PDA

View Full Version : Why did the regime hold out for bankster tax breaks?



LWW
01-03-2013, 05:21 AM
All at once now all you regime supporters, repeat after me ... WE WERE ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF HELPING THE BANKSTERS MOVE PROFITS OFFSHORE TO AVOID TAXATION!

"The "fiscal cliff" legislation passed this week included $76 billion in special-interest tax credits for the likes of General Electric, Hollywood and even Captain Morgan. But these subsidies weren't the fruit of eleventh-hour lobbying conducted on the cliff's edge -- they were crafted back in August in a Senate committee, and they sat dormant until the White House reportedly insisted on them this week.

The Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012, which passed through the Senate Finance Committee in August, was copied and pasted into the fiscal cliff legislation, yielding a victory for biotech companies, wind-turbine-makers, biodiesel producers, film studios -- and their lobbyists. So, if you're wondering how algae subsidies became part of a must-pass package to avert the dreaded fiscal cliff, credit the Biotechnology Industry Organization's lobbying last summer.

Some tax lobbyists mostly ignored the August bill "because they thought it would be just a political document," one K Streeter told me. "They were the ones that got bit in the butt."

Here's what happened: In late July, Finance Chairman Max Baucus announced the committee would soon convene to craft a bill extending many expiring tax credits. This attracted lobbyists like a raw steak attracts wolves.

Former Sens. John Breaux, D-La., and Trent Lott, R-Miss., a pair of rainmaker lobbyists, pleaded for extensions on behalf of a powerful lineup of clients.

General Electric and Citigroup, for instance, hired Breaux and Lott to extend a tax provision that allows multinational corporations to defer U.S. taxes by moving profits into offshore financial subsidiaries. This provision -- known as the "active financing exception" -- is the main tool GE uses to avoid nearly all U.S. corporate income tax."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-how-corporate-tax-credits-got-in-the-cliff-deal/article/2517397#.UOTPwUbDVSJ

Qtec
01-03-2013, 08:26 AM
I agree. Its disgusting, but it passed the senate with bipartisan support. You can't just blame the Dems. Lets not forget that during the last Pres election, the whole Republican party constantly claimed they would raise revenue by limiting deductions and CLOSING LOOPHOLES!
Now, instead of closing those loopholes when they had the chance, the GOP vote to extend them!

Q

LWW
01-03-2013, 09:11 AM
Can you not read?

Qtec
01-03-2013, 09:18 AM
Can you not read?

Brilliant argument.

I'm now totally convinced.

I have seen the error of my ways.

:frusty:

LWW
01-03-2013, 09:48 AM
Brilliant argument.

I'm now totally convinced.

I have seen the error of my ways.

:frusty:
Having a clue will cause that.

Soflasnapper
01-03-2013, 08:30 PM
Carney uses two unnamed Senate aides as sources, he says. Who may not have been in the room (he doesn't say). Who may not have been the aides to the senators in the room (he doesn't say, and if not, we have third hand hear-say at best). Who may have ample reason to lie, and no downside for lying, even without the grant of anonymity.

Carney's scathing book on Obamanomics was published by Regnery, the go-to publisher for the right. He works at the Washington Examiner, the current go-to DC paper for anti-Obama spin now that the WaTimes has declined to such disrepute.

Does this clearly anti-Obama reporter say the WH held out for these breaks to be included? No. His actual language says the WH 'reportedly' insisted on them. Reportedly, by these unnamed aides who may be passing on 3rd hand claims of unknown provenance and unknown accuracy. For really, WHO is saying that and HOW do they supposedly know it? That's a secret Carney won't disclose. I see. Very compelling.

A second observation is that the idea these are 'bankster' tax breaks is your own invention, having found one bank mentioned.

Yet, NASCAR isn't a bank, Hollywood studios aren't banks, algae bio-fuel and wind-turbine makers, bio-tech firms, and etc., are not banks. They represent wealthy companies amply supported by the GOP (as the hiring of oil and gas interests-owned faux Dem Breaux (W's favorite Democrat this side of Lieberman), and Trent Lott, as the key lobbyists shows), and all of whose breaks are continuations of breaks already put in place under prior administrations, including Congresses completely under GOP-majority control, and always with enough GOP senators to block anything they wished to block.

