PDA

View Full Version : YOUR TAXES WILL GO UP!


Lefty
10-27-2008, 08:21 PM
Under an Obama Presidency, despite his slick pandering to the ignorant, your taxes will go up. He is going to let the Bush Tax cuts expire in 2010. The rates will revert to the 2000 rates. Everybody that pays taxes will suffer a tax increase.
Small businesses that make more than 250,000 provide most of the jobs, but a lot of those jobs will disappear when Obama sticks his class warfare tax increase to them.

Secretariat
10-27-2008, 08:28 PM
Under an Obama Presidency, despite his slick pandering to the ignorant, your taxes will go up. He is going to let the Bush Tax cuts expire in 2010. The rates will revert to the 2000 rates. Everybody that pays taxes will suffer a tax increase.
Small businesses that make more than 250,000 provide most of the jobs, but a lot of those jobs will disappear when Obama sticks his class warfare tax increase to them.

You seem confused Lefty. This will help.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Tax_Plan_Comparison_FINAL.pdf

Valuist
10-27-2008, 08:52 PM
Under an Obama Presidency, despite his slick pandering to the ignorant, your taxes will go up. He is going to let the Bush Tax cuts expire in 2010. The rates will revert to the 2000 rates. Everybody that pays taxes will suffer a tax increase.
Small businesses that make more than 250,000 provide most of the jobs, but a lot of those jobs will disappear when Obama sticks his class warfare tax increase to them.

You are speaking as though everyone makes over $250K a year. What percent actually does? Something like 2%.

ddog
10-27-2008, 09:20 PM
taxes are going up NO MATTER.


NO MATTER.
In fact they are going up now , everyday.


get used to it.

that is what happens when you borrow and spend to excess.
the day comes you have to cut back and start paying down debt or you can default on it.

maybe that will be the end, just default like some third world failed state.
I am sure most would vote for it if given the chance.

Marshall Bennett
10-27-2008, 09:41 PM
Have to agree with ddog somewhat on this one . Expect another huge bailout by early 09 . Ultimately the taxpayers dig deep . McCain & Obama say otherwise , they're simply both full of shit . How often in past elections have candidates made those promises and raised taxes anyway . We're ( the economy ) is in deep shit and digging deeper . Wait till unemployment skyrockets next year .
I don't think we've seen anything yet . :confused:

Lefty
10-27-2008, 10:08 PM
sec, i'm not confused but you're certainly one of the duped if you blve that load of crap. We have tax cuts now. Under Obama we'll go bk to 2000 rates which, for you that don't understand, were HIGHER. Because of the higher rate EVERYBODY'S taxes will go up. If you don't understand that, you should be in a home.
Tax cuts for 95%. what a joke. 40% don't pay taxes but they will get a check and once again taxpayers pay for the non producers.
Small businesses will layoff because of the added tax burden. You better wise up. But I forgot, some of you want socialism. Be careful what you wish for...

prospector
10-27-2008, 10:09 PM
You are speaking as though everyone makes over $250K a year. What percent actually does? Something like 2%.
my corporation used to have 22 million in sales and was classified as a small business...
it'll affect a hell of a lot more than 2%...if i was still in business i'd figure out what the cost of his plan would be to us, including benefits paid and trim expenses by figuring the proper mix of employees to pay for the loss of profit..translation..people would lose jobs..companies don't hire to create jobs..its about making a profit..period

Lefty
10-27-2008, 10:17 PM
BTW, also big businesses will raise taxes on their goods to acct for the new taxes, and if that causes a slowdown, then more layoffs will ensue.
You can't tax your way to prosperity. I better be careful The guy that told Clinton that before Clinton was elected in 90, had his taxes audited after Clinton took office. And now Obama and his friends are after Joe the plumber.
Boy, these dims are a mean lot.

Secretariat
10-28-2008, 06:51 PM
BTW, also big businesses will raise taxes on their goods to acct for the new taxes, and if that causes a slowdown, then more layoffs will ensue.
You can't tax your way to prosperity. I better be careful The guy that told Clinton that before Clinton was elected in 90, had his taxes audited after Clinton took office. And now Obama and his friends are after Joe the plumber.
Boy, these dims are a mean lot.

Lefty,

We've had this discussion for years, and now we see where the Bush tax cuts have led us. I wish I had been wrong, but I wasn't. Huge deficits, and a financial mess. Whatever happened to that GOP in 94 for the Blaanced Budget Amendment. We've had the biggest Republican spending spree in history, and given the largest benefits to the rich.

You like to bash Clinton, but let's remember he did manage to orchestrate a surplus in a couple of years and presided over an economy that grew by leaps and bounds compared to this dog. And yet there were tax increases. How can that be Lefty? How could we see such an expansion with tax increases under Clinton, and such an abysmal economy with GW's tax cuts for the rich? Kind of throws a wrench into your argument doesn't it.

To be honest I am personally agaisnt Obama's tax cut plan. I think he cuts too much. We have serious bills that are going to require pruning of spending AND more tax revenue. In a staggering economy with increasing unemployment there wil lbe less tax revenue coming in.

Somebody has to pay for those wars Lefty.

Also Lefty the crap that big business will pass on taxes to their consumers doesn't fly. One, if they do, consumers won't buy their products. That's one of the benefits of capitalism. We can choose what and where we buy. Also the effective corporate tax rate is one of the lowest in the world. Companies in the 50's, 60's and 70's paid a much higher tax rate and guess what they competed. This old Republican argument is the fear argument...Something that Republicans seem to run on continually.

JustRalph
10-28-2008, 07:58 PM
you are deranged.

The Bush tax cuts didn't loan money to people who shouldn't have received loans. The Bush tax cuts didn't refuse to regulate FReddie and FAnnie, those two items were performed at the behest of Barney Frank and his Democratic CAbal............

Get Real SEc. On your point about taxes not rolling down to consumers, spoken just like somebody who has never run a business. All expenses roll down hill to the customers. Your stated scenario is illogical. It might hold some merit if taxes were raised on only a few individual companies or businesses at a time.....in the same exact business..........but they don't work that way!!!!

hcap
10-28-2008, 08:01 PM
The stimulus needed for this economy is directly to the middle class, infra structure and yes guys the poor. Obamas' overal and tax policy is best suited. And as Sec pointed out, rolling back the tax rates to Clinton era levels did not slow growth then.

The best way to get the economy moving is not the continuation of Reagonomics.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20081022

"As money is spent, it creates beneficial ripples through the entire economy. The evidence is that most of the money from the recent tax rebate was saved rather than spent, thus blunting its stimulative benefit.1 By comparison, other options—such as infrastructure spending, aid to states, food stamps, and unemployment insurance (UI) benefits—are much more cost-effective because they target the needs most likely to channel money back into the economy. Mark Zandi from Moody’s Economy.com estimates that each dollar of refundable tax rebates only boosts GDP by about $1.26, while each dollar of infrastructure spending could provide a $1.59 boost. Not only are many of these stimulus options more effective, but they also have the added benefit of assisting those hardest hit by the downturn and tackling long-standing infrastructure needs that would lower transportation costs, decrease traffic, and increase business productivity.

http://www.epi.org/webfeatures/snapshots/archive/2008/1022/20081022snapshot600.jpg

chickenhead
10-28-2008, 08:35 PM
bless John McCain, I do love him, but he nearly made my head impode today listening to him for a minute.

He's railing on about Obama, spread the wealth, redistribute, etc etc. Dangerous, we can't have that.

The next topic is prospective Treasury secretary, and McCain says he's a bit pissed at Paulson, because what we really need to be doing, like yesterday, is buying up mortgages so we can prop up the housing market.

