Al Franken Century / Super Inaug-u-rama Politics Thread

by **Werthless** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 16:27:21

Keith Olbermann demonizes the CEO of Exxon for...

running a successful business.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/ ... 0#28941040

Jump ahead to 1:25 for talk about Exxon. Bear in mind that Exxon paid taxes of $42B in the first 2 quartersof 2008, and if you assume they paid similar taxes in Q3 and Q4 (I couldn't find the figures), that means that Exxon paid taxes of over $80B on its $45.B in profits.

by **kruker** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 16:36:30

All corporations are evil.

What a joke, he's seriously suggesting that Exxon is somehow obligated to contribute to the bailout, as if it's turning a profit isn't the most beneficial thing for the economy.

by **dajafi** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 16:37:52

Werthless wrote:
dajafi wrote:Okay, I'm convinced: Tom Daschle's a scumbag

What is the accepted protocol for poking innocent fun at Obama appointments? Is it too trite at this point to call it "change you can believe in?" Maybe a play on "hope" would be more interesting? How about:

"A Daschle of Change"

FAIL

by **Werthless** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 16:51:22

That's just, like, your opinion.

by **drsmooth** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 19:17:05

Werthless wrote:....Bear in mind that Exxon paid taxes of $42B in the first 2 quartersof 2008, and if you assume they paid similar taxes in Q3 and Q4 (I couldn't find the figures), that means that Exxon paid taxes of over $80B on its $45.B in profits.

When I look at the latest actual Exxon 10Q I could find without much effort, vs the (aptly sourced?) "hypocrisy" figures, the total amt they paid in 08 looks more like $40B, rather than for 1/2 yr.

You're a finance wiz, W, not me - help me out

& while you're at it, explain what the ~$25B in deferred income tax liabilities as of 6/30/08 is all about

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 20:50:11

dajafi wrote:
Werthless wrote:
dajafi wrote:Okay, I'm convinced: Tom Daschle's a scumbag

What is the accepted protocol for poking innocent fun at Obama appointments? Is it too trite at this point to call it "change you can believe in?" Maybe a play on "hope" would be more interesting? How about:

"A Daschle of Change"

FAIL

Well at least health care reform may not be the biggest thing on people's minds for the moment. Who knows when they'll actually get to doing whatever it is they plan on doing to it....and if anyone will really notice or care

by **FTN** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 21:07:42

I think if our country was run like Rex Tillerson runs Exxon, we'd have far fewer problems.

by **TenuredVulture** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 22:21:04

FTN wrote:I think if our country was run like Rex Tillerson runs Exxon, we'd have far fewer problems.

For good reason, the incentives are very different.

by **Werthless** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:04:14

drsmooth wrote:
Werthless wrote:....Bear in mind that Exxon paid taxes of $42B in the first 2 quartersof 2008, and if you assume they paid similar taxes in Q3 and Q4 (I couldn't find the figures), that means that Exxon paid taxes of over $80B on its $45.B in profits.

When I look at the latest actual Exxon 10Q I could find without much effort, vs the (aptly sourced?) "hypocrisy" figures, the total amt they paid in 08 looks more like $40B, rather than for 1/2 yr.

You're a finance wiz, W, not me - help me out

& while you're at it, explain what the ~$25B in deferred income tax liabilities as of 6/30/08 is all about

I don't know much about tax law, but the $40B you mention was exclusively income taxes. They pay other taxes, and it's listed as "Other taxes and duties" on the 10-Q. This measure was $22B in the first half of 2008.

The main point is that Olbermann is an idiot, and wants Exxon to donate $500mm to the stimulus plan when they pay 100x that in yearly taxes.

by **Werthless** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:50:10

Facing the huge budget deficit, the state of California is not going to pay out tax refunds, welfare checks, and student grants, instead giving out IOUs. The lesson: don't over-withhold, because you might not get your money if the government decides it doesn't want to pay!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 2460.story

by **Woody** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:52:10

Wow, that is fucked up.

I'm starting the revolution, right here. If you owe, DON'T PAY.

Federal, too.

FUCK YOU, FEDS, I'M KEEPING YOUR $1900

by **stevemc** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:53:51

deferred tax liabilities are usually due to a difference between book & tax income. In my experience it's normally a depreciation item where you utilize tax advantages to accelerate depreciation but you have a different time horizon on your book depreciation.

by **Grotewold** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:58:10

stevemc, that might be the first thing you've written on BSG that I didn't agree with, but it's because I didn't understand it!

by **kruker** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:06:01

“This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual.”

NYT

I think anyone that took his campaign pledges of no lobbyists in the administration and the like are the very definition of gullible, yet it was one of the main rallying points I heard from the grass-rooters.

