stimulus - what next?

[Apotheosis]

interesting question for history...

What happens if the "stimulus" package doesn't work out? I'm just saying, there's a lot of speculation on what it will do, what it won't do, but if you examine it carefully, it's pretty much just another roll of the dice..

what happens to this country if the stimulus package doesn't really improve the overall health of the economy?

what next?

[Ignot]

Another stimulus package.

[Mtenda]

Another stimulus package.

Another stimulated package.

http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Enzyte-tshirt-Swelling.jpg

[Parkbandit]

interesting question for history...

What happens if the "stimulus" package doesn't work out? I'm just saying, there's a lot of speculation on what it will do, what it won't do, but if you examine it carefully, it's pretty much just another roll of the dice..

what happens to this country if the stimulus package doesn't really improve the overall health of the economy?

what next?


If 1 trillion dollars won't do it.. I say throw 2 trillion on it.

[Warriorbird]

There's a funny continuum between complaints about Clinton's economic stimulus and this one.

[Miscast]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1103/Rodimus/show-me-the-money.jpg

[LMingrone]

It all comes down to every individual's idea of what is right. It seems like we're coming to a point where we're deciding if we want to be a free market republic or a socialist republic. I'm not going to get into what I think, I'd go on for hours. It's honestly not easy to decide if I'd rather have shitty banks and car companies fail, or give them our tax dollars so we don't fall deeper in the hole.

[Rocktar]

~sighs~

The banks and car companies are not at fault. The rules for accounting using "mark to market" valuation are and the fact that after 21 attempts by Republicans in the Congress and Senate, no laws were ever passed to regulate the mortgage risk backed securities that really got this mess going rolling after the housing melt down. Basically, people bought too much house, didn't do shit to clean up their credit in the gravy time of their low rate ARM mortgages and then the rate went up, the check came due and they couldn't pay. Banks have to keep x amount of assets to back their bank, well, if the assets become worth less, they fail cause they can't sell them since they are worth less than before and selling them won't help and drives the price of the asset down more. So, banks begain to have troubles based on accounting rules and dumb lazy Americans that didn't follow the plan of buy a house, improve your credit, refinance and live happily ever after.

Now, throw in car makers that have 50 years of retired union workers to support, a product that almost no one can buy without CREDIT, a credit market that has dried up so even with good credit, you can't borrow as much or as well AND lastly, a product that most people can get by without buying a new one for a couple years and VOOOMMMMMMM you have a crisis. Welcome to the great outcome of a Liberal Union running the show with legal support, Liberal politicians not doing the right thing and regulating something because they all were making huge money off of it and the results of living beyond your means.

As far as what happens next, well, when it fails to do what is advertized, they will want to socialize more and more things, spend more and more money we don't have and destroy what this country was built on. Also, in 2 years most of them will loose their jobs AND in 4 years, the messiah of allt he world will be revealed as the incompetent idiot he is and tossed out of office. Hopefully for a more fiscally responsable, limited Constitutional powers conservative President.

[Allereli]

Another stimulus package.

http://www.trojancondoms.com/assets/products/large/47.gif

[TheRunt]

~sighs~
The banks and car companies are not at fault. The rules for accounting using "mark to market" valuation are and the fact that after 21 attempts by Republicans in the Congress and Senate, no laws were ever passed to regulate the mortgage risk backed securities that really got this mess going rolling after the housing melt down.

Wrong they are at fault. They used every thing they had at their disposal to maximize profit. Nothing wrong with that but they have to face the risks involved. They gave out sub-prime mortgages at the drop of a hat then sold them to others as a "investment" totally legal but when it fails well then its their problem. Just because its legal doesn't mean its right. In in the state I live in can go out and bang a 16 yr old totally legal. Hell I can bang a 13 yr old if I have reasonable belief that she's 16. Just because I can doesn't mean I'm right or am not at fault(even though it might be fun).


Now, throw in car makers that have 50 years of retired union workers to support, a product that almost no one can buy without CREDIT, a credit market that has dried up so even with good credit, you can't borrow as much or as well AND lastly, a product that most people can get by without buying a new one for a couple years and VOOOMMMMMMM you have a crisis. Welcome to the great outcome of a Liberal Union running the show with legal support, Liberal politicians not doing the right thing and regulating something because they all were making huge money off of it and the results of living beyond your means.

You make it sound like buying something on credit is a bad thing? How many "average" people do you know that can buy a high dollar item such as a new car or house with cash? Back in the old days I'm talking 17-1800s it was common to get credit at the local general store you bought what you needed and payed when you could. Hell most small farmers couldn't survive without credit. They get a loan to buy seed and fertilizer and pay it off after harvest. I agree that the UAW did fuck the car companies on the contracts though.


As far as what happens next, well, when it fails to do what is advertized, they will want to socialize more and more things, spend more and more money we don't have and destroy what this country was built on. Also, in 2 years most of them will loose their jobs AND in 4 years, the messiah of allt he world will be revealed as the incompetent idiot he is and tossed out of office. Hopefully for a more fiscally responsable, limited Constitutional powers conservative President.

I hope also for a more fiscally responsible and constitutional President. Although I will happily settle for a constitutional President. Because no matter how fiscally irresponsible he is if hes a strict constitutionalist he will be better than any we have had in 20+ perhaps ever 50 or 75+ yrs.

[Methais]

It seems like we're coming to a point where we're deciding if we want to be a free market republic or a socialist republic.

Say, that would make us the United States Socialist Republic.

Or U.S.S.R.

CAN'T WAIT!

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/VAS/0000-1404-4~USSR-Udarnaya-Brigada-Proletariata-Vsego-Avant-Garde-Posters.jpg

[Back]

interesting question for history...

