US Politics: March Madness

[GAROVORKIN]

7 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

In light of yet another pretty basic breakdown of your understanding of, well, anything, you might want to reconsider where your Plato reference was going to go.

Dante must everything with you be an ahah moment?  

 

[Xray the Enforcer]

I'm having a Chuck Tingle moment

[GAROVORKIN]

1 minute ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

I'm having a Chuck Tingle moment

Never heard of him.

[Larry of the Lawn]

This is definitely the best timeline

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Which moment in particular ? 

57 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

I'm having a Chuck Tingle moment

[OldGimletEye]

11 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

1.  Look, I'm going to say it again, because it drives me crazy:  WaPo is owned by JEFF BEZOS through his family office in an entity called Nash HOldings.  Mr. Bezos is the CEO of Amazon, and is one of 10 directors on its Board.  Per their last proxy, Mr. Bezos owned approximately 17% of Amazon's stock.  Amazon and the WaPo ARE NOT THE SAME.  It is 100% inappropriate for the president to abuse the Executive office to get (f*cking ineffective) revenge against perceived bad coverage in a Newspaper by attacking a public company whose CEO happens to be the owner of the Newspaper.   

 

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I totally agree with MZ. No elected official should use their office to attack a public company because it’s CEO owns a private newspaper which has been critical about said elected official. This is some banana republic stuff.

Also, I hope it’s not lost on anyone that world class tax fraud and cheat Donald Trump is complaining about Amazon not paying enough taxes. If WaPo runs that headline, we’ll have narrowed down who is the snake in our midst.

Just simplifying things here. Suppose the fight was between Trump and Amazon, and let’s forget about WaPo and any freedom of the press implications.

I’m not a fan of Amazon’s shenanigans and particularly it’s labor practices. And I think I’d probably have some pretty choice words for Bozo, oops I meant Bezos.

That said, I think it’s very very dangerous for the President of the US to single out particular and specific companies for special treatment, whether that treatment is beneficial or negative. That kind of precedent I don’t think is good for anybody in the long run. I don’t have a problem with the President speaking about entire industries or business practices in general, but targeting specific and individual companies is a problem.

While I think I might get some short term enjoyment from seeing Amazon get beat up a little, I’ll analogize the situation  to procrastination, which I’ll analogize to masturbation: At the time you’re doing it, it may feel good, but in the end, you’re only fucking yourself.

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

Just simplifying things here. Suppose the fight was between Trump and Amazon, and let’s forget about WaPo and any freedom of the press implications.

I’m not a fan of Amazon’s shenanigans and particularly it’s labor practices. And I think I’d probably have some pretty choice words for Bozo, oops I meant Bezos.

That said, I think it’s very very dangerous for the President of the US to single out particular and specific companies for special treatment, whether that treatment is beneficial or negative. That kind of precedent I don’t think is good for anybody in the long run. I don’t have a problem with the President speaking about entire industries or business practices in general, but targeting specific and individual companies is a problem.

While I think I might get some short term enjoyment from seeing Amazon get beat up a little, I’ll analogize the situation  to procrastination, which I’ll analogize to masturbation: At the time you’re doing it, it may feel good, but in the end, you’re only fucking yourself.

Don't President Obama fire the head of GM when the Federal Government was  shareholding stake  in that company when they  bailed out GM? And didn't he promise  not to  interfere  in GM's business? 

[DanteGabriel]

7 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Don't President Obama fire the head of GM when the Federal Government was  shareholding stake  in that company when they  bailed out GM? And didn't he promise  not to  infers in GM's business? 

The federal government bailed out GM. They were a major creditor. It was that, or close, for GM. And Obama's actions were not dictated by personal animosity.

Amazon is not indebted to the federal government, nor is the Washington Post. And Trump is targetting one company for what its owner owns, over personal animosity. Not to mention outright lying about them with public statements. He's also threatening AT&T and Time-Warner over their proposed merger because he doesn't like CNN's coverage of him (after they gave him millions of dollars of free airtime during the primaries).

In short, this was a pointless and not at all useful comparison. Just more of your transparent and lame whatabouttery.

[OldGimletEye]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Don't President Obama fire the head of GM when the Federal Government was  shareholding stake  in that company when they  bailed out GM? And didn't he promise  not to  infers in GM's business? 

First question. What was the year and what was going on when GM filed for bankruptcy?

[LongRider]

22 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

First question. What was the year and what was going on when GM filed for bankruptcy?

**raises hand**Sea lions were trying to figure out what a Goodwin was! 

no?   

**ohh ohh**  Dipshits were making Chuck tingle!  

no?  

damn, "oh, oh, I know, I know"   Cable news was reporting on Amazon's bezos!  

no?   damn it, I never git nuttin' right. 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

The federal government bailed out GM. They were a major creditor. It was that, or close, for GM. And Obama's actions were not dictated by personal animosity.

