Page 95 of 106 FirstFirst ... 45859394959697105 ... LastLast
Results 941 to 950 of 1060

Thread: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

  1. #941
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    What I think you're missing is that turning around the economy ... SPENDING to turn around the economy ... can result in lower deficits at the end of the day than NOT spending and consequently suffering years and years of economic stagnation. For example, we spent close to a trillion dollars bailing out the banking industry. Do you think our debt would be lower if we hadn't spent that money?

  2. #942
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,561

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    What I think you're missing is that turning around the economy ... SPENDING to turn around the economy ... can result in lower deficits at the end of the day than NOT spending and consequently suffering years and years of economic stagnation. For example, we spent close to a trillion dollars bailing out the banking industry. Do you think our debt would be lower if we hadn't spent that money?
    Absolutely.

    Bailing out the banking industry and making those multi million dollar bonuses possible for people whose poor judgement resulted in an economic recession was a travesty, IMO. Buying GM and trying to remake it was another boneheaded move towards socialism. Do we miss Studebaker? DeSoto?

    The worst error was in not regulating the mortgage industry to begin with, however.

    Economic growth is the job of the private sector. The job of government is to regulate the private sector and see to it that they don't do things like selling subprime mortgages to people who can't afford to pay them back.

    and similar things, of course.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  3. #943
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Absolutely.

    Bailing out the banking industry and making those multi million dollar bonuses possible for people whose poor judgement resulted in an economic recession was a travesty, IMO. Buying GM and trying to remake it was another boneheaded move towards socialism. Do we miss Studebaker? DeSoto?

    The worst error was in not regulating the mortgage industry to begin with, however.

    Economic growth is the job of the private sector. The job of government is to regulate the private sector and see to it that they don't do things like selling subprime mortgages to people who can't afford to pay them back.

    and similar things, of course.
    TARP was an unfortunate necessity, but it was absolutely a necessity. Without it the entire banking system would have collapsed and the stock market and private employment with it. We would be in far far worse shape had we not done it. Likewise with GM and Chrysler, an unfortunate situation, but without the bailouts we lose over a million good-paying jobs and permanently cripple the American auto industry. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.

  4. #944
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    TARP was an unfortunate necessity, but it was absolutely a necessity. Without it the entire banking system would have collapsed and the stock market and private employment with it. We would be in far far worse shape had we not done it. Likewise with GM and Chrysler, an unfortunate situation, but without the bailouts we lose over a million good-paying jobs and permanently cripple the American auto industry. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.
    Why do you liberals insist on continuing with this, it could have been much worse theory? There is no proof to back up what you are saying.

    For example, tell Me how 8 of the biggest banks taking this money, that were in such deep trouble, managed to repay these loans with interest of about $4 billion in under a year? Thats a quick turnaround for any company that was in serious trouble wouldn't you agree? Even more so when you take into consideration the shape of our economy.
    I have no doubt that you were one of the liberals that were squealing like a pig over the huge bonuses paid to these CEO's that received bail out money, but what you fail to understand is most of those bonuses are performance based bonuses, as per their contract. Simply put, these banks were making money, the amount of money being made was what determined their bonuses.

    So you don't find it troubling that 8 of the biggest banks in the US paid back their so called loans in under a year with interest, made enough money to pay these bonuses to the CEO's , in the economy we had from late in 2008 to late 2009 ? Maybe it's just me, but makes me wonder just how much trouble those banks were in to begin with.

    As for the car companies, you are going under the assumption, that if the government would have stayed out of it altogether that they would have gone out of business, and there is no proof that such a thing would have happened. They could just as easily gone into bankruptcy without government interference, and come out of it even stronger then what they are now, because it would have allowed them to get out from under some of the contracts that are still killing them. You just have no reliable way of saying that it would have been worse if the government would have stayed out it.

  5. #945
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Why do you liberals insist on continuing with this, it could have been much worse theory? There is no proof to back up what you are saying.

    For example, tell Me how 8 of the biggest banks taking this money, that were in such deep trouble, managed to repay these loans with interest of about $4 billion in under a year? Thats a quick turnaround for any company that was in serious trouble wouldn't you agree? Even more so when you take into consideration the shape of our economy.
    I have no doubt that you were one of the liberals that were squealing like a pig over the huge bonuses paid to these CEO's that received bail out money, but what you fail to understand is most of those bonuses are performance based bonuses, as per their contract. Simply put, these banks were making money, the amount of money being made was what determined their bonuses.

    So you don't find it troubling that 8 of the biggest banks in the US paid back their so called loans in under a year with interest, made enough money to pay these bonuses to the CEO's , in the economy we had from late in 2008 to late 2009 ? Maybe it's just me, but makes me wonder just how much trouble those banks were in to begin with.

    As for the car companies, you are going under the assumption, that if the government would have stayed out of it altogether that they would have gone out of business, and there is no proof that such a thing would have happened. They could just as easily gone into bankruptcy without government interference, and come out of it even stronger then what they are now, because it would have allowed them to get out from under some of the contracts that are still killing them. You just have no reliable way of saying that it would have been worse if the government would have stayed out it.
    First of all, this isn't a "liberal" thing. The main person behind TARP was Hank Paulson, a life-long Republican and former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

    Or ask Paul Ryan:

    "TARP. Iíll take one at a time. I believe we were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression. I think thatís probably pretty likely. If we would have allowed that to happen, I think we would have had a big government agenda sweeping through this country so fast that we wouldnít have recovered from it. So in order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary. It wasnít a fun vote. You donít get to choose the kind of votes you want. But I just think as far as the long term objectives that I have ó which are restoring the principles of this country ó I think it was necessary to prevent those principles from being really kind of wiped out for a generation."