What happens if the "stimulus" package doesn't work out? I'm just saying, there's a lot of speculation on what it will do, what it won't do, but if you examine it carefully, it's pretty much just another roll of the dice..

what happens to this country if the stimulus package doesn't really improve the overall health of the economy?

what next?

Fallout 4.

[Gan]

Zombies

[Apotheosis]

You make it sound like buying something on credit is a bad thing?


a little discipline goes a long way...

www.daveramsey.com

[BigWorm]

The banks and car companies are not at fault.

Seriously one of the dumbest things I have ever read on these boards. The amount of failure in this statement cannot be expressed in words.

[Rocktar]

Seriously one of the dumbest things I have ever read on these boards. The amount of failure in this statement cannot be expressed in words.

Seriously, your lack of education on the topic is one of the lamist excuses for bullshit I have seen on these boards. Read something other than the mainstream media, learn something other than the Liberal pablam handed down from Frauline Commisar Clinton and Fureror Omananation.

[Methais]

Seriously one of the dumbest things I have ever read on these boards. The amount of failure in this statement cannot be expressed in words.

Actually, Clinton passed some bill that pretty much forced the banks to make all those risky subprime loans, the republicans warned the democrats a few years ago that Freddie and Fannie were about to implode because of it if they don't do something, the democrats blew it off, then everything melted down and the democrats are blaming everyone but themselves, and now they're coming in as the solution to problems they created, and their solutions will only make things worse.

So it actually isn't really the banks' fault, since they were forced to make all those loans they otherwise wouldn't have made.

As for the car companies, the unions are the problem. I think when you weigh in benefits and stuff, the average UA worker earns like $90-100 an hour. Meanwhile, companies like Nissan are paying their workers around $40-45 an hour.

So the American car companies can either sell their cars for way more than other companies with nobody buying them because they're too expensive, or they can sell them for a normal price and turn no profit because of the unions.

[Back]

So the American car companies can either sell their cars for way more than other companies with nobody buying them because they're too expensive, or they can sell them for a normal price and turn no profit because of the unions.

Or they could design better more affordable cars.

[DeV]

I thought it was exceedingly difficult to force banks to lend that were unwilling to do so. Even with recent government handouts they aren't lending. I'm missing something here.

[Jorddyn]

The banks and car companies are not at fault. The rules for accounting using "mark to market" valuation are

I really need to know who is trying to sell this load of crap to the world because Rocktar is not the first nutjob I've seen spouting it.

[Methais]

Or they could design better more affordable cars.

Get rid of the unions and they'll be able to without going bankrupt.

[Back]

Get rid of the unions and they'll be able to without going bankrupt.

You have to be kidding me.

If you want to blame the failure of a company on it’s workers then you have a bad company that does not know how to manage itself to start. Shit rolls uphill.

[Methais]

http://www.meikathon.net/roflmao/facepalm4.jpg

[Back]

http://www.meikathon.net/roflmao/facepalm4.jpg

Do you think Starfleet is going to blame a fuck up by the Enterprise on a few ensigns? Hell no. They’ll go after the captain.

They did with Kirk. Maybe that pussy Picard can get away with blaming someone else.

[Parkbandit]

There is a difference between unions and workers.

[Back]

There is a difference between unions and workers.

And management.

You of all people should know that.

[Methais]

Unions: U PAY MORE NOW!
Auto Company: No, you make shitloads as it is
Unions: WE STRIKE NOW!
Auto Company: Ok we'll pay you more
Unions: WE GO WORK NOW!
Auto Company: Hey, we're not making any profits cause we're paying these union assholes so much money.
Unions: U PAY MORE NOW OR WE STRIKE AGAIN!!!
Auto Company: /wrists

[Back]

Unions: U PAY MORE NOW!
Auto Company: No, you make shitloads as it is
Unions: WE STRIKE NOW!
Auto Company: Ok we'll pay you more
Unions: WE GO WORK NOW!
Auto Company: Hey, we're not making any profits cause we're paying these union assholes so much money.
Unions: U PAY MORE NOW OR WE STRIKE AGAIN!!!
Auto Company: /wrists

Whose fault is that exactly?

Yep, the company.

[Methais]

Whose fault is that exactly?

Yep, the company.

I'm pretty sure there's some sort of regulation that prevents auto companies from just saying, "Ok union workers, fuck you all you're fired and we're going to replace you with normal people."

[Back]

I'm pretty sure there's some sort of regulation that prevents auto companies from just saying, "Ok union workers, fuck you all you're fired and we're going to replace you with normal people."

You mean scabs. Or illegal immigrants.

[Rocktar]

I thought it was exceedingly difficult to force banks to lend that were unwilling to do so. Even with recent government handouts they aren't lending. I'm missing something here.

You are. Simply put, banks must maintain a certain level of capitol in relation to how much they have lent out. A lot of that capitol is in the value of loans made to people. This is where mark to market accounting valuation comes from. Now, despite the fact that Jorddyn seems to think it cute to make amateur diagnosis of my mental faculties when not equipped to operate legos safely, it comes down to this. Mark to market is the idea that you value something for what it can sell for today. Seems harmless and accurate, well, that is, until something odd happens, like, a bunch of loans go south and so the value of selling loans goes down. Now, you have a bunch of assets that are worth less than before, so you have to keep more of them or something else of value. When you loan money, as a bank, you take an asset, cash, give it away in trace for an asset, a loan, worth less than half the value of the cash you loaned out. This is why mark to market accounting valuation is bad. The bank’s assets loose value, so they have to keep more assets and cash, they can’t sell the loans because they are worth less than before even if they are not bad, and so, the bank can’t loan money, by law, it has to hold on to all it has because of SEC, banking and FDIC rules and laws.