Amazon is not indebted to the federal government, nor is the Washington Post. And Trump is targetting one company for what its owner owns, over personal animosity. Not to mention outright lying about them with public statements. He's also threatening AT&T and Time-Warner over their proposed merger because he doesn't like CNN's coverage of him (after they gave him millions of dollars of free airtime during the primaries).

In short, this was a pointless and not at all useful comparison. Just more of your transparent and lame whatabouttery.

I was asking a question , Not seeking your approval for my question Dante .  Differing circumstance but  Two examples of Presidential inference  in business.

[all swedes are racist]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

Just simplifying things here. Suppose the fight was between Trump and Amazon, and let’s forget about WaPo and any freedom of the press implications.

I’m not a fan of Amazon’s shenanigans and particularly it’s labor practices. And I think I’d probably have some pretty choice words for Bozo, oops I meant Bezos.

That said, I think it’s very very dangerous for the President of the US to single out particular and specific companies for special treatment, whether that treatment is beneficial or negative. That kind of precedent I don’t think is good for anybody in the long run. I don’t have a problem with the President speaking about entire industries or business practices in general, but targeting specific and individual companies is a problem.

While I think I might get some short term enjoyment from seeing Amazon get beat up a little, I’ll analogize the situation  to procrastination, which I’ll analogize to masturbation: At the time you’re doing it, it may feel good, but in the end, you’re only fucking yourself.

fair point, should be trying to break up, regulate, tax the fuck out of or outright nationalize ALL of the companies 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

First question. What was the year and what was going on when GM filed for bankruptcy?

2009 and I believe it had to do with business decision   making of then CEO  Wagner .  GM was still was not doing what the government  wanted was change it behavior .  For example the government  wanted GM to  put more emphasis  on fuel efficient  cars and hybrids.  Wager favored continuing the Emphasis on SUVs and trucks  which was one the man reason for GM woes .   At the time , Some argued that it would be better let GM go under. 

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Lolz. The question I'm always left with is when are taxes low enough? Assuming Democrats never raise them again, will they just keep cutting every time they think it's time to juice the market and/or for political gain? 

Never.  Yes.

4 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

My comment was more directed at the Cable news.  The dominant news is cable and its 24 hour a day we need to  fed the ratings monster .  It doesn't seem particularly  hospitable to to good old fashion mundane tell the facts and let the readers decide for them selves journalisms.  And before you say anything. Yes Im well are that sensationalized journalism  has always been with us  in some ways shape of form

I'll entertain this because it's kind of my purview.  "Good ol' tell the facts" journalism died with the advent of cable television.  That is when many voters "opted out" of being engaged in politics because they had alternative options instead of three channels, leaving the remaining politically interested to polarize the country.  Or at least that's what Mark Prior says, decide for yourself.  As for sensationalized journalism, it's part and parcel of private media.  But any semblance of objective channel-clicking, site-surfing, or page-flipping should make it apparent which side is more guilty of the financial interest in ginning up any story.

3 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

I'm having a Chuck Tingle moment

That's hot.

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

That said, I think it’s very very dangerous for the President of the US to single out particular and specific companies for special treatment, whether that treatment is beneficial or negative. That kind of precedent I don’t think is good for anybody in the long run. I don’t have a problem with the President speaking about entire industries or business practices in general, but targeting specific and individual companies is a problem.

While I think I might get some short term enjoyment from seeing Amazon get beat up a little, I’ll analogize the situation  to procrastination, which I’ll analogize to masturbation: At the time you’re doing it, it may feel good, but in the end, you’re only fucking yourself.

This is spot on.  It would be a horrible, no good, terrifying precedent.  No matter how much Amazon and its business practices deserve to be fucked up its own ass.  And Sanders talking about "the president always is trying to even the playing field" is gallingly hypocritical even for him.  The good news?  It's just sabre-rattling.  Er, no, that's too good for him - he can't handle a sabre.  It's just chest-thumping, like the apes at the beginning of 2001.  He has no idea how to take down Amazon or Bezos, and even if he did, he doesn't have the will to follow through.

[TheKitttenGuard]

12 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

1.  They have completely different governance structures, different ownership and different control.  They do not co-mingle funds.  The owner of one happens to be the CEO of the other.  He has one vote out of 10 on board decisions and given his ownership level and CEO title is excluded from important committees of the board.  Here is the public disclosure in the proxy on the relationship.  "Jeff Bezos, our President, CEO, and Chairman, owns entities that publish The Washington Post, with which we do business in the ordinary course. In 2016, Amazon purchased approximately $1.1 million of advertising from and paid approximately $2.9 million related to digital content to such entities, and such entities were obligated to pay Amazon approximately $174,000 for subscriber services in 2016, all on terms negotiated on an arms-length basis."  I'm not sure what you are advocating, but basically what I see is a bunch of unreasoned handwringing.  Support your position.  Provide alternatives.  Explain why Tywin, above, is wrong.

