Skip to main content

In case you don't get the joke in the title, it's a reference to the line "When the world is destroyed by a nuclear holocaust there will be two survivors: cockroaches and Cher."

Yesterday, Gene Sperling, the director of Obama's National Economic Council, was pushing for a "grand bargain" again:

Gene Sperling, the director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, said Sunday that Obama is offering congressional Republicans “a grand bargain on jobs. He has said he would be willing to do corporate tax reform that lowers rates to 28 percent, simplifies taxes for small businesses, but do it together with a major infrastructure investment.”
This isn't the same as the "cutting Medicare and Social Security and getting chump change from the rich" grand bargain, but it's also a plan clearly designed to curry favor from the 1%.

Corporate profits have been hitting record highs recently.

At the same time, the share of corporate taxes as a percentage of total tax revenue has been at or near historic lows:

According to a USA Today analysis from October, 57 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 have paid effective tax rates of zero.  Moreover, a report from 2011 found that 30 major US companies had found ways to pay effective tax rates of less than zero.

Clearly, it's time to cut corporate tax rates!

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  corporate tax reform that lowers rates ..... (20+ / 0-)
    According to a USA Today analysis from October, 57 companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 have paid effective tax rates of zero.  Moreover, a report from 2011 found that 30 major US companies had found ways to pay effective tax rates of less than zero.

    Clearly, it's time to cut corporate tax rates!

    For our fallen solders who come home from Afghanistan to Dover AF mortuary, "God bless the cause of "The Good War" for which they died" - As if any war can be called Good in its 13th year, America's longest war.

    by allenjo on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:33:42 AM PST

    •  -28% sounds good to me. n/t (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      maryabein, allenjo, lunachickie
    •  You know, if rates are lower AND (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      misterwade

      (and that is the optimal word), loopholes and corporate welfare are closed and eliminated, that would probably result in much higher corporate income taxes.

      BUT, and I say this clearly without any rose colored glasses, IF tax preferences, loopholes and corporate giveaways do NOT go away, then this is all Bunk!

      •  It won't happen (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        misterwade

        The bill will start, perhaps, with a lower rate and fewer loopholes.  Corporate lobbyists will quickly get lots of brand new loopholes designed.  The loopholes will be obfuscated enough that the good-government folks will calculate a higher rate of corporate income tax collection, and then surprise, surprise, after the reform is enacted the corporations will pay less than ever.

        This could possibly be prevented, but every underpaid legislative staffer as well as many lower ranking administration officials are drooling over the salary bumps they will get when they switch to the corporate world.

  •  Screw Grand Bargains! (19+ / 0-)

    They get us nothing.

    Can we send this guy on a fact-finding trip to Antarctica?

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:34:54 AM PST

  •  If they lower the legislated rate, but get rid of (9+ / 0-)

    various loopholes that unfairly lower the effective rate, I am for it. One of the main problems with the corporate tax law is that some businesses, as you point out, pay 0% effective rate while other businesses pay 35% with many in between. Lowering the rate to 28% while closing loopholes would be more fair and might well actually increase the amount of tax money collected. Especially paired with infrastructure spending which will help people and businesses alike.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:48:09 AM PST

    •  My main concern with that (23+ / 0-)

      My main concern with that is that our lovely legislators would probably jump at the first opportunity to put the loopholes back in but make the lower rates permanent.

        •  Without a doubt (13+ / 0-)

          This is the Dems opening salvo. The Insane Party will come back with another completely transparent giveaway. And before you know it, the Dems version will look "good" by comparison.

          Don't these people realize that we can pay attention, regardless of all the shit being thrown around in the headlines AND we can multi-task? I've sent of a dozen letters to pols this morning (some in snail mail) and a bunch of LTEs yesterday regarding the NSA and Bernie Sanders.

          In other words, Mr. Sperling, people are paying attention to you, too. Don't think for a minute that we're not on to your MO...

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:08:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Have you actually read the proposal? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mark Lippman

            Here it is: http://www.treasury.gov/...

            Which parts specifically do you dislike and why. What would be your proposals instead?

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:20:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why do you think it will benefit average Americans (9+ / 0-)

              given this country's history of comparatively higher real corporate tax rates versus the reality of very low effective corporate taxation? It's a scam.

              "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

              by Kombema on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:31:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Because the proposal would change (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                high uintas

                the system from high statutory rates but low effective rates to lower statutory rates but higher effective rates.

                The scam is the system of loopholes we have which this proposes to fix. If you are against this proposal, do you just want to keep the current system or if not, what specific proposals do you have?

                I guess what puzzles me is that I believe that we all think that the current system is broken and that the cause of this is that there are so many loopholes such as how foreign investment is handled, how depreciation is handled, oil and gas depletion allotments, etc. This leads to the fact that some industries have much higher effective rates than others. For example, the average tax for mining companies is 18% while the average tax for retail and wholesale companies is 31%. This is unfair and causes a drag on the economy. If mining companies were actually taxed at or near 28%, I would be more than happy for retail and wholesale companies to also be taxed at or near 28%.

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:49:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  A specific proposal: Eliminate loopholes (10+ / 0-)

                  AND raise the actual corporate tax rate.

                  Thugs won't go for it? OK, a compromise proposal: eliminate loopholes and leave the corporate tax rate unchanged. Make the GOP come out in favor of loopholes to object to the proposal.

                  Either way, keep taxes separate from infrastructure. Generate increased revenue, then worry about how to spend it. No "bargains."

                  When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                  by PhilJD on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:58:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How do you then get around the "unintended (0+ / 0-)

                    consequences" of more and more companies leaving here if we have an effective tax that is then significantly higher than the rest of the world? I personally have no objection to having a tax rate that is in line with other countries.

