Log in:  

Register

U.S. Politics

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

11 Sep 2012 20:15

Bala Verde wrote:Don't want to drag out the discussion too long, but one (or two) things:

1) Do you think USG also instructed banks (Bofa/JPM/Citi/Wells Fargo/GS/MS/USB etc) how to structure their organizations and what (line of) financial products to sell?

2) Why are other car companies in the same market, or, as per some reports, trying to enter the market. Did their respective governments tell them to go electric? Or, what seems to be the simpler explanation, because they see growth potential and profits. That's what businesses are in business for, right? (The profit consideration doesn't mean they always bet right though; the electric car might go the way of the humvee/dodo).

Also, in light of the Obama Administration's intentions to raise fuel standards [whether you agree or not with the policy] and the high/increasing oil prices around the world (since 2000, bar the dip during the crash), the case for electric cars didn't seem entirely unsubstantiated.

Involvement; if that means they communicated, especially the conditions and criteria for bail out money, then yes. But telling GM to build a particular car... I am not buying it (nor the car :D)


1) Do you think USG also instructed banks (Bofa/JPM/Citi/Wells Fargo/GS/MS/USB etc) how to structure their organizations and what (line of) financial products to sell?


Not sure about the comparison. Many of the banks mentioned were forced to take the bailout money. Some of the products sold were regulated out of existence. Feds had a heavy hand in lending/capital restrictions... so yeah. There was instructions to banks that were new.

2) Why are other car companies in the same market, or, as per some reports, trying to enter the market. Did their respective governments tell them to go electric? Or, what seems to be the simpler explanation, because they see growth potential and profits. That's what businesses are in business for, right? (The profit consideration doesn't mean they always bet right though; the electric car might go the way of the humvee/dodo).


A financially solvent company like Nissan developing and selling the Leaf is a little different than a financially insolvent company like GM making that investment.

Also, in light of the Obama Administration's intentions to raise fuel standards [whether you agree or not with the policy] and the high/increasing oil prices around the world (since 2000, bar the dip during the crash), the case for electric cars didn't seem entirely unsubstantiated.


I'm only left wondering why the Volt was not designed with miniature high-output windmills and solar panels:D

But telling GM to build a particular car... I am not buying it (nor the car :D)


Maybe not telling them they had to build it... but sweetening the bailout deal if they did (tax subsidies for end-users, for example).
Scott SoCal
 

11 Sep 2012 20:19

Scott SoCal wrote:That is awesome. Can you please remind everyone when the last time Obama has actually had or passed a budget?
Sure.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

A WSJ breakdown.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577221094233504880.html

And what do the Rs do?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/senate-budget-jeff-sessions_n_1522643.html

This vote, on a Potemkin "Obama Budget," is not intended to be taken seriously. It's a stunt designed to get a slag into the newscycle, and they tend to work. What happens is a Republican legislator presents a "budget proposal" that's designed to be a satirical presentation of an "Obama budget." Democrats don't vote for it, because they recognize that it bears no resemblance to their budgetary preferences. Back in March, it was Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) who got the Harlequin role in this bit of legislative commedia dell'arte.


Yep. Serious people, those Rs.
User avatar VeloCity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,242
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

11 Sep 2012 20:27

VeloCity wrote:FoxNews, making **** up to distort Obama's record in the worst possible way yet again.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/fox-news-unemployment-obama-fail.php?ref=fpa

Little wonder FN viewers are so out of touch with reality.


Here's the important part;

The standard measure of unemployment (U-3) when Obama took office was 7.9 percent. Now it’s 8.1 percent.

The broader measure of unemployment (U-6) when Obama took office was 14.2 percent. Now it’s 14.7 percent.


How's this for misleading:

Payrolls rose less than projected in August and the unemployment rate was unexpectedly driven down by Americans leaving the labor force, boosting the odds of additional Federal Reserve easing to spur a faltering recovery.


The jobless rate fell from 8.3 percent as 368,000 Americans left the labor force.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/payrolls-in-u-s-rose-96-000-in-august-jobless-rate-falls.html

So, in August, 96,000 net jobs while 368,000 left the workforce and unemployment falls from 8.3 to 8.1%. Fuzzy math.

And yet the administration says we are headed in the right direction.

Once again, misdirection is in no way concentrated just on the right.
Scott SoCal
 

11 Sep 2012 20:39



Whoa!! You mean there's gotcha and game playing in politics?