Now, banks quit loaning money, no one can buy a house, so, the housing industry collapses. People look at a recession and decide to put off buying cars for the next year or two and bingo, the auto industry goes tits up. And don’t think the Japanese or Koreans or Germans are so much better than American car companies, they are loosing sales and income and cutting jobs like mad too. You just don’t hear about them so much because the Liberal media doesn’t like beating up on foreigners, only good old Americans. Now, the Republicans in Congress have tried 21 times to get laws through to change the rules on lending, to regulate the industry of bonds based on loans and so on, every time, they were shot down by DEOMCRATS. So, the Democrat party, because some of it’s buddies running Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, who were buddies of the Clintons, were making tons on it, made the foundation of this mess. People like Greenspan and others have warned about the changes and the lack of regulation and openness and so on for a long long time. No one listened.

Now, add to that the bad loans from selling bad credit people more house than they can afford with ARM mortgages and you have a large mess. People got an ARM, bought a house and then didn’t do shit to improve their credit so they could refinance to a reasonable interest rate. No refinancing, their rate went up, they couldn’t afford it and just like dominos, they started to fail and it has cascaded. So, in the end, get the fuck off the car companies, the only reason foreign car companies are doing any better is that quietly, under the table, their local governments have already given them billions to keep the afloat AND they are still laying of thousands world wide.

And Jorddyn, I am not a nut job, simply a lot better informed and educated about the mess than you. Now, go off and read a color book, don’t eat the crayons and let the grownups talk.

[CrystalTears]

And Jorddyn, I am not a nut job, simply a lot better informed and educated about the mess than you. Now, go off and read a color book, don’t eat the crayons and let the grownups talk.:popcorn: This is going to get good. :popcorn:

[Back]

And Jorddyn, I am not a nut job, simply a lot better informed and educated about the mess than you. Now, go off and read a color book, don’t eat the crayons and let the grownups talk.

I don’t have any rep to give right now. Thats what I get for whoring. Silly me!

[Ignot]

You are. Simply put, banks must maintain a certain level of capitol in relation to how much they have lent out. A lot of that capitol is in the value of loans made to people. This is where mark to market accounting valuation comes from. Now, despite the fact that Jorddyn seems to think it cute to make amateur diagnosis of my mental faculties when not equipped to operate legos safely, it comes down to this. Mark to market is the idea that you value something for what it can sell for today. Seems harmless and accurate, well, that is, until something odd happens, like, a bunch of loans go south and so the value of selling loans goes down. Now, you have a bunch of assets that are worth less than before, so you have to keep more of them or something else of value. When you loan money, as a bank, you take an asset, cash, give it away in trace for an asset, a loan, worth less than half the value of the cash you loaned out. This is why mark to market accounting valuation is bad. The bank’s assets loose value, so they have to keep more assets and cash, they can’t sell the loans because they are worth less than before even if they are not bad, and so, the bank can’t loan money, by law, it has to hold on to all it has because of SEC, banking and FDIC rules and laws.

Now, banks quit loaning money, no one can buy a house, so, the housing industry collapses. People look at a recession and decide to put off buying cars for the next year or two and bingo, the auto industry goes tits up. And don’t think the Japanese or Koreans or Germans are so much better than American car companies, they are loosing sales and income and cutting jobs like mad too. You just don’t hear about them so much because the Liberal media doesn’t like beating up on foreigners, only good old Americans. Now, the Republicans in Congress have tried 21 times to get laws through to change the rules on lending, to regulate the industry of bonds based on loans and so on, every time, they were shot down by DEOMCRATS. So, the Democrat party, because some of it’s buddies running Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, who were buddies of the Clintons, were making tons on it, made the foundation of this mess. People like Greenspan and others have warned about the changes and the lack of regulation and openness and so on for a long long time. No one listened.

Now, add to that the bad loans from selling bad credit people more house than they can afford with ARM mortgages and you have a large mess. People got an ARM, bought a house and then didn’t do shit to improve their credit so they could refinance to a reasonable interest rate. No refinancing, their rate went up, they couldn’t afford it and just like dominos, they started to fail and it has cascaded. So, in the end, get the fuck off the car companies, the only reason foreign car companies are doing any better is that quietly, under the table, their local governments have already given them billions to keep the afloat AND they are still laying of thousands world wide.

And Jorddyn, I am not a nut job, simply a lot better informed and educated about the mess than you. Now, go off and read a color book, don’t eat the crayons and let the grownups talk.

YEAH U FUCKING DEMOCRATS TIS ALL UR FAULTZ!

[Warriorbird]

Banks would totally never ever write bad paper on just about anybody to make quick cash.

That'd be illogical!

The US car companies totally innovated!

In all seriousness... as someone who's way more liberal than you, Rocktar (though anybody is), I'm aware of the problems that stupid greedy borrowers and over-grasping unions created.

Ignoring the banking and auto industry's roles in the problem is monolithically myopic.

[Parkbandit]

And management.

You of all people should know that.

WTF?

Seriously Backlash?

Who the fuck is talking about management?

Methais stated that unions are the problem.

You substituted workers for unions.

I pointed out that is a mistake as they are not one in the same.

and this is what you posted in response?

http://s92722971.onlinehome.us/stuff/wtf.jpg

[Back]

WTF?

Seriously Backlash?

Who the fuck is talking about management?

Methais stated that unions are the problem.

You substituted workers for unions.

I pointed out that is a mistake as they are not one in the same.

and this is what you posted in response?

http://s92722971.onlinehome.us/stuff/wtf.jpg

The failure or success of a company rests on the shoulders of management.

If you can’t manage your shit you fail.