Is this our conservative we're supposed to vote for? The guy that wants to set the home prices? This is our stalwart against socialism? I guess since he didn't say "spread the wealth" it's peachy. Or perchy. F it.

Gimme a one :bang: and a two :bang: :bang:

wonatthewire1
10-28-2008, 08:43 PM
You seem confused Lefty. This will help.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Tax_Plan_Comparison_FINAL.pdf


Hey the link doesn't say what happens to those families making more than $250k, got a link for that?

chickenhead
10-28-2008, 08:47 PM
if I had my joe the plumber moment with McCain, I'd take him to the dilapidated 500 sq ft shack down the road aways that's sitting on the market for $299K, and ask him:

"Why do you want to use my hard earned tax dollars to increase the price of this shack, that is obviously still ridiculously overpriced? You're gonna make it more expensive for me to buy a house, aren't you? That sounds like socialism to me, John."

:p

(and then the msm will dig deeply into my background, which will lead to my arrest :lol: )

HUSKER55
10-28-2008, 09:32 PM
oN THE NEWS tonight they said the average used home in the US is selling for 191000 and the typical new home is 221000. (meaning 50% are above and 50% below that mark).


Used home sales are up 5.5% and new home sales are up 2.7%.

I am not in favor of foreclosure if it can be avoided by rewriting the note for a longer period at a lower payment, at least until the economy turns around.


Somebody explain this again as to why government is getting involved when the market is starting to go up. If the big banks on top have to take a lower return for being idiots then so be it.
So a CEO has to settle for less money for a few years. In the future he or she will know better.

Lefty
10-28-2008, 09:35 PM
sec, yes, years and you haven't learned. Blaming Bush Tax cuts for this mess is a lie or ignorance. which is it, sec? The Tax cuts put MORE MONEY into the Treasury. MORE MONEY, not less. Got it?
BTW, Obama's plan is going to increase the spending by nearly a TRILLION dollars. Got that, SEc. A TRILLION. That sure not cutting spending, eh what?
What got us in this mess was subprime mortgages that were championed by DIMOCRATS!

alydar
10-28-2008, 09:58 PM
Everybody needs to get real.

Entitlement programs growing everyday, the deficit and national debtat all time highs.

Of course taxes are going up, regardless of who gets elected. It would be naive to believe otherwise.

ddog
10-29-2008, 12:27 AM
oN THE NEWS tonight they said the average used home in the US is selling for 191000 and the typical new home is 221000. (meaning 50% are above and 50% below that mark).


Used home sales are up 5.5% and new home sales are up 2.7%.

I am not in favor of foreclosure if it can be avoided by rewriting the note for a longer period at a lower payment, at least until the economy turns around.


Somebody explain this again as to why government is getting involved when the market is starting to go up. If the big banks on top have to take a lower return for being idiots then so be it.
So a CEO has to settle for less money for a few years. In the future he or she will know better.

I would assume those figures are YOY or MOM , if MOM, that series is not to be trusted, you need to see the 4 month moving avg.
Up from any month in the last 12 is not really a correction.
We have, last I saw around an 11month supply that needs to go away first.


Home prices need to fall, when they have fallen far enough or perhaps a tad too far then the market will correct, no need for a gvt bail.
And right after that the gvt should get OUT of the home market , sell off fan/fre end all special perks for homeowners, it is counterproductive.

Homeownership is not a right of birth.
gvt has no business in it at all.

ddog
10-29-2008, 12:30 AM
Everybody needs to get real.

Entitlement programs growing everyday, the deficit and national debtat all time highs.

Of course taxes are going up, regardless of who gets elected. It would be naive to believe otherwise.


lefty and his minions can't get real, they lost the ability sometime in the 90's.
They exist to steal from the next set of taxpayers.
income redistribution , yep that's Lefty and the boys plan,for years now, they just can't admit it.

They make bama look like regan , at least he is for spreading the wealth, they are for spreading the poverty to the next set of suckers.


:lol:

Tom
10-29-2008, 07:41 AM
Everybody needs to get real.

Entitlement programs growing everyday, the deficit and national debtat all time highs.

Of course taxes are going up, regardless of who gets elected. It would be naive to believe otherwise.

What happens when the minority - those that earn money and are fleeced out of it - stop? If housing and HC is a right, I have no incentive to work anymore. I may consider stopping and collecting my "rightful" fruits with no effort on my part. If I have a right to all theses thing. I am free to choose not to work for them anymore. Why should I?

lsbets
10-29-2008, 07:55 AM
Also Lefty the crap that big business will pass on taxes to their consumers doesn't fly.

What a stupid, ignorant statement. All costs are passed to consumers. My goal in business is to sell as much of my product as possible for the highest price possible. Raising prices with an excuse everyone understands is one of the easiest things to do. Minimum wage went up? Guess what, so did prices. Taxes go up? So will prices. More government mandates to follow, meaning I have to pay more to my accountant - prices go up.

Business is not charity. Consumers end up paying the costs imposed on businesses by government.

HUSKER55
10-29-2008, 08:11 AM
thanks ddog for the response. appreciate it.

hcap
10-29-2008, 08:31 AM
What happens when the minority - those that earn money and are fleeced out of it - stop? If housing and HC is a right, I have no incentive to work anymore. I may consider stopping and collecting my "rightful" fruits with no effort on my part. If I have a right to all theses thing. I am free to choose not to work for them anymore. Why should I?Well, you better board up the windows and load the shotguns, because hordes of lazy shiftless welfare queens and unemployed rioters are coming your way.

But while shivering in the corner of your basement just remember Ronnie Raygun....

"The earned income tax credit ("EITC") was enacted by Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... Ronald Reagan.

The EITC uses tax revenues (derived from our progressive tax system) to provide additional income to people below certain income levels under a formula so that it gradually phases out as incomes increases. Qualifying families receive a monthly check from the government.

The EITC is sort of a "guaranteed annual income" program.

So, Ronald Reagan was a redistributor. That must mean he was a socialist, even a communist"

hcap
10-29-2008, 09:41 AM
I wonder if anti-trust legislation is a form of socialism?
Should government get involved in corporations that are bringing home profits, adding to the economy and employing many?

"As President, Roosevelt held the ideal that the Government should be the great arbiter of the conflicting economic forces in the Nation, especially between capital and labor, guaranteeing justice to each and dispensing favors to none.

Roosevelt emerged spectacularly as a "trust buster" by forcing the dissolution of a great railroad combination in the Northwest. Other antitrust suits under the Sherman Act followed"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/tr26.gif

Tom
10-29-2008, 10:13 AM
Still searching for that elusive "point" I see. :bang:

Keep at it, mate.....it is out there.

hcap
10-29-2008, 04:43 PM
Hey Remember Tom the unwashed hordes of lazy unrepentant ne'er do wells are out to get you and your Unca' McDuck Scrooge fortune.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/09/ScroogeMcDuck_Comic.jpg

So as I said about your Non-Socialist, non wimpy, cowboy hero Ronnie.....
What about the "The earned income tax credit ("EITC") was enacted by Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by... Ronald Reagan.

I believe that is an elusive "point"?

Tom
10-30-2008, 07:44 AM
Yadda yadda yadda.

Trying to compare that to the master plan of Der Commissioner Obama is pathetic. You got nothin'.

delayjf
10-30-2008, 11:28 AM
Hcap, bottom line, what is the most anybody in this country should make or be worth??

Tom
10-30-2008, 11:43 AM
According to Joe Plugs Biden, the American dream ends at $150K.

We already know 40% of Americans are worthless ( the do not contribute).
They have a word for those leeches.....Obama supporters.

