Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(ABC)   Evil when Bush did it, okay now, vol. DCCLXVI: "The Senate Democratic plan - which has been endorsed by the White House and is, in fact, the only Democratic plan actively under consideration right now - doesn't touch corporate jets"   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 173
    More: Obvious, White House, Senate, senate democrats, evils, loopholes  
•       •       •

1837 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Feb 2013 at 9:37 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-22 08:30:43 AM  
does it touch other things like corporate tax loopholes or are you just focusing on one tiny little aspect of the plan?

/nice to see the trolly headlines are out today. I missed them
 
2013-02-22 08:58:06 AM  

somedude210: does it touch other things like corporate tax loopholes or are you just focusing on one tiny little aspect of the plan?


It seems to have been cause for much wharr from the White House on down for the past few years, as TFA points out.

But now it's a 'tiny little aspect', no biggy.

(cosby) Riiight. (/cosby)
 
2013-02-22 09:03:12 AM  

Gulper Eel: somedude210: does it touch other things like corporate tax loopholes or are you just focusing on one tiny little aspect of the plan?

It seems to have been cause for much wharr from the White House on down for the past few years, as TFA points out.

But now it's a 'tiny little aspect', no biggy.

(cosby) Riiight. (/cosby)


if there are other aspects of this plan that goes after corporations and corporate jets is left off, but the rest is effective (like corporate tax loop holes being closed, stopping corporate welfare, etc.) then yes it is a small thing to let slip.
 
2013-02-22 09:18:02 AM  

somedude210: Gulper Eel: somedude210: does it touch other things like corporate tax loopholes or are you just focusing on one tiny little aspect of the plan?

It seems to have been cause for much wharr from the White House on down for the past few years, as TFA points out.

But now it's a 'tiny little aspect', no biggy.

(cosby) Riiight. (/cosby)

if there are other aspects of this plan that goes after corporations and corporate jets is left off, but the rest is effective (like corporate tax loop holes being closed, stopping corporate welfare, etc.) then yes it is a small thing to let slip.


Well, it wasnt a little thing a few years ago. It was one of those pretty decent outrage things when Bush was in office.
 
2013-02-22 09:19:45 AM  
Of course not.
Buffet said to Leave Corporate Jets alone!
Successful lobbying is successful.
 
2013-02-22 09:23:30 AM  

cman: Well, it wasnt a little thing a few years ago. It was one of those pretty decent outrage things when Bush was in office.


I think you're thinking of the campaign. It made for a good soundbite, I'll give you that, and that's what they probably went for, but again, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter as much as closing loopholes and cuttings corporate welfare

but please, continue to berate me for not caring about the "little" stuff now. There are bigger aspects to this whole thing, Its better to deal with those aspects then worry about the small shiat
 
2013-02-22 09:25:59 AM  

somedude210: cman: Well, it wasnt a little thing a few years ago. It was one of those pretty decent outrage things when Bush was in office.

I think you're thinking of the campaign. It made for a good soundbite, I'll give you that, and that's what they probably went for, but again, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter as much as closing loopholes and cuttings corporate welfare

but please, continue to berate me for not caring about the "little" stuff now. There are bigger aspects to this whole thing, Its better to deal with those aspects then worry about the small shiat


If you took me as berating you then I apologize. THat was not my intent.

When the Corporate Jet issue came up, the right said it was stupid thing to worry about. But, alas, just like the GOP on Benghazi they wouldnt let up. Now, the right is like "WTF? Didn't you guys say this was an important thing?". The left then replies, "What are you talking about?"
 
2013-02-22 09:33:50 AM  
The Senate plan is intended to be bipartisan even though it was created entirely by Democrats, which entirely defeats the point and makes it quite pointless since it's still going to be obliterated before it gets a single Republican vote.

So in short, we're still going to get farked over because the Democrats are giving up.  Again.
 
2013-02-22 09:39:32 AM  
I love this part.

The White House also frequently mentions tax breaks for oil and gas companies. The Democratic plan does eliminate some of those, but even that doesn't add up to much: Just $2 billion in the Senate Democratic plan.

That's some fine journalism.
 
2013-02-22 09:41:45 AM  

GAT_00: The Senate plan is intended to be bipartisan even though it was created entirely by Democrats, which entirely defeats the point and makes it quite pointless since it's still going to be obliterated before it gets a single Republican vote.

So in short, we're still going to get farked over because the Democrats are giving up.  Again.


Even if something can be done in the slightly-more-reasonable Senate, what chance does anything from the Senate have of passing in the House?

