If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Not content with just the demise of Hostess, Dennis Kucinich targets all snack cake peddlers   (thehill.com) divider line 21
    More: Followup, Dennis Kucinich, snack cake, Democrats, Hostess Brands, Nutrition disorder, shut downs  
•       •       •

1546 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Nov 2012 at 10:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-11-17 10:44:33 AM
5 votes:

clowncar on fire: There was a news article released yesterday downplaying the likelihood in the demise of the twinkie as it has proven to be both cuturally as well as profitably worth saving. Someone will most likely step up to the plate and purchase the rights, and recipe, to continue manufacturing twinkies and like profitable brand names.


I'm thinking the whole Hostess thing is just a ploy to reorganize the company and break the union. They're going to "sell" all the assets to themselves.
2012-11-17 11:20:13 AM
4 votes:

LordJiro: colon_pow: dervish16108: HeartBurnKid: clowncar on fire: There was a news article released yesterday downplaying the likelihood in the demise of the twinkie as it has proven to be both cuturally as well as profitably worth saving. Someone will most likely step up to the plate and purchase the rights, and recipe, to continue manufacturing twinkies and like profitable brand names.

I'm thinking the whole Hostess thing is just a ploy to reorganize the company and break the union. They're going to "sell" all the assets to themselves.

Either that, or it's just Hostess' way of playing chicken with the unions, so the unions will say "please don't close, we'll do whatever you want!"

18,500 ex workers are probably having second thoughts about their brave stance

Yeah, darn workers should know just to bend over and take it! So what if they already had a pay cut? So what if they need to pay for things like 'food' and 'heat'?


Worth noting that the company tripled the CEO's salary this year, and increased other executive pay up to 80%. This year, as they were preparing to file for bankruptcy.
2012-11-17 11:17:32 AM
4 votes:

colon_pow: dervish16108: HeartBurnKid: clowncar on fire: There was a news article released yesterday downplaying the likelihood in the demise of the twinkie as it has proven to be both cuturally as well as profitably worth saving. Someone will most likely step up to the plate and purchase the rights, and recipe, to continue manufacturing twinkies and like profitable brand names.

I'm thinking the whole Hostess thing is just a ploy to reorganize the company and break the union. They're going to "sell" all the assets to themselves.

Either that, or it's just Hostess' way of playing chicken with the unions, so the unions will say "please don't close, we'll do whatever you want!"

18,500 ex workers are probably having second thoughts about their brave stance


Yeah, darn workers should know just to bend over and take it! So what if they already had a pay cut? So what if they need to pay for things like 'food' and 'heat'?
2012-11-17 10:34:09 AM
2 votes:

Generation_D: No and Hell No.

And what better way to get the left-wing loonies like Kucinich back in the public eye negatively than for them to try to start legislating morality.

Post some pics of his wife or ignore him, those are the choices.


Legislating Morality? They're not trying to take the shiat off the market.
2012-11-17 04:25:43 PM
1 votes:

mongbiohazard: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.


Is that so? Why? It's ridiculous that advertising and promotional expenses would be tax deductible at all. Those are the normal costs of doing business, and the US government is subsidizing them? So much for the free market...



if you tax all revenue, even revenue spent on costs associated with running a business, then there will literally be no reason to go into business in the vast majority of industries.
the margin for most successful companies is below 15% of revenue.
for example, a company that has a profit margin of 10% on 1 million in revenue is banking 100k a year. this is a well performing company in most industries.

if you tax that entire 1 million dollar revenue stream like you feel *just makes sense* at the very bottom corporate tax rate of 15% (it goes all the way up to 35% for big companies) the company would have its profit wiped out and it would then owe $50k to the government.

here's a list of all the industries that would close up shop if you were in charge.