                    The President has proposed in the past getting rid of some of the loopholes without addressing the rest of the system, and it did not fly and the GOP did not get hurt by being against getting rid of the loopholes (even when it was a small loophole like corporate jets).

                    I don't know how you separate taxes and infrastructure. How would you pay for infrastructure without taxes? And politically, as well as practically, I think it is better to state how you would use increased revenue, rather than trying to increase revenue just for the hell of it. Personally, I don't mind paying taxes since I know many things that taxes pay for that I like and think are good for society; however, I would object to higher taxes to increase perks to Congressmen, the rich, the MIC, etc. So I think that linking it to infrastructure spending is good; very few people object to infrastructure spending or think we do not need to increase it.

                    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                    by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:07:05 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I have no objection to rewarding companies (6+ / 0-)

                      with tax breaks specifically for creating well-paid jobs here. They would have to demonstrate that they've done that though; not just rightwing "job creator" crap.

                      No "bargains" with terrorists though.

                      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                      by PhilJD on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:14:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Then I assume you agree with these provisions (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PhilJD

                        of the President's plan.

                         

                        Remove tax deductions for moving productions overseas and provide new incentives for bringing production back to the United States. The tax code currently allows companies moving operations overseas to deduct their moving expenses—and reduce their taxes in the United States as a result. The President is proposing that companies will no longer be allowed to claim tax deductions for moving their operations abroad. At the same time, to help bring jobs home, the President is proposing to give a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States.
                        Other reforms to reduce incentives to shift income and assets overseas. The Framework would also clean up the international tax code and reduce incentives and opportunities to shift income and assets overseas….
                        As well as the provisions on manufacturing.

                        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                        by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:20:27 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  As stand-alone proposals, sure. No "bargains" tho. (4+ / 0-)

                          No overall tax break in exchange.

                          And this:

                          a 20 percent income tax credit for the expenses of moving operations back into the United States
                          would have to be at least zero sum; the resulting new American jobs would have to at least equal the amount saved by the tax break.

                          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                          by PhilJD on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:30:28 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  cost of "moving" operations back here would be (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PhilJD

                            minimal in many cases, because they didn't really leave. They just moved on paper.  They get all the benefits of being American without having to pay for it.  Fucking fake "patriots"!

                            Power to the Peaceful!

                            by misterwade on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:05:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Obama's bargains are like U.S. Indian treaties, (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Johnny Q, PhilJD, misterwade

                          from what I've seen. Freely broken by one side, or one-sidedly and ruthlessly enforced again the losers.

                          "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                          by Kombema on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:10:32 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  stop it (5+ / 0-)

                      Let them leave and then we can hit them with tariffs. We need to stop kissing the ass of companies that threaten to leave a stable business environment that allows them to make a lot of money. It is a privilege for them to be doing business in this country not a right. Fuck them if they want to leave.

                      I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

                      by jbou on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:19:09 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  My approach didn't fly before because the Dems (5+ / 0-)

                      offered it passively, with no hope of its success.

                      They should clobber the Thugs at every opportunity as the party of unfair taxation. Put it on a bumper sticker:

                      Republicans: The Loophole Party!

                      When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                      by PhilJD on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:19:21 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Here are some of the specific proposals. (4+ / 0-)

                1. Eliminate “last in first out” accounting.
                2. Eliminate oil and gas tax preferences.
                3. Reform treatment of insurance industry and products.
                4. Taxing carried (profits) interests as ordinary income.
                5. Eliminate special depreciation rules for corporate purchases of aircraft.
                6. Addressing depreciation schedules.
                7. Reducing the bias toward debt financing.
                8. Establishing greater parity between large corporations and large non-corporate counterparts.
                9. Improve transparency and reduce accounting gimmicks. Corporate tax reform should increase transparency and reduce the gap between book income, reported to shareholders, and taxable income, reported to the IRS. These reforms could include greater disclosure of annual corporate income tax payments.

                For more details on these proposals, again here is the link.
                http://www.treasury.gov/...

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:53:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  ***#4. *** I like that one. :-) (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sewaneepat, Kombema

                  Hard info and facts, not pie. I like.

                  I don't know if it's just that people in this country have been screwed so much to the wall, or if they're just here for the pie.

                  Repatriation of profits and encouraging domestic investment are hard to understand and it's easy, much easier, to just assume it's another scheme for the rich to come out on top.

                  I don't know that the administration fails when it's time to sum up its policy in 25 words or less

                  or

                  The oligarchs who own the newsmedia drown it out with their own two-word slogans.

                  Either way, the informed discourse vital to a democracy is gone from the mass media.

                  Long live it in places like this, I hope. Just remember to duck. Pie incoming.

                  There is no existence without doubt.

                  by Mark Lippman on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:56:13 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  How do you get this? (0+ / 0-)

                  what do we have to "bargain" away to achieve this?  As has been noted above, the loopholes would likely be added back into any legislation during the legislative process.  

                  Power to the Peaceful!

                  by misterwade on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:10:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  WH is only asking for 1.38% of needed amount (10+ / 0-)

            for infrastructure spending, as  I noted below.  If they ask for $50bn, maybe they'll get $40bn at the end of the process.   Then again, maybe they'll only get $25bn.

            I still recall Krugman warning 4 years ago that the Stim was too small.

            Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

            by RFK Lives on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:21:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly lunachick (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lunachickie, maryabein, PhilJD
            Republicans fold on tax reform

            12/8/13

            John Boehner decided that the ( TAX REFORM ) plan was not worth it for the Republicans, though House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) was actually working to keep a promise he had made and had been working on this for three years. The draft was 62 pages long and was one of the most sweeping changes that has been proposed in years. This had come after many hearings and discussions.

            Here is what Daily Kos had to say about the move by the Republicans.

            "They blinked because the math is hard-and the politics even worse."

            Republicans holding back on the Camp plan

            Daily kos

            Pie in the sky solutions from the people are suppose to be helping dems FIX THINGS , nothing like GOP snake oil from those advising Obama on what to do next for the economy . Maybe next week he can suggest "trickle down" as a solution ?

            Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

            by Patango on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:34:56 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I totally agree. However, the current system is (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, fcvaguy, unfangus

        unfair and ineffective, so it would seem to me that some reform is needed. If the legislators did enact reform and then try to put the loopholes back in, then a national outcry against it would definitely be in order. But compared to the alternative of doing nothing, I think that lowering the legislated rate while raising the effective rate (which I believe is around 15% now) would be a good start.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:59:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Any "reform" that would pass muster w/ GOP (14+ / 0-)

          would keep, if not expand, existing loopholes.   The link, BTW indicates that $50bn in infrastructure spending is being sought.  According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our current infrastructure gap is $3.6 Trillion.

          So, in exchange for cutting corporate tax rates, the WH is seeking infrastructure spending that's 1.38% of the needed amount.  Rarely does any WH get its initial request, and I don't see this one getting it.  Plus, we'll probably end up getting more loopholes along the way.

          I don't like the looks of this at all.

          Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

          by RFK Lives on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:51:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then, that would be a bad plan. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VClib

            But is that what is proposed? I don't think so. But let's get all upset about it anyway.

            As for infrastructure, yes, we need more, but do you think that we should just not increase infrastructure spending at all unless you can pass 100% of the need? Do you really think that any Congress would pass a $3.6 Trillion infrastructure bill? Do you think that $50 billion is insignificant in at least repairing some roads and bridges or should we let more of them fall down because we just don't want $50 billion? Seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water to me.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:02:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  As per the link (3+ / 0-)
              In his budget proposal last year, Obama called for $50 billion in additional short-term federal spending on infrastructure projects such as bridges, highways, and mass transit systems, as well as creation of a National Infrastructure Bank to make loans to such projects.

              Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

              by RFK Lives on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:08:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Come again? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kombema, Agathena, lostinamerica, Johnny Q
              But let's get all upset about it anyway.
              "Getting upset" to you seems to mean "posting a diary" about this. How completely silly.

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:14:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Getting upset does not mean posting a diary, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                high uintas

                but rather comments that are all up in the air over a proposal that the commenter apparently has not actually read. Or at least the commenter does not refer to objections to the proposal itself but instead is "concerned" that it will lead to other things which are quite different from what is proposed.

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:25:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Given the track records (5+ / 0-)

                  of some of the actors--take a look around you, please--you're going to have to expect the skepticism.

                  Which, btw, is a little different than "concern", though your point is taken.

                  This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                  by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:44:15 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, I remember that (0+ / 0-)

                    "Obama is not going to get rid of DADT," "Obama is not going to support marriage equality," "Obama is going to cut SS and Medicare benefits," "Obama is not going to get out of Iraq," ad infinitum.

                    I am always reading here what all Obama is going to do or not going to do and yet, the vast majority of what he has done has been positive for the country, even if, of course, you or I would have done a much better job.

                    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                    by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:58:17 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Since you brought him up here, (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      lostinamerica, Johnny Q

                      in this thread, please do keep in mind that Mr. Obama is hardly at the end of his term yet.

                      Beyond that, I was referring to Mr. Sperling first and foremost--you know, since he's the subject of this diary and all--but hey, you just feel free to blather on all day about other subjects more precious to you.  

                      This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                      by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:08:54 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What Mr. Sperling was talking about was the (0+ / 0-)

                        President's plan; therefore, I assume that is what the discussion is about. After all, Mr. Sperling can neither sign nor veto any legislation.

                        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                        by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:15:48 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So you just dive right in (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Johnny Q

                          assuming things about the conversation? It sure takes a lot of nerve to do that and then turn around  and accuse others of similar behavior in a diary not your own.

                          What Mr. Sperling can or cannot "sign" himself is of no consequence here--he's not signing things, he's discussing them. And near as I can tell--despite effort to the contrary--people were trying to discuss what he had to say.

                          Perhaps you should go take a load off your shoulders there? You seem chapped...

                          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                          by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:22:21 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  What "he" (Sperling) had to say, according to the (0+ / 0-)

                            diary, was this:

                            Gene Sperling, the director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, said Sunday that Obama is offering congressional Republicans “a grand bargain on jobs. He has said he would be willing to do corporate tax reform that lowers rates to 28 percent, simplifies taxes for small businesses, but do it together with a major infrastructure investment.”
                            Therefore, I do believe most people are responding to what Sperling said the President wants to do. I think the "he" in the second sentence also refers to President Obama, not Sperling since Sperling is not able to "do corporate tax reform;" that would be the President who has that ability.

                            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                            by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:29:21 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, right, got it (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Johnny Q

                            so then to blame Obama for this would be the right thing to do, right? Even though spokespeople often get it wrong or leave things hanging or unsaid on purpose?

                            You don't happen to be one of those people who get all up in everyone's virtual grills every time a pearl of "Obama blame" falls out of their newsreader or anything, are you? Because if you are, perhaps you should stick to discussing Mr. Sperling's commentary--as I have fallen all over myself to do--rather than be concerned about what he can or cannot sign off on. That way, you'd never have to worry about someone upsetting you to the point of nasty sarcasm all the time, for no reason.
                             

