The Media Explained In A Tweet
I loved this tweet.
Democrats: 1+1= 2 Republicans: 1+1= 3 Media: 1+1= 2.5
That sums it up.
About the Author (Author Profile)
A stay-at-home mom with an obsession for National politics.Comments (64)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- From Pine View Farm » Blog's archive » Twits on Twitter | February 27, 2013
It is a fact. Sadly, “Moderate” Democrats tend to use the media’s formula for arriving at a value for 1+1.
That is also how the media identifies the political center.
Some people are pointing out that on the sequester, the media has gone beyond “the truth must be in-between somewhere” to flat out Obama derangement syndrome. It goes something like this.
Obama: I’ve proposed a balanced solution that accepts some cuts, but asks for revenue increases from those who have been held harmless.
Republicans: No revenue. Only cuts.
Media: President Obama is wrong to not propose a balanced solution that accepts some cuts, but asks for revenue increases from those who have been held harmless.
Here is what Obama is asking for in revenue:
That’s it.
Obama has an unwritten cap of 20% on the tax rate he will ask the wealthiest to pay. He had a higher rate in his grasp and handed it back. So stop pulling our leg over revenue, Mr. President.
Oh, that $100 billion from “CPI change?” Those are entitlement cuts. Tom Carper would be so proud.
Missing from Obama’s proposal: Drug price negotiation, and raising the Social Security taxable income cap. Maybe the cap is one of the loopholes he plans to eliminate? And I guess his HCR-era
trucecollusion with the drug companies is still in effect.…and even that meager revenue side offer is being rebuffed.
You see the tree of my point through your forest of Obama misery I take it.
The real joke – completely unsustainable entitlement spending. This is not a problem that can be solved by “taxing the rich”, despite what this president would like to have you believe. Do the math.
The only answers are reduce entitlements in some fashion, increase middle class taxation, or some combination of the two.
Until someone in Washington is willing to acknowledge this simple truth, the Kabuki will continue.
Actually, this is quite wrong. And the person not doing the math is you. Social Security can be completely sustainable by removing the cap on payroll taxes.
Medicare spending is slowing NOW — and there are more opportunities when Obamacare is completely implemented.
Both Medicaid and Medicare can stand more tinkering to reduce costs, but just cutting these things — especially when more and more companies are throwing their retirees to the Medicare system — isn’t going to help anyone.
And seriously — if we are fans of doing math here, we could erase every single tax loophole that allow American corporations to pay close to zero in taxes, let them pay the statutory rate, and voila! Payments for entitlements are largely fixed.
OK, let’s raise corporate taxes.
Who, ultimately, will pay more for products and services if that happens?
Hint: Mostly the middle class.
It’s not just math, I suppose, some deductive reasoning is involved as well.
Except no one said to raise corporate taxes.
Well, are you going to argue that corporations pay more, less, or the same amount of tax under cassandra_m’s proposal?
They just have to pay the taxes they owe by law.
nevermind. xyz is not playing with a full deck.
So cassandra_m, are corporations who are paying “close to zero in taxes” taking advantage of legal loopholes or committing tax fraud? Are you calling for closing legal loopholes or sterner tax enforcement on corporations?
In either event, it sounds like you want corporations to pay larger amounts of tax.
That brings us back to the original question – who will really pay for these increased corporate taxes?
Neither you or pandora seem to be inclined to answer this question.
This is what I said, for this fool who won’t even read what’s on offer:
we could erase every single tax loophole that allow American corporations to pay close to zero in taxes, let them pay the statutory rate, and voila!
xyz, It is a dumb question. Do you think Walmart will rebate you money if their tax rates goes from -20% to -45% ? Just stop with the stupidity, Okay.
Paying taxes should not be optional for companies that have the legal and accounting fire power to stash profits overseas.
Cassandra,
The guy is a stone cold idiot. How anyone could have internalized the GOP’s bullshit regarding the evils of taxes so thoroughly just amazes me.
OK, so cassandra_m still refuses to answer the question.
If you raise the amount of taxes corporations pay, who ends up paying for these taxes?
Jason330 – Did I call taxes evil in any way, shape, or form?
If Walmart or any other company can charge lower prices and capture greater market share due to a tax advantage, they will in effect “rebate you money if their tax rates goes from -20% to -45%.”
“Paying taxes should not be optional for companies that have the legal and accounting fire power to stash profits overseas.”
So you think companies should not seek to minimize their tax burden by all legal means? They should pay at a higher rate than they are bound to, well, maybe just because?
I was told there were some intelligent liberals on this site that one could have a rational conversation with.
Can I expect some soon?
If a corporation decides that they need to pay their executives a million dollars more each for a bonus this year, who ends up paying for that?