22 Publishing - Books 16.1
23 Networking and Communication Devices 15.7
24 Drug Manufacturers - Major 15.4
25 Long Distance Carriers 15.2
26 Railroads 15
27 Beverages - Wineries and Distillers 14.9
28 Nonmetallic Mineral Mining 14.6
29 Beverages - Soft Drinks 14.3
30 Wireless Communications 14.1
31 Semiconductor Equipment and Materials 14.1
32 Personal Products 13.9
33 Personal Computers 13.9
34 Medical Instruments and Supplies 13.9
35 Drug Manufacturers - Other 13.6
36 Security Software and Services 13.2
37 Property and Casualty Insurance 13.2
38 Agricultural Chemicals 13
39 Specialty Chemicals 12.7
40 REIT - Residential 12.7
41 Biotechnology 12.7
42 Medical Appliances & Equipment 12.6
43 Technical and System Software 12.5
44 Mortgage Investment 12.5
45 Entertainment - Diversified 12.5
46 Air Services, Other 12.4
47 Diversified Electronics 11.9
48 Processed and Packaged Goods 11.5
49 Foreign Regional Banks 11.5
50 Water Utilities 10.9
51 Semiconductor - Specialized 10.5
52 Money Center Banks 10.5
53 Consumer Services 10.5
54 Broadcasting - TV 10.5
55 Regional - Midwest Banks 10.4
56 Toys and Games 10.1
57 Textile - Apparel Footwear 10.1
58 Restaurants 10
59 Investment Brokerage - National 10
60 Oil and Gas Drilling and Exploration 9.9
61 Paper and Paper Products 9.8
62 Foreign Money Center Banks 9.8
63 Regional - Northeast Banks 9.7
64 Business Software and Services 9.7
65 Synthetics 9.5
66 Scientific and Technical Instruments 9.5
67 Data Storage Devices 9.5
68 Internet Software and Services 9.4
69 CATV Systems 9.3
70 Specialty Eateries 9.2
71 Telecom Services - Domestic 9.1
72 Specialized Health Services 9
73 Diversified Computer Systems 9
74 Savings and Loans 8.9
75 Internet Service Providers 8.9
76 Conglomerates 8.8
77 Research Services 8.7
78 Diversified Machinery 8.7
79 Education and Training Services 8.4
80 Independent Oil and Gas 8.3
81 Industrial Equipment and Components 8.2
82 General Entertainment 8.2
83 Diversified Utilities 8.1
84 Asset Management 8.1
85 Accident and Health Insurance 8.1
86 Information and Delivery Services 8
87 Gas Utilities 8
88 Business Services 8
89 Telecom Services - Foreign 7.9
90 Oil and Gas Equipment and Services 7.9
91 Insurance Brokers 7.8
92 Cleaning Products 7.8
93 Steel and Iron 7.7
94 Drug Related Products 7.7
95 Home Furnishing Stores 7.6
96 Diagnostic Substances 7.6
97 Auto Parts Stores 7.3
98 Industrial Electrical Equipment 7.2
99 Waste Management 7
100 Confectioners 7
101 Aerospace/Defense - Major Diversified 7
102 Publishing - Newspapers 6.9
103 Jewelry Stores 6.9
104 Home Health Care 6.9
105 Computer Based Systems 6.9
106 Pollution & Treatment Controls 6.8
107 Lodging 6.8
108 Communication Equipment 6.7
109 Aerospace/Defense Products & Services 6.6
110 Sporting Activities 6.5
111 Packaging & Containers 6.5
112 Catalog & Mail Order Houses 6.5
113 Drugs - Generic 6.3
114 Major Integrated Oil and Gas 6.2

/this is why people like you should just stay out of these discussions
2012-11-17 12:08:15 PM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Needlessly Complicated: We are giving makers of sugary snacks a tax break for advertising. Why the hell are we doing that?

The point they're making is why single out junk food companies when it's applied across the board to everyone?

I'm saying why are we giving tax breaks to any company for advertising.


Fair enough. No advertising tax breaks for anyone! Sounds good to me. Even the right wingers can agree with that, right?

Now, before you answer:
www.bbsradio.com
2012-11-17 12:02:58 PM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.

So we've come to the point when the government doesn't give special consideration to companies it's "legislating morality"?

The government doesn't give special consideration to junk food companies. They are taking the same deduction every other company takes. But I don't blame you for being misled, since that was clearly Kucinich's intent.

You seem to be missing my point. That we give any consideration to the advertising budgets for special benefits is the issue. It isn't morality.


It's not a "special benefit," it's a business expense, like staff salaries and office supplies and equipment depreciation and rent and accounting fees and all that. If I spend $700 and make $1,000, my net income is $300 and that's what I should pay tax on. Unless you want to go all "FairTax"(tm) -- I disagree with that, but that's a different subject.

But obviously, to get back to the original subject, Kucinich was talking about taking away the deduction just for junk food companies, not for all industries equally. I don't care to discuss whether you can label that "legislating morality," but in any event it would epitomize everything that's wrong with the tax code today. If this bill were to go through, you'd have lobbyists descending on the Hill to argue about what is and isn't junk food. English muffins? Red Bull? Pancakes are pretty low in nutrients and high in simple carbs, so let's say those are junk food. And there will be pages and pages of regulations on this, with thousands of tax lawyers billing hours and hours to go through them. How do we deal with Denny's Grand Slam commercials, which feature pancakes (junk food), eggs (not junk), fruit (not junk), whipped cream (junk) and coffee (who knows)? Do you allocate or apportion expenses?

/tax lawyer
//don't particularly need more work, especially on this kind of crap
2012-11-17 11:57:31 AM
1 votes:

Needlessly Complicated: We are giving makers of sugary snacks a tax break for advertising. Why the hell are we doing that?


The point they're making is why single out junk food companies when it's applied across the board to everyone?

I'm saying why are we giving tax breaks to any company for advertising.
2012-11-17 11:56:06 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.

So we've come to the point when the government doesn't give special consideration to companies it's "legislating morality"?

The government doesn't give special consideration to junk food companies. They are taking the same deduction every other company takes. But I don't blame you for being misled, since that was clearly Kucinich's intent.

You seem to be missing my point. That we give any consideration to the advertising budgets for special benefits is the issue. It isn't morality.