    Ryan is correct, in a sense. If we hadn't bailed them out there is little doubt that there would have been an epic bank run that would have brought them down one after another. It was estimated that they could lose over $5 trillion in capitalization in a matter of hours (electronic transfer). The result would have been an outright government takeover of all the big banks, spearheaded by the FDIC. But when ALL the big banks fail, you can't wind them down using normal procedures (sell off assets) because there is no one left who can buy them.

    The fact that they have sort of recovered does not refute this scenario. A short term, total freezing of the credit markets is enough start the cascade. That's what we managed to avert with TARP.

    As for the car companies, there is absolutely no doubt that they were going to be liquidated without the bailout. None. They could not qualify for Chapter 11 reorganization on their own and no one else was going to save them.

  6. #946
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,358

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    TARP was an unfortunate necessity, but it was absolutely a necessity. Without it the entire banking system would have collapsed and the stock market and private employment with it. We would be in far far worse shape had we not done it. Likewise with GM and Chrysler, an unfortunate situation, but without the bailouts we lose over a million good-paying jobs and permanently cripple the American auto industry. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.
    I have heard this argument many times. What do you think would have happened if GM and Chrysler went under and why would it have been different than when the airlines go into bankruptcy. Do you really think that the country was about to stop buying cars? The large number of jobs you mention is much larger than all of the employees at the two companies, it assumes that ALL of the workers at ALL of the companies supplying parts into those two would also go under, so the assumption would have to be Americans would stop buying cars. This argument never seemed credible. Would there have been job losses yes as there were anyway.

  7. #947
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    I have heard this argument many times. What do you think would have happened if GM and Chrysler went under and why would it have been different than when the airlines go into bankruptcy. Do you really think that the country was about to stop buying cars? The large number of jobs you mention is much larger than all of the employees at the two companies, it assumes that ALL of the workers at ALL of the companies supplying parts into those two would also go under, so the assumption would have to be Americans would stop buying cars. This argument never seemed credible. Would there have been job losses yes as there were anyway.
    You seem to not understnad the distinction between Chapter 11 reorganization, which is what the airlines have used, and Chapter 7 *liquidation*, which is what GM and Chrysler were facing. In the former, bondholders and other creditors get a haircut and the company has a chance to start fresh. In the latter, the company is either purchased outright or it's individual assets are sold off to the highest bidder. No one was interested in buying GM or Chrysler with their existing debt load, so they literally would have auctioned off their factory equipment, real estate holdings, machine tools, patents, etc., to recoup investor losses.

    The one million unemployed figure seemed to be the one typically cited by independent analysts. It doesn't suggest that all suppliers would have gone out of business, though many of them would have, and many others would have shed employees. Don't forget that GM and Chyrysler also support thousands of dealer networks and subsidiaries like GMAC. Several economists estimated that direct and indirect job loss would be over 3 million employees, but those estimates did not account for job gains by competitors.

  8. #948
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,358

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You seem to not understnad the distinction between Chapter 11 reorganization, which is what the airlines have used, and Chapter 7 *liquidation*, which is what GM and Chrysler were facing. In the former, bondholders and other creditors get a haircut and the company has a chance to start fresh. In the latter, the company is either purchased outright or it's individual assets are sold off to the highest bidder. No one was interested in buying GM or Chrysler with their existing debt load, so they literally would have auctioned off their factory equipment, real estate holdings, machine tools, patents, etc., to recoup investor losses.

    The one million unemployed figure seemed to be the one typically cited by independent analysts. It doesn't suggest that all suppliers would have gone out of business, though many of them would have, and many others would have shed employees. Don't forget that GM and Chyrysler also support thousands of dealer networks and subsidiaries like GMAC. Several economists estimated that direct and indirect job loss would be over 3 million employees, but those estimates did not account for job gains by competitors.
    First, not sure why the auto industry could not have used the same route as the airlines. Then saying that, this industry would not have been liquidated and sold for scrap. You did not mention where do you think the supply would have come from. There would have been a reorganization, to say anything else is nonsense.

  9. #949
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    First, not sure why the auto industry could not have used the same route as the airlines. Then saying that, this industry would not have been liquidated and sold for scrap. You did not mention where do you think the supply would have come from. There would have been a reorganization, to say anything else is nonsense.
    There are specific requirements for Chapter 11 that GM and Chrysler couldn't meet. They were too far gone. Again, there was ZERO chance that they would be reorganized without the government bailout. They were weeks away from going away for good.

    The supply would have been made up by the other auto makers, obviously.

  10. #950
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,358

    Re: Obama to propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    There are specific requirements for Chapter 11 that GM and Chrysler couldn't meet. They were too far gone. Again, there was ZERO chance that they would be reorganized without the government bailout. They were weeks away from going away for good.

    The supply would have been made up by the other auto makers, obviously.
    So you think that those factories making GM cars and trucks would have been scraped, really?

Page 95 of 106 FirstFirst ... 45859394959697105 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •