaster for the GOP and frankly I can't believe Bush and the GOP handed this to the Dems. They must be insane.
Posted by: Danjr0802 | October 6, 2007 6:10 AM
davidk,
Who knew the greatest threat to the American middle class since international communism would be.....unfettered global capitalism.
Posted by: C.Morris | October 5, 2007 9:46 PM
Those are extremes C.Morris... it's extremism that threatens the middle class. We need something between the two. Free market capitalism, but not without boundaries. The far right thinks there should be NO boundries for capitalism. I think it's government's role to set the rules, and then get the hell outta the way and let capitalism work. But without the rules, capitalism will fail society and eats itself in the end. Unfettered capitalism is not sustainable long-term (ironically primarily becuase it's goals and achievements are almost always measured short-term).
Posted by: davidk | October 6, 2007 6:56 PM
What I am telling you is that we as consumers pay all those taxes paid by corporations - and generally its regressive.
Posted by: Terry | October 5, 2007 11:16 PM
As it should be, Terry. If you buy a product, you should be paying for everything that went into making it (including taxes which pay for the infrastructure that the producing business cannot exist without).
But if I don't buy that particular product, why in the hell should my tax money be spent on that corporation's profit? if the corp. doesn't pay taxes, then that's exactly what's happening. Hence the term "corporate wellfare". I would think a financial analyst and a guy who sounds much like someone who wouldn't want to pay welfare to individuals would 1) not want to pay welfare to corporations, and 2)understand the concepts of externalization (which is only a more innocent-sounding synonym for money laundering). How is it so repugnant to guys like you for the government to help people but just peachy when it gives away the benefits of our taxes to corporations? I'll never understand how that logic follows.
I guess it's a fundamental issue, Terry. I think it's the function of the economy to serve people. You think it's the function of people to serve the economy. We will probably never see eye-to-eye on these issues because of that.
Posted by: davidk | October 6, 2007 7:08 PM
Terry's claim to be a "Financial Analyst" would be more believeable if he could actually spell the word "Financial".
Posted by: Jim | October 7, 2007 5:35 AM
DavidK,
Like I mentioned before, "Whether these tax breaks are legimate or not, I don't know and really don't care. Assume we wiped out these tax breaks, if only that happened, the profits of those corporations would decrease."
I never came out in favor of corporate tax breaks or against them, I was just stating what happens without them. I think you understand; DV and Nislib on the other hand.
Let's remember why some, not all, are put in the first place. Many times they are to spur investment as is what happened in the 80' with accelerateed depreciation and ITCs for example. On the hand, there are tax breaks that are very targeted to an industry or even a company that sure smell like a political favor.
I'll mention this tax break again and see how those on the left react: Tax breaks in place for ethanol production. Should they be getting the tax breaks they get? Let's just have the ethanol users pay the full price of the product at teh pump.
Posted by: Terry | October 7, 2007 7:07 AM
"Assume we wiped out these tax breaks, if only that happened, the profits of those corporations would decrease."
The point is that if the only thing keeping these corporations profitable is the ability to pass along the externalities to the public at large without paying their fair share to the government that allows them to survive and flourish, than there is nothing inherently wrong with their "profits" (those assumed from externalizing costs) decreasing.
Pardon me if I don't shed a tear.
As for tax breaks for ethanol, I'm certainly not sold. Large-scale corn-based ethanol conversion is likely to have many negative outcomes, in particular rising food prices which affect us all. It also brings up issues like trade barriers and farm supports (both corporate welfare) that make the policy of subsidizing corn-based ethanol even more perverse.
I do believe the government should subsidize innovations in true renewable energy, but I'm not sold on ethanol.
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 7, 2007 11:54 AM
I'll mention this tax break again and see how those on the left react: Tax breaks in place for ethanol production. Should they be getting the tax breaks they get? Let's just have the ethanol users pay the full price of the product at teh pump.
Posted by: Terry | October 7, 2007 7:07 AM
Terry... They should be getting the tax breaks. Those breaks are the equal alternative to tax increases on the Oil industry... the greatest tax money laundering enterprise. The ethanol tax breaks are the government attempt to push the true costs of the industry unto it. Ethanol gets a tax break because the fossil fuels producers (i.e. oil companies) do NOT foot the bill for the massive environmental and political expenses their products create. Oil companies take the profit, and the taxpayer has to foot the bill for resource wars to secure source continuity and the massive future environmental expenses that the oil industry will not cover (unless you think that the CEO of ExxonMobile is gonna pull out his checkbook to relocate the entire populace of Micronesia or New Orleans).
The government should either A) Tax oil companies for the expense of all this, or B) give the competition (ethanol) tax breaks to attempt to move the market toward the less socially expensive product. Tax breaks for ethanol are massively popular. They have a social mandate.
Nice try though.
Posted by: davidk | October 7, 2007 12:03 PM
DavidK,
Go look at a "Big Oil" 10K and see what their tax expense is before you make that statemet. That tax expense does NOT inlcude the gasoline tax that we all pay at the pump. The gov't makes multiple times more on gasoline than teh oil companies do.
The reason tax breaks for ethanol are popular is because it is the PC thing to do.
You have shown your true colors though, you don't mind tax breaks for corporations as long they are for a cause you favor.
What next, tax breaks for Ben & Jerry's
Posted by: Terry | October 7, 2007 2:39 PM