OT Taxes My Proposed Taxes Fairness Bill of 2012

Page 5 of 8  
wrote:

have no direct reps on most of the Boards. Even so, few large scale investors (especially in places as big as car companies and banks) have enough votes on the board to mandate these things. The Feds in this instance have come in as an outside entitity and told the board what they could or could not do.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

IIRC, it was a question of letting the car companies go under, or "invest" big money in them. Anyone who had the inclination to "invest" such sums would have negotiated some kind of oversight of what the board could or couldn't do after the "investment" was made.
And, FWIW, Ford management overcame their problems without aid from the government. Makes me think GM management was quite a bit at fault. Just to make sure you understand this liberal progessive, I find wages and benefits for UAW workers high, but "free" enterprise negotiated those, right?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At gun point. With tactics the companies aren't allowed to use.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have to admit that I used to be much more in favor of unions when I believed that all unions had only the good of their members as target. And didn't try to screw everyone who stood in their way. SO I'm a bit more nuanced nowadays, now I have seen more of US union tactics.
Apparently in Germany the all-powerful metalworkers union a few decades (??) ago got their wishes (sp?). They were made responsible for the jobs of their members, but got seat(s) on the boards of directors of the car companies (I believe). By having to join in responsibility for profitability as well as job security, labor peace was enhanced. Of course the current bad management of GM-Opel is another chapter altogether.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Me,too. They seem to be more involved in the Union than in the jobs and do some very strange things. For example, American Airlines had managed to stay out of bankruptcy while other hadn't. They asked the unions to renegotiate their deals to be closer to what they other airlines had gotten. They refused, AA went into bankruptcy and the deals the unions end up with will most likely be a lot worse than they would have been able to negotiate. Last year GM decided to close down one of the local stamping plants. They found a buyer who would keep the union but wanted all workers to be paid at the lower new-worker rate that was part of the GM Contract. All of the union people had the option to go to another GM plant and get paid full rate if they wanted to. The union refused and the GM-gypsies took off for other plants. The stamping plant closed, 400 possible jobs were lost, and the impact on the taxes of the school system and local governments was great.

Nobody's perfect. (grin)
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Or "other" car companies: Toyota, Volkswagon, Hyundai, Lexus, Kia, Audi, BMW, Honda, Nissan, Mitsibushi, blah, blah, blah.
Of course most of those are non-union.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, that depends on the definition of "is" .... said Slick Willie.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .

I don't have the inclination to look any of this up, but what you are describing is STANDARD for any large scale investor.
That does not constitute "taking over".
--
Dan Espen



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And, I opposed the socialist take over, under GWB, also.
When the business is beholden to the government, by way of forced loans. The government can then dictate policies. Tell the business what to do, and how to run things.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124385428627671889.html "President Obama defended his decision to take a majority stake in GM, saying it was unavoidable and temporary. "We are acting as reluctant shareholders," he said in a televised address"
So, Obama is the majority share holder in GM, but he's not running the company?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
writes:

Congress at the urgent request of President George W. Bush passed the Troubled Asset Relief Program or "TARP", funded at $700 billion.
Government HAS NOT taken over _any_ banks or automobile companies. You're in some kind of deluded dream world.
--
Dan Espen



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Apr 17, 10:03pm, "Stormin Mormon"

To answer that, let's turn it around. If someone called you a dyed in the wool, conservative, capitalist, would you be insulted. Not me :)
That's a funny thing I've noticed about the liberals here. That seem to be ashamed of what they are.