Lefty
10-30-2008, 11:53 AM
ddog, you don't know crap about the economy and you prove it with stupid statements like your last addressed to me. When Kennedy cut taxes the revenues increased. when Reagan cut taxes revenues increased. When Bush cut taxes revenues increased. When Hoover raised taxes in a bad economy we went into a depression. Allowing people to keep more of what they earn spurs investment and creates jobs. Punishing people through the tax system causes investment to slow dn and jobs go away and prices go up because the people with money have less to invest when the govt takes more of it.
It's the dims that spread the misery with their take from the rich give to the poor attitudes. It doesn't work and those at the top know it but they do it because it keeps them in power. Because guys like you actually think they're helping when they are hurting the country. The small businesses in this country that do earn over 250,000 a yr supply most of the jobs. When they get hit with more taxes, jobs go away and prices go up. That's how it works.

Lefty
10-30-2008, 12:01 PM
ddog, its the dims that spread the poverty with all their entitlement prgms and tax increases. They like to make people dependent on them for food, housing and soon, healthcare. Dims like to spread the misery. They are socialists. Repubs, blve in the individual and think each person should be able to keep as much of what they earn as possible.
I like the 2nd plan better. It creates more investment and jobs. It's been proven all through history.
Obama followers are following a false prophet. And we all will pay if he gets elected, not just the ones that make 250,000 and more.

Lefty
10-30-2008, 12:21 PM
ddog, its the dims that spread the poverty with all their entitlement prgms and tax increases. They like to make people dependent on them for food, housing and soon, healthcare. Dims like to spread the misery. They are socialists. Repubs, blve in the individual and think each person should be able to keep as much of what they earn as possible.
I like the 2nd plan better. It creates more investment and jobs. It's been proven all through history.
Obama followers are following a false prophet. And we all will pay if he gets elected, not just the ones that make 250,000 and more.

Lefty
10-30-2008, 12:25 PM
As far as minions go, when i order a hotdog i always ask for lots of minions.
If you think Obama will take care of you just look how Obama and Biden treated joe the plumber. They had him investgated, they mocked him and laughed at him. That's what the Dims think of the common folk. we're just pawns in their quest for power.
Obama has a brother living on a buck a month and an Aunt living in a housing project. He won't even help them. Ya think he's gonna help us? Ya think?

Tom
10-30-2008, 12:56 PM
Lefty, did you hear Joe on Beck today? He brought that point out, too. Among some other good ones. The dem fool goes to his house, asks him to talk, then attacks him when he does. This Obama is am enemy of free people.

ddog
10-30-2008, 04:32 PM
lefty, i expect no one to take care of ME but me.

Check out the tax "plans" from these two.
They are taking "care" of this country , just like they took care of Hoffa.
I guess you just don't care or can't see it.

They are driving this country under Bush and under either of the two plans from these guys to a default in the next couple of years.
The Ceo(prez) has to take the lead or nothing good will happen on this front.
Congress :lol: can't be expected to act in a responsible manner without leadership.

It's time to get real or you won't have the option soon.


http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf

witchdoctor
10-30-2008, 05:15 PM
What happens when the minority - those that earn money and are fleeced out of it - stop? If housing and HC is a right, I have no incentive to work anymore. I may consider stopping and collecting my "rightful" fruits with no effort on my part. If I have a right to all theses thing. I am free to choose not to work for them anymore. Why should I?


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
> > ten
> comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
> would go something like this:
>
> The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
> The fifth would pay $1.
> The sixth would pay $3.
> The seventh would pay $7.
> The eighth would pay $12.
> The ninth would pay $18.
> The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
>
> So, that's what they decided to do.
>
> The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
> arrangement, until on day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you
> are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost
> of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80."
>
> The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
> the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
> But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
> they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
> They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
> that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
> would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner
> suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly
> the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
>
> And so:
>
> The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
> The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
> The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
> The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
> The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
> The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
>
> Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
> continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
> began to compare their savings.
>
> "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He
> pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
>
> "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar,
> too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
>
> " That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
> when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
>
> "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
> anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
>
> The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
>
> The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
> sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
> bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
> money between all of them for even half of the bill!
>
> And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
> our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
> most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
> being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they
> might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
>
> This is the barstool version of Senator Obama's tax plan
> :D

hcap
10-30-2008, 07:23 PM
Hcap, bottom line, what is the most anybody in this country should make or be worth??We have had a progressive tax system in this country for years. The earned income tax credit ("EITC") was enacted by Gerald Ford and then re-enacted and expanded in 1986 by Ronald Reagan.
Under Ike the upper income tax bracket was much higher.

I will not put limits on "the bottom line", but I will quote Aristotle:

Those who have too much of the goods of fortune, strength, wealth, friends, and the like, are neither willing nor able to submit to authority....On the other hand, the very poor, who are in the opposite extreme, are too degraded....Thus arises a city, not of freemen, but of masters and slaves, the one despising, the other envying; and nothing can be more fatal to friendship and good fellowship in states than this: for good fellowship springs from friendship; when men are at enmity with one another, they would rather not even share the same path. But a city ought to be composed, as far as possible, of equals and similars; and these are generally the middle classes.

....Thus it is manifest that the best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes, or at any rate than either singly; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant. Great then is the good fortune of a state in which the citizens have a moderate and sufficient property; for where some possess much, and the others nothing, there may arise an extreme democracy, or a pure oligarchy; or a tyranny may grow out of either extreme — either out of the most rampant democracy, or out of an oligarchy; but it is not so likely to arise out of the middle constitutions and those akin to them.

Lefty
10-30-2008, 07:38 PM
Tom, i was at Racebook today but did get home in time to hear Mark levin read a letter from an Obama speechwriter who has quit because she detests his treatment of women and working people.

ddog, do you rally think that a man with plans on a trillion dollars worth of spending is gonna lead congress anywhere. Maybe to the next depression.
Hoover caused a depression raising taxes in a bad economy and obama, if elected, is poised to do the same. Wake up and vote for the man who will defend us and not cut military spending. Vote for the man who will not let the Bush tax cuts expire so all the Joe's and Jills get an even break.

HUSKER55
10-30-2008, 08:55 PM
Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on everyone should understand one thing. This capitalistic system we have will not work at minimum wage. If you don't understand that then......

Keep taking jobs overseas, keep forcing people into menial jobs for Walmart and nobody is going anywhere. If 40% of the population do not pay taxes then that means the 60% who do pay taxes just made a trillion dollars and the jobs are still going out of america.

There are talks of GM buying out part/all of Chrysler. If that happens then 35000 more people are out of work and the only people to benefit will be the oversea supply providers.

Until someone changes that scenerio I am starting to wonder if it really makes any difference at all concerning who gets elected.

Does anyone remember the Savings and Loan fiasco under Bush Sr? There were soldiers who lost their homes who were fighting in Desert Storm. Now we have GW and this mess.

I think Obama and Bidden are part of the corruption.

Sarah has proven, in court, that she will fight corruption. What have the others done to fight corruption? Has any of them won a cases in court? Did they oust any crooks? I don't remember the media saying so. I don't even remember Obama saying anything while in the Senate? Do you? How about Bidden?

I am afraid, if elected, Sarah will be too little too late. All of us know what has to be and I don't see anything that makes me believe that "change" is going to occur.

wonatthewire1
10-30-2008, 09:02 PM
Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on everyone should understand one thing. This capitalistic system we have will not work at minimum wage. If you don't understand that then......

Keep taking jobs overseas, keep forcing people into menial jobs for Walmart and nobody is going anywhere. If 40% of the population do not pay taxes then that means the 60% who do pay taxes just made a trillion dollars and the jobs are still going out of america.

There are talks of GM buying out part/all of Chrysler. If that happens then 35000 more people are out of work and the only people to benefit will be the oversea supply providers.

Until someone changes that scenerio I am starting to wonder if it really makes any difference at all concerning who gets elected.

