17
   

Not a single Republican vote. Heard that before.

 
 
BigTexN
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 03:47 pm
@hamburger,
Ideally I would prefer not.

But, even Warren Buffet is a vulture in our current economy...buying whole companies at distressed prices because he is the only one with capital...

...and he is the only one with guts! Smile
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 03:49 pm
@BigTexN,
Selling a Mercedes for a buck is fine for the consumer but what investor is going to buy stock in Mercedes if they are selling their product for $1 and losing money like crazy? How long will Mercedes survive without going bankrupt at those prices?

I never claimed no one would buy anything. I was pointing out that without profit, there is no reason to invest in companies. Ford's stock is below $2 for a reason.
BigTexN
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 03:58 pm
@parados,
And my point is...let Ford/Mercedes go under and that will allow a GM or Toyota to buy what assets they will at bargain prices at a bankruptcy auction which will ultimately make those companies more profitable.

Bankruptcy is as much a part of capitalism (and just as important) as death is to life.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 04:39 pm
@BigTexN,
Except it doesn't quite work that way BigTex.

If the largest employer in a town goes bankrupt, it doesn't mean someone will buy the assets and hire all those people back. All the businesses that rely on those people working will go bankrupt because they don't have customers. This in turn means others will go bankrupt. People that buy a bankrupt company may end up going bankrupt themselves.

Here's a little example for you BigTex.
Wells Fargo bought the assets of Wachovia at bargain prices in Oct of last year. Wells Fargo's stock has dropped in half since that time.

Another example
Lehman brothers was allowed to go bankrupt.
Lehman has struggled to sell its assets. No one that has bought those assets has yet been profitable. Meanwhile, the credit markets seized up because Lehman was allowed to go bankrupt.
BigTexN
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 04:59 pm
@parados,
You assume that Wells Fargo stock dropped solely because of the purchase of Wachovia. If that's the case then how do you account for the much larger drop in the shares of Citi or Bank of America?

The credit markets had seized up well before Lehman defaulted. Examine the Auction Rate Preferred and the commercial paper markets...both seized prior to Lehman.

If someone buys a bankrupt company and they end up going bankrupt themselves then they paid too much for those assets. Even the purchase of assets from a horse and buggy whip business are worth something and, if purchased at the right price, can make a profit.

There is no obligation for a purchasing company to maintain the employment of the previous workers. For example: we needed fewer blacksmiths and more car mechanics as we entered the 20th century. Or, we needed fewer file clerks and more data processors as we exited the 20th century.

Times change. Change can have pain for those who refuse to change with it.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 08:46 pm
@BigTexN,
Citi and BA have toxic assets which Wells says it doesn't.

If you buy the entire assets of Ford for $1 tomorrow you will lose money even if you fire every employee. There are taxes and other obligations that must be paid. Unless you have the money to ride out the down turn or a bank willing to loan you the money to do so, you will quickly find yourself in over your head.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 11:39 pm
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
Really enjoying the give and take on all this. Wonderful posts by Nimh, (loved seeing his blog).

Thank you Cool

We started it a couple months ago, just ahead of the elections..

I just put up a new post about the subject of this thread, actually - it's got some interesting polling info too. Ah, the blessings of insomnia.

The title is a bleh, sorry 'bout that, ran out of creativity once finished writing the post itself apparently:

Will the grapes of the House GOP’s wrath turn out to be sweet for the Democrats?
0 Replies
 
UXB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 09:25 am
@Joe Nation,
There isn't too much "real" stimulation in this bill! Lots and lots of pork, primarily for liberal projects! Five billion dollars for ACORN, a corrupt organization (Obama was their lawyer!) Lots and lots of pork!

Where is the bridge and road construction? Where is the help to small businesses? This is the stuff we need right now!


This is just a way for the democrats to shove lots and lots of liberal pork projects under the guise of "stimulating the economy!" The Republicans will approve a real stimulus bill but not this one because this "pig won't fly!"

UXB
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 09:27 am
Rethinking previous posts on 401K and you guys are right. Distributions from a 401K, early or not, are taxed as ordinary income. I was thinking of the penalty assessed for early withdrawal. Sorry about that.

But, millions and millions of Americans of relatively modest means do invest in the stock market in addition to or otherwise from a 401K or IRA and any gains on those are taxed as capital gains. State and local governments are also invested in the market as are endowments and foundations. With interest rates at rock bottom, even with low inflation, the value of cash shrinks sitting in a savings account. So lots and lots of little people try to increase their modest holdings in the market.

Where those 401Ks and IRAs of the average working person are affected is that they take it on the chin when government policy depresses that market. Many if not most have lost half the value of their portfolios--quite as few as much as 80% or more since the latest market downturn.

The government, courtesy of Congress and President Bush, has already pumped a trillion dollars of 'stimulus' into the economy and what do we have to show for it? Tens (hundreds?) of thousands more lost jobs and a shrinking GDP and a plunging market. How can they possibly think that another trillion--the huge lions share directed at long range projects and other pork barrel and social spending that nobody thinks will stimulate the economy in any way--will produce different results?

Please PLEASE let the government do nothing EXCEPT lower taxes across the board--individual, small business, corporate, capital gains, and increase the deficit that way if necessary. We'll see quick results; the economy will begin to rebound, the market will go up a couple of thousand points, and we'll start returning to normal.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 09:40 am
I understand there is a problem with the arm of the statue of Liberty in New York harbor. Rust and structural damage mostly.