This is no way to run a country...
 
2013-02-22 09:41:53 AM  
Republicans: "See? SEE?!! Your precious Democrats enacted some of the same measures WE did in office!"

Voters: "So, you're changing your position on that issue, since you see our frustration?"

Republicans: "Oh, heavens, no!! We're not going to DO anything about the problem, we just wanted to tell you you're farked."
 
2013-02-22 09:43:54 AM  

cman: somedude210: cman: Well, it wasnt a little thing a few years ago. It was one of those pretty decent outrage things when Bush was in office.

I think you're thinking of the campaign. It made for a good soundbite, I'll give you that, and that's what they probably went for, but again, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter as much as closing loopholes and cuttings corporate welfare

but please, continue to berate me for not caring about the "little" stuff now. There are bigger aspects to this whole thing, Its better to deal with those aspects then worry about the small shiat

If you took me as berating you then I apologize. THat was not my intent.

When the Corporate Jet issue came up, the right said it was stupid thing to worry about. But, alas, just like the GOP on Benghazi they wouldnt let up. Now, the right is like "WTF? Didn't you guys say this was an important thing?". The left then replies, "What are you talking about?"


From jets to benghazi in under 5 minutes!!
 
2013-02-22 09:45:30 AM  
Romney would have never done such a thing. Ya'll were stupid for voting for 0bama. Romney would have done everything you libs like and for some reason you were too blind to see that.
 
2013-02-22 09:45:51 AM  

cman: somedude210: Gulper Eel: somedude210: does it touch other things like corporate tax loopholes or are you just focusing on one tiny little aspect of the plan?

It seems to have been cause for much wharr from the White House on down for the past few years, as TFA points out.

But now it's a 'tiny little aspect', no biggy.

(cosby) Riiight. (/cosby)

if there are other aspects of this plan that goes after corporations and corporate jets is left off, but the rest is effective (like corporate tax loop holes being closed, stopping corporate welfare, etc.) then yes it is a small thing to let slip.

Well, it wasnt a little thing a few years ago. It was one of those pretty decent outrage things when Bush was in office.


Yes, we all remember where we were during the Great Corporate Jet Outrage of 2007.
 
2013-02-22 09:47:11 AM  
The "corporate jets thing" was of course the fact that we let some of the banks we bailed out keep their corporate jets. Not that I'd expect submitter to remember actual objective observable reality of course.
 
2013-02-22 09:53:20 AM  

cman: Now, the right is like "WTF? Didn't you guys say this was an important thing?".


"Why aren't you pushing harder on that reform that we will fight tooth and nail? A-hurr hurr hurr..."

That's like the left for attacking the right for NOT including a personhood amendment in a bill. Why are they making a fuss about something they oppose NOT being in a bill? Because they're f*cking children and the "librul lamestream drive-by" media eats up anything they shiat out.
 
2013-02-22 09:55:37 AM  
Evil when Bush did it, okay now, vol. DCCLXVI:

Like how the GOP hated all of Bush's recess appointments, "czars," and ambassador deaths on his watch?
 
2013-02-22 09:56:13 AM  
Who said its ok?

there are many things I'm not happy with Obama about. The difference between the right and the left, is that the left will criticize both a democratic and republican president while the right only criticizes a democrat and calls criticism of a republican "unamerican"
 
2013-02-22 10:02:03 AM  

(sigh) And once again, this seems relevant:


oi50.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-22 10:03:31 AM  
Jesus, the right says cutting the jet exemption is bad, Obama says, OK, you got a point, one for you, whatever, I don't feel like fighting it, then the right blames Obama for agreeing with them.
 
2013-02-22 10:06:21 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course not.
Buffet said to Leave Corporate Jets alone!
Successful lobbying is successful.


Consider this:  The people who manufacture, maintain, and fly those corporate jets are all part of the "middle class".  Taxing the piss out of that sort of thing would hurt them much more than it would hurt the people they fly around.

Did nobody learn the lesson of the early 1990's luxury tax that wiped out a ton of blue collar yacht-building jobs in the US?
 
2013-02-22 10:08:50 AM  
Obama will never learn.  Never, under any circumstances, give the Republicans a single concession.  Not one.  Ever.  They dial their biatchiness up to 11 when you don't give them what they want, and they dial it up to 12 when you do.
 
2013-02-22 10:09:17 AM  
I fly a "corporate jet", so this is relevant to my interests.

Only in Washington DC could a 5-year depreciation schedule for private, not-for-hire business aircraft under MACRS (vs. a 7-year depreciation schedule for commercial aircraft) be continuously referred to by politicians and 'journalists' as a "loophole".