2.  Ok, let's talk about this article (Love the source btw, FAIR! and BALANCED! PROOFREAD!).  This is an extraordinarily poorly reported story. I don't think the rules of this forum allow me to quote each paragraph and why it is wrong, but if I am wrong about that and can do so with attribution to the original source I am happy to do so paragraph by paragraph.  Among other things it just sort of throws around the kitchen sink of tax things that Amazon has been doing and is linked to a Koch brothers criticism of Amazon, so it's not really giving much real information.  That said, let's look at their 10K for 2017, shall we?:

I believe a lot of the reporting in the article comes from these two paragraphs, but the reporting materially misrepresents the contents of the paragraphs:

"In 2015, 2016, and 2017, we recorded net tax provisions of $950 million, $1.4 billion, and $769 million. The 2017 Tax Act includes a mandatory one-time tax on accumulated earnings of foreign subsidiaries, and as a result, all previously unremitted earnings for which no U.S. deferred tax liability had been accrued have now been subject to U.S. tax. Notwithstanding the U.S. taxation of these amounts, we intend to continue to invest most or all of these earnings, as well as our capital in these subsidiaries, indefinitely outside of the U.S. and do not expect to incur any significant, additional taxes related to such amounts. As of December 31, 2017, cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities held by foreign subsidiaries was $9.6 billion.

We have tax benefits relating to excess stock-based compensation deductions and accelerated depreciation deductions that are being utilized to reduce our U.S. taxable income. The 2017 Tax Act extended through 2026 and enhanced the option to claim accelerated depreciation deductions on qualifying property. Cash taxes paid (net of refunds) were $273 million, $412 million, and $957 million for 2015, 2016, and 2017. As of December 31, 2017, our federal net operating loss carryforward was approximately $226 million and we had approximately $855 million of federal tax credits potentially available to offset future tax liabilities. Our federal tax credits are primarily related to the U.S. federal research and development credit. As we utilize our federal net operating losses and tax credits we expect cash paid for taxes to increase. We endeavor to manage our global taxes on a cash basis, rather than on a financial reporting basis. In connection with its October 2017 decision against us on state aid, the European Commission announced an estimated recovery amount of approximately €250 million, plus interest. The actual amount of additional taxes subject to recovery is to be calculated by the Luxembourg tax authorities in accordance with the European Commission's guidance. Once the recovery amount is computed by Luxembourg, we anticipate funding it, including interest, into escrow, where it will remain pending conclusion of all appeals. We may be required to fund into escrow an amount in excess of the estimated recovery amount announced by the European Commission." [emph added]

Note that they have OVER A QUARTER OF A MILLION NET OPERATING LOSS CARRYFORWARD.  Of course they aren't paying tax.  Let's also talk about what this is talking about.  It's talking about GAAP, not tax.  I read these paragraphs and the tax footnote to the financial statements to say that they had a GAAP deferred tax liability that they reversed as a result of the law, per the following:  "We recorded a provisional tax benefit for the impact of the 2017 Tax Act of approximately $789 million. This amount is primarily comprised of the remeasurement of federal net deferred tax liabilities resulting from the permanent reduction in the U.S. statutory corporate tax rate to 21% from 35%, after taking into account the mandatory one-time tax on the accumulated earnings of our foreign subsidiaries. The amount of this one-time tax is not material. As we complete our analysis of the 2017 Tax Act, collect and prepare necessary data, and interpret any additional guidance issued by the U.S. Treasury Department, the IRS, and other standard-setting bodies, we may make adjustments to the provisional amounts. Those adjustments may materially impact our provision for income taxes in the period in which the adjustments are made."

tl/dr:  The article is full of $hit.  

3.  We have three kinds of taxes, federal, state and local.  There are income taxes and sales taxes.  There are corporate taxes and individual taxes.  Where do you want to start?  I've actually thought a lot about reform.

 2. I am mainly digesting that we are dealing with Amazon potential and not actually liability. The actual paper work and calculation will take nearly the whole year and Federal Taxes will be due much earlier and they will want to avoid Penalty and Interest.

3. On the NOL, what is the greater purpose of allowing what can be one bad year to defray paying taxes over several years? It gives the appearance a year can used for the loses  (though that has its perils).

1. In my Supreme Glorious Leader for 4 hours whom rule is permanant is that an individual who will own a news company will have that as their only ownership. They cannot own, be on boards or own stocks not related to their own company. 

I do not think this will be necessarily as they are today and other changes are needed to balance benefit/cost of the new system. Overall I think news company should have as little overlap with other business as is possible.