[Parkbandit]

The failure or success of a company rests on the shoulders of management.

If you can’t manage your shit you fail.


Fantastic.

Again, it had nothing to do with my response to your post...

[Rocktar]

...
Ignoring the banking and auto industry's roles in the problem is monolithically myopic.

Actually, a lot of people are a lot more conservative then me. Anyways, I don't ignore it, I simply look further and deeper to the foundation root of the problem. Fix the roots and the tree grows strong. I would rather fix the foundations than just use boards to bar the doors and lean upt he walls like they are doing now.

[Warriorbird]

The problem is that ALL of the above forces are completely amoral. Management doesn't give a fuck about America in most of these companies and minus union bondage would just fucking flee the country (and take their tax burden with them). Unions always want more money (and would never get ballsy and just flat out go for employee ownership). The banking industry will do whatever retarded thing possible to maximize profits. Greedy people will never cease. Greed is eternal. Thus, in perceived bubble markets people will borrow way too fucking much.

[Back]

Fantastic.

Again, it had nothing to do with my response to your post...

Because everyone knows you think I’m a shithead and you do not like to actually discuss an issue.

[Parkbandit]

Because everyone knows you think I’m a shithead and you do not like to actually discuss an issue.


You've proven that you are a shithead in the past.. and offered a refresher course for those who didn't today.

[Back]

Like I said. You don’t like to discuss, you’d rather marginalize.

Thats you and thats how it is.

[Jorddyn]

And Jorddyn, I am not a nut job, simply a lot better informed and educated about the mess than you. Now, go off and read a color book, don’t eat the crayons and let the grownups talk.

Since you are apparently smarter than the entire FASB, FDIC, Fed and SEC combined, why don't you explain to us exactly what would happen when a bank found itself the proud owner of a large quantity of uncollectable loans if it was not required to use mark to market for its borrowing base.

In the meantime, I do have coloring to do.

[DeV]

You are. Simply put,... Simply put, greed, but it's not simple at all, not even as simple as you saying the Rebublicans tried and the Democrats knocked them down 21 times! Seriously. There are a few things I seek clarity on which I'll discuss further. I have a problem with people saying banks were forced to loan. They weren't. It was more like an unethical lobby to legalize predatory lending practices if you ask me, but you didn't, so I'll continue on instead.

The Community Reinvestment Act... let's talk about it, briefly. From what I've read over the past couple of months I came to understand that the majority of subprime mortgages originated from mortgage companies that aren't even subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. Makes sense to me.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how banks were forced, FORCED to give people loans with the KNOWLEDGE that they couldn't repay them because that's exactly what it sounds like you're stating.

Then you have the credit rating agencies giving these risky, packaged mortgage loans A's when at their very nature they were high risk and should have been ranked way lower. Pure greed.

They (collectively) did it because they had this crazy notion that they could entice people with amazing interest rates, then either jack up the cost 3 years down the road or wait for the home owner to refinance. The way I see it, they figured they'd still make money because they were pooling all these mortgages up and selling them as securities along with the stellar ratings they received from the credit rating agencies, they were turning a profit off of essentially nothing. And this is not the investment banks and mortgage companies fault on their end? Right. You better believe it's the home owner and loan holders fault on their end, but the banks get a free pass as a result of less government regulation. That's crazy. All of the fuckers are responsible to varying degrees.

You only discredit yourself by trying to make this a partisan issue. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know nearly as much as I'd like to with regard to this topic, but I know who to blame and especially who not to.

[Daniel]

~sighs~

The banks and car companies are not at fault.


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha

Seriously. It's a shame people actually believe this shit.

Thankfully, most of the country doesn't.

[BigWorm]

Right, the government has the power to force banks to loan money, which is why they can't get banks for open up the credit markets...

Obviously, the government forced banks into every single sub-prime loan, forced them to securitize mortgage-based securities, forced credit rating agencies to rate all this debt at AAA levels, forced mortage brokers to fill out false information on applications, forced banks to overleverage themselves, forced banks into credit default swaps....

I mean, the banks are totally blameless in this. It's all Barney Frank's fault.

/sarcasm

[Kranar]

Thankfully, most of the country doesn't.

Doesn't... yet.

This idea that banks were forced into this position to make these loans and wrack up huge bonuses via risky behaviour is one that has just recently surfaced.

In 4-6 months from now... perhaps it won't be a commonly held position, but it will go from being entirely absurd and stupid, to something plausible, an alternative viewpoint that should somehow be given credibility.

In actuality, that's all this incredibly stupid point of view needs in order to succeed. When you're wrong, sometimes it's effective to make the issue so complex and convoluted that no one knows what the heck is going on anymore so that any hypothesis seems plausible.

[Apotheosis]

ok.. not to bitch and whine... but this thread got seriously derailed...


I asked a simple question: what if the stimulus program does not jolt the economy in a positive fashion? what next?

alternative questions:

how would you feel seeing this "stimulus" money going to other countries, or illegal immigrants?

how would you feel about the abuse/mis-spending of this money?

how do you think any "scandals" as a result of the "stimulus" will be handled?

how will you conservatives feel if it actually helps?

how will you liberals feel if it fails?


I'm posing these questions now, to see how people feel / think at this current moment.. cause, in like 1 year or two, we're gonna see some results.. so I want to see how objective people are in advance of this.

[Warriorbird]

You should know people don't typically answer what you bring up around here.

If the stimulus package 'doesn't work' I'd think we'd have to examine alternate ways to get banking, automotive, and other industries back in line. Alterations to bank regulatory practices, employee/union purchase of automotive corporations, and doing some re-examining of trade and aid practices could be on the list. Quicker troop withdrawals might also be to be considered.