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:40:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You may fall all over yourself to call it (0+ / 0-)

                            "reform a la Sperling" but what you have actually been discussing is the President's reform proposal, not Gene Sperling's reform proposal since so far as I know, he doesn't have one. So when you discuss, for instance, repatriation of corporate profits, you are discussing Obama's proposal, not Sperling's proposal, whether you fall all over yourself to call it Sperling's or not.

                            Of course, since you apparently don't care to read what the proposals actually are, then it is fairly useless to attempt to discuss them with you. Therefore, I will wish you a good day.

                            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                            by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:34:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What I called it (0+ / 0-)

                            took my 5 seconds to type, so I'm not sure what your problem is with that. You do seem to have a big problem with Obama-Hate! (TM)  in general, so why shouldn't we just bypass that altogether and talk about what Mr. Sperling actually said?

                            Oh, would that be because he speaks for the President? Ah, right. So when he leaves things out or leaves them up in the air, who are we to question, then? You??

                            I think not. No wonder you don't want to talk about the language the President's "representative" in this article uses--or doesn't use. That would require talking about stuff that can't be spun into Obama-Hate! (TM) How disingenuous can ya get?!

                            Just remember, when we meet again out here--and we will--this wasn't about "Hate" on the President. I promise to bookmark it too, just for reference, OK?

                             

                            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                            by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 02:21:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Obama put Social Security cuts in his budget (4+ / 0-)

                      That's the kind of thing that turned us into skeptics.   We weren't supposed to believe him on that but we're supposed to believe he really wants to increase corporate taxes?  

                      I never know when Democrats are serious these days but I do know you have to watch them every microsecond because they have a tendency to do stuff like cut military and federal pensions and not tell you about it until it's in the agreed uppn budget deal and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

                      •  Here is an excellent article on Obama's proposals (0+ / 0-)

                        re Chained CPI

                        http://www.cbpp.org/...

                        What he has proposed would lower the amount that people up to a certain point would get compared with current law (thought the dollar amount would always be higher than what the benefit is now). But for lower income people, they would actually get a higher amount at a certain point than they would under existing law.

                        It should also be noted that for beneficiaries who are in the most need - those on SSI - there would be no reduction compared with current law.

                        I would personally prefer if he raised the minimum benefit so that lower income seniors would get more than under current law from the beginning instead of having to wait until they are 80 to get more than they would if the law remained as it is.

                        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                        by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:32:38 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Johnny Q
                        you have to watch them every microsecond because they have a tendency to do stuff like cut military and federal pensions and not tell you about it until it's in the agreed uppn budget deal and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
                        Of course, this is why we all come here--they float trial balloons and dare us to shoot them down. But then when you actually do that, well, you're just being overly concerned.

                        What the fuck ever. Maybe GOP rank-and-file is too nuance-challenged to get that. I don't think you can say the same about Dems, though. And that is surely something that chaps a few asses around here....

                        How dare we shoot their trial balloons down? The noive!!!

                        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                        by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:49 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  Plus some new ones. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lunachickie, lostinamerica

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

        by enhydra lutris on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:45:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Might" is BS. (12+ / 0-)

      We need about double the corporate collections of today to equal the period when we built America's only large middle class of our entire history.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:08:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree we need to double the tax collection (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib, ChemBob, unfangus, Kombema, pamelabrown

        from corporations. Right now the average effective tax rate is in the 13 -15% range. So if loopholes were closed and all corporations were taxed equally, then a 28% rate should do that. The devil, as they say, is always in the details. But the current system is not only ineffective, but unfair.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:04:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which is why the give-away quid pro quo will end (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maryabein, Johnny Q

          up hurting us more than helping, given how corporate friendly the White House and Congress both are in finding ways to "relieve" big capital. You're far too trusting of this administration's Pete Peterson-led model of corporate beneficence.

          "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by Kombema on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:35:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Blah, blah, blah, same old song, never (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lostinamerica

      happens -
      Also, any plan remotely predicated on "fair" is misguided. Fair is where you buy corn dogs. Hey, some businesses have a gross margin of 98% and some have a gross margin of 12% - is that "fair"

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:44:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree - lowering the statatory rate (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sewaneepat, Kombema, pamelabrown

      and closing loopholes should raise the effective rate and generate more, no less, income for the Treasury.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:45:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But that's IF and ONLY if the loopholes are (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, cybrestrike, Johnny Q

        actually closed. I'm very skeptical, and with good reason, about the history of such efforts. Remember, the "House" (so to speak) always wins in these political gambles.

        "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by Kombema on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:37:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  exactly (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sewaneepat

      get rid of the loopholes, enforce rapriation of profits hidden offshore, and stop corporate profit tax deferrals.

      http://thinkprogress.org/...

      •  Thanks for the link. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fcvaguy, unfangus, pamelabrown
        This is why it is so important that the president has made clear that any “revenue-neutral” corporate tax reform must be judged on the money that will come in the second ten years after enactment, not just on initial increases.
        For anyone wanting to see what is actually proposed, here is the link

        Here is the first proposal:

        I. Eliminate dozens of tax loopholes and subsidies, broaden the base and cut the corporate tax rate to spur growth in America: The Framework would eliminate dozens of different tax expenditures and fundamentally reform the business tax base to reduce distortions that hurt productivity and growth. It would reinvest these savings to lower the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, putting the United States in line with major competitor countries and encouraging greater investment in America.
        There are also proposals to strengthen manufacturing by taxing it at an effective rate of no more than 25% and to establish a new minimum tax on foreign earnings.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:12:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How does one "enforce the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Johnny Q

        repatriation of profits hidden offshore?"