Non-commercial (industrial aid) business aircraft fall under the same MACRS depreciation class as computers, automobiles, and construction equipment.  You know, things businesses use to actually do business, earn revenue that pays employee salaries, earns profits and provides shareholder value.

Of course, this is to say nothing of Obama repeatedly signing financial legislation during his first term that not only maintains the five-year depreciation schedule but provides 50% depreciation the first of those five years...
 
2013-02-22 10:09:20 AM  

somedude210: Gulper Eel: somedude210: does it touch other things like corporate tax loopholes or are you just focusing on one tiny little aspect of the plan?

It seems to have been cause for much wharr from the White House on down for the past few years, as TFA points out.

But now it's a 'tiny little aspect', no biggy.

(cosby) Riiight. (/cosby)

if there are other aspects of this plan that goes after corporations and corporate jets is left off, but the rest is effective (like corporate tax loop holes being closed, stopping corporate welfare, etc.) then yes it is a small thing to let slip.


Yeah, pretty much.  I'm willing to let a little thing like this slip by; not that bloodthirsty.
 
2013-02-22 10:10:25 AM  
Subby should have left a C out for maximum trolling.
 
2013-02-22 10:11:09 AM  

GoldSpider: GAT_00: The Senate plan is intended to be bipartisan even though it was created entirely by Democrats, which entirely defeats the point and makes it quite pointless since it's still going to be obliterated before it gets a single Republican vote.

So in short, we're still going to get farked over because the Democrats are giving up.  Again.

Even if something can be done in the slightly-more-reasonable Senate, what chance does anything from the Senate have of passing in the House?

This is no way to run a country...


And so what's the point in so utterly caving on something that will get nowhere?
 
2013-02-22 10:11:28 AM  
Really, GOP? You want to accuse the other side of hypocrisy? Tell me, again, why did you all convert to deficit hawks on January 21, 2009?
 
2013-02-22 10:13:38 AM  
GAT_00: So in short, we're still going to get farked over because the Democrats are giving up.  Again.
 
2013-02-22 10:17:02 AM  

dittybopper: tenpoundsofcheese: Of course not.
Buffet said to Leave Corporate Jets alone!
Successful lobbying is successful.

Consider this:  The people who manufacture, maintain, and fly those corporate jets are all part of the "middle class".  Taxing the piss out of that sort of thing would hurt them much more than it would hurt the people they fly around.

Did nobody learn the lesson of the early 1990's luxury tax that wiped out a ton of blue collar yacht-building jobs in the US?


Yes.  You can say that for almost any business that you want to tax the piss out of.

The Buffit Rule  v2.0:  "Don't tax my jets!"
 
2013-02-22 10:18:36 AM  
You know what might work? An extra tax placed on items that only the really really rich can afford...You know, like yachts and planes and really really expensive cars! We could call it a "Luxury Tax".

What could possibly go wrong?
 
2013-02-22 10:19:16 AM  
Since when is the depreciation deduction a "loophole"?
 
2013-02-22 10:22:20 AM  
The Democrats are wrong about lots of stuff, but that isn't relevant when the Republicans are wrong about everything.
 
2013-02-22 10:25:31 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Jesus, the right says cutting the jet exemption is bad, Obama says, OK, you got a point, one for you, whatever, I don't feel like fighting it, then the right blames Obama for agreeing with them.


It's deja vu all over again.
 
2013-02-22 10:26:36 AM  
This is different because black.

WHEN WILL YOU GET THAT THROUGH YOUR STUPID HEADS!!!
 
2013-02-22 10:27:49 AM  
cman:

Well, it wasnt a little thing a few years ago. It was one of those pretty decent outrage things when Bush was in office.


You are right, it wasn't. And it still shouldn't be. This is horseshiat. Bush had a bit of a different image--this basically spoke to the negative image everyone had about him--that's why it was a bigger deal. Obama has the same problem with "OMG SOSHALIzMs!!!!" With his healthcare plan, even though it was originally a republican idea. Anything with W that seemed too pro big business was a horrible PR day, anything that is too pro citizen is a horrible one for Obama.
 
2013-02-22 10:34:40 AM  

Wendy's Chili: cman: Now, the right is like "WTF? Didn't you guys say this was an important thing?".

"Why aren't you pushing harder on that reform that we will fight tooth and nail? A-hurr hurr hurr..."