In general, I agree. To be fair, the involvement with the auto companies began under Bush. The difference is at least with the Republicans it's a choice of last resort. If you had the Democrats way, their would be a lot more of it. They like to think that they create jobs with direct govt involvement and they know where money should go, like Solyndra and the other solar companies that the govt is now taking a bath on.
Now that you have me going on Solyndra, let's take a closer look at how the Democrats did all those deals. They say they believe in capitalism. Well, they obviously are not capitalists and don't even understand the basics. In the free capital markets, how are deals like Solyndra done? Solyndra would have to go to venture capitalists and in exchange for getting $500mil they would have to give the venture capitalists a huge stake in the company, maybe even more than half of it, in the form of stock, warrants, etc. That way, if the company succeeds, the venture capitalists make a nice profit.
Venture capitalists fund a bunch of deals. On a lot of them, they lose everything. On some they break even or make some money. And on a few, they wind up hitting a home run with the likes of an Intel or Apple. Overall, if you do enough deals and do them right, it averages out to a good return.
Now, how did Obama and the Dems structure the solar deals with Solyndra and the rest? They simply guaranteed LOANS. Meaning they set up the tax payers for a LOSS from day one. There was no upside, only downside. The very best case was the govt/taxpayers just didn't lose any of their money. And in the worst case, they got shafted for the full amount of the loan.
Some real capitalist geniuses. Sound like a good deal to you? In return for those loan guarantees these companies should have had to give the govt equity, warrants, etc so that if they turn into a billion dollar business, the govt gets something. But given the business accumen of the buffoons making the decisions, looks like the chances of that are slim as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:20:39 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Not unusual (or funny) at all. Lefties are always changing their name to protect themselves. "socialist" => "liberal" => "progressive" => "Democrat" Why would you expect anything but lies from them?

It began under Bush (hardly a conservative) but Bush didn't seize the assets of one group of citizens and give them to another. He wasn't responsible for closing hundreds of dealerships, putting tens of thousands out of work. That was Barak Chavez.

Venture capitalists aren't that stupid. They certainly wouldn't have put themselves at the end of the line at liquidation. Only a politician would do that - with our money.

They structured the loans such that the taxpayer was the *last* one repaid. Only a politician is corrupt enough to loan money under those terms.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes they are
Deep down they know what they espouse And deep down they do know that there's better But they don't seem to have to moral fiber to admit to that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup They would most likely be Republicans like Reagan The Democratic party had left him too.

They are capitalist as long as the capital goes into their pockets For the rest of us, they sure do everything to make it hard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't think that "dyed in the wool" is a critical or insulting term. It is synonym for sincere. Now, I'm going to describe you as sensetive, and easily offended.
The Democrat party for the last years I've been observing. Promoting increased taxes and regulations. Reduced freedom, and also a resulting reduced capitalism. Chanting "the rich didn't pay their fair share, and we need to raise taxes on the rich" does not promote capitalism.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
writes:

No you started with 3 labels that most people consider pejoratives.
dyed in the wool liberal socialist
I'd vote for Chris Christi for governor. I like the job he's doing but I normally vote Democrat. I'm neither dyed in the wool, liberal nor socialist.
As you should know, the Democratic Party has been capitalist for a long time.
--
Dan Espen



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:

Funny that even you find offensive being called what you are and espouse. That's most telling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

all sorts of instances where changes in the tax code resulted in really bad behaviors and others where the outcomes were pretty much the exact opposite of what they were touted to do), but only for a certain period of time. Then the system regained equilibrium under the new order and carried on w/ relatively little impact.

If you look at the top tax expenditures (that is Washington for loopholes) you have to get to number 7 before you get to one that might be beneficial to only people in the top brackets and it is out of the top 10 before you get one that is exclusively for business. We spend a lot more on loopholes for everyone (like IRAs, healthcare-- the single biggest--, and mortgage deductions-- the second biggest).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did mention banks. Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes but one of them is welfare for banks.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You gotta explain that one to me. How does a deduction I get for taking out a mortgage work as welfare to the banks?
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Makes the mortgage more affordable. In effect the mortgagee can pay more to the bank than he could otherwise and the banks asset (the house) is more valuable.
I repeat, "Mortgage deductions serve multiple purposes but one of them is welfare for banks."
Why do I have to explain such simple things?
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Because they don't make sense economically? Under this scenario, then, SS is really welfare for the banks because people spend the money using their credit cards.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, I thought claiming that the home mortgage deduction is welfare for the banks was a big stretch too. If you want to claim that, then as you point out, you can make all kinds of similar claims that are a big stretch too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.