I don't like the idea of stimulus money going to other countries (much like I don't like the idea of the ANWR oil being promptly sold to India and China, or draining our strategic reserves to sell to them). I don't like the idea of it going to illegal immigrants... but Congress is way too fucktarded (namsy pamsy liberals who wouln't want to 'harm them' and corporate owned Republicans who don't want to get rid of the cheap labor source) to do shit about it... so it will happen.

The abuse/mis-spending of this money will probably occur. The same is occuring right now in Louisiana with Jindal avoiding the money.

Scandals are always covered up in America. This isn't anything new. I'm sure the same would happen here.

I dunno about 'how will conservatives feel if it actually helps.' It is filled with a tremendous amount of a standard conservative idea, tax cuts

If it fails...at least Obama was trying something. I'll be curious to see how it performs versus Clinton's or even FDR's.

[Parkbandit]

ok.. not to bitch and whine... but this thread got seriously derailed...


I asked a simple question: what if the stimulus program does not jolt the economy in a positive fashion? what next? Decrease corporate tax. Decrease capital gains tax. Increase meaningful tax relief for people that actually employ people in the country.

alternative questions:

how would you feel seeing this "stimulus" money going to other countries, or illegal immigrants? Badly

how would you feel about the abuse/mis-spending of this money? numb

how do you think any "scandals" as a result of the "stimulus" will be handled? The same way the tax scandals are being handled now? The same way the Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae scandals are being handled now? Brush it under the rug like it never happened

how will you conservatives feel if it actually helps? Impossible to say that the stimulus helped turn around the economy or that basic capitalist laws corrected themselves. Especially since most of this "stimulus" money will not be used for the first 18 months anyway.

how will you liberals feel if it fails? Do what always works for them? BLAME BUSH!


I'm posing these questions now, to see how people feel / think at this current moment.. cause, in like 1 year or two, we're gonna see some results.. so I want to see how objective people are in advance of this.[/QUOTE]

[Apotheosis]

thanks for answering... yeah.. i know to expect some line of derailment, but you know...

and PB, your answers made me ROFLCRIE (ROFLQQ?)... soo true, but soo sad...

[BigWorm]

So do you have any ideas that aren't cut taxes?

[Parkbandit]

So do you have any ideas that aren't cut taxes?

That's like saying "I have this 3/4" nut that needs to be tightened, do you have any other ideas besides using a 3/4" nut driver to accomplish the task?"

Why? Properly targeted tax cuts have always worked... why do you feel the need to reinvent the wheel?

Slash corporate taxes (we currently have the highest on the planet)

Slash capital gains taxes (We want investors.. well give them an incentive to invest!)

Give the people who hire people some meaningful tax relief (We want people to be hired)

Throwing money on pet projects isn't stimulus that helps the economy.. that's stimulus that you hope gets you re-elected. I have no problem with some of the spending (infrastructure for example) but there is far too much spending and not enough meaningful and targetted tax cuts that will actually help rebound the economy.

[Warriorbird]

The 'effective' corporate tax rate is quite a bit lower than any number of 1st world countries however.

What economic crises have we ever gotten out of with tax cutting and increased spending?

When have Republicans ever cut taxes without increased spending?

You have to do more. I'm not a big fan of Obama's plan (tax cuts...increased spending.. at least the cuts are on the middle class to spur actual economic activity) but the suggestion that tax cuts on the rich and corporations alone will save us is unproven and simplistic.

[Parkbandit]

The 'effective' corporate tax rate is quite a bit lower than any number of 1st world countries however.

Source? And please don't use entities like s-corps since they aren't part of the corporate tax equation.



What economic crises have we ever gotten out of with tax cutting and increased spending?

Most recently? Economic slowdown of 2000/2001... or did you pass out during 2002-2006?


When have Republicans ever cut taxes without increased spending?

Huh? Not sure where this is coming from.. I was expecting the "Bush wasted so much on Iraq War" but this is from out of right field.



You have to do more. I'm not a big fan of Obama's plan (tax cuts...increased spending.. at least the cuts are on the middle class to spur actual economic activity) but the suggestion that tax cuts on the rich and corporations alone will save us is unproven and simplistic.

Where did I actually state that all we have to do is cut taxes on the rich and corporations would be all we have to do? If you could quote that post, it would be fantastic. It's simplistic in your mind.. since you fabricated it. Great job as usual.

[Stanley Burrell]

what next?

I have thought long and hard about this. Here is what I have come up with so far:

http://www.metalbabble.com/art/cactrot.jpg

http://www.instructables.com/files/deriv/FLR/K7JB/FIKMXSTJ/FLRK7JBFIKMXSTJ.SMALL.jpg

http://blog.bluesummers.com/img/posts/CACTROT.jpg

http://thehermeticfeast.net/melonella/ffvi/ffvichap24/ffvi3.png

...

So yes, I will hook up my SNES and play hours worth of FFIII(VI in Japan).

[Warriorbird]

Eh. Tax Analysts.com (22%) and a recent Cato study (36%) which each give different figures. Even including the Cato Study (which takes out S-corps and temporary bonus depreciations) there are eight countries above us.

More liberal sources suggest the figures are even lower. More conservative sources say higher. I'll trust the midpoints.

Most corporations worth their salt aren't paying the statutory rates. Lawyers and accountants exist for a reason.

When you complain about socialism you want to say our taxes are low... when you want to suggest we need to cut corporate taxes you say they are high.

and the 2000/2001 bit? I put much of the "credit" on Greenspan...and a fair amount of blame for the housing issues that are screwing us now.