        Serious question.

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:16:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The details are in the link I provided (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sewaneepat, pamelabrown

          Here's one of the key paragraphs:

          T

          ake, for example, reforming deferral. Currently, American corporations are allowed to put off paying taxes, sometimes indefinitely, on profits that are earned abroad or controlled by foreign subsidiaries. Reforming or repealing this provision — in other words, taxing all profits immediately at either the full corporate rate or a slightly lower one — would raise substantial revenue, but a disproportionate share of the new revenue would come in the first few years. First, the reform would tax the big backlog of profits that have already been earned immediately, all in one year, creating a one-time bump in revenue. Then new profits would be taxed as soon as they are earned, creating a stream of increased revenue. Eventually the initial boost would be exhausted, leaving a steady source of revenue going forward that may be larger than under the current code but smaller than the upfront increase. Reforms to things like accelerated depreciation (which lets firms deduct the cost of equipment faster than that equipment actually wears out) or accounting techniques known as Last In First Out have similar effects.
          •  When I say "enforce" (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            maryabein, lostinamerica, Johnny Q

            I mean "what is the mechanism for punishment" if the corporations decide to be tax scofflaws?

            Do we get to perform "corporate death penalty" on them if they fail to comply? Like we did to banks? (cough-cough)

            Look, you have to understand the skepticism of these things that look good on paper, but as we've heard several times now, "the devil is in the details". What happens to these thieves if they fail to "repatriate" their formerly tax-free money?

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:38:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Do I need (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lostinamerica, Johnny Q

            to do my own research here, even though the followup really does go to you?

            Because you know, there's not a reason on earth to support reform a la Sperling if it does not include mechanisms--strong, structural mechanisms--to punish those who would steal anymore from this country. And I don't see anyone talking about that, either.

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:12:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not sure where you're going (0+ / 0-)

              I thought I did provide follow-up as well as sewaneepat. If there's info on a more updated proposal from Obama/Sperling that differs from the July 2013 or the 2012 proposal, I would be very interested in seeing it. However, I did spend some time looking for it, and could not find anything. Maybe you'd have better luck.

              •  How do those corpos who (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Johnny Q

                don't repatriate properly get punished?

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:15:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  repatriate "tax monies" properly n/t (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Johnny Q

                  This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                  by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:16:45 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  why would they get punished? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sewaneepat

                  what they're doing is legal, unfortunately. Existing law allows them to defer taxes on profits made off-shore. That law needs to change. The 2012 Sperling proposal would eliminate the deferral mechanisms and force them to pay taxes on that money every year.

                  •  No (4+ / 0-)

                    you're talking about a proposal to let them repatriate offshored monies. That they've already offshored. THAT was legal. Now you want to give them carte blanche to bring it back as long as they pay tax on i t.

                    Is that not going to be "a law"?

                    Would it then be "illegal" for them to disobey this "new" law and refuse to pony up during this new "repatriation" of monies? If so, what is their punishment going to be?

                    You seem to be depending on that to generate a great deal of revenue. So punishment mechanisms of any new "law" to let corpos "repatriate" their money is useless if there's no consequence for failing to do it.

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:25:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  When you say "That law needs to change" (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Johnny Q

                    you're talking about the existing law that allows corpos the ability to defer current off-shore profits.

                    What happens in the new "law" we're trying to keep the discussion straight on here? Does this new proposal change the legality of deferring tax on offshored profit in any way?

                    If not, does it provide punishment for those who do not "repatriate" their monies properly?

                    And while I'm at it, what will those tax rates be? Any idea?

                    Are you going to tell us the IRS has current enforcement in place for any tax scofflaw? Well of course it does, but will this "new law" exempt these Repatriating Entities from that initially, or give them a different rate or other "special favors"?

                    Do you not know any of these answers and you are currently researching, and will share any new info for the betterment of others in this discussion?

                    Sorry, this just isn't confusing in the least to me. It would help, though, if you responded, so I can be sure we're still on the same page with this! I find this all very curious and want to know more.

                    Would it then be "illegal" for them to disobey this "new" law and refuse to pony up during this new "repatriation" of monies? If so, what is their punishment going to be?

                    You seem to be depending on that to generate a great deal of revenue. So mechanisms of any new "law" to let corpos "repatriate" their money is useless if there's no consequence for failing to do so.

                    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                    by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:31:30 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Here is the April 2013 proposal in more detail (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fcvaguy

                than the July summary. Since this is for the FY 2014, I think it is the latest proposal.

                http://www.treasury.gov/...

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 02:03:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  fcvaguy - do any other of the G20 try to tax (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fcvaguy

            out of country profits? I have not done a rigorous study but I don't think any of the other major industrial countries try to tax earnings from goods made and sold out of the country of incorporation. The fact that the US even tries to tax worldwide earnings is a relic of the 1950s & 60s. The US should reform it's code to be in line with international standards.

            There is no way that Congress will approve a retroactive minimum tax on offshore earnings. The piles of cash offshore are going to stay there unless some low tax deal to bring them back is passed by Congress. All the current rules insure is that the offshore cash will be invested anywhere around the world, except in the US.

            "let's talk about that"

            by VClib on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:27:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Obama works for the 1% with other politicians (24+ / 0-)

    there is no longer any debate on this

    this example is just another example of favoring the corporations

    Bernie Sanders when introducing a book signing said that no legislation will get through congress unless approved by major corporations

    the book is

    Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America

    here is a talk on it in Seattle

    http://seattlecommunitymedia.org/...