Senate voting on Obama's proposed budget, May, 2011 97-0.
Senate voting on a facsimile of porposed budget 2012 99-0.

The 2012 budget didn't get a single house vote either, 414 - 0.

Neither side appears serious from where I sit.
Scott SoCal
 

11 Sep 2012 20:53

Not done with my drink till I've crunched all the ice crew
User avatar Rip:30
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,036
Joined: 29 Apr 2010 05:39

11 Sep 2012 21:51



We have a gross receipts tax here. It's much more than a sales tax as almost any income comes under it. Doctors are not even exempt. So don't get seriously ill here cause we run most of the good ones off. It does vary by county, like say for example in Santa Fe and Santa Fe county, the tax is almost 9% (really 8.9...something ridiculous). If I get work in Santa Fe, not something that's going well right now, but say I scored $1000 day rate to take pictures of the Indian Market for Magnum. That's $90 dollars to the state not counting state income, business property, social security and federal.

Ok fair enough, we all pay right? Nope. The film industry is exempt. So let's say that Jeff Bridges got paid 10 million to act in True Grit. Half of it was really film here, but lets say for simplicity that all of it was. Does Mr. Bridges own the state $900,000 in taxes. No. Not a dime. This is a big D state and this exemption was ushered through the D controlled state legislature. Tax break for the rich and famous baby.:D

So I really don't want here about tax breaks for millionaires that already exist in the current codes. What planet have you been living on?

My apologies to Mr. Bridges for using him as an example for the otherwise fine work.
I tell ya, it's not the water.
User avatar BillytheKid
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,441
Joined: 01 Jun 2011 06:13
Location: Left of the Duke City

11 Sep 2012 22:10

Scott SoCal wrote:Here's the important part;



How's this for misleading:





http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-07/payrolls-in-u-s-rose-96-000-in-august-jobless-rate-falls.html

So, in August, 96,000 net jobs while 368,000 left the workforce and unemployment falls from 8.3 to 8.1%. Fuzzy math.

And yet the administration says we are headed in the right direction.

Once again, misdirection is in no way concentrated just on the right.
Let's put unemployment trends in proper context:

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/tag/bikini-graph/

Could be better, but looks to me like things improved significantly starting right about the time Obama took office. Wonder what those graphs would have looked like if there had been no stimulus, no auto bailout, etc, as Romney and the Rs would've preferred?
User avatar VeloCity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,242
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

11 Sep 2012 22:14

BillytheKid wrote:We have a gross receipts tax here. It's much more than a sales tax as almost any income comes under it. Doctors are not even exempt. So don't get seriously ill here cause we run most of the good ones off. It does vary by county, like say for example in Santa Fe and Santa Fe county, the tax is almost 9% (really 8.9...something ridiculous). If I get work in Santa Fe, not something that's going well right now, but say I scored $1000 day rate to take pictures of the Indian Market for Magnum. That's $90 dollars to the state not counting state income, business property, social security and federal.

Ok fair enough, we all pay right? Nope. The film industry is exempt. So let's say that Jeff Bridges got paid 10 million to act in True Grit. Half of it was really film here, but lets say for simplicity that all of it was. Does Mr. Bridges own the state $900,000 in taxes. No. Not a dime. This is a big D state and this exemption was ushered through the D controlled state legislature. Tax break for the rich and famous baby.:D

So I really don't want here about tax breaks for millionaires that already exist in the current codes. What planet have you been living on?

My apologies to Mr. Bridges for using him as an example for the otherwise fine work.



TL;DR there are already huge tax breaks at the fed and state level, therefore further reductions for only certain brackets is OK?
Not done with my drink till I've crunched all the ice crew
User avatar Rip:30
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,036
Joined: 29 Apr 2010 05:39

11 Sep 2012 22:35

Rip:30 wrote:TL;DR there are already huge tax breaks at the fed and state level, therefore further reductions for only certain brackets is OK?


The Dems have historically levied targeted tax increases at the wealthy.
Directly or indirectly.

I also question the accuracy of the press release. They even say they can only "estimate" his income. Yet the headline you proclaim says it is a $2 Billion tax break.

You really have to look at such claims as on the exagerated side as I rounded up in my example. As far as the priciple of targeted tax breaks goes, in general, the answer would be no, but either by tax redux or bail out, it can all add up to the be much the same.

