Support NeoGAF

[Owzers]

O'reilly first segment: pro drug war

O'reilly second segment: Obama spending too much money


Sums up the republican party.

 

[Oblivion]

Since y'all are still talking about taxes, I gots me a possibly dumb question: is it possible that a company can still be taxed if they don't make any profits?

 

[Chichikov]

Since y'all are still talking about taxes, I gots me a possibly dumb question: is it possible that a company can still be taxed if they don't make any profits?

If you use profits conversationally then no, but in accounting terms, you pay taxes on your taxable income, not profits.
I think theoretically, you can have no profit and still have taxable income, but in practice, it's pretty much always the other way around (i.e. a company can have a profit and still pay no taxes).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

We talked about MPHs controversy in class. It boggles my mind that people get so outraged as to attack and flood the university with calls and compose wordy emails to a personal account.

 

[Chichikov]

The AARP responds to Obama's budget -

http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/pres...se-Budget-Proposal.html?intcmp=AE-BLIL-DOTORG

“As the President and Congress work to address the budget challenges facing our nation, AARP believes it is time for responsible solutions, not harmful proposals that would hurt older Americans and threaten the retirement security of future generations.

“AARP is deeply dismayed that President Obama would propose cutting the benefits of current and future Social Security recipients, including children, widows, veterans and people with disabilities, to reduce the deficit. Social Security is a self-financed program that doesn’t contribute to the deficit, so it shouldn’t be cut to reduce it.

“The so-called ‘chained CPI,’ included in the President’s budget, would cut Social Security benefits significantly over the next ten years. It would start now, taking money from the pockets of current beneficiaries, and would grow larger over time, having the greatest impact as Americans grow older and rely more on their Social Security benefits. It would also cut additional benefits for veterans and people with disabilities, and raise taxes on most taxpayers.

“Across the political spectrum, older Americans agree with AARP’s opposition to the chained CPI. In a national survey we released this week, fully 84% of voters 50+ oppose cutting Social Security benefits to reduce the deficit.”
“AARP is carefully reviewing the details of the President’s proposals to achieve savings in Medicare, bearing in mind that the rising cost of health care threatens people of all ages. Medicare is only one part of our health care delivery system, and it is critical that we look for innovative solutions that can hold down health care costs more broadly.

“We know that prescription drugs are one of the key drivers of escalating health care costs, so we appreciate the President’s inclusion of proposals to find savings in lower drug costs. And we applaud his plan to accelerate closure of the ‘donut hole’ in Medicare Part D by 2015, which would reduce seniors’ often burdensome out-of-pocket health care expenses.

“Instead of making harmful cuts to Medicare or shifting additional costs onto beneficiaries, we need to look for savings throughout the health care system, including Medicare. In addition to lowering the costs of prescription drugs, innovations that promote better care, reward improved outcomes and make health care programs more efficient and less wasteful have the potential to hold down systemic high health care costs, including costs in Medicare.

“As retirement security grows ever more elusive for Americans of all ages, Medicare and Social Security have become increasingly important for today’s retirees and their kids and grandkids. AARP believes it is wrong for the President to try to balance the budget by weakening the programs that provide the very foundation of retirement security for current and future generations.”

That 11th dimensional chess.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

We talked about MPHs controversy in class. It boggles my mind that people get so outraged as to attack and flood the university with calls and compose wordy emails to a personal account.

In reality the headline should be: College Professor has Opinion, More at 11

 

[PhoenixDark]

Club For Growth Questions GOP Rep. For Attacking Obama On Social Security Cuts

The conservative advocacy group Club for Growth is calling on Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) to answer for his comments Wednesday, in which he attacked President Barack Obama for proposing cuts to entitlements -- a goal ordinarily sought by a majority of the Republican party.

“Greg Walden doesn’t seriously oppose even the most modest of reforms to social security, right?” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola in a statement. “With nearly $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the last thing Republicans should attack the Democrats for is for making the most minor reforms to our entitlement programs. If anything, President Obama nibbles around the edges of entitlement reform and doesn’t do anything to put entitlements on a permanently sustainable path.

“Greg Walden ought to think about clarifying his remarks on chained CPI, and think about clarifying soon. I’m sure his constituents would like to know his opinion,” he added.

Walden, who happens to chair the House GOP’s re-election committee, went on CNN earlier Wednesday to decry Obama's budget because it “lays out a shocking attack on seniors.”

