• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate passes sweeping Wall Street reform

The mortgage interest deduction is the American way!

apdst's statement, “you can kiss it good buy,” is right. It was a good buy.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Says the unsophisticated...

Seriously. It does nothing of the sort. So, I'm assuming that you picked that up from Beck or Rush?

Is it imperfect? Yes. But it does NOTHING of the sort that you claim.

The level of debate in this nation is now officially below the level of decent bumper stickers.
Click to expand...

Believe what you wish but why are banks not making payments?

News Headlines
 
apdst said:
Believe what you want, I reckon.

TaxProf Blog: Ax May Fall on Mortgage Interest Deduction
Click to expand...

We can find experts that will argue all kinds of things, but let's be pragmatic. How would anyone ever get that through congress? Look at the problem we had with heathcare reform where there was a very high acknowledgment that a problem existed and a very large percentage of people that suffered from that problem. Even there it had to be steamrolled through Congress. A majority or extremely high percentage of Americans (that vote Republican and Democrat) benefit greatly from this deduction. There would be NO support amongst the electorate for such a proposition unless it were done in conjuction with a RADICAL (large caps) over haul of the tax code.

I would say we are far more likely to see a surprise attack by the Canadians than see a serious bid to overturn the mortgage interest deduction inside a progressive income tax code. Even in the extremely unlike event of a water landing (or mortgage interest deduction elimination), they would grandfather existing homeowners.
 
ptif219 said:
Did Obama get rid of the CEO and put his man in place?
Click to expand...

It is pretty typical for an investor in a workout to fire the old CEO. Why would you keep a guy that ran the Company into the ground?
 
upsideguy said:
It is pretty typical for an investor in a workout to fire the old CEO. Why would you keep a guy that ran the Company into the ground?
Click to expand...

What give Obama the right to do it? Since when does government take over private business?
 
obvious Child said:
LOL. Do you even read what you post?

Still haven't brushed up on corporate structure have you?
Click to expand...

You keep ranting but have not shown me wrong,

GM CEO Wagoner forced out by White House :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: 44: Barack Obama

Time and time again, General Motors Corp.'s board of directors reaffirmed its support for Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner, even as the company piled up billions of dollars in losses and begged for government loans to stay alive.

But Wagoner is now a high-profile casualty of government intervention, forced out as part of the Obama administration's sweeping last-ditch effort to save the century-old auto giant.
 
ptif219 said:
You keep ranting but have not shown me wrong
Click to expand...

And you haven't proven you are right in any measure. You have this asinine belief that Obama is running a centrally commanded economy merely because the government, as a shareholder dictated who was CEO.

You have failed to actually SHOW the government is running the firm and you have run away from questions that actually deal with how a firm is run.

Rather then show how the government is setting line speeds, part suppliers and vacation time, actual running of the company you stick to the asinine argument that they replaced the CEO, which as a shareholder, the government is given the right to, and therefore Obama is running the company.

I made the joke about how stockholders according to your argument are running the firm. You failed to understand it due to your lack of understanding of corporate structure.
 
obvious Child said:
Basically all this bill needs to do to not be a total frack up is:

1) Create a transparent market for derivatives
2) Penalize excessive risk taking by large institutions
Click to expand...

I would defenitely agree with 1. However, far more important imo is to create an agency that has a power to place a non-bank financial insitution into recievorship (similar to FDIC) to slowly and safely wind down a failed company. This would hopefully prevent a situation similar to the mess we had with AIG, lehmans, etc. Did the bill at least do this?
 
obvious Child said:
And you haven't proven you are right in any measure. You have this asinine belief that Obama is running a centrally commanded economy merely because the government, as a shareholder dictated who was CEO.

You have failed to actually SHOW the government is running the firm and you have run away from questions that actually deal with how a firm is run.

Rather then show how the government is setting line speeds, part suppliers and vacation time, actual running of the company you stick to the asinine argument that they replaced the CEO, which as a shareholder, the government is given the right to, and therefore Obama is running the company.

I made the joke about how stockholders according to your argument are running the firm. You failed to understand it due to your lack of understanding of corporate structure.
Click to expand...

Obama got rid of the CEO and put in who he wanted. That is not running the company?
 
A $50B cash infusion gave the government the right. Any workout equity firm would do the same thing. You would question the judgment of a workout firm that did not make the sitting CEO show cause as to why they should not be immediately terminated. That all said, the government is substantially a passive investor.

Did anyone mention that this last ditch effort paid off, saved thousands of jobs, prevented more spent on unemployment and will result in the treasury getting all of its money back with likely a profit?

I don't see a problem here. Let's move along.
 
Last edited:
Chappy said:
The mortgage interest deduction is the American way!

apdst's statement, “you can kiss it good buy,” is right. It was a good buy.
Click to expand...

I hate to be a pest, but I was wondering if you could address my questions.

Can you even answer them, or were you just touting this bill and its supposed efficacy because you're a Democrat? Your silence indicates that it's the latter.
 
upsideguy said:
A $50B cash infusion gave the government the right.

I don't see a problem here. Let's move along.
Click to expand...

That IS the problem. What's to prevent the government from printing 20 Trillion dollars and infusing it in the top 50 fortune 100 company's and doing the same thing? THAT is a problem. I don't want to move along and be shushed - I'd like to see something that absolutely prevents the government from ever gaining, in any circumstance, more than 40% of controlling power in ANY private business - large or small. Another Constitutional amendment perhaps! I'd support it as yet another restriction against government intrusion.
 
ptif219 said:
The only one with a say was Obama
Click to expand...