All of the corporate tax loopholes and subsidies that the tax avoiders use to escape their taxes — who ends up paying for that?
…Who ends up paying for the infrastructure that these noble tax dodging corporations don’t?
Cassandra, this must be a put on. nobody could be this clueless.
Who ends up paying ever dollar a corporation makes? There is a limit to how much a corporation can raise prices (unless we have allowed them to have some sweet monopoly deal, which is quite a lot of them, but that’s our own damn fault).
In a competitive industry, one corporation will figure out how to sell for less even with taxes.
I used to have a pretty good jones for Diet Coke. Bought it by the case. Then they raised prices. I don’t drink it anymore. Occasionally I’ll buy it if it’s on sale for the old price.
My supermarket occasionally tries to train us to pay $4 for a loaf of bread. I drive around until I find it for less than $2. You can see the $4 loaves getting stale on the shelf. Eventually my supermarket figures it out and brings it back down under $2.
The price of cable, cell phone, and data services keeps going up. I don’t have a smartphone or premium channels. Every month they call me and offer me a teaser price on a more expensive package. I don’t do it. I never will until the prices start going down, not up.
So go ahead and tax them. I can deal with it.
As I said, this person isn’t serious. she is making a good case for your zero tax rate for companies though. we are too beholden to companies for thier very existence to allow them to pay for anything, and zero would actually be a big tax increase on many corporations.
Still waiting for the intelligent liberals/rational conversation…
Although at least “puck” seems to acknowledge the presence of market forces, if his logic does seem a bit circular…
“I don’t want these services enough to pay for them, so go ahead and make them more expensive, so I can continue not to receive these services”
I am not making a case for “zero tax rate for corporations”
My point is simply this – To the simple-minded, increasing corporate taxes seems to be the easy way out – “Who’s going to pay for these services I receive from our benevolent government? Evil corporations, of course!”
Except that in the end it’s not really a free ride.
Can we at least agree that this is a valid point without getting sidetracked into executive compensation, Walmart rebates, and the price of Diet Coke?
What corporate tax rate would you propose? What is fair in your opinion?
Im not sure what your point is exactly, but here’s an attempt and a liberal rationale…. your call on its intelligence level
I think you’re right… if corporations have to pay higher taxes (I would call it paying “fair” taxes) they, being the greedy money-addicted shits they are, would OF COURSE raise prices to cover their losses; which will lead to more total taxes paid = more revenue = better roads, schools, etc… XYZ, the outcome you fear is an outcome I look forward to. Mine just takes longer and sucks at first.
The other thing they may (will) do, is find a way to lower costs.. the best way to do that is to treat employees worse. Lower wages, more outsourcing, slashed benefits (which are now somewhat protected by the ACA)… no one can deny or dispute the depths to which giant corporations will sink to make more money. Liberal or Conservative, we KNOW how they will react.
That shouldn’t keep us from forcing them to pay their fair share. If we cowl and bend to them because they threaten us with worse service or higher prices, or threaten to treat their human resources worse, we are only enabling them.
Let them raise the prices. I’ll shop at the one place that decides not to and so will everyone else. “the market” will punish them.
puck, good call on the Diet Coke. study after study is proving artificial sweetener to be much worse than real sugar.
Jason, i think tax rates should be based on industry. For a company like Comcast who makes nothing… only distributes already-produced material on already-built infrastructure, they should be paying a much higher tax rate then, say, a manufacturing company. I have no idea what that law would look like, so that suggestion is all I got, but we really should differentiate between what the companies do and how easy it is for them to make money when we are deciding what part they should pay for the privilege of making money from Americans.
@xyz: And, by the same token, anything corporations don’t pay is paid by others, primarily individuals.
What kind of “discussion” do you think this warrants?
By definition, corporations pay taxes only on profits, and they have many, many accounting options that individuals do not to minimize those profits on paper.
There is no free lunch. Someone pays the taxes. Why do you prefer it to be individuals instead of businesses?
xyz put forth a dishonest argument.
My point is simply this – To the simple-minded, increasing corporate taxes seems to be the easy way out – “Who’s going to pay for these services I receive from our benevolent government? Evil corporations, of course!”
Corporations benefit from government services, too. To pretend they don’t by saying, “Who’s going to pay for these services I receive from our benevolent government?” is the blatant dishonesty. They should contribute, like everyone else.
@pandora: Also, nobody is calling corporations “evil.” Conservatives always add that word because they realize, perhaps subconsciously, how weak their arguments are.
geezer – Your argument is non-sensical – individuals always end up paying the taxes. The notion of separating corporations from individuals is a false one, but much beloved by liberals in any event. The key discussion is really how much we want government providing services, vs. the private sector providing services. That is the key discussion, I think.