“I’ll tell you when you’re going after seniors the way he’s already done on Obamacare, taken $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare and now coming back at seniors again, I think you’re crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine certainly and around the country,” he said.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/club-for-growth-questions-gop-rep-for-attacking

This is surreal. I'll actually give them credit for being ideologically consistent; clearly the Club for Growth is willing to jump off the cliff with Obama.

 

[Oblivion]

If you use profits conversationally then no, but in accounting terms, you pay taxes on your taxable income, not profits.I think theoretically, you can have no profit and still have taxable income, but in practice, it's pretty much always the other way around (i.e. a company can have a profit and still pay no taxes).

Really? Wouldn't taxing before coming up with your profits be problematic?

 

[el retorno]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/club-for-growth-questions-gop-rep-for-attacking

This is surreal. I'll actually give them credit for being ideologically consistent; clearly the Club for Growth is willing to jump off the cliff with Obama.

Hahaha

 

[B-Dubs]

Just gonna drop this here:

http://gawker.com/5994272/republica...-he-isnt-racist-because-he-has-a-black-friend

It had to happen eventually, I'm a little shocked it took this long for someone to trot that out.

The AARP responds to Obama's budget -

http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/pres...se-Budget-Proposal.html?intcmp=AE-BLIL-DOTORG


That 11th dimensional chess.

I can't actually believe he proposed it. Have they all just checked out mentally? Any one of us could have said this was a bad fucking idea. So fucking dumb.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/club-for-growth-questions-gop-rep-for-attacking

This is surreal. I'll actually give them credit for being ideologically consistent; clearly the Club for Growth is willing to jump off the cliff with Obama.

This just goes to show how insane this whole thing is. Up is down, left is right, cats and dogs living together!

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/club-for-growth-questions-gop-rep-for-attacking

This is surreal. I'll actually give them credit for being ideologically consistent; clearly the Club for Growth is willing to jump off the cliff with Obama.

So the GOP doubles down and supports Chained-CPI while also opposing anything more from the rich

All part of the plan?

 

[Oblivion]

It had to happen eventually, I'm a little shocked it took this long for someone to trot that out.

Indeed. Also, the best line from that story:

"I am not a prejudiced person," Gile said in his apology. "I have built Habitat homes for colored people."

 

[Tamanon]

Indeed. Also, the best line from that story:

LOL

 

[Chichikov]

Really? Wouldn't taxing before coming up with your profits be problematic?

You should think of both as profit, there are some technical accounting differences between the two, but taxable income definitely should not be confused with revenues.

 

[bananas]

So, how likely is it that Obama proposed this, knowing that the Democrats in the Senate wouldn't pass it, just so the Republicans would falter and fight among themselves?

 

[Oblivion]

You should think of both as profit, there are some technical accounting differences between the two, but taxable income definitely should not be confused with revenues.

Ah, I see.

 

[Link]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/club-for-growth-questions-gop-rep-for-attacking

This is surreal. I'll actually give them credit for being ideologically consistent; clearly the Club for Growth is willing to jump off the cliff with Obama.

We're through the looking glass, people.

 

[B-Dubs]

Indeed. Also, the best line from that story:

That is a gem. The whole story is just great.

So, how likely is it that Obama proposed this, knowing that the Democrats in the Senate wouldn't pass it, just so the Republicans would falter and fight among themselves?

Who knows, I doubt whatever infighting comes about would be worth the commercials that the GOP can make now. Unless the GOP really shits the bed here, and shits it hard, they can ride this into the midterms.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well guess it's old.

 

[rocketknight]

So, how likely is it that Obama proposed this, knowing that the Democrats in the Senate wouldn't pass it, just so the Republicans would falter and fight among themselves?

Very likely. He's trying to appear reasonable. On NPR today a GOP spokeswoman was floundering around trying to respond to it.

 

[speculawyer]

Who knows, I doubt whatever infighting comes about would be worth the commercials that the GOP can make now. Unless the GOP really shits the bed here, and shits it hard, they can ride this into the midterms.

Yeah, there is no way Obama will be re-elected.

 

[speculawyer]

Indeed. Also, the best line from that story:

"I am not a prejudiced person," Gile said in his apology. "I have built Habitat homes for colored people."

That line was awesome. Not "Habitat for Humanity" homes . . . no, that is something that liberal Carter does. He "built Habitat homes for colored people." Sounds like he owns a plantation.

 

[B-Dubs]

Yeah, there is no way Obama will be re-elected.