Not such a big deal to me, just because I didn't believe it, but I can see why some people are pissed.

by **dajafi** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:23:38

kruker wrote:
“This is a big problem for Obama, especially because it was such a major, major promise,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “He harped on it, time after time, and he created a sense of expectation around the country. This is exactly why people are skeptical of politicians, because change we can believe in is not the same thing as business as usual.”

NYT

I think anyone that took his campaign pledges of no lobbyists in the administration and the like are the very definition of gullible, yet it was one of the main rallying points I heard from the grass-rooters.

Not such a big deal to me, just because I didn't believe it, but I can see why some people are pissed.

Just read that article a couple minutes ago. I'm not defending this--I think Daschle should have withdrawn, and/or that the administration should have pulled his nomination, and if Geithner had bowed out I would have been fine with that as well.

But I suspect it would be almost impossible to staff an entire federal administration with people who aren't at least in an ethical gray area on some question or another. At best, what you're doing now is setting a tone such that this bunch is less compromised than previous administrations, and maybe the next Democratic president is close to what people like Sloan and Wertheimer would consider legitimately "clean."

At best. Frankly I doubt this could happen, short of burning DC to the ground and starting fresh.

by **Werthless** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:38:07

dajafi wrote:But I suspect it would be almost impossible to staff an entire federal administration with people who aren't at least in an ethical gray area on some question or another. At best, what you're doing now is setting a tone such that this bunch is less compromised than previous administrations, and maybe the next Democratic president is close to what people like Sloan and Wertheimer would consider legitimately "clean."

At best. Frankly I doubt this could happen, short of burning DC to the ground and starting fresh.

^^^^Maybe not a bad idea.

New Hampshireis considering its options for receding, so you never know may happen.

I think Obama had 2 options at the beginning of the election season.
1) Talk tough about ethics reform, set rules, and abide by them when he reaches office.
2) Talk in generalities about changing Washington's culture, but ultimately just appoint the people you want.

He chose 3) set new rules and ignore them because we "in a crisis." This is the kind of thing that Bush did, pass executive orders raising the federal government's power because there was a "war on terror." It's disappointing when Obama reneges on this very simple campaign promise, because it's not even policy related. When you see him backtrack on this simple issue, you can't help but think it was merely a promise he made to get votes.

I don't think this is a good use of Obama's political capital.

by **dajafi** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:38:30

I don't really believe that all Republicans are economic illiterates and policy morons, but certainly the high-profile ones seem to swing that way. Here's former Speaker Dennis Hastert:

"When you really analyze it, if you want to stimulate economic growth, you have to have people investing, creating capital and creating jobs. Basically, a big part of that (stimulus package) went for extending unemployment. It's a nice thing to do, but when you extend unemployment, you take the incentive away from people to go out and get a job. So it almost has a counter negative effect."

Maybe having Tom DeLay's hand up his ass all those years caused brain damage.

by **Werthless** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:48:05

Regarding the NH house resolution, which reaffirms states' rights based on Jeffersonian principles:

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually.

Not in their favor:
1) Lincoln's refusal to allow secession set a powerful precedent
2) The US government is almost guaranteed to ignore this
3) Texas v White said that the entry of Texas into the United States was its entry into "an indissoluble relation." Itsaid that only through revolution or mutual consent of the state and the United States could a state leave the Union.

In their favor:
1) Rising public dissatisfaction with Bush's executive orders, and the Patriot Act.
2) Federal Government has more important things to do than offer more than a hand-wave of a rebuttal
3) This seems like PR, which they could reasonably get, thus making it less likely that the federal government brazenly/egregiously does one of the nullification acts.

by **Werthless** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:52:36

dajafi wrote:I don't really believe that all Republicans are economic illiterates and policy morons, but certainly the high-profile ones seem to swing that way. Here's former Speaker Dennis Hastert:

"When you really analyze it, if you want to stimulate economic growth, you have to have people investing, creating capital and creating jobs. Basically, a big part of that (stimulus package) went for extending unemployment. It's a nice thing to do, but when you extend unemployment, you take the incentive away from people to go out and get a job. So it almost has a counter negative effect."

Maybe having Tom DeLay's hand up his ass all those years caused brain damage.

What is economically illiterate? He's talking in absolutes (take away incentives instead of reduce) when he shouldn't, but directionally, I don't see how he's brain damaged. Also, so you don't thing I'm being disagreeable, the unemployment extension was a very small portion of the funds, and it is the right to do morally IMO.

Edit: Extending unemployment benefits makes it less likely for an unemployed person to "settle" for a temporary low-paying position, hurting the employment numbers.

by **kruker** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:55:44

I wonder how much this has to do with the New Hampshire resolution. Probably not much, but I'm sure they'll want to take some credit and will gladly bask in any residual media spotlight.

http://www.freestateproject.org/

Archived

Al Franken Century / Super Inaug-u-rama Politics Thread