A national sales tax would be the best, but the transition and practicality would be difficult.
I tell ya, it's not the water.
User avatar BillytheKid
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,441
Joined: 01 Jun 2011 06:13
Location: Left of the Duke City

11 Sep 2012 23:49

VeloCity wrote:Let's put unemployment trends in proper context:

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/tag/bikini-graph/

Could be better, but looks to me like things improved significantly starting right about the time Obama took office. Wonder what those graphs would have looked like if there had been no stimulus, no auto bailout, etc, as Romney and the Rs would've preferred?


Maybe you can explain how in August the unemployment rate drops when over three times as many people leave the work force as are hired into it?

'splain it to me please.



GM would be better in the long run had they gone through a normal BK. All stakeholders would have suffered... you know, "shared responsibility" not to mention GM would not be into the US taxpayer some 35 Billion.

Stimulus? You've had stimulus or the equivalent every year. 3.72 Trillion in 2010, 3.63 Trillion in 2011, 3.8 Trillion 2012, looks like spending in 2013 will be around 3.8 Trillion. The stimulus level spending was never dialed back. Ain't that grand? Hell, now even the Germans are wondering if we can pack back our debt.

Germany Says 'Great Uncertainty' About US Debt

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48982485
Scott SoCal
 

11 Sep 2012 23:53

Rip:30 wrote:TL;DR there are already huge tax breaks at the fed and state level, therefore further reductions for only certain brackets is OK?


If he's getting a tax break of 2 Billion, I wonder how much he pays?

Maybe you ought to be thankful the old man invests in building his casinos, employees umpteenthousands of people and by any measure, pays huge sums in taxes.

I guess that's not good enough. Off with his head.:rolleyes:
Scott SoCal
 

12 Sep 2012 02:55

i'll bet most of you didn't know that college football is a communist plot to destroy 'merica.

Football taught the progressive virtue of subordinating the individual to the collectivity. Inevitably, this led to the cult of one individual, the coach.
User avatar gregod
Junior Member
 
Posts: 1,100
Joined: 19 Apr 2009 23:54

12 Sep 2012 04:57

So Israel is going to tell us who to vote for now? And the religious right buys their front. Sucker born every day
User avatar Boeing
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,119
Joined: 17 Jul 2009 04:56
Location: SoCal

12 Sep 2012 11:18

Boeing wrote:So Israel is going to tell us who to vote for now? And the religious right buys their front. Sucker born every day


Oh no, don't you know that Netayahu recently told congress (from whom he got the most standing ovations ever given one by the house) that "Israel does not interfere with US internal affairs"?

So there you have it, enough said. Israel does not get involved with US domestic business. Now, let's move on. :rolleyes:
User avatar rhubroma
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6,102
Joined: 02 Apr 2009 14:31

12 Sep 2012 15:28

Scott SoCal wrote:Maybe you can explain how in August the unemployment rate drops when over three times as many people leave the work force as are hired into it?

'splain it to me please.
The private sector is not doing great but not doing too badly, either. It's the public sector - the sector that you guys want to destroy - that's taking the brunt of the job losses. So really, you should be happy about the high unemployment numbers, as it means that government at all levels is shrinking. Why aren't you happy about that? It's what you guys keep saying you want.

GM would be better in the long run had they gone through a normal BK. All stakeholders would have suffered... you know, "shared responsibility" not to mention GM would not be into the US taxpayer some 35 Billion.
This has been explained a thousand times.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/autos/auto-bailout/index.html

See that section, "What would've happened without the bailouts?" Read it. Now imagine Romney in charge. Then imagine the unemployment figures that you so bemoan if we'd done what Romney wanted to do.

Stimulus? You've had stimulus or the equivalent every year. 3.72 Trillion in 2010, 3.63 Trillion in 2011, 3.8 Trillion 2012, looks like spending in 2013 will be around 3.8 Trillion. The stimulus level spending was never dialed back. Ain't that grand?
Basic economics: government spends while times are bad to kick-start the economy, then deals with deficits/debt when the economy is back on track. Things are not yet back on track- getting there, but not there yet.

Again, let's imagine Romney/Ryan policies were the rule of the day, austerity all around - what a ****ing disaster that would've been. Would've essentially ruined the economy.
User avatar VeloCity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,242
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

12 Sep 2012 18:58

Possibly just an anomaly or a bump after the DNC, but if this is even remotely true then Romney's toast.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/248897-romney-losing-lead-among-men
User avatar VeloCity
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3,242
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 16:17
Location: Washington, DC

12 Sep 2012 19:21

Boeing wrote:So Israel is going to tell us who to vote for now? And the religious right buys their front. Sucker born every day


It is interesting that Israel is trying to get the U.S. to set a deadline for Iran, after which military force will be used. Basically they are trying to maneuver the U.S. into a war.