I'm talking about for the midterms, which the Dems really need sweep to get anything done.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm talking about for the midterms, which the Dems really need sweep to get anything done.

But Congress controls the purse so the GOP will have to propose something. The Congressional Dems are under no obligation to sign onto what Obama has proposed and can sit back and wait for the GOP to respond.

Perhaps the Dems can make commercials about the Republicans asking for spending cuts but then flip-flopping when proposed cuts are presented to them for their approval.

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/club-for-growth-questions-gop-rep-for-attacking

This is surreal. I'll actually give them credit for being ideologically consistent; clearly the Club for Growth is willing to jump off the cliff with Obama.

I remember a headline I saw recently, can't remember where, along the lines of, "Republicans keep saving Democrats from their President". Obama gives the GOP what they want, to the utter dismay of Democrats, and it's the GOP that prevents it from passing. The whole thing is so surreal.

 

[Aaron Strife]

O'reilly first segment: pro drug war

O'reilly second segment: Obama spending too much money


Sums up the republican party.

You can't name one program he wants to cut

Medicaid Social Security

NOT EVEN ONE PROGRAM

 

[el retorno]

I remember a headline I saw recently, can't remember where, along the lines of, "Republicans keep saving Democrats from their President". Obama gives the GOP what they want, to the utter dismay of Democrats, and it's the GOP that prevents it from passing. The whole thing is so surreal.

Ezra had a post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-alliance-between-john-boehner-and-liberals/

Perhaps unsurprisingly, liberals have a better understanding of the White House’s underlying motives than Republicans. But quite surprisingly, Republicans keep saving liberals from their president.

 

[Karakand]

Since y'all are still talking about taxes, I gots me a possibly dumb question: is it possible that a company can still be taxed if they don't make any profits?

Yes and no.

Yes in that corporate accounting for tax purposes in the U.S. is distinct from corporate financial accounting. (Given that there are two systems in play it is possible to have taxable income on a corporate tax return while a company's books show a net loss at year-end.)

No in that federal corporate tax is only generated when a company has taxable income after all deductions are subtracted from gross income (similar to the calculation of book profit). Taxable income is distinct from profit, but they are not wholly incompatible figures.

Additionally, some states use alternatives/compliments to a profits-based tax, or have a required minimum tax and these can generate tax due on companies that end the year in a loss position. For example, in California there is a required annual minimum tax of $800, regardless of a company's profit or loss.

 

[Gotchaye]

Ezra had a post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...e-alliance-between-john-boehner-and-liberals/

I can see how this is ideal for partisan Democrats, but not for liberals. Yeah, Boehner's doing what I want him to do, more or less, but even though Obama's not getting the deal he wants he's still pulling the center to the right. He's going to make it harder for future liberals to advocate liberal things. That'd be worth it if there was some short-term gain here - if by discrediting the Republicans right now something is going to get done - but the Republicans are going to fall to pieces on their own anyway even if Obama were to look like he wanted to protect SS and Medicare instead of looking "reasonable".

I hear twenty-somethings now talking as if SS obviously needs to be cut (this is obviously not something that popped up in the last week, but I've heard more and more of it over the last few years). That's terrible for future liberals. Liberals should really want a president, especially a Democratic president, to be working to educate people on that point rather than playing into it for short-term political gain.

 

[bonercop]

How surprising.

 

[TacticalFox88]

You ever have that feeling that "Goddamn, I need to take a break from politics!"

And then there's that one incident/story/crazy talk that draws you right back in?

:x

Goddammit.

 

[Link]

You ever have that feeling that "Goddamn, I need to take a break from politics!"

And then there's that one incident/story/crazy talk that draws you right back in?

:x

Goddammit.

Pretty much every day.

 

[el retorno]

I can see how this is ideal for partisan Democrats, but not for liberals. Yeah, Boehner's doing what I want him to do, more or less, but even though Obama's not getting the deal he wants he's still pulling the center to the right. He's going to make it harder for future liberals to advocate liberal things. That'd be worth it if there was some short-term gain here - if by discrediting the Republicans right now something is going to get done - but the Republicans are going to fall to pieces on their own anyway even if Obama were to look like he wanted to protect SS and Medicare instead of looking "reasonable".

I hear twenty-somethings now talking as if SS obviously needs to be cut (this is obviously not something that popped up in the last week, but I've heard more and more of it over the last few years). That's terrible for future liberals. Liberals should really want a president, especially a Democratic president, to be working to educate people on that point rather than playing into it for short-term political gain.