[Rocktar]

Simply put, greed, but it's not simple at all, not even as simple as you saying the Rebublicans tried and the Democrats knocked them down 21 times! Seriously. There are a few things I seek clarity on which I'll discuss further. I have a problem with people saying banks were forced to loan. They weren't. It was more like an unethical lobby to legalize predatory lending practices if you ask me, but you didn't, so I'll continue on instead.

Point to where I said, at any time, that banks were forced to loan money. You can't, bcause I didn't. Of course it is greed, everyone does everything their whole life for greed. Denying it is stupid and I don't, what I DO say is that the collapse of it all is driven, at the foundation, by mark to market accounting rules that were instituded by a Democrat Congress way back in the 80s. The regulation of the mortgage backes securities industry, which is behind the vast majority of the banking collapse WAS shot down 21 times by Democrat controlled Congresses. You have to know that if Republicans WANT to add MORE government regulation, then there is likely a major problem. People that have seen this problem for as much as 20 years now have been ignored.


The Community Reinvestment Act... let's talk about it, briefly. From what I've read over the past couple of months I came to understand that the majority of subprime mortgages originated from mortgage companies that aren't even subject to the Community Reinvestment Act. Makes sense to me.

Yep, and they sold those mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who's job is to put money into the credit market, by buying mortgages on low income borrowers and assuming the risk so that the bank isn't saddled with the high risk debt that they didn't want to lend out in the first place. They did their job, the problem is that most people didn't follow the great sounding plan that everyone was sold. The plan was simple, buy a house with an ARM, pay it on time and improve your credit, then you can refinance and get a fixed rate mortgage. People didn't do anything past the buying a house with an ARM.


I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how banks were forced, FORCED to give people loans with the KNOWLEDGE that they couldn't repay them because that's exactly what it sounds like you're stating.

Never said they did, however, since you can get a loan based on your credit score alone, over the phone or internet, and your credit score is easily manipulated, and the person applying for the loan can lie about things they owe that don't appear on your credit report (reporting to a credit account and payments to it cost the company that is providing the credit money) then you can see that not all the blame lies on the banks or mortgage lenders.


Then you have the credit rating agencies giving these risky, packaged mortgage loans A's when at their very nature they were high risk and should have been ranked way lower. Pure greed.

This is part of the mess that they wanted to regulate in the 21 times Republicans wanted to bring regulation and standardization to the rules of this form of security.


They (collectively) did it because they had this crazy notion that they could entice people with amazing interest rates, then either jack up the cost 3 years down the road or wait for the home owner to refinance. The way I see it, they figured they'd still make money because they were pooling all these mortgages up and selling them as securities along with the stellar ratings they received from the credit rating agencies, they were turning a profit off of essentially nothing. And this is not the investment banks and mortgage companies fault on their end? Right. You better believe it's the home owner and loan holders fault on their end, but the banks get a free pass as a result of less government regulation. That's crazy. All of the fuckers are responsible to varying degrees.

I never said they got a free pass, what I did say was that most of what you see now is not caused by bad loans directly. A lot and I mean a LOT, of banks loaned money responsably, took steps to make sure they were not being predatory lenders and so on and were, in general, decent fiscal institutions. The problem is, with all the bad loans out there and the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the loans that they have on their books as capitol assets are being devalued immensly due to mark to market accounting rules. This makes them, due to FDIC, SEC and other rules and laws, required to build capitol from other means so that their ratio of borrowed money to capitol assets is meets the guidelines. So, what the banks have done is stop lending on anything and hoard cash. This hoarding of cash to support the laws is what has driven the collapse of the banking industry, the collapse of the auto industry and is the driving force in the economic collapse world wide.

Previously, before mark to market, there were formulas based on amount loaned, term of the loan, interest of the loan and payment history of the borrower that were used to reach a value of the loan when held as a capitol asset. Usualy, with a good borrower that paid on time, this meant that you loaned out $100K and the loan was worth, as a capitol asset, more than $100K and so you increased your capitol assets by lending to good borrowers. Now, with mark to market, the sale today value of a loan is often a LOT less than the face value of the loan. In addition, with all the bad debts out there, the market value of loans has nosedived so, on top of all the previous cash hoarding, the rules and laws make it so that banks have to do even MORE cash hoarding and so on, just to meet the law.


You only discredit yourself by trying to make this a partisan issue. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know nearly as much as I'd like to with regard to this topic, but I know who to blame and especially who not to.

I do not discredit myself by making it a partisan issue. It IS a partisan issue. When Republicans try 21 times to regulate an unregulated industry that is in the dark, hidden from public view or likely even knowledge, that is partisan. When the CEO and other highly placed people in Freddie Mac and highly ranked members of Fannie Mae (can't guarantee the CEO because I don't remember so I won't quote it) are Clinton political buddies/friends/appointees/got their job through connections with the Clintons, that is partisan. When the laws were changed by a Democrat congress to allow this form of accounting valuation and make it the standard, that is partisan. When the laws around lending are relaxed by Democrat congresses to allow what amounts to usurous interest rates common practice, that is partisan. Sorry, too much of this is at the feet of the Democrat party and it's icons of greed and stupidity, the Clintons. Is it all their fault, no, is a HUGE HEAPING HELPING of blame due the Democrat party and the Clintons, damn right.

Daniel and others, when you can talk to adults about adult things, I might reply to you with something meaningful, until then, stop wasting space.

[Warriorbird]

Uhh... why were they so willing to leap in with the bailout then?

[Mabus]

Uhh... why were they so willing to leap in with the bailout then?
Who? What?

If this is in reference to a previous post can you please quote the post, or at least state who "they" were and which bailout?

[Warriorbird]

Republican Congress. Bailout 1.

[Rocktar]

Uhh... why were they so willing to leap in with the bailout then?