Yes Trump should be attacked for going after a company based on the News coverage of a unrelated company. Will not be harmful to also talk about a tax system that is increasingly regressive. I do not think discussing that is supporting Trump targeting. 

Methodology ramblings

Spoiler

Thanks providing some insight into proable motivation in the presentation of reporting as it concern the Koch Bros been targeting Amazon. I attempt to find articles I think will look to present more favorable a topic like the paying of Corporate Tax. I presented the article for I am thinking in general something like Fox business will want to present the reasoning why as favorable as possible. I will have to put greater care in that reasoning.

 

[DMC]

Laura Ingraham is the proto-Ann Coulter.  In Trump World, that means she now has a show on Fox News.  She recently was probably the most prominent person on the right that was making fun of a kid for getting rejected to a few UC schools that barely take anybody out-of-state. 

[That's a sore spot for me, as both my parents went to Berkeley and after my dad was done with all his physiology bullshit they moved across the country to have us kids.  So, not only no legacy (which, yeah I shouldn't have it anyway, I'm already so privileged nag nag), but not even the opportunity to work my way up like my dad did from shit.  Anyway, I digress.]  

Laura Ingraham was mean to a kid and that kid was more media adept so as to make her apologize, and thus continue posing as a human being.

Quote

Nestle, Johnson & Johnson, TripAdvisor, Hulu and Rachael Ray’s pet food company and home furnishing website Wayfair, announced that they were pulling their ad dollars from the show after Ingraham tried to Twitter-shame Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School senior David Hogg for getting turned down by four colleges. [...]

“On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland,” Ingraham tweeted Thursday.

Holy Week indeed.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Laura Ingraham is the proto-Ann Coulter.  In Trump World, that means she now has a show on Fox News.  She recently was probably the most prominent person on the right that was making fun of a kid for getting rejected to a few UC schools that barely take anybody out-of-state. 

[That's a sore spot for me, as both my parents went to Berkeley and after my dad was done with all his physiology bullshit they moved across the country to have us kids.  So, not only no legacy (which, yeah I shouldn't have it anyway, I'm already so privileged nag nag), but not even the opportunity to work my way up like my dad did from shit.  Anyway, I digress.]  

Laura Ingraham was mean to a kid and that kid was more media adept so as to make her apologize, and thus continue posing as a human being.

Holy Week indeed.

And said kid is, like most of these politically active Parkland kids, not a fucking idiot and told her to take her apology and shove it up her ass cause she's only saying that because her advertisers are deserting her. She's not actually sorry and has no intention of changing her behaviour.

[IamMe90]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Laura Ingraham was mean to a kid and that kid was more media adept so as to make her apologize, and thus continue posing as a human being.

I'm loathe to call that an actual apology. She apologized for David Hogg getting his feelings hurt (lol), rather than actually acknowledging that what she said/did was fucked up in its own right.

Additionally, lest we forget, this is the same evil, vaguely humanoid meatbag that publicly outed members of Dartmouth's GSA as an endeavoring young satanist-I mean, journalist, in 1984. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

"We're going to have people going to the slammer over this, the question is who, and how high up this is going to reach...the notion there's no collusion is just ridiculous" - Richard Painter, former White House Ethics Lawyer for President George W. Bush

[OldGimletEye]

8 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

2009 and I believe it had to do with business decision   making of then CEO  Wagner .  GM was still was not doing what the government  wanted was change it behavior .  For example the government  wanted GM to  put more emphasis  on fuel efficient  cars and hybrids.  Wager favored continuing the Emphasis on SUVs and trucks  which was one the man reason for GM woes .   At the time , Some argued that it would be better let GM go under. 

Oh lets not beat around the bush. The “some” were the Republican Party and conservatives. In 2009, the “some” downplayed the nature of the crises facing the Obama administration as soon as it took office and was wrong just about everything ever since. In December of 2008, GDP fell something like 8-9% on annualized basis and credit markets were a mess. When the Obama administration took office, it had to make a bunch of rapid and quick decisions. Normally, I’d would be very leery about the government interfering in the business of company like GM or Chrysler and would prefer them to do their chapter 11 bankruptcy without government involvement and get whatever short term funding they needed from private markets. But with aggregate demand falling and uncontrolled bankruptcy would have been disastrous and the workers of GM and the workers of the various suppliers to GM would have ended up in the unemployment line, with little prospect of being re-employed quickly, particularly with people like John Bonehead, oops, I meant Boehner, talking about crowding out. Also, failure of a number of GM auto suppliers may have dragged down Ford as well, since they rely on many of the same suppliers of auto parts.

And I think Wagoner was largely recognized as being incompetent. I do believe his head would have been called for by any creditor, whether government or private, before giving GM one nickel as it reorganized in bankruptcy.