I guess I disagree. I think he loses by trying to "educate" and we get more people who actually WANT to cut. His budget is liberal in most aspects besides the chained CPI. It expands and protects the safety net for the least well off the most important thing IMO

He's not calling for massive cuts anymore. Also When Bush called for privatizing SS the backlash took it off the table. Even the Ryan budget doesn't change it. When the people, AARP, liberal democrats and even republicans reject this cut its going to not come up again anytime soon.

You're right that the budget battles are towards the right end of the spectrum but you can just radically change what you've said for the last few years on a dime.

How surprising.

And this is a surprise?

I thought it was well know drones were not only killing card carrying AQ members but also other militants fighting against the US and its "allies" (pakistan)

 

[TheHeretic]

I can see how this is ideal for partisan Democrats, but not for liberals. Yeah, Boehner's doing what I want him to do, more or less, but even though Obama's not getting the deal he wants he's still pulling the center to the right. He's going to make it harder for future liberals to advocate liberal things. That'd be worth it if there was some short-term gain here - if by discrediting the Republicans right now something is going to get done - but the Republicans are going to fall to pieces on their own anyway even if Obama were to look like he wanted to protect SS and Medicare instead of looking "reasonable".

I hear twenty-somethings now talking as if SS obviously needs to be cut (this is obviously not something that popped up in the last week, but I've heard more and more of it over the last few years). That's terrible for future liberals. Liberals should really want a president, especially a Democratic president, to be working to educate people on that point rather than playing into it for short-term political gain.

The other problem is that whilst Obama may look reasonable inside Washington, the disconnect between the hardship outside Washington and the fixation on deficits within Washington does damage to the democratic party as well. If all American public institutions become untrustworthy its Rand Paul that really wins.

 

[pigeon]

The other problem is that whilst Obama may look reasonable inside Washington, the disconnect between the hardship outside Washington and the fixation on deficits within Washington does damage to the democratic party as well. If all American public institutions become untrustworthy its Rand Paul that really wins.

Well, in fairness, both Democratic budgets explicitly attempt to address unemployment with further stimulus. It just doesn't make the news that Obama wants to do something for the suffering poor and the GOP wants to prevent it.

 

[TheHeretic]

Well, in fairness, both Democratic budgets explicitly attempt to address unemployment with further stimulus. It just doesn't make the news that Obama wants to do something for the suffering poor and the GOP wants to prevent it.

Obama has bought into fiscalism as much as anyone else. I think one of his weaknesses is that he has a very poor sense of economics, and tends to think about the american economy only through budgets and the legislature. He could have made the case that the debt is an issue for later down the road, or that he would only do deficit reduction alongside stimulus. He did neither and now its just an argument about debt when the average person is still suffering immensely.

 

[adamsappel]

Just gonna drop this here:

http://gawker.com/5994272/republica...-he-isnt-racist-because-he-has-a-black-friend

I always have a fear I'm going to say this, as I used to hear it said when I was a kid. I tend to go with jerry-rigging, which isn't even the correct term, and is also jingoist.

Indeed. Also, the best line from that story:

Saying "colored people" is an old person's slip of the tongue. Saying "nigger-rigging" is not only racist, but when you don't immediately realize you messed up and apologize profusely, you're only making it worse.

And this is a surprise?

I thought it was well know drones were not only killing card carrying AQ members but also other militants fighting against the US and its "allies" (pakistan)

Not excusing Obama for this, but does he individually approve these strikes, or just reprehensibly defend them? Granted, I could support drones if they were used rarely and against significant targets, but as is they are just breeding resentment and future terrorists.

Obama has bought into fiscalism as much as anyone else. I think one of his weaknesses is that he has a very poor sense of economics, and tends to think about the american economy only through budgets and the legislature. He could have made the case that the debt is an issue for later down the road, or that he would only do deficit reduction alongside stimulus. He did neither and now its just an argument about debt when the average person is still suffering immensely.

Obama's not a liberal. He probably doesn't believe in MMT, either.

 

[Black Mamba]

My point is that even under those pretty hard to achieve conditions, I don't see why it would be preferable to a change in the income tax which is revenue neutral to your income + VAT system.

I want to be clear at what I'm saying here, it's definitely possible to design a system that includes VAT which would not only be pretty fair but vastly superior than what we have today.
But you can also do it with a small flat tax component.
I think a more useful way is to compare the individual ways we can collect taxation, and I just think that VAT has no advantage over income tax (and plenty of disadvantages).