Because, in general, if they could have stemmed the tide and caught this early, it would have been a political coup, in addition, regardless of how much pain and suffering the Democrats have caused, I and many other still don't enjoy seeing decent, well meaning, people hurt because of fucknuts. I might enjoy twisting the knife in Democrat's political backs, but I don't enjoy seeing common people in the store where I work, counting how much they have in their cart and having to decide between diapers and food and just how many diapers they can get by with so they can afford to buy something other than rice, ramen and cheap cereal.

On another note, Gods above my typing is sucking ass today.

[Mabus]

Republican Congress. Bailout 1.
If you mean the "TARP" legislation (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) the final Senate vote was 74-25, 15 nays of which were GOP members and 1 independent. It fared far worse in the House, with 171 votes against (108 GOP nays). Hardly "bipartisan", but that 700+ point drop in the Dow influenced many people into a "sky is falling" vote.

You do realize that only 6 GOP members (Alexander (TN), Gregg (NH), Kyl (AZ), Lugar (IN), Snowe (ME), Voinovich (OH)) voted for the second release. 9 DNC members (Bayh (IN), Cantwell (WA), Dorgan (ND), Feingold (WI), Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Shaheen (NH), Sanders (VT), Wyden (OR).) voted not to release the secondary funds.

[Jorddyn]

Daniel and others, when you can talk to adults about adult things, I might reply to you with something meaningful, until then, stop wasting space.
























NO YOU!
You still haven't answered my last question, by the way.

[Parkbandit]

Eh. Tax Analysts.com (22%) and a recent Cato study (36%) which each give different figures. Even including the Cato Study (which takes out S-corps and temporary bonus depreciations) there are eight countries above us.

More liberal sources suggest the figures are even lower. More conservative sources say higher. I'll trust the midpoints.

How many countries are there in the world again? Fine, I'll rephrase my statement from "We have the highest on the planet" to "We have one of the highest on the planet". I hope that helps.


When you complain about socialism you want to say our taxes are low... when you want to suggest we need to cut corporate taxes you say they are high.

Show me a single post where I stated that our taxes are low. Just one.

I'll help you: I've never stated that.

So much for your argument there. :shrug:



and the 2000/2001 bit? I put much of the "credit" on Greenspan...and a fair amount of blame for the housing issues that are screwing us now.

So what you are saying is that the Bush tax cuts didn't do anything positive for the economy?

Wow, I'm shocked.

[LMingrone]

PB just WTFPWND you. It sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about. Let me go search and quote stuff from Google. and Wiki. Speak your own words.

[DeV]

Point to where I said, at any time, that banks were forced to loan money. If you re-read the progression of the thread you'll know who I was referring to. I was addressing multiple topics and not all of my replies were directed toward you.


Never said they did, however, since you can get a loan based on your credit score alone, over the phone or internet, and your credit score is easily manipulated, and the person applying for the loan can lie about things they owe that don't appear on your credit report (reporting to a credit account and payments to it cost the company that is providing the credit money) then you can see that not all the blame lies on the banks or mortgage lenders.I and others who've replied to you can see this quite clearly, without the added filler. It's common sense.

The banks and car companies are not at fault.I still disagree with this, but I see you somewhat clarified your position above.

This is part of the mess that they wanted to regulate in the 21 times Republicans wanted to bring regulation and standardization to the rules of this form of security.Not to rain on your rant parade or anything, but this mess has been brewing long before the Democrats took control in Congress, but don't interpret this as defending them, they are just as guilty as Republicans.

President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004

# Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:

* American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;
* Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;
* Helping Families Help Themselves. The President has proposed increasing support for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunities Program; and
* Simplifying Homebuying and Increasing Education. The President and HUD want to empower homebuyers by simplifying the home buying process so consumers can better understand and benefit from cost savings. The President also wants to expand financial education efforts so that families can understand what they need to do to become homeowners.

I don't blame one person, one party, or one entity. It's a collective, which is my point, not yours. I'm reasonable enough to admit that the country we live in is bipartisan and as such so is the blame for the current state of the economy.

[Warriorbird]

Uh...

Alternately you could put down the pom poms and try to think for yourself for once, LMing. PB's doing a good job of not just quoting Fox. It's a step. You could join him.

I don't find tax cuts combined with runaway spending particularly effective in the long term. Look where we are now.

You've certainly stated 'taxes are higher in socialist countries' screed plenty, PB. Simple extrapolation.


How many countries are there in the world again? Fine, I'll rephrase my statement from "We have the highest on the planet" to "We have one of the highest on the planet". I hope that helps.
-PB

That was from one end of the spectrum. If you don't believe that most businesses pay a lower effective tax rate than the statutory one... well, maybe you're not the educated small business owner I thought you were.

My grandfather's winery paid something along the order of 19% last year. That's a lot lower than 35%

[Parkbandit]

Uh...

Alternately you could put down the pom poms and try to think for yourself for once, LMing. PB's doing a good job of not just quoting Fox. It's a step. You could join him.

Now if I can only get you to stop using moveon.org as your primary source.. we might be getting somewhere.




I don't find tax cuts combined with runaway spending particularly effective in the long term. Look where we are now.

Agreed. I also don't agree that we should use "tax breaks" on people not paying taxes plus the largest economic spending bill in history to try and fix the problem either.. but call me crazy.



You've certainly stated 'taxes are higher in socialist countries' screed plenty, PB. Simple extrapolation.

It's a foolish extrapolation since I've never, ever stated that our taxes are low. Our taxes are still high in my opinion.. I shouldn't have to work until mid-May completely for the government.. and then use the rest of the year to provide for my family.