  •  So ... now we know (20+ / 0-)

    why the Democrats didn't put up much of a fight over UI expiration.  The plan, apparently, was to use the long-term unemployed as leverage to gain more corporate tax breaks.  This administration and our Congress are loathesome.

  •  Amazing (16+ / 0-)

    How when Obama wants something, he will do anything to get it done.  Amazing how much he continues to fight for Grand Bargains, but folds like a cheap chair when fighting for the people.  Amazing how this administration did nothing to those who crashed the economy and destroyed lives, but continues to push the TPP which will be the final death knell to the American middle class.  I honestly do not know how this man sleeps at night.

    "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

    by gulfgal98 on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:27:08 AM PST

    •  He sleeps like a baby. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gulfgal98, Don midwest

      When his presidency is over, he'll be lauded as the 1st African American US president. His legacy will be that of Obamacare, the Villagers will laud his "bipartisanship" in an era of "extremes on both sides", and he will be the biggest draw on the talkshow, speech-giving, and international world tour circuit.

      He will make an unbelievable amount of money on the way, and candidates all over the Dem Party (congressional, gubernatorial, mayoral, and presidential) will grovel for his endorsement. He'll be the kingmaker in any electoral race.

      He will be a world class star--even more than he was while inhabiting the White House. His family is set for life. He could stay in the limelight or simply relax in the background.

      He sleeps like a baby. Not a care in the world. Because he's got his.

      The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

      by cybrestrike on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:45:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If corporations are people (too, my friend), (5+ / 0-)

    then they should pay income tax on their gross income, just as the rest of us people do. And IIRC the top tax rate for personal income taxes is 39.6% on taxable income over $400,000 (actually I looked it up). And that's on the gross income, not the profit.
    Either that or let US pay a 25% tax on our profit at the end of the year.
    No special treatment for corporate people.
    And while we're at it, Capital Gains and interest, et cetera are income. Why that income is taxed at a much lower rate has never made sense. It's not like the capital gainer had to bust his back to make that money.
    You want a simple tax reform?
    All income for corporate people and human people taxed at the marginal progressive rates that individual income is taxed now, topped out at 35%.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:31:51 AM PST

    •  CwV - if you are self employed you too (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sewaneepat

      can deduct the ordinary and reasonable costs of producing the income you generate from your gross revenues before you calculate your taxable income.

      Most corporations don't have even 20% profit margins so a high tax on gross income would put them out of business unless that tax was structured like a VAT.  

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:05:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The corporate tax code NEEDS this reform (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lina, VClib, pamelabrown, sewaneepat

    like Sperling advocates

    Put very simply, one of the big problems is that, as many have pointed out, the statutory rate is 35% (one of the highest statutory rates in the world) but the EFFECTIVE rate (what companies actually pay on average) is far, far, far lower, and some companies pay very little.  That is HUGELY unfair -- some companies (especially small businesses, that can't afford to do the things that get you the tax breaks) pay close to 35%, while other companies pay very little.  We need to make the statutory rate much closer to the EFFECTIVE rate so that most businesses pay about the same as other businesses -- so you don't have one company paying 10% and one company paying 35%.  And you also want companies to make decisions based on what is best for the business to grow and prosper (i.e., grow the economy and jobs) and not what gets them a big tax break.  With a code like we have -- a very high statutory rate, but big tax breaks for certain things -- the tax code often dictates, or plays a large role in, corporate decision making.  And that's not a good thing.  You want taxes to be a relatively neutral component, so that other things drive corporate decision-making.

    If we do that, the EFFECTIVE rate needs to be about 25% - 28% at most.  With respect to the corporate tax rate, we need to keep it relatively competitive with other  developed countries or capital investment will leave the country in droves.  

    The President campaigned on this kind of reform.  Done correctly, it will not lower corporate tax receipts but can actually generate additional revenue.  

    •  Thanks for the Republican talking points. nt (5+ / 0-)
      •  The President's position is a Republican (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        talking point?  Because that is what I'm agreeing with.  

      •  Funny, I've never heard Republicans propose (0+ / 0-)

        closing corporate loopholes. Seems to me, they always oppose that.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:46:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

          •  While ABC does say that Boehner's offer (0+ / 0-)

            "purports to raise $1.6 trillion in revenue by "clos[ing] special-interest loopholes and deductions while lowering rates," here is the letter linked to in the article.

            http://www.speaker.gov/...

            Funny how the proposals Boehner actually mentions (which add up to about $1.6 trillion) are changes to Medicare, cutting Medicaid by $800 billion, and cutting "hundreds of billions" from "other mandatory spending, including reforms to Federal employee compensation and Supplemental Nutrition Assisstance Program."

            Not a word about closing tax loopholes.

            Meanwhile, as the article notes, " House Democrats have repeatedly offered up "closing overseas tax loopholes" as a means to pay for spending bills -- a plan Republicans routinely reject."

            Helps to listen and read past the headline.

            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

            by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:11:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Boehner also offers Bowels-Simpson (0+ / 0-)

              as a solution.
              That's the Grand Bargain the diarist refers to in the original post.
              Would you call that plan a Democratic talking point?
              Or perhaps you might have heard of Obamacare - formerly known as RomneyCare.
              Would you call that health care approach, born in the Heritage Foundation, a Democratic health care solution?
              The fact is Obama has a long history of adopting Republican positions as his own.
              THAT'S what the diary is about - in case you hadn't noticed.
              Did you even understand the title?
              Geeeze - get a clue.

              •  I think the grand bargain referred to by Sperling (0+ / 0-)

                Is the Obama budget proposal, not Simpson Bowles which Obama has never offered wholesale. What makes you think it is simply Simpson Bowles, rather than his own budget proposal?