Does anyone remember the Savings and Loan fiasco under Bush Sr? There were soldiers who lost their homes who were fighting in Desert Storm. Now we have GW and this mess.

I think Obama and Bidden are part of the corruption.

Sarah has proven, in court, that she will fight corruption. What have the others done to fight corruption? Has any of them won a cases in court? Did they oust any crooks? I don't remember the media saying so. I don't even remember Obama saying anything while in the Senate? Do you? How about Bidden?

I am afraid, if elected, Sarah will be too little too late. All of us know what has to be and I don't see anything that makes me believe that "change" is going to occur.

Bloomberg Radio was reporting approximately 72,000 jobs will disappear when Chrysler is gone...

I guess it was good for them to have survived for a while after Iaccoca brought them back to life, but they make some real cr*p. Hope some of the workers get to stay on

wonatthewire1
10-30-2008, 09:07 PM
Lefty,

Why are you posting on the board with NV slipping away into Barry O's camp?

Are there some neighborhoods to canvas? We got to get NV's electoral votes in the good guy's camp.

Some of us will have to slip away in the night to other parts of the world where socialism isn't completely ruling one's life and thoughts. That day draws near - we must fight the fight of our lives

Can you imagine if this guy wins in a landslide? We'll have to hear about the demonrat's mandate for years

Marshall Bennett
10-30-2008, 09:17 PM
Tom, i was at Racebook today but did get home in time to hear Mark levin read a letter from an Obama speechwriter who has quit because she detests his treatment of women and working people.

ddog, do you rally think that a man with plans on a trillion dollars worth of spending is gonna lead congress anywhere. Maybe to the next depression.
Hoover caused a depression raising taxes in a bad economy and obama, if elected, is poised to do the same. Wake up and vote for the man who will defend us and not cut military spending. Vote for the man who will not let the Bush tax cuts expire so all the Joe's and Jills get an even break.
Of course the difference between Hoover and Obama is that Hoover was a proven politician and Obama hasn't proven anything , except his ability to deceive millions of people .

ddog
10-30-2008, 10:35 PM
Tom, i was at Racebook today but did get home in time to hear Mark levin read a letter from an Obama speechwriter who has quit because she detests his treatment of women and working people.

ddog, do you rally think that a man with plans on a trillion dollars worth of spending is gonna lead congress anywhere. Maybe to the next depression.
Hoover caused a depression raising taxes in a bad economy and obama, if elected, is poised to do the same. Wake up and vote for the man who will defend us and not cut military spending. Vote for the man who will not let the Bush tax cuts expire so all the Joe's and Jills get an even break.


Lefty, did you LOOK at the link i posted???
If you did , then you must look again.
You will find that Mac is actually going to spend more than bama.
At some point!, someone will pay.

Look for a treasury bubble, it's started, this is going downhill quickly i fear.

within 2 years we will have a massive currency crisis in several countries and possibly lack of faith on our t-bill auctions. I never thought i would even think that much less post it.

Our defict will be over 2trillion bucks next year.
the fed rate cut was a total waste and a disaster, that is hurting the banks they are trying to help due to the spreads.

We are already propping up several countries via Fed lending facilities, heaven help us when we find out that is a bottomless pit.
We are letting them give us worthless crap in their countries for our dollars to stabilize their countries.

It's looking ugly to me.

God, i hope i am wrong.

ddog
10-30-2008, 10:42 PM
Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on everyone should understand one thing. This capitalistic system we have will not work at minimum wage. If you don't understand that then......

Keep taking jobs overseas, keep forcing people into menial jobs for Walmart and nobody is going anywhere. If 40% of the population do not pay taxes then that means the 60% who do pay taxes just made a trillion dollars and the jobs are still going out of america.

There are talks of GM buying out part/all of Chrysler. If that happens then 35000 more people are out of work and the only people to benefit will be the oversea supply providers.

Until someone changes that scenerio I am starting to wonder if it really makes any difference at all concerning who gets elected.

Does anyone remember the Savings and Loan fiasco under Bush Sr? There were soldiers who lost their homes who were fighting in Desert Storm. Now we have GW and this mess.

I think Obama and Bidden are part of the corruption.

Sarah has proven, in court, that she will fight corruption. What have the others done to fight corruption? Has any of them won a cases in court? Did they oust any crooks? I don't remember the media saying so. I don't even remember Obama saying anything while in the Senate? Do you? How about Bidden?

I am afraid, if elected, Sarah will be too little too late. All of us know what has to be and I don't see anything that makes me believe that "change" is going to occur.


Husker, the corruption in my view is a small part of this whole deal.
We need thinkers , the whole system is up for grabs, there are going to be changes the likes of which we do not conceive right now.

I just have not seen or heard thinking from Palin , that may not be fair since she has just come on the scene, but she should be having some discussions in the open with people she trusts.
I still don't get what was wrong with Romney.
If it's really country first with Mac and I think it is , then he should have been the pick. No doubt.

You are right a consumer economy can't be much of one if the consumer is layed off or working reduced hours or making 9.00 an hour.

The whole consumer deal is the problem.
it has to be retooled-rethought.

That's way beyond corruption and real or false americas.

pandy
10-30-2008, 11:54 PM
Under an Obama Presidency, despite his slick pandering to the ignorant, your taxes will go up. He is going to let the Bush Tax cuts expire in 2010. The rates will revert to the 2000 rates. Everybody that pays taxes will suffer a tax increase.
Small businesses that make more than 250,000 provide most of the jobs, but a lot of those jobs will disappear when Obama sticks his class warfare tax increase to them.

From what I read in Forbes Small Business, Obama's Health plan will be paid for by businesses. That, along with the tax increase, is going to hurt current businesses, and thwart new start ups.

Tom
10-30-2008, 11:59 PM
Obama is to jobs as OJ was to waiters.

pandy
10-31-2008, 12:09 AM
Everybody needs to get real.

Entitlement programs growing everyday, the deficit and national debtat all time highs.

Of course taxes are going up, regardless of who gets elected. It would be naive to believe otherwise.

A good guy to read if you're interested in economics is Pat Toomey from Club For Growth, he's a former conservative politican, very interesting.

Tom
12-02-2010, 03:47 PM
Lefty,

We've had this discussion for years, and now we see where the Bush tax cuts have led us. I wish I had been wrong, but I wasn't. Huge deficits, and a financial mess. Whatever happened to that GOP in 94 for the Blanced Budget Amendment. We've had the biggest Republican spending spree in history, and given the largest benefits to the rich.

You like to bash Clinton, but let's remember he did manage to orchestrate a surplus in a couple of years and presided over an economy that grew by leaps and bounds compared to this dog. And yet there were tax increases. How can that be Lefty? How could we see such an expansion with tax increases under Clinton, and such an abysmal economy with GW's tax cuts for the rich? Kind of throws a wrench into your argument doesn't it.




Calling Sec....Sec?...Sec"

Hey, let's review.....

You were upset about the repub spending...you must be incensed by now, what with RECORD spending by lib addicts, right?

How do you explaining Nancy Pelosi today, hold a vote to extend the GW's tax cuts for the MIDDLE CLASS?

Huh? Middle Class Tax Cuts?

Where did that term from, Sec...it has ALWAYS been the tax cuts for the rich. Now, it is suddenly for the middle class???? Wazzup wit dat, Sec? :lol: Have they reduced the rick all down to middle class already?

Hey, closest we have come to that term is ME, calling them tax cuts for EVERYONE. Look it up.