Jason330 – I am not sure what a “fair” corporate tax rate is. I am an engineer by training, not an economist. I do think we should continue to (and perhaps do more) to structure the tax code to encourage better behavior by corporations. (Reduce offshoring, encourage energy efficiency, etc.). Make the loopholes a little smarter, I think, is the way to go.
socialistic ben – “The other thing they may (will) do, is find a way to lower costs… the best way to do that is to treat employees worse”
This is not true and most corporations know this. The best way to lower costs is to increase innovation. Companies that cut, cut, cut tend to end up in a death spiral and eventually fail.
But your handle gives evidence that you don’t really believe in capitalism as an economic system so you are most likely a lost cause already for this discussion.
xyz: Now you’re just playing stupid. Individuals don’t pay corporate taxes unless they are buying the corporation’s products. Those who own pay taxes on their corporate profits or capital gains at lower rates than wage earners. C’mon, you demanded intelligence — it goes both ways.
As for which entity should provide the services, I’ll take the government. They do it cheaper and more efficiently, which is why no company ever wants to have to face competition from the public sector.
But of course, you have already given away the game by insulting liberals. You’re not interested in intelligent discussion, you just want to spread your noxious conservative bullcrap.
“Companies that cut, cut, cut tend to end up in a death spiral and eventually fail.”
I guess Papa John’s, WalMart, Applebees, Wendy’s, list goes on…. who have already publicly (and proudly) stated that they will both raise prices AND slash employee compensation as retaliation for being forced to treat their human resources like humans don’t actually exist. Or maybe they didnt say that….. did walmart go out of business and i missed the victory party? What exactly can you use to prove your claim that companies dont try to lower costs as much as possible?
If you don’t think companies are focused on reducing labor/production costs as a means of making more profit, you are either a failing small business owner, or you don’t need to know anything about running a business. For someone who claims to love capitalism, you don’t know anything about it.
See, I cant point to recent facts to back up my claim. you asked for an intelligent conversation, which is something I’d really like to engage in…. so I tried… I even said you had a point and were right to be concerned about companies passing the increased costs onto someone else. But instead of honoring your own request, you decided to mock the handle I use.
I am now completely lost. What is xyz saying? He/she has no idea what the fair corporate tax rate should be? Sure sounded like he/she had strong feelings about this earlier.
xyz also sounds like he/she is saying, “Corporations are people, my friend.”
He/she’s also now saying “make the loopholes a little smaller.” Um, okay… this seems pretty close to where Cassandra and Jason started (make loopholes smaller vs. close loopholes). Earlier he/she kept framing this idea as raising taxes on corporations.
An engineer could not have such an undisciplined mind. This whole thread started when this person asserted that restructure the tax code and closing loopholes would amount to a tax increase, which companies would then pass on to consumers.
Now restructuring the tax code and closing loopholes is the answer. This person is an engineer like I’m a brain surgeon.
jinx
Great minds, Jason. Great minds.
Except for understand their break even point, companies do not set prices by cost. They set prices by knowing what the market is and will bear. They may choose to exit a market if they cannot set a price that is higher (profitable) than their cost, but they do not automatically pass along costs because that will decrease demand. Markets are funny like that.
Jason330 – I did not say that I disagreed with closing loopholes or restructuring the tax code. Pandora, just as I never made any assertion whatsoever about corporate tax rates.
All I said was that there is no free lunch in this path, as cassandra_m indicated
” we could erase every single tax loophole that allow American corporations to pay close to zero in taxes, let them pay the statutory rate, and voila! Payments for entitlements are largely fixed. ”
And Ben, I did not mock your handle. All I did was surmise that this handle would seem to indicate you are not a believer in capitalism. I do not consider this an insult, it is certainly a valid point of view. Not supported by the evidence, in my opinion, but certainly a defensible position.
“Companies do not set prices by cost”
Companies that want to stay in business do.
Weak backpedaling.
All I said was that there is no free lunch in this path, as cassandra_m indicated
I did not say that there was a free lunch. I did say that ending the subsidies and loopholes for businesses takes care of some of the entitlement shortfalls. Because there is no reason why they shouldn’t pay their fair share. But then, wingnut strawmen is how you shall know them, right?
“Weak backpedaling”
Really. Feel free to point out any actual backpedaling in any of my posts.
I know it’s only spring training, but next time take a few practice swings before you get in the batter’s box. Might speed up your bat a little bit so you can keep up with a good fastball on the inner half.
“Really. Feel free to point out any actual backpedaling in any of my posts….”
xyz, I would rather you state, in simple definable terms, your point.
Easy. Federal entitlement programs, as structured, are fiscally unsustainable.
The only answers are reduce entitlements in some fashion, increase middle class taxation, or some combination of the two.