                 FWIW, Bowles is a Democrat so Simpson Bowles has both Democratic and Republican proposals, not just
                Republican ones. And yes, I have read the Simpson Bowles proposal - some good ideas and some bad ones in there.

                I'd call the ACA healthcare reform that passed and will help millions of people, including my own family. Not perfect, but a good start. Beats the hell out of a better plan that would not pass.

                You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 04:09:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Grand Bargain (0+ / 0-)

                  has been offered, in one form or another, by the White House ever since Obama hit the scene.
                  THAT'S what the diarist is complaining about. That's where the title joke comes from.
                  Did you get the joke in the title?
                  Simpson Bowles was simply a contrivance to try and sell the Grand Bargain to congress and the public. It was all gussied up as "bipartisan". Lipstick on a pig.
                  Just because something comes out of a Democrat's mouth does not make it a Democratic idea.
                  That's a key concept to understand and acknowledge.

                  As to the ACA:
                  You may call the ACA a good start but you sure can't call it a Democratic healthcare plan. It's a Republican healthcare plan on top of another Republican plan. That other Republican plan?
                  Healthcare insurance received through employers.

                  •  There have been several grand bargains, none of (0+ / 0-)

                    them were unadulterated Simpson Bowles. The 2014 budget proposal was what Sperling was talking about so far as I can tell. Just because the diarist made a joke, which I do understand, that doesn't make it Simpson Bowles. You did not explain why you think that is what Sperling was talking about.

                    As for the ACA, while it incorporates much of what Romney and the Heritage Foundation proposed, since it was proposed by aDemocratic President and passed by Democrats, I think you would have to say that, at this point, it is a Democratic plan. At one time, Republicans were for abolition, but at this point in time, I think we can agree that civil rights is a Democratic ideal, not a Republican one. Same with the ACA.

                    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                    by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 05:22:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You don't understand. (0+ / 0-)

                      I never said Simpson Bowles was the Grand Bargain.
                      I said:

                      Simpson Bowles was simply a contrivance to try and sell the Grand Bargain to congress and the public.
                      Do you understand the difference?
                      Sterling is saying that the Grand Bargain lives on just like Cher - ever changing but essentially the same and immortal.
                      That's the joke. One time it's sold as Simpson Bowles. Next time it's sold as a "bargaining" chip in negotiations.

                      As to the ACA - just because the Democrats implemented a Republican plan does not make it a Democratic plan. It's still a Republican plan. The Republican's have managed to win the messaging war because they have managed make folks think of it as a Democratic plan. Hat's off to the Republicans for winning that battle. They won it with you.

                      Again- just because something comes out of a Democrat's mouth does not make it a Democratic idea.

                      •  you said above that Simpson Bowles was (0+ / 0-)

                        The grand bargain referred to by the diarist. So forgive me for not understanding that that was not what you meant. Look a couple of comments above this one. It is in this same thread.

                        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                        by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 06:23:23 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  As for employer paid health insurance, it first (0+ / 0-)

                    came about due to wage controls during WWII so employers started offering fringe benefits in lieu of wage increases. During Truman's term, unions opted to support employer based health insurance. Hardly a Republcan idea.

                    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                    by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 05:28:16 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  As for employer paid health insurance, it first (0+ / 0-)

                    came about due to wage controls during WWII so employers started offering fringe benefits in lieu of wage increases. During Truman's term, unions opted to support employer based health insurance. Hardly a Republcan idea.

                    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                    by sewaneepat on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 05:28:16 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  future loopholes is the problem with the proposal (0+ / 0-)

      Basic story:

      Step 1: Remove some loopholes and lower rates, keeping revenue neutral.

      Step 2: Restore the loopholes removed in step 1, resulting in the current system but with lower rates.

      Instead, if the problem is the loopholes, remove the loopholes.

  •  Two ways a deal like this might be ok after all (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib, joe from Lowell, sewaneepat

    One, how much this agreement shows real goodwill towards small businesses, who have recently taken it in the shorts just as much as the middle class - at least by comparison to large corporations.

    Two would be how many Oligarch and large multi-national corporate loopholes would be shut down at the same time.  The President has suggested that he is in favor of closing such loopholes many times - if he gets his wish on this, I might just be sanguine about such a deal.

    But realistically, what are the chances?

    Because the core premises are virtually identical, the US was built just as much on Islamic principles as Christian.

    by thenekkidtruth on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:47:43 AM PST

    •  The chances are vanishingly small that... (3+ / 0-)

      the Republicans would agree to anything that is at all a fair deal.

      But this is a win/win situation. If such a deal goes through, great. If it doesn't, then the Republicans spend the months prior to the 2014 elections looking unreasonable and running interference for the economic elite in a very public manner, while the President and his party are talking about economic inequality.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:53:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Stop complaining and support your President! (5+ / 0-)

    He is the best evah! (please leave your principles (if you have any) at the door)

    The Republicans are crazy, but why we follow them down the rabbit hole is beyond me.

    by Jazzenterprises on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:54:51 AM PST

  •  Respectfully (4+ / 0-)

    this diary lacks details which could change its conclusions dramatically.

    While it is indeed correct that Obama/Sperling are proposing to decrease the corporate tax rate to 28%, its not clear if its been done under the umbrella of tax reform where loopholes are closed, there is repatriation reform of corporate profits offshore, and reform of profit deferrals as discussed in the overall corporate tax reform discussions as recent as last July by Obama/Sperling. If so, then the effect would be revenue neutral and possibly revenue positive.

    http://thinkprogress.org/...

    IOW, not enough details here to draw appropriate conclusions.