Lefty
12-02-2010, 04:32 PM
sec, there was a so-called surplus under Clinton, but it had more to do with the balanced budget the Repubs made Billy sign and the dot com spree than anything else. I don't know how there could have been a surplus at all when we still had a National Debt. It's like saying you have a surplus in your bank acct, when you owe 20 grand on your credit cards. It does not compute to this old left-handed cuss.
Why are you upset with what Bush spent and don't spew any invectives Obama's way when he has escalated the spending? Huh, huh, huh?

boxcar
12-02-2010, 04:56 PM
Calling Sec....Sec?...Sec"

Hey, let's review.....

You were upset about the repub spending...you must be incensed by now, what with RECORD spending by lib addicts, right?

How do you explaining Nancy Pelosi today, hold a vote to extend the GW's tax cuts for the MIDDLE CLASS?

Huh? Middle Class Tax Cuts?

Where did that term from, Sec...it has ALWAYS been the tax cuts for the rich. Now, it is suddenly for the middle class???? Wazzup wit dat, Sec? :lol: Have they reduced the rick all down to middle class already?

Hey, closest we have come to that term is ME, calling them tax cuts for EVERYONE. Look it up.

Yeah, they hypocrisy here is so think, a bulldozer wouldn't be able to crash through it. Unbelievable! All of sudden they want to preserve the "middle class" tax cuts! :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: For all these years, these were non-existent. But leave it to the Witch to pull 'em out of her pointy black hat....and heart. But we always knew there was something magical about her, didn't we? :lol: :lol: :lol: She's genuine Disney material. :rolleyes:

What's even funnier is that Rush today on his show played this hilarious montage of soundbites of lib talking heads on various news channels. Talk about mind-numbed robots. It's as though they all received their marching orders from their messiah. Every single one them used this phrase: "The Republicans are holding hostage the tax cuts for the middle class...". One talking sheeple after another was saying this. It had me in stitches. So, they too are now on board with Pelosi that the Bush tax cuts weren't merely for the "rich", despite all their anti-Bush, anti-rich statements to the contrary all these years . Amazing! I feel like I"m living in the Twilight Zone by trying to make sense of this hypocrisy. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

Lefty
12-02-2010, 05:01 PM
Yeah, after all these years harping that the Bush Tax cuts ONLY benefitted the RICH, we find the Dims are admitting, in a devious backhanded way, that the middle class got tax cuts too. That's something i've been saying for yrs to various lib posters here.

slewis
12-02-2010, 05:55 PM
Yeah, after all these years harping that the Bush Tax cuts ONLY benefitted the RICH, we find the Dims are admitting, in a devious backhanded way, that the middle class got tax cuts too. That's something i've been saying for yrs to various lib posters here.

Hey Lefty,

How many jobs were "created" during the Bush years after he instituted the current tax rates?

Everyone should get real. This has turned into an "us vs them" fight.

An "us vs them" fight isn't going to solve the budget deficits we have.

I've asked my CPA about this and he told me that the tax increases aren't very significant until you get into the $500k per yr range but get pretty significant for those who earn $800k plus.

Rather than bicker back and forth, if any ACCOUNTS could post what the actual increases would be for levels of $250k, $500k, $1million and up, it would be helpful.
I'm not an accountant so I haven't a clue on what the ACTUAL numbers are for each bracket, but I'd like to see them for each tax range.

Unless the Right believes that they could get enough power over the next 5 yrs to change the structure of the tax system into some form of a flat tax, then the deficit isn't going away unless adjustments are made to our progressive system.
(And you're not going to cut entitlement programs in the near future because Grandma and Grandpa will vote you out faster then they voted Nancy out).

I dont want to see ANYONE pay more taxes, but we either solve the problem or we dont and everyone, in one form or another, will pay.

slewis
12-02-2010, 05:58 PM
Obama is to jobs as OJ was to waiters.


Good analogy.

What did GM's stock close at today?

I'm going to TORTURE you on this issue since you called for GM to go under.

Lefty
12-02-2010, 06:11 PM
Slewis, I couldn't tellyou how many jobs were created but for 6 yrs we had prosperity and then Dims took over Congress, mainly because of the medias exaggerations and downright lies.
The Bush tax cuts brought more money into the Treasury than did the Clinton Tax raises. That's a good thing, no?

bigmack
12-02-2010, 06:22 PM
What did GM's stock close at today?

I'm going to TORTURE you on this issue since you called for GM to go under.
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/gm.png

'Torture' with info like that? You ain't exactly Attila the Hun.

boxcar
12-02-2010, 06:30 PM
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/gm.png

'Torture' with info like that? You ain't exactly Attila the Hun.

He might think he's Spartacus, though. :D :D

Boxcar

slewis
12-02-2010, 06:34 PM
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/gm.png

'Torture' with info like that? You ain't exactly Attila the Hun.


Tom (and maybe you too) were rooting for them to go into bankruptcy from which EVERYONE knows they would never emerged.
I explained this on another thread.

So what is the point of this silly post? Are you announcing that GM will fail again? They just had a major stock offering which dilutes the stock and the price is still holding well.... not to mention paying Uncle Sam back $$$$$ and SAVING tens of thousands of jobs (indirectly and directly).

If you're looking to pick a fight, you picked a bad example, "hun".:lol:

slewis
12-02-2010, 06:41 PM
Slewis, I couldn't tellyou how many jobs were created but for 6 yrs we had prosperity and then Dims took over Congress, mainly because of the medias exaggerations and downright lies.
The Bush tax cuts brought more money into the Treasury than did the Clinton Tax raises. That's a good thing, no?


I think you're quite mistaken. But dont take my word for it. All you need to do is post FACTS.

How many jobs were created during the Bush tenure with the current tax rates and what was the deficit during the same period.

All of these stats are attainable for the public. I know the answer. Rather than argue I'd like you to back up your statements with accurate information.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion but do you want to base them on facts or conjecture?

onefast99
12-02-2010, 07:05 PM
Tom (and maybe you too) were rooting for them to go into bankruptcy from which EVERYONE knows they would never emerged.
I explained this on another thread.

So what is the point of this silly post? Are you announcing that GM will fail again? They just had a major stock offering which dilutes the stock and the price is still holding well.... not to mention paying Uncle Sam back $$$$$ and SAVING tens of thousands of jobs (indirectly and directly).

If you're looking to pick a fight, you picked a bad example, "hun".:lol:
GM paid back some of their bailout monies with TARP funds. They didn't waste anytme advertising it in their dealerships saying "We paid back our loans in full and ahead of schedule". In fact it was a TARP money shuffle and not monies coming from earnings at GM that went to pay off a portion of the monies borrowed.

bigmack
12-02-2010, 07:46 PM
not to mention paying Uncle Sam back $$$$$ and SAVING tens of thousands of jobs (indirectly and directly).
You mentioned TORTURE. Here I thought it was gonna be earth shattering rather than silliness. :eek:

Paid us back? They're still into us for $40+Billion.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/gmm.png

If the IPO increases along the lines being reported, GM would raise at least $15.3 billion from the sale of common shares, enough to make it the third largest U.S. IPO, according to Renaissance Capital. It would also be the largest since the record $17.9 billion raised by Visa (V, Fortune 500) in March 2008.

The biggest seller of shares will be the U.S. Treasury, which in July 2009 took a 60.8% stake in GM in exchange for $50 billion to keep the company alive through the bankruptcy process. GM has since paid back about $10 billion.

Now, the government is planning to sell about a third of those shares, assuming GM does not increase the size of the offering, netting the government about $5 billion that will be put toward the $40 billion still owed to John Q. Taxpayer.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/16/news/companies/general_motors_ipo_bailout_profit/index.htm

slewis
12-02-2010, 07:51 PM
GM paid back some of their bailout monies with TARP funds. They didn't waste anytme advertising it in their dealerships saying "We paid back our loans in full and ahead of schedule". In fact it was a TARP money shuffle and not monies coming from earnings at GM that went to pay off a portion of the monies borrowed.