A bipartisan vote for passage in the Senate committee indicated no GOP issue with these proposed extensions.

I suggest these are just as plausibly due then to GOP insistence as WH insistence, and the quality of this reporting is not sufficient to, on balance, suggest otherwise. Mitch McConnell is not particularly a purist or fanatic from the right, and more the log-rolling deal maker type, more sleaze than rightie. That the true fanatics on the right have vapors over this, and that the GOP honchos might be given grief over this (along with doing any deal of this sort in the first place), is an excellent tactical reason for floating this kind of anonymously sourced excuse-- hey, THE PREZ made us do that part!!! (He's so scary! We HAD to give in to the powerful black man! He embraces rendition, doncha know? OMG!)

LWW
01-04-2013, 04:32 AM
Thanks for making my point.

Qtec
01-04-2013, 05:29 AM
Thanks for making my point.

You don't have one. At least not one that you can back up with facts instead of innuendo from anonymous sources.
You have offered no proof that it was the WH that insisted on these special interest tax extensions. in fact, the lack of outrage from the GOP over this pork, before the vote, says a lot.

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

Q

Soflasnapper
01-06-2013, 01:01 PM
Thanks for making my point.

Your point was the unreliability of the reporter, his paper, and his sources? I didn't get that impression, but then you are a mysteriously deep thinker or something... what's the word? Oh yes-- poseur.

There were 5 parties to the negotiations-- the two parties in each of the Houses, and the POTUS. If you want to argue these provisions (directly out of a Senate committee's supermajority-supported bill) were INSISTED UPON BY THE SENATE (even just the Democrats, although the supermajority vote makes that unlikely), that's more plausible on its face than that the POTUS put it in against the Senate's wishes.

Amirite?

LWW
01-06-2013, 06:39 PM
I actually thought you could read.

Soflasnapper
01-08-2013, 07:18 PM
We now have a far better source, with named sources, saying close to the same thing.

Reuters quotes McConnell's spokesman by name, one
Don Stewart, [who] said the White House (http://www.reuters.com/video/reuters-tv?videoId=238012014&videoChannel=118066&lc=int_mb_1001) insisted that it would a "deal breaker" if the entire package of tax credits was not in the bill. Stewart also said the White House initially wanted to make all of the tax breaks permanent, rather than extend them only through the end of this year.

"The White House ... can't deny that the only reason the (business tax breaks were) included in the final agreement is because the president insisted" they be in there, Stewart said.

This, however, makes explicit what the WH was pushing for-- the energy tax subsidies. At that late, it was deemed impossible to try to take the package passed by the Senate committee on a large bipartisan majority vote apart on the merits.


White House spokesman Jay Carney on Monday said that Obama supported the overall package of tax breaks for businesses. He emphasized that the president favored the wind energy credit and tax benefits for research and development to encourage "job-creating research investments."

Carney also said that many of the tax breaks in the fiscal cliff bill had bipartisan support.

"It would strain the credulity of everyone in this room to suggest that Republicans (http://www.reuters.com/video/reuters-tv?videoId=239001547&videoChannel=118066&lc=int_mb_1001) did not support or want tax credits for business," Carney said during his daily briefing to reporters.

Some Democratic strategists said that given the rush to get a fiscal cliff bill through Congress before U.S. financial markets opened for the new year last Wednesday, it likely seemed unrealistic to pick apart the package of tax credits - known as "extenders" - that had passed the Senate Finance Committee on a bipartisan, 19-5 vote.


So the package - with its $222 million credit for the rum industry, a $78 million write-off for the owners of NASCAR auto racing tracks and tax credits for the film industry that could total $248 million, among other things - survived intact, like a holiday bonus to Washington's lobbyists.



So, it's not true that the WH insisted on the NASCAR breaks, or the bankster breaks, but they came along for the ride on the backs of the renewable energy tax credits.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-usa-fiscal-taxbreaks-idUSBRE90700L20130108

Qtec
01-09-2013, 05:12 AM
Romney and the GOP ran on cutting deductions and closing loopholes. Obama has said the same thing but they both agree to extend loopholes for special interests in this bill!

Both parties should be called to account for this total turnaround but don't expect that any time soon.

Q