Just because we're not paying 50-60% in taxes doesn't automatically make our tax system fair and equitable.




That was from one end of the spectrum. If you don't believe that most businesses pay a lower effective tax rate than the statutory one... well, maybe you're not the educated small business owner I thought you were.

My grandfather's winery paid something along the order of 19% last year. That's a lot lower than 35%

My 3 companies combined paid exactly 0% in corporate taxes last year. What's your point again? How does this change the fact that the US currently has the third highest corporate tax rate in the world?

Oh.. it doesn't.

[Warriorbird]

Once again statutory rate != effective rate. You just argued for it yourself.

People 'not paying taxes' still aren't going to. The tax breaks are for the middle class.

[Parkbandit]

Once again statutory rate != effective rate. You just argued for it yourself.

People 'not paying taxes' still aren't going to. The tax breaks are for the middle class.


Again.. you've claimed that your so called 'effective rate' lies somewhere to the tune of having only 8 countries having a higher rate. I believe that to be still too high.

You need to look at the 'tax break' details again if you really believe that.

[Warriorbird]

I get the most entertaining PMs.


Am I crazy or did PB just basically state that corporate tax cuts would be his #1 way to stimulate the economy while also saying he himself didn't pay any corporate taxes this year? I mean, I've had a little wine tonight, so maybe I'm reading this wrong but did he not make your point EXACTLY. What says you...

I actually claimed the effective rate likely lies somewhere between 22 and 36%, making us somewhat further down than number 8. You said that you yourself paid 0. My grandpa paid 19. I'm curious how cutting these is going to solve all our problems, PB.

The 'people who didn't have to pay!' getting paid? 8k-15k earned is a comparatively small piece of 8k-75k. I'm not too worried about the low income who wouldn't have paid much and now don't have to pay at all.

[Parkbandit]

I get the most entertaining PMs.



I actually claimed the effective rate likely lies somewhere between 22 and 36%, making us somewhat further down than number 8. You said that you yourself paid 0. My grandpa paid 19. I'm curious how cutting these is going to solve all our problems, PB.

The 'people who didn't have to pay!' getting paid? 8k-15k earned is a comparatively small piece of 8k-75k. I'm not too worried about the low income who wouldn't have paid much and now don't have to pay at all.


Your friend's ignorance of corporate structures rivals only yours. Maybe the two of you could figure out how my companies paid 0% taxes. I won't hold my breath though.

[Warriorbird]

So... you're still unable to figure out the difference between statutory and effective taxes. I'm sorry. With problems like that I guess you reduced your tax liability through losses. I'd thought better of your skills.

[Daniel]

My 3 companies combined paid exactly 0% in corporate taxes last year. What's your point again? How does this change the fact that the US currently has the third highest corporate tax rate in the world?

Oh.. it doesn't.


rofl. This thread is fucking gold.

First you say tax breaks should go to business that will use the money to create jobs then you say that you paid zero corporate taxes.

Wait..Isn't this equal to welfare?

Way to live off the system PB. You're what's wrong with America.

[Parkbandit]

rofl. This thread is fucking gold.

First you say tax breaks should go to business that will use the money to create jobs then you say that you paid zero corporate taxes.

Wait..Isn't this equal to welfare?

Way to live off the system PB. You're what's wrong with America.

And just when we thought Warriorbird's lack of company tax knowledge couldn't be beaten.. we have someone who steps up and proves if you wait long enough, someone even dumber will come along.

Grats on your stupidity Danny boy.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/TrollAwardDaniel.jpg

[Warriorbird]

Uh... I'm still not getting you paying 0% in taxes having anything to do with my 'misunderstanding' of tax law. You were the one who admitted being wrong in this thread.

Now... given the examples and level that some small businesses can reduce their tax level to... think about effective tax levels. Are our corporate tax laws a burden or Swiss cheese?

[Daniel]

And just when we thought Warriorbird's lack of company tax knowledge couldn't be beaten.. we have someone who steps up and proves if you wait long enough, someone even dumber will come along.

Grats on your stupidity Danny boy.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/TrollAwardDaniel.jpg

The absolute hilarious part is that you're just being contrary to be contrary not realizing how fucking stupid you're making yourself look.

It doesn't matter if you're effectively paying zero taxes because you lost so much m oney it's not an issue, or because you pay your personal income tax rate because of your method of incorporation or because you've found significant loop holes or credits through which to offset your entire tax liability. The point is that you don't pay a full corporate tax rate, just like most other businesses in America. So, to continually suggest that our corporate tax rate is the highest in the world is disingenuous at best and fucking rofl hilarious at worst.

I'm leaning towards the latter.

[Parkbandit]

The absolute hilarious part is that you're just being contrary to be contrary not realizing how fucking stupid you're making yourself look.

It doesn't matter if you're effectively paying zero taxes because you lost so much m oney it's not an issue, or because you pay your personal income tax rate because of your method of incorporation or because you've found significant loop holes or credits through which to offset your entire tax liability. The point is that you don't pay a full corporate tax rate, just like most other businesses in America. So, to continually suggest that our corporate tax rate is the highest in the world is disingenuous at best and fucking rofl hilarious at worst.

I'm leaning towards the latter.


There are many ways to incorporate your business.. each with it's own rules for paying taxes to the government. Some pay via corporate taxes.. some (omg, here is the big clue!!) pay via personal taxes.

The point is that I don't pay a full corporate tax rate is because I didn't (and couldn't) structure my businesses to do so.

Seriously, we've had this discussion on this board before.. if you are still clueless, follow this link:

http://taxes.about.com/od/scorporations/qt/scorp_criteria.htm

If you are STILL clueless after having someone read that to you.. then maybe you should stick to crayons and paper for the day.