One thing is sure. Romney will attack Iran if he is elected. Undoubtedly he will used the tried and true Bush approach for such things: Lower taxes while waging a war, resulting in a bankrupt government. The conservatives will cheer him on all the way then blame the poor sucker who is elected afterward for the expenditures required to clean up the mess.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 13,320
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

12 Sep 2012 19:26

VeloCity wrote:Possibly just an anomaly or a bump after the DNC, but if this is even remotely true then Romney's toast.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/248897-romney-losing-lead-among-men


Romney is an amazing combination of all the worst qualities of Clinton, Dubya, Kerry, and Dole. He is a liar, an arrogant American exceptionalist, a flip flopper, and he has no authentic personality.
"Listen, my son. Trust no one! You can count on no one but yourself. Improve your skills, son. Harden your body. Become a number one man. Do not ever let anyone beat you!" -- Gekitotsu! Satsujin ken
User avatar BroDeal
Senior Member
 
Posts: 13,320
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 00:41
Location: Above 5000 feet

12 Sep 2012 20:14

VeloCity wrote:The private sector is not doing great but not doing too badly, either. It's the public sector - the sector that you guys want to destroy - that's taking the brunt of the job losses. So really, you should be happy about the high unemployment numbers, as it means that government at all levels is shrinking. Why aren't you happy about that? It's what you guys keep saying you want.

This has been explained a thousand times.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/autos/auto-bailout/index.html

See that section, "What would've happened without the bailouts?" Read it. Now imagine Romney in charge. Then imagine the unemployment figures that you so bemoan if we'd done what Romney wanted to do.

Basic economics: government spends while times are bad to kick-start the economy, then deals with deficits/debt when the economy is back on track. Things are not yet back on track- getting there, but not there yet.

Again, let's imagine Romney/Ryan policies were the rule of the day, austerity all around - what a ****ing disaster that would've been. Would've essentially ruined the economy.


The private sector is not doing great but not doing too badly, either.


Wow. This is a graph of the labor participation rate since January '02.

Image

Another chart... I'll let you pick out some things that are alarming;

Image

Notice the direction of all three lines (currently) and see if it matches up anywhere else on the chart. Uh oh...

Stating the private sector to be anything other than suffering is not accurate.

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/09/august-employment-report-96000-jobs-81.html

It's the public sector - the sector that you guys want to destroy - that's taking the brunt of the job losses.


Who's advocating destroying the public sector? I must have missed that.

You know... if governments administrators had a brain cell, which most don't, they would have realized that when the private sector was shedding 800,000 jobs per month that a couple of thing were gonna happen. 1) There were going to be huge shortfalls in public revenue, and 2) They would have to start seriously cutting expense right away. So what happened? Federal stimulus money went to put off the inevitable trimming of public employees. A REALLY STUPID MOVE on team Obama's part.

Today's news cycle is more of the same: Chicago teachers union has their membership biting the hand that feeds them. Eventually they will win and Rham is going to come in and slash teaching jobs. Unlike the Federal Govt, Rham can't print more money to fix his $1 Billion dollar short fall. So in that sense, the shedding of public teacher will contribute to unemployment. Who's fault? Eh, ummm,... well, never mind.

I have read your CNN article. I disagree with the conclusions. If GM needs another bailout maybe you'll start to see why the bailout was not the best way forward.

Basic economics: government spends while times are bad to kick-start the economy,


More awesomeness on your part:) Were you not arguing that (agreeing with that rocket scientist Krugman) the 'stimulus' didn't go far enough? That we should have spent two or three times as much? Well, it looks like we actually have. The stimulus was never dialed back out of the budget.

Hmmmm. I wonder why our economy still sucks?

It's estimated by 2020 (which is not very far off) our debt service will exceed a Trillion annually. More than Medicare/Medicaid. Brilliant.
Scott SoCal
 

12 Sep 2012 20:46

VeloCity wrote:Possibly just an anomaly or a bump after the DNC, but if this is even remotely true then Romney's toast.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/248897-romney-losing-lead-among-men


"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGFLLHs7_cA
I tell ya, it's not the water.
User avatar BillytheKid
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,441
Joined: 01 Jun 2011 06:13
Location: Left of the Duke City

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Back to top