And I agree that replacing the entire income tax with a VAT is a net negative. But I disagree that the best system (if we must tax production) doesn't include a small VAT. There are advantages, which I explained, but you don't agree with.

But if you want good tax reform, you'd leave taxing incomes and consumption as much as possible.

Since y'all are still talking about taxes, I gots me a possibly dumb question: is it possible that a company can still be taxed if they don't make any profits?

income/corporate taxes you mean, not sales taxes (since that's based on revenues, not taxable income).

It's certainly possible, especially if you don't do your deductions properly. If you do everything right, I don't think (but won't claim for a fact) that it's possible to have no profit and still have to pay taxes (unless you owed taxes from previous years).

Really? Wouldn't taxing before coming up with your profits be problematic?

edit: Karakand said what I was about to type.

 

[Karakand]

Here's a dumb example: if a business was pushed into a loss position solely by paying premiums on a keyman life insurance policy for its CEO, it would have taxable income on its corporate return because premium payments on a keyman policy aren't

Spoiler

generally

deductible.

(Assuming a lot of other things are constant across both computations (e.g. depreciation, amortization, state corporate income taxes).)

 

[Frank the Great]

stop being hegelian kara

 

[Oblivion]

Yes and no.

Yes in that corporate accounting for tax purposes in the U.S. is distinct from corporate financial accounting. (Given that there are two systems in play it is possible to have taxable income on a corporate tax return while a company's books show a net loss at year-end.)

No in that federal corporate tax is only generated when a company has taxable income after all deductions are subtracted from gross income (similar to the calculation of book profit). Taxable income is distinct from profit, but they are not wholly incompatible figures.

Additionally, some states use alternatives/compliments to a profits-based tax, or have a required minimum tax and these can generate tax due on companies that end the year in a loss position. For example, in California there is a required annual minimum tax of $800, regardless of a company's profit or loss.

income/corporate taxes you mean, not sales taxes (since that's based on revenues, not taxable income).

It's certainly possible, especially if you don't do your deductions properly. If you do everything right, I don't think (but won't claim for a fact) that it's possible to have no profit and still have to pay taxes (unless you owed taxes from previous years).


edit: Karakand said what I was about to type.

Grazie, gentlemen.



In other news, this story absolutely infuriates me. Honestly, out of all the absolutely shitty and destructive policies Republicans advocate, for me, the war on drugs stands head and shoulders above everything else. It's stunning to me that we're in the 21st century, and yet we still have primitive, nonsensical laws like this still on the books.

 

[Marvie_3]

Graves makes it official: He's running in 6th again

DFLer Jim Graves will run again for Congress in Minnesota's 6th District in 2014, triggering a likely rematch with U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Graves’ campaign manager, Aaron Wells, made the announcement Thursday morning to the Times.

Wells said Graves’ desire to finish what he started in 2012 —when he lost to Bachmann, R-Stillwater, by about 4,300 votes in one of the nation’s closest U.S. House races — spurred his decision to make another bid for Congress.

Hopefully he can win this time.

 

[pigeon]

Coburn, Ayotte, Chambliss, Isakson, McCain all vote to break hard right filibuster on guns.

That's five Republicans. There's a good chance we'll need at least a couple more in case Manchin and Baucus defect.

 

[pigeon]

It's done, 68-31.

 

[sc0la]

Not that I don't appreciate it, but it's gun laws that finally breaks filibuster?

Not judicial appointments, not cabinet appointments, not stimulus, not non-hobbled HCR, not any other number of things over the past four and a half years that would have benefitted us greatly?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Graves makes it official: He's running in 6th again

Hopefully he can win this time.

Yes!

Hopefully DCCC gives him a lot of money.

 

[RDreamer]

Not that I don't appreciate it, but it's gun laws that finally breaks filibuster?

Not judicial appointments, not cabinet appointments, not stimulus, not non-hobbled HCR, not any other number of things over the past four and a half years that would have benefitted us greatly?

I guess Newtown did change things?

 

[gcubed]

That's five Republicans. There's a good chance we'll need at least a couple more in case Manchin and Baucus defect.

It's done, 68-31.

why would you think Manchin would defect on a bill he helped create?

68-31... at least this guarantee's passage in the house now, Boehner bucking the rules

 

[Oblivion]

68-31... at least this guarantee's passage in the house now,

Would have been even better if the senate passed the actual bill.

 

[gcubed]

Would have been even better if the senate passed the actual bill.

with 68-31 to break fillibuster, it will