Just to be clear I'm talking about all companies, not just those that manufacture and distribute junk food.
2012-11-17 11:55:07 AM
1 votes:

Generation_D: No and Hell No.

And what better way to get the left-wing loonies like Kucinich back in the public eye negatively than for them to try to start legislating morality.

Post some pics of his wife or ignore him, those are the choices.


Did you read the article? We are giving makers of sugary snacks a tax break for advertising. Why the hell are we doing that? I thought the US was broke and we couldn't afford things! Seems like a reasonable fiscally conservative suggestion to me.

That being said, and as a straight woman, I do not object to pictures of Kucinich's wife being posted.
2012-11-17 11:53:24 AM
1 votes:

Super Chronic: Fart_Machine: Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.

So we've come to the point when the government doesn't give special consideration to companies it's "legislating morality"?

The government doesn't give special consideration to junk food companies. They are taking the same deduction every other company takes. But I don't blame you for being misled, since that was clearly Kucinich's intent.


You seem to be missing my point. That we give any consideration to the advertising budgets for special benefits is the issue. It isn't morality.
2012-11-17 11:46:17 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.


So we've come to the point when the government doesn't give special consideration to companies it's "legislating morality"?
2012-11-17 11:44:12 AM
1 votes:
LIBERTY! FREEDOM! CONSTITUTION!

TELEPROMPTER!

BENGHAZI!

PETRAEUS ENGINEERED SCANDAL!

LIBERAL SOSHULIST ACTIVISM!

WHARRRRRRRRRRGGGGARRRRRRBBBBBLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!11

(meanwhile climate change continues to grow unchecked)
2012-11-17 11:23:48 AM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: LordJiro: colon_pow: dervish16108: HeartBurnKid: clowncar on fire: There was a news article released yesterday downplaying the likelihood in the demise of the twinkie as it has proven to be both cuturally as well as profitably worth saving. Someone will most likely step up to the plate and purchase the rights, and recipe, to continue manufacturing twinkies and like profitable brand names.

I'm thinking the whole Hostess thing is just a ploy to reorganize the company and break the union. They're going to "sell" all the assets to themselves.

Either that, or it's just Hostess' way of playing chicken with the unions, so the unions will say "please don't close, we'll do whatever you want!"

18,500 ex workers are probably having second thoughts about their brave stance

Yeah, darn workers should know just to bend over and take it! So what if they already had a pay cut? So what if they need to pay for things like 'food' and 'heat'?

Worth noting that the company tripled the CEO's salary this year, and increased other executive pay up to 80%. This year, as they were preparing to file for bankruptcy.


I'm SHOCKED that executives would screw over the workers to pad their own wallets and get their golden parachutes. SHOCKED.

/Farking scumbags.
2012-11-17 11:21:32 AM
1 votes:

Mr. Eugenides: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is when you're talking about making advertising and promotion expenses that are deductable for any business non decuctable for junk food companies.


Exactly. Kucinich was making it sound like there is some kind of special, bought-and-paid-for loophole or "tax break" for the junk food industry. There isn't. Junk food companies just compute their net income like most other companies, by taking gross income, subtracting expenses in producing that income and paying tax on the net. Advertising is clearly a deductible expense, for every business.
2012-11-17 11:16:26 AM
1 votes:
"Did you know that we're actually giving tax deductions out to big companies that go ahead and advertise and market products that contribute to childhood obesity?" he asked on the House floor.

Let me translate that...

"Did you that we're actually giving tax deductions to big companies whose products are purchased by irresponsible parents?"
2012-11-17 11:05:43 AM
1 votes:

Lost Thought 00: Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.

It is. The tax breaks aren't specifically for producing junk food, they are general purpose tax breaks everyone enjoys. This is like trying to ban mortgage tax deductions for gay couples.


No, it isn't. This analogy is bad and you should feel bad.
2012-11-17 10:56:54 AM
1 votes:

HeartBurnKid: clowncar on fire: There was a news article released yesterday downplaying the likelihood in the demise of the twinkie as it has proven to be both cuturally as well as profitably worth saving. Someone will most likely step up to the plate and purchase the rights, and recipe, to continue manufacturing twinkies and like profitable brand names.

I'm thinking the whole Hostess thing is just a ploy to reorganize the company and break the union. They're going to "sell" all the assets to themselves.


Either that, or it's just Hostess' way of playing chicken with the unions, so the unions will say "please don't close, we'll do whatever you want!"
2012-11-17 10:47:35 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.


Not only do you expect people to read the article, but you expect them to understand what it contains?
2012-11-17 10:39:59 AM
1 votes:
It also should be noted that selling off their brands means someone else will most likely pick them up to resume the flow of Twinkies and Ho Ho's to our starved masses.
2012-11-17 10:36:53 AM
1 votes:

LasersHurt: Generation_D: No and Hell No.

And what better way to get the left-wing loonies like Kucinich back in the public eye negatively than for them to try to start legislating morality.

Post some pics of his wife or ignore him, those are the choices.

Legislating Morality? They're not trying to take the shiat off the market.


Apparently not giving them a tax break is legislating morality.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report