So let me see if I can get you on the record too.

You are saying that GM's current situation is nothing more than an accounting scheme (which you label a tarp shuffle) and that the company's future and recent business activity is, what, smoke and mirrors?

Why dont you face the facts that this President, like him or hate him, made the ABSOLUTE correct decisions regarding GM and has saved COUNTLESS jobs and a corporation which historically has been a major part of the backbone of the American economic system. Especially in the state of Michigan.
I wont even bring up stockholders and how many Americans have GM in their retirement portfolios.

If it bothers you that much that bozo ears made the right call, just look at it like he got lucky, or maybe he was well advized in this decision, or even that the coin came up tails when he flippped it. Who gives a shit.
I could f'..in care less about the politics here.... But what I do care about are the families in Michigan and other states that rely on a strong auto sector and especially GM, and I care that money that was spent in the last year on a GM car wasn't spent on a foreign model where a percentage of profit leaves the country.

If you would put partisan BS aside for a second maybe you'd see this.

slewis
12-02-2010, 08:09 PM
You mentioned TORTURE. Here I thought it was gonna be earth shattering rather than silliness. :eek:

Paid us back? They're still into us for $40+Billion.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/gmm.png


http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/16/news/companies/general_motors_ipo_bailout_profit/index.htm


And John Q will get every PENNY back. Tell me, what problem do you have with GM? Would you have liked to see the "free market" take it's course and the company go under? Or are you foolish enough (like others posted here) to believe that they would have ever emerged from a bankruptcy preceeding?

There credit flow would have been cut off immediately and the company would crumble and those crumbs would probably end up in the hands of a competitor, probably a Japanese brands. No thanks Mack. I like the way this is unfolding.

BTW, had Bush (or another Republican pres) had made these moves, you'd have lauded him a hero. When Reagan was president there were things I hated about him. But at least I'm honest enough to see that many decisions he made regarding the economy were correct and HELPED the country move in the right direction.

Five years (and more) from now you'll realize that left or right, this was the right thing to do. You'll just hate who'll get the credit for it.
I could care less about the credit, I just want to see jobs preserved and the country prosper.

boxcar
12-02-2010, 08:25 PM
And John Q will get every PENNY back. Tell me, what problem do you have with GM? Would you have liked to see the "free market" take it's course and the company go under? Or are you foolish enough (like others posted here) to believe that they would have ever emerged from a bankruptcy preceeding?

Why not? Tens of thousands of companies have emerged successfully from Chapter 11 bankruptcies over the course of many decades. What part of reorginization and restructuring, don't you understand?

Boxcar

Saratoga_Mike
12-02-2010, 08:29 PM
Geeh maybe DIP financing wasn't available at the time, because the credit mkts were essentially frozen. Junk spreads were 1,500+ over the ten-yr.

slewis
12-02-2010, 08:50 PM
Why not? Tens of thousands of companies have emerged successfully from Chapter 11 bankruptcies over the course of many decades. What part of reorginization and restructuring, don't you understand?

Boxcar


Why not? Because ANY other influx of credit and reorganization would not have worked. Every expert in the country knew this. I know I posted reasons on another thread and I'm pretty sure you debated these very points.

Harry Wilson, a staunch republican, is the man who lead the way in convincing GM to go the Gov. bailout route for the same reasons I mentioned above.
Do some small research on him. He's very good.
He has publicly stated how much he is against the principle of Govt intervention in the private sector, but in this case it was absolutely necessary and he is correct.
The guy is very bright and predicts the stock will be in the mid 40's within two years. We'll see. I dont want to see Govt step into the Private Sector except to regulate it for safety and fair practice, but in this case, it WAS necessary. Regardless, if things work out, it's a major success story for the America.

slewis
12-02-2010, 08:51 PM
Geeh maybe DIP financing wasn't available at the time, because the credit mkts were essentially frozen. Junk spreads were 1,500+ over the ten-yr.

Mike, for the sake of the novices, speak in terms they understand (or try to).:)

Lefty
12-02-2010, 09:19 PM
slewis, it's a fact that Bush Tax Cuts brought in more money. Why do you think a lot of Dims want to preserve, at least some of them. Do you actually think
things are better now. I'll ask you a question or two. What was the GDP ratio to debt when Bush was in? What is it under Obama?
What was the unemployment rate when Bush left office?
What is it now?
Now there's some facts for you to chew on.
It's also fact, that whenever we have a tax cut, more money comes into the Treasury. It did when Kennedy did it, when Reagan did it and when Bush did it.

skate
12-02-2010, 09:57 PM
Oh man , i need some help here...:confused:


im thinking that we the people gave loans to some of our biggest companys in order to keep them in business, again, we gave money to big companys.

Now we have a chance to help other big companys, if we pass "bush-tax-cuts". But NO, we (gov) cant , because we spent too much "on big companys".

And and and, now we want to give the very same companys, that we've already helped, we want to give them tax relief.

But we just dont want to give them relief thru the bush-tax program.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704377004575651134154809918.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection#articleTabs%3Dco mments

Tom
12-02-2010, 10:06 PM
Tom (and maybe you too) were rooting for them to go into bankruptcy from which EVERYONE knows they would never emerged.
I explained this on another thread.

No, you tried to explain.
YES, GM should have gone through bankruptcy - that is the rule of the game. Instead, the company was STOLEN. Obama is no better than a liquor store robber.

You are so clueless, slewis.......do yourself a favor and call me next time your get a great deal on a bridge somewhere. I'll talk you down! :lol:

slewis
12-02-2010, 10:18 PM
No, you tried to explain.
YES, GM should have gone through bankruptcy - that is the rule of the game. Instead, the company was STOLEN. Obama is no better than a liquor store robber.

You are so clueless, slewis.......do yourself a favor and call me next time your get a great deal on a bridge somewhere. I'll talk you down! :lol:

Stolen? Stolen from whom? The people of the United States?

Just remember before you answer, that President BUSH (which is one of the few smart things he did) initiated the proper Govt action by lending GM 13b to keep them afloat until a plan was set up. I believe he would have proceeded the same way Obama did.

If you really believe GM would have emerged from bankruptcy, you dont know what you're talking bout'.

Start with reading Saratoga Mike's post above and that'll give you a hint why they wouldn't.

Tom
12-02-2010, 10:25 PM
Stolen? Stolen from whom? The people of the United States? No, they did not own it. The bond holders did.

Just remember before you answer, that President BUSH (which is one of the few smart things he did) initiated the proper Govt action by lending GM 13b to keep them afloat until a plan was set up. I believe he would have proceeded the same way Obama did. Bush was a total idiot on some things. But a one time loan is one thing, grand larceny is another.

If you really believe GM would have emerged from bankruptcy, you dont know what you're talking bout'. Don't care if it did or not. If not, so be it. Other companies would have absorbed their market share.

Start with reading Saratoga Mike's post above and that'll give you a hint why they wouldn't. Goodbye GM, then.

No GM....all the better for FORD, who did it their way and proved they DESERVE to prosper.

slewis
12-02-2010, 10:52 PM
No GM....all the better for FORD, who did it their way and proved they DESERVE to prosper.

Really? And what about the thousands of vendors who would have received 20 cents (if) on the dollar, vendors who also supply Ford and other companies.

Think there is a possibility that THEY would close THEIR doors, not able to take that kind of hit, especially in this economy? Where does that leave Ford when their biggest supplier of wire or nuts and bolts or F-IN whatever shuts down because GM stiffed them (I mean bankruptcy proceedings)?

I can give you 20 more examples of things you haven't even remotely thought of in your simplistic line of thought.

We're not talking about bankruptcy of Mom and Pa's auto repair here. GM is a bit more complex.