That's like the left for attacking the right for NOT including a personhood amendment in a bill. Why are they making a fuss about something they oppose NOT being in a bill? Because they're f*cking children and the "librul lamestream drive-by" media eats up anything they shiat out.


Its more of a "we caught you trying partisan bullshiat so fess up" thing
 
2013-02-22 10:35:29 AM  
I feel I should vote Republican from now on.
 
2013-02-22 10:35:56 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: You know what might work? An extra tax placed on items that only the really really rich can afford...You know, like yachts and planes and really really expensive cars! We could call it a "Luxury Tax".

What could possibly go wrong?


... a high marginal tax rate on conspicuous consumption is about as good of a tax as you'll ever find
 
2013-02-22 10:36:42 AM  
Thank you submitter. I agree completely that taxing corporate jets will turn this deficit around.
 
2013-02-22 10:39:28 AM  

gameshowhost: Dancin_In_Anson: You know what might work? An extra tax placed on items that only the really really rich can afford...You know, like yachts and planes and really really expensive cars! We could call it a "Luxury Tax".

What could possibly go wrong?

... a high marginal tax rate on conspicuous consumption is about as good of a tax as you'll ever find


The airplane mechancis and guys at the yacht factory might take exception to that.
 
2013-02-22 10:39:43 AM  

gameshowhost: ... a high marginal tax rate on conspicuous consumption is about as good of a tax as you'll ever find


It worked so well in the early 90s!
 
2013-02-22 10:40:00 AM  

GAT_00: And so what's the point in so utterly caving on something that will get nowhere?


I suppose it wouldn't hurt anything for the Dems to grow a spine, list each and every time a GOP congresscritter has been duplicitous and insincere, and then proceeded to tell them to go fark themselves.

For the lulz, if nothing else can be gained.
 
2013-02-22 10:40:24 AM  

gameshowhost: Dancin_In_Anson: You know what might work? An extra tax placed on items that only the really really rich can afford...You know, like yachts and planes and really really expensive cars! We could call it a "Luxury Tax".

What could possibly go wrong?

... a high marginal tax rate on conspicuous consumption is about as good of a tax as you'll ever find


But it's not faaaiiiirrrrrr

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-22 10:40:25 AM  

Wendy's Chili: "Why aren't you pushing harder on that reform that we will fight tooth and nail? A-hurr hurr hurr..."



F'in THIS.
I would also have accepted, "Why didn't you try harder to stop us from enacting stupid legislation??!!"
 
2013-02-22 10:42:38 AM  

GAT_00: The Senate plan is intended to be bipartisan even though it was created entirely by Democrats, which entirely defeats the point and makes it quite pointless since it's still going to be obliterated before it gets a single Republican vote.

So in short, we're still going to get farked over because the Democrats are giving up.  Again.


which was a fear of those of us with enough memory left to have faint stirring in the brain re obama's negotiating skills. IMO it's long past time to say FU to the republicans publicly. repeatedly. run the boehner "98%" sound bite on an endless loop. hammer them with their inconsistencies. yell and scream that hagel didn't have shiat to do with benghazi and that mc cain and graham are just being small and petty. remind the public that grahm's fear of being primaried is not a valid concern in setting public policy.
 
2013-02-22 10:44:51 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Of course not.
Buffet said to Leave Corporate Jets alone!
Successful lobbying is successful.


imageshack.us
 
2013-02-22 10:46:33 AM  
So vote Republican?
 
2013-02-22 10:51:12 AM  

CoolHandLucas: Of course, this is to say nothing of Obama repeatedly signing financial legislation during his first term that not only maintains the five-year depreciation schedule but provides 50% depreciation the first of those five years...



Well, you know once you drive it off the lot ...
 
2013-02-22 10:52:03 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Jesus, the right says cutting the jet exemption is bad, Obama says, OK, you got a point, one for you, whatever, I don't feel like fighting it, then the right blames Obama for agreeing with them.


Maybe that is the point.  It seems President Obama has been rather shrewed in his political dealings with Republicans of late, maybe this is part of a coy political strategy.  Use the private jet tax loophole as a soundbyte in the debate but not in the proposal.  Have the Republicans bring that up trying to show President Obama as a hypocrite.  Then have President Obama counter with agreeing to add it to the proposal, putting Republicans on the spot to either agree or defend rich people's tax breaks on private jets.
 
2013-02-22 10:52:28 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: gameshowhost: ... a high marginal tax rate on conspicuous consumption is about as good of a tax as you'll ever find

It worked so well in the early 90s!



You mean like how we went into 2001 with projected budget surplus? Whatever happened to that?
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report