Until someone in Washington is willing to acknowledge this simple truth, the Kabuki will continue.
Jonathon Alter sums it up rather well:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-28/why-democrats-must-get-smart-on-entitlements.html
“Federal entitlement programs, as structured, are fiscally unsustainable.”
In truth, it is a revenue problem not an expense problem. Raise the caps – problem solved. Why increase middle class taxation when the wealthiest have had 20 years of tax cuts? Why should most of us pay for 12 months, when some pay a portion of their first three weeks of salary?
“The only answers are reduce entitlements in some fashion, increase middle class taxation, or some combination of the two.”
It is not a binary choice. And “entitlements” are three different programs.
Let me know when you want to add some intelligence to the discussion.
Alter makes one good point:
Otherwise, once he notes that Social Security and Medicare will take up half of the budget, he goes right off of the rails. SS is still self-funded through 2025 +/-. It stays self-funded for a lifetime is the payroll caps are lifted. Medicare is a more immediate problem, but we already see some cost slowing. And there are potential fixes out there that don’t eliminate the benefit. Like letting younger people buy into the program.
But then, a DOD that is funded to police the world is just as fiscally unsustainable and alot less useful than either SS or Medicare.
Boom! That just happened!
I have a long-time conservative “sparing partner”… good friend, very right wingy… Im finding it harder and harder to get back into friend mode (so we talk less about politics) after the talking point of “America has the richest and most spoiled (yeah, he’s said spoiled a few times) poor people in the world” started coming up.
Of course! if we just make the poor people MORE poor, they will get richer with magic!
geezer – Does not the statement “or some combination of the two” imply that it is not a “binary choice”?
Let me know when you upgrade your reading comprehension skills a bit.
jason330 – you do know that the Medicare cap was lifted in 1993 and the program is still on target to be insolvent in about 10 years? What makes you think SS would be any different?
Of course! If we just make the rich people LESS rich, the poor people will get richer with magic!
If xyz doesn’t know enough of the difference between SS and Medicare to know that their long term challenges come from different sources, then I suggest we ignore this fool. He is nowhere near ready to leave the kids’ table.
“Of course! If we just make the rich people LESS rich, the poor people will get richer with magic!”
No, with economics. Economics and policy. We need to start removing and blocking all the parasitical and destructive ways rich people get rich, so the only way left to get rich is to do something productive. Doing something productive naturally results in jobs AND reward for your risk – win-win. We need to get back to that. Let’s put the job creators back to creating jobs.
If cassandra_m doesn’t recognize that the challenges facing SS and Medicare are actually quite similar than I suggest she should return to study hall and get ready for her next quiz in Economics.
teach us, oh wise one.
Well said Puck. Increasing middle class taxation, as suggested by xyz, doesn’t get us there.
BTW – this xyz person really seems to have crazy GOP economics kool-aid coursing through his veins. Perhaps he’d like to take a shot at collecting my $50.00?
Nobody, so far, has had the guts to give it a whirl.
If we did not have legalized bribery is the form of campaign contributions, we would not have this post. Congress should be working on serious and fair tax reform.
I think the Clinton tax rates were as close to fair, serious, and effective taxation as I have seen in my lifetime, but we soundly rejected that in 2001 and again this January, and we are living out the consequences with our long jobless recovery. All the current tax reform proposals just make things worse.
Perhaps another Clinton?
@puck “We need to start removing and blocking all the parasitical and destructive ways rich people get rich”
I can agree with the sentiment, but really, investment is good for the economy. How about instead we start treating most investment gains as ordinary income. Long term capital gains (held for more than a year) is treated differently than all other ordinary income. In some cases, long term capital gains taxes can be deferred indefinitely. Someone like Romney (not pick on him, he is just a good example) has almost no ordinary income (except speaking fees). Since he is very wealthy he never has to cash in short term investments (which are treated as ordinary income) and cashing long term investments is treated at a much lower tax rate and there are special rules (structured sales, charitable trusts, et al)to allow folks to defer such taxes indefinitely.
I’m not hard over on how someone chooses to earn their money, as long as it is legal. What I am hard over about is the ability of those who earn their income in certains to escape the tax burden everyone else in America is faced with. Special tax treatment for long term capital gains and the myriad of ways those taxes can be avoided is unfair taxation.
“Perhaps another Clinton?”
That may be the way to go. It is a slim hope that Hillary might restore sensible economic policies based only on her married name. But I’ll vote for her on that basis alone, since no other Democrat has proven trustworthy. It is a damn shame our current leaders reject the last known working policies.
Now we have locked in what is still recognizably the Bush tax policy, and we are getting Bush results. With no visible sense of urgency on the part of our administration.
Worse, we no longer have the expiration lever, and now we will have to push the tax-increase stone up the hill again.