Let's face it...they only thing that bothers you about this deal is the Unions.
The lazy ass Union workers making BIG BIG $$$$.

The the fact that you state that GM's loss is Ford's gain shows a lack of a fundemental concept. A serious portion of money people who buy GM use to buy their next car would be going overseas. Toyota, Honda, Hyandui.

More money leaving the country. Look at GM's sales the last 6 months and you'll understand the significance of keeping ALL that money State side.

bigmack
12-02-2010, 10:53 PM
Tell me, what problem do you have with GM?
Not much. Push comes to shove and I agreed with slidin' them lettuce. Not because 'too big to fail' but because I actually am rootin' for 'em. I like a number of GM products and hope they're able to get their act together.

Think of me as keeping the record straight. You yapped about TORTURE and payback. Neither have shown their face as of yet.

Touché, Hombre.

onefast99
12-04-2010, 11:25 AM
So let me see if I can get you on the record too.

You are saying that GM's current situation is nothing more than an accounting scheme (which you label a tarp shuffle) and that the company's future and recent business activity is, what, smoke and mirrors?

Why dont you face the facts that this President, like him or hate him, made the ABSOLUTE correct decisions regarding GM and has saved COUNTLESS jobs and a corporation which historically has been a major part of the backbone of the American economic system. Especially in the state of Michigan.
I wont even bring up stockholders and how many Americans have GM in their retirement portfolios.

If it bothers you that much that bozo ears made the right call, just look at it like he got lucky, or maybe he was well advized in this decision, or even that the coin came up tails when he flippped it. Who gives a shit.
I could f'..in care less about the politics here.... But what I do care about are the families in Michigan and other states that rely on a strong auto sector and especially GM, and I care that money that was spent in the last year on a GM car wasn't spent on a foreign model where a percentage of profit leaves the country.

If you would put partisan BS aside for a second maybe you'd see this.
I didn't criticize Obama and Geithner for their decision to bail out GM, I only commented on how GM is mis-leading the American public by advertising they paid their loans off early, when in fact they shuffled Tarp funds to pay back some of their loans. It is highly documented that GM did shuffle Tarp funds here is an excerpt from a senate finance committee hearing
General Motors (GM) yesterday announced that it repaid its TARP loans. I am concerned, however, that this announcement is not what it seems. In fact, it appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle.


On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. During his testimony Mr. Barofsky addressed GM’s recent debt repayment activity, and stated that the funds GM is using to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings.



Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.” See, Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP, Quarterly Report to Congress dated April 20, 2010, page 115.



Furthermore, Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8K filed by GM with the SEC on November 16, 2009, seems to confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multi-billion dollar escrow account at Treasury—not from earnings. In the 8K filing GM acknowledged:

boxcar
12-04-2010, 11:32 AM
I didn't criticize Obama and Geithner for their decision to bail out GM, I only commented on how GM is mis-leading the American public by advertising they paid their loans off early, when in fact they shuffled Tarp funds to pay back some of their loans. It is highly documented that GM did shuffle Tarp funds here is an excerpt from a senate finance committee hearing
General Motors (GM) yesterday announced that it repaid its TARP loans. I am concerned, however, that this announcement is not what it seems. In fact, it appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle.


On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. During his testimony Mr. Barofsky addressed GM’s recent debt repayment activity, and stated that the funds GM is using to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings.



Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.” See, Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP, Quarterly Report to Congress dated April 20, 2010, page 115.



Furthermore, Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8K filed by GM with the SEC on November 16, 2009, seems to confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multi-billion dollar escrow account at Treasury—not from earnings. In the 8K filing GM acknowledged:





Makes sense to me. Doesn't the Union now control GM? Surely no one thinks the Union is going to repay the GM debt with GM earnings, do they? :lol: :lol: This is on the taxpayers! This is nothing more than corporate welfare to GM/Union.

Boxcar

JustRalph
12-04-2010, 12:21 PM
onefast, good post. They didn't pay back half of it. Yet they crowed like they had done something for the American Consumer.

That UAW country club in Michigan is still a great place for UAW members to vacation too............that's what really counts.......

skate
12-04-2010, 04:21 PM
Nationalization is great for Capitalism--not.


Ifin GM closes, ford benifts, or some other upstart.

Final line IS, are the people BUYING cars or not? Doen't matter if they buy from GM, Nissan or ford.

You want People to but more cars, then give the 50 Billion to the people, attach an agreement saying--if you take $70,000= yo0u must but a new car--slam bam, thanks Mam.

skate
12-04-2010, 04:33 PM
Gm must get their stock over $50, or WE lose.

And they wont.


Good points, saying that GM, Media and our fondue-folly gov lied, yepper.

Polacy being used to correct bad fiscal and regulatory policies will not work, only because they never have, just look to So. Amer, Cuba and now the USA.:bang:

Exact same methods are being used that FDR tried, so the depression went on and on, he change (late) to Keynesian (REAL) Econmics.

Cut the Bull,sweetmeat, NOW.

slewis
12-04-2010, 05:33 PM
Nationalization is great for Capitalism--not.


Ifin GM closes, ford benifts, or some other upstart.

Final line IS, are the people BUYING cars or not? Doen't matter if they buy from GM, Nissan or ford.



Are people buying GM cars?

Why dont you google the latest sales numbers for the last 6 months and tell me. (All in the biggest recession and worst economic climate in 30 yrs).

Of course it's all because of "cash-for clunkers", but, wait, didn't that end last year? Gm must be forcing people by GUNPOINT to buy their cars.
Yep, that's it.

In the last post you made a statement that GM's stock won't go to 50.

What qualify's you to make that statement?

So I'll ask you and any one else... How much would you be willing to bet the over the next 5 years GM's stock wont hit 50?

Anything more than a 1 dollar bet and you're a fool.

Then you make the statement that it doesn't matter if they buy GM, Toyota or Honda.

Really?:lol: :lol:

Tom
12-05-2010, 12:46 AM
skate = sense
slewis = not so much

skate
12-05-2010, 05:54 PM
Are people buying GM cars?

Why dont you google the latest sales numbers for the last 6 months and tell me. (All in the biggest recession and worst economic climate in 30 yrs).


Really?:lol: :lol:


welp, u got me there slewey. Ive been kind of mouthy lately and wondering where that $50 BILLION ---from the gov/BO to GM---went, i've suspected that some or ALL of the $50 BILLION given to GM, might end up in China, why not?

So , it's like you said, they GM have done real well since getting the Money, yep.

GM and its joint ventures in China announced today (2009 results) thattheir domestic sales jumped 66.9 percent . Based on bullish sales of Buick, Chevrolet and Wuling vehicles, the GM China family achieved an estimated market share of 13.4 percent, another year-end record and an improvement of 1.3 percentage points from the end of 2008.

cant wait for those 2010 results, since you say they've gone up. lijke you said... doing good...yeppers.



Year-end results were possible in part because of record December sales by GM’s Shanghai GM and SAIC-GM-Wuling joint ventures and the addition of sales from its new FAW-GM joint venture.


Now, we might not see this type increase every year, but as long as the BO is in the house, we just might get these results.
What you were looking for...?? maybe?

skate
12-05-2010, 06:32 PM
GM: We'll sell more in China than the U.S. soon

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/01/12/news/companies/gm_us_china_salesrace/chart_gm_china_us_sales.top.gif
But but, where did the $50,000,000,000 go? da...and who'll get the profits...?...da.da :eek: getting real here, yep..

slewis
12-05-2010, 08:43 PM
welp, u got me there slewey. Ive been kind of mouthy lately and wondering where that $50 BILLION ---from the gov/BO to GM---went, i've suspected that some or ALL of the $50 BILLION given to GM, might end up in China, why not?