    •  Another "wait and see" (5+ / 0-)

      Sorry, we have all seen this movie before, and it sucks.

      The Republicans are crazy, but why we follow them down the rabbit hole is beyond me.

      by Jazzenterprises on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:03:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not suggesting "wait and see" (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joe from Lowell, pamelabrown, doroma

        I'm suggesting there's nothing to suggest Obama/Sperling are recommending anything different than what they've been recommending since July and I'm suggesting that this diary, and now you, are jumping to conclusions sans facts.

        •  And what, to you (5+ / 0-)

          would make it clear? At what point do they have to spell it out in detail in some "approved source" before one can discuss it without being accused (as others have already) of "getting all upset anyway"?

          its not clear if its been done under the umbrella of tax reform where loopholes are closed, there is repatriation reform of corporate profits offshore, and reform of profit deferrals as discussed in the overall corporate tax reform discussions as recent as last July by Obama/Sperling.
          And I asked upthread, but I have a feeling this comments section is going to turn into a trainwreck, so I'll ask it here too: how does one "enforce" repatriation of corporate profits?

          I mean, that sounds great. But how is it done?

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:30:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I responded to your question in your other comment (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe from Lowell, pamelabrown

            What would make it clear to me is if Sperling is recommending the same proposal he put forward in 2012 and again in July 2013. I provided one link and Sewaneepat the other. There's not enough info in the diary, or the diary's link to indicate one way or another if its the same proposal or a different proposal.

            •  Well, then, who (0+ / 0-)

              is going to step up and ask Mr. Sperling to clarify his further remarks? I don't see the media doing it. No surprise there, of course. Are either you or sewaneepat able to get him on the record, since the press won't do their jobs and since Mr. Sperling seems to have been unclear? What else does one do for discussion, in the absence of such terribly important information?

              You're not suggesting that people not discuss it at all, are you?

              (and yes, I saw your answer upthread, I was figuring it might be a little nuttier by now-thanks!)

              This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

              by lunachickie on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:42:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Very reality-based. (0+ / 0-)

            "I don't need to know the facts; I'm just going to fill in my own story."

            Art is the handmaid of human good.

            by joe from Lowell on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:51:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  We have seen this movie before. Over and over. (0+ / 0-)

        You freak out for no good reason, insist that the White House is going to sell us out, it doesn't happen, and you come back with the same discredited line six months later.

        How are those Medicare benefit cuts working out? Or chained CPI?

        Art is the handmaid of human good.

        by joe from Lowell on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:54:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think you misunderstand. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest, sewaneepat

    Did you forget all those stories about Mitt Romney's ridiculously effective tax rate, or GE paying no federal income taxes for years?

    Lowering the corporate tax rate, but getting rid of loopholes (that is, "simplifying taxes for small businesses") is a revenue-neutral or even revenue-positive action. The 35% corporate tax rate has stayed steady throughout the period shown on your chart, even as their actual share of federal taxes has fall.

    The 35% tax rate is a legal fiction, owing to all of the wrinkles in the tax law. A real 28% tax rate would be a lot better than the fake 35% rate we have now.

    Also, your knee jerked to the term "grand bargain" exactly as the people using it hoped it would.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:48:38 AM PST

  •  I thought it was cockroaches and Keith Richards (4+ / 0-)
  •  this is beyond stupid (3+ / 0-)

    Corporations have money, they are doing just fine. Giving them tax breaks will not spur hiring. We have a demand side economic problem you don't solve it with a supply side solution. This guy should be fired because he doesn't even know what the problem is.

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:14:01 AM PST

    •  This whole exercise is not about increasing demand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jbou

      It's about cutting taxes for corporations, with some fig-leaf of stimulus (which is laughably low for what we really need) to appease the plebes.

      The Grand Bargain must be stopped at all costs to protect the 99%.

      by cybrestrike on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:48:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Grand Bargain... (4+ / 0-)

    is really a Grand BJ for all the corporate interests in this country...and the working poor, elderly and middle class (what's left of them) are the ones forced to their knees to perofrm. And once again the hirelings in the O administration show their complete lack of any ability to understand a winning populist strategy!

  •  Simple Measurement For Grand Bargain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maryabein

    Every time someone from any side proposes a "grand bargain," particularly anyone from the Administration, a simple question needs to be asked:

    Does the implementation of this bargain increase or decrease the income gap between the rich and the non-rich?

    Make, say, $125,000. per year gross the dividing line.

    Any questions?

    You meet them halfway with love, peace, and persuasion ~ And expect them to rise for the occasion...

    by paz3 on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:17:28 AM PST

  •  All of us on same side in retirement fight (6+ / 0-)
    "The generational war is a hoax. In this global economy the fight for retirement security should unite us, not divide us, across barriers of age and race.
    None of this is an accident. There is a highly funded campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare while distracting us from the true sources of our multi-generational retirement crisis. This narrative can be traced back to the work of conservative billionaire Peter “Pete” Peterson and his foundation, who is sent minions like Alan Simpson out to stigmatize so-called “greedy geezers” for our country’s retirement woes.
    The Peterson crowd has worked very hard to convince Millennials that the older generation has robbed them of retirement security, a strategy they’ve pursued with false-front organizations like “The Can Kicks Back.” A number of lazy journalists have bought into their narrative without consulting experts in the field or doing their own research.
    Millennials and Boomers Are On the Same Side of the Retirement Fight
  •  Mean Gene is an evil thug dressed as a bunny (1+ / 0-)

    according to pundit Bob Woodward and now we have
    the proof.
    It's really disheartening.
    Obama just cannot seem to resist the siren song of the insiders of Washington and Wall Street.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site