After careful consideration, the Republicans think the best way to handle it...is to lower taxes.

nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 09:42 am
@Frank Apisa,
LOL
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 09:42 am
As I read it, Oinkbama's "plan" calls for cutting our military budget by 10% with two regional conflicts going on while simultaneously providing something like $4B usd to his acorn thuggocracy.

My own advice to pubbies would be to stay out of that one and they appear to have figured it out themselves. They have to view making that one "bipartisan" as the greater threat to the GOP.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 09:43 am
The government has a maintenance budget to fix things. I want the government to do the best possible thing to address the recession and put the country back on track to fix itself economically. If we're going to have a trillion dollar deficit, lets at least have one that actually puts people back to work, restores their losses, increases the GDP and get healthy again.

THEN, if more taxes are needed for necessary functions, fine.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 09:46 am
fox, lowering the capital gains tax will not give any stimulas right now. For one, in order to be charged the capital gains tax you need to have seen some gains. There aren't too many gains to be had in the stock market or with the housing sector (the main vehicles for cap gains taxes).

If no one is seeing any gains than a tax incentive that won't/can't be used won't benefit anyone (except maybe day traders)
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 09:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
If we're going to have a trillion dollar deficit, lets at least have one that ... restores their losses


that seems like it's something that conservatives should be against - shouldn't people be required to live with the results of their gambling?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 10:08 am
@maporsche,
But if you lower taxes across the board, it frees up money for people to spend right now with assurance that the extra money will be there week after week. THAT is what stimulates the economy; not government spending. A whole bunch of that mega spending bill is for stuff that will have little or no effect on the economy or won't help for a year or two or more down the road. We need to get the economy up and running now

Lower Capital gains taxes, and commerce and industry is encouraged to risk reinvesting for growth and expanding again which is what creates jobs. Government spending doesn't. And those folks who have their cash sidelined right now are going to have more incentive to wade back in meaning the market goes up and all those horrendous losses in retirement accounts will begin to reverse. The market doesn't respond well to government spending that doesn't create jobs, free up capital spending, and appears to be fiscally irresponsible.

You have to look at how government policy affects human behavior.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 10:18 am
@Foxfyre,
I'm not talking about any other tax than capital gains right now.

Business that reinvest their money to the business are not taxed on that money they reinvest. Capital gains taxes would not apply to renvested capital.

Actually higher capital gains taxes makes reinvesting back into the company and the employees MORE favorable to the business.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 10:29 am
@maporsche,
Are you sure?

Quote:
One option under discussion in the economic stimulus package is the proposal to cut the capital gains tax. Proposals for the capital gains tax cut include temporary cuts, permanent cuts, and total elimination.

Opponents charge that such cuts would only provide a generous tax break to the rich, while substantially reducing federal revenues and not boosting the economy. Some opponents have even suggested that a capital gains cut may even harm the economy by encouraging Americans to sell their stocks and thus depressing the stock market even further.

This study examines the historical facts surrounding the capital gains tax in the United States, including the findings of 50 studies on the tax. We conclude that a cut in the capital gains tax rate would:

• Immediately increase the rate of capital formation, economic growth, and job creation. By one recent analysis, a capital gains tax rate reduction grows the economy by $10 for every $1 of lost revenues.
• Immediately raise the value of stocks by increasing the after-tax value of earnings of companies.
• Expand economic opportunities for the most disadvantaged workers through new business creation.
• Lead to very minimal short run federal revenue losses and perhaps raise long-term federal receipts by increasing the economic growth rate.

The experience of the 1997 capital gains tax cut validates the economic case for another rate cut. The 1997 capital gains cut had the following impact:
• Capital gains tax revenues climbed from $62 billion to $110 billion from 1996"1999. The federal budget moved from deficit to surplus over this period.
• The stock market rose from 7,000 to 10,000 in the 3 years following the rate cut.
• Venture capital funding soared from $10 billion in 1996 to $53 billion in 1999. The number of firms receiving venture capital funding climbed from 2,004 to 5,450 over this period.
• The GDP growth rate T following the 1997 capital gains cut rose to an average of 4% per year from 1997"2000.
http://dreier.house.gov/pdf/IPI%20-%20CapGainsKey.pdf
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 10:34 am
@Foxfyre,
From 1996-1999, I went from being a virgin to having been laid several times. I'm sure that Capital gains tax cuts were responsible for that too, right?

You Republicans and your non-corrollary statistics, will you ever learn what the word causation means?

The piece linked above might as well be titled 'how trickle-down is supposed to work.' Because that's all you are talking about; giving billions in tax breaks to the rich and to businesses, and waiting for that to trickle down to folks on the bottom.

I'm afraid those days are done, Republicans.

We're not getting a cap gains tax cut, so why all this wasted time discussing it? Or a small business tax cut. You guys lost the election, you don't get to hand out money to the rich and your business friends any longer.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sullyfish6
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Jan, 2009 01:13 pm
"I understand there is a problem with the arm of the statue of Liberty in New York harbor. Rust and structural damage mostly."

And your point is . . . ?
Donations can be sought to cover something like this. People WILL help out WHEN THEY HAVE THE MONEY TO DONATE.

A landscape company I know services the wealthy. These people spend 20 - 50 THOUSAND dollars on ANNUALS per year!!! (That's petunias and impatins, folks) THIS year, they are "cutting back". They will only spend 10 grand. My landscape friend?? He now must lay off 6 people because the wealthy are not spending money like they used to

JOBS is the needed stimulus - and NOT government jobs.


 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 04:58:06