So , it's like you said, they GM have done real well since getting the Money, yep.

GM and its joint ventures in China announced today (2009 results) thattheir domestic sales jumped 66.9 percent . Based on bullish sales of Buick, Chevrolet and Wuling vehicles, the GM China family achieved an estimated market share of 13.4 percent, another year-end record and an improvement of 1.3 percentage points from the end of 2008.

cant wait for those 2010 results, since you say they've gone up. lijke you said... doing good...yeppers.



Year-end results were possible in part because of record December sales by GM’s Shanghai GM and SAIC-GM-Wuling joint ventures and the addition of sales from its new FAW-GM joint venture.


Now, we might not see this type increase every year, but as long as the BO is in the house, we just might get these results.
What you were looking for...?? maybe?


What's your point here?

slewis
12-05-2010, 08:45 PM
GM: We'll sell more in China than the U.S. soon

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/01/12/news/companies/gm_us_china_salesrace/chart_gm_china_us_sales.top.gif
But but, where did the $50,000,000,000 go? da...and who'll get the profits...?...da.da :eek: getting real here, yep..

And what are you suggesting here?

slewis
12-05-2010, 08:54 PM
I didn't criticize Obama and Geithner for their decision to bail out GM, I only commented on how GM is mis-leading the American public by advertising they paid their loans off early, when in fact they shuffled Tarp funds to pay back some of their loans. It is highly documented that GM did shuffle Tarp funds here is an excerpt from a senate finance committee hearing
General Motors (GM) yesterday announced that it repaid its TARP loans. I am concerned, however, that this announcement is not what it seems. In fact, it appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle.



On Tuesday of this week, Mr. Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for TARP, testified before the Senate Finance Committee. During his testimony Mr. Barofsky addressed GM’s recent debt repayment activity, and stated that the funds GM is using to repay its TARP debt are not coming from GM earnings.





Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.” See, Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP, Quarterly Report to Congress dated April 20, 2010, page 115.





Furthermore, Exhibit 99.1 of the Form 8K filed by GM with the SEC on November 16, 2009, seems to confirm that the source of funds for GM’s debt repayments was a multi-billion dollar escrow account at Treasury—not from earnings. In the 8K filing GM acknowledged:








I remember this was done by the CEO early in the year (March or April) and yes it was stupid on his behalf to deceive the public.

He's fortunate the sales numbers have been strong to exonerate his statements (to a degree).

The jury is of course, still out on them and will see how the Volt does when released.

johnhannibalsmith
12-05-2010, 09:00 PM
...
The jury is of course, still out on them and will see how the Volt does when released.

Yes, whether or not I march straight to the nearest insane asylum depends upon it.

lamboguy
12-05-2010, 09:10 PM
general motors is probably gonna make it up to $50 in a few years. they did get a fresh start. as far as i can see all stocks have 3 major phases. 1. accumulation. 2. markup, 3. distribution....this is my problem with these things, after the markup phase the company's management gets all sorts of high payroll and bonus money. when something goes wrong with the company management doesn't lose a penny. if anything they have unloaded the options that they were awarded in a timely manor. this leaves the stockholders holding the bag. included in the public are hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds and individual's. if the stockholder does get lucky with the company he happens to own shares in he doesn't get the proper reward for his risk. anyway, just my two cents on this matter

onefast99
12-06-2010, 09:25 AM
I remember this was done by the CEO early in the year (March or April) and yes it was stupid on his behalf to deceive the public.

He's fortunate the sales numbers have been strong to exonerate his statements (to a degree).

The jury is of course, still out on them and will see how the Volt does when released.
I only drive GM vehicles, they are well made. I just didn't agree with the advertising campaign all the GM and Chevy dealers are involved in, those posters should be taken down and replaced with something about how GM has made great strides in getting back to the basics and thanking the American taxpayers for helping them pave the way for a better GM.

JustRalph
12-06-2010, 02:11 PM
The volt has already been bested.

Anybody who buys a Volt over a Nissan Leaf has to be crazy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40420491/ns/business-going_green

You might want a Volt if you are sure to be using beyond the range of the battery, on a regular basis. But if you are doing that......why buy a Volt ?

The Leaf is all electric with great range. It also carries 5 people as opposed to 4 for the Volt. I just don't see how the Leaf doesn't win out in this war of Electrics.

http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/index

Leaf at 35k and the Volt at 42k

johnhannibalsmith
12-06-2010, 02:54 PM
Leaf at 35k and the Volt at 42k

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously? What's the expected re-sale on a technology that will invariably be obsolete at 50,000 miles? That seems awfully hefty for something that is more or less "first generation" in a time when we upgrade at warp speed.

JustRalph
12-06-2010, 04:50 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously? What's the expected re-sale on a technology that will invariably be obsolete at 50,000 miles? That seems awfully hefty for something that is more or less "first generation" in a time when we upgrade at warp speed.

I didn't say it was a good buy..... I made the point that one is better than the other in my opine. I won't be buying it. Why is that so funny?

I am interested to hear why you think it will be obsolete at 50k miles ?

ArlJim78
12-06-2010, 06:45 PM
I'm still trying to understand why cars that run on coal and lithium are considered green.

skate
12-07-2010, 08:37 PM
GM did go bankrupt, july 10, 2009. It was a GM corporation, now it's GM.

China has the biggest GM market share.

the USA gave $50 billion to GM to increase sales in China.

They've had the cash for two years and if they pay back the $50 B.. which they wont because they cant, so if it takes them 5 more years, then they had $50 B for SEVEN years, without any payments.

Try that on BofA.

Look forward to a really Bad Bad Bad Q4 for GM.

slewis
12-08-2010, 01:12 AM
GM did go bankrupt, july 10, 2009. It was a GM corporation, now it's GM.

China has the biggest GM market share.

the USA gave $50 billion to GM to increase sales in China.

They've had the cash for two years and if they pay back the $50 B.. which they wont because they cant, so if it takes them 5 more years, then they had $50 B for SEVEN years, without any payments.

Try that on BofA.

Look forward to a really Bad Bad Bad Q4 for GM.


Skate,

I think you make some really really good points here. I'm starting to change my opinion of the GM deal for the USA.

You've obviously done lots of research.

I wonder if you can explain to me what GM or the USA (or both) get out of this if GM is selling all the cars in China.

I mean if we sell the cars in China does that mean that China gets to keep the cars and the money too?

This really is a bad deal for the US.

lamboguy
12-16-2010, 09:02 AM
Under an Obama Presidency, despite his slick pandering to the ignorant, your taxes will go up. He is going to let the Bush Tax cuts expire in 2010. The rates will revert to the 2000 rates. Everybody that pays taxes will suffer a tax increase.
Small businesses that make more than 250,000 provide most of the jobs, but a lot of those jobs will disappear when Obama sticks his class warfare tax increase to them.i guess that this president did what's called a "flip flop".

i suppose the idea for these tax cuts are that it will increase the economy and by doing that it will help to service and pay down the deficit that exists. i suppose that it will get to its desired effect immediately and won't work after awhile. i am not saying that raising taxes will work either. this type of tax cuts did work during the reagan plan inthe 80's, but the percentage of debt to GDP was much smaller then. the only thing that i can look forward to is a mandatory decrease in the value of the US dollar. whoever advises obama on this matter must have not only figured out that the tax increases were not going to work and that they were very unpopular to begin with. so whether the tax cuts are going to be good or bad is a secondary issue with these guys. he wants to get re-elected no matter what happens so he can take another shot at you for the next 4 years. the other side wants the same thing. these guys are all great at throwing around smokescreens to try to put you to sleep. the countries in europe that are in debt crisis don't owe as much of a percentage of gdp as the united states does.