The executive branch has been chartered with the turnaround. Obama is a duly elected official and head of the executive branch. Given that the US government, of which he is CEO, is a majority owner of GM, I guess you can say the CEO of GM is indirectly accountable to him, just as the head of Dairy Queen is indirectly accountable to Warren Buffett.

I know you understand this, you are just trying to make a point. I, for one, am not outraged as the alternative, IMHO, would have been devastating for Michigan, for most of the automobile supply chain (which is most of the Great Lake states), for defense readiness (erosion of our manufacturing base is a huge threat to our defense capabilities) and for the US economy in general (which in 2009 was on the very edge of collapse). Seems like the deal worked out rather nicely (and the fact that it agitated a few right wing reactionaries along the way were just a bonus).
 
Ockham said:
That IS the problem. What's to prevent the government from printing 20 Trillion dollars and infusing it in the top 50 fortune 100 company's and doing the same thing? THAT is a problem. I don't want to move along and be shushed - I'd like to see something that absolutely prevents the government from ever gaining, in any circumstance, more than 40% of controlling power in ANY private business - large or small. Another Constitutional amendment perhaps! I'd support it as yet another restriction against government intrusion.
Click to expand...

What's to prevent?? its called the Congress of the United States. They would have to approve such an expenditure. They, BTW, generally report to the people, when they are not reporting to big business.

I think you understand the distinction between the GM deal and the government becoming a huge hedge fund. There is very, very, very little danger of the doomsday scenario of government buying up the Fortune 50. I would not lose sleep over it.

BTW, the GM deal was hardly the first time the government invested in private corporations. I don't remember this outrage when the government was bailing out the airline industry just eight years ago.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
What's to prevent?? its called the Congress of the United States. They would have to approve such an expenditure. They, BTW, generally report to the people, when they are not reporting to big business.
Click to expand...
To prevent government from owning and/or controlling private business. What part of that is unclear? Congress is part of that government.

upsideguy said:
I think you understand the distinction between the GM deal and the government becoming a huge hedge fund. There is very, very, very little danger of the doomsday scenario of government buying up the Fortune 50. I would not lose sleep over it.
Click to expand...
That there is 0.000000001% chance is too much. I don't lose sleep over much but would feel better about further restrictions being placed on our government via another Constitutional amendment, as I stated previously.

upsideguy said:
BTW, the GM deal was hardly the first time the government invested in private corporations. I don't remember this outrage when the government was bailing out the airline industry just eight years ago.
Click to expand...
A bailout and majority ownership are obviously, two distinct and different things.
 
upsideguy said:
A $50B cash infusion gave the government the right. Any workout equity firm would do the same thing. You would question the judgment of a workout firm that did not make the sitting CEO show cause as to why they should not be immediately terminated. That all said, the government is substantially a passive investor.

Did anyone mention that this last ditch effort paid off, saved thousands of jobs, prevented more spent on unemployment and will result in the treasury getting all of its money back with likely a profit?

I don't see a problem here. Let's move along.
Click to expand...

Obama is not a company and does not have that right with our money. Nice try but what he did is wrong and the government is not supposed to run private business unless we are becoming a socialist nation through Obama.
 
upsideguy said:
The executive branch has been chartered with the turnaround. Obama is a duly elected official and head of the executive branch. Given that the US government, of which he is CEO, is a majority owner of GM, I guess you can say the CEO of GM is indirectly accountable to him, just as the head of Dairy Queen is indirectly accountable to Warren Buffett.

I know you understand this, you are just trying to make a point. I, for one, am not outraged as the alternative, IMHO, would have been devastating for Michigan, for most of the automobile supply chain (which is most of the Great Lake states), for defense readiness (erosion of our manufacturing base is a huge threat to our defense capabilities) and for the US economy in general (which in 2009 was on the very edge of collapse). Seems like the deal worked out rather nicely (and the fact that it agitated a few right wing reactionaries along the way were just a bonus).
Click to expand...

The economy was not going to collapse and is not much better now. Nice try but sounds like you are an apologist for Obama
 
ptif219 said:
Obama got rid of the CEO and put in who he wanted. That is not running the company?
Click to expand...

Therefore you think that common stockholders run the company. Do you agree?

Since you refuse to learn about corporate structure, I'll give you a primer. Stockholders own the firm. They elect the board who then chooses the CEO. With the government owning a massive percent of the stock, it functionally acts the same way.

Therefore, you believe stockholders run the company? Yes or no?

"Rather then show how the government is setting line speeds, part suppliers and vacation time, actual running of the company you stick to the asinine argument that they replaced the CEO, which as a shareholder, the government is given the right to, and therefore Obama is running the company. "

I see you refuse to address that.
 
obvious Child said:
Therefore you think that common stockholders run the company. Do you agree?

Since you refuse to learn about corporate structure, I'll give you a primer. Stockholders own the firm. They elect the board who then chooses the CEO. With the government owning a massive percent of the stock, it functionally acts the same way.

Therefore, you believe stockholders run the company? Yes or no?

"Rather then show how the government is setting line speeds, part suppliers and vacation time, actual running of the company you stick to the asinine argument that they replaced the CEO, which as a shareholder, the government is given the right to, and therefore Obama is running the company. "

I see you refuse to address that.
Click to expand...

Government does not run private business. Obama is not ceo over taxpayers money. Nice try all you show is you like Obama's socialist policies and that you are an Obama apologist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom