Which Among You Dupes Thought GM and Chrysler Would -- Or Could -- Pay Back Your Tax Dollars?
God'sLittleAnus
The Washington Post
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
AUTOMOTIVE
"U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says"
TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General
Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the
latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80
billion it poured into the two automakers.
The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and
Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury
Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies
that went through bankruptcy earlier this year.
The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely
scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some
requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a
hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations.
To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them
afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not
approach even when they were healthier.
GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government
has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment."
Chrysler declined to comment.
-- Associated Press
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR2009110203479.html
alt.politics.bush
What value do you put on keeping the economy running?
John Galt
Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the
government investing in the automakers?
JG
jose el fontanero
Obviously, the dupes who voted for the Obama.
Mike Hunter
RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than taking
money from us to give it too others. Why does the government never learn
from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the Congress to lower tax
RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress
prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get the same result, not so
smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid?
"John Galt" <kad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rZ1Im.129356$Jp1....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
John Galt
> Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
> RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than taking
> money from us to give it too others.
This to me seemed obvious --- we moved into recession because 70% of our
economy is consumer spending, and the consumers were scared as shit so
they quit spending. Whatever we did, there needed to be consumer relief
in there, too -- and a lot of it, if you wanted a quick recovery.
Unfortunately, "tax cuts", which is really a nonpartisan economic issue,
has taken on partisan meaning in this country. So, if you're a Dem,
you'd rather die than cut taxes (even if it's the right thing to do).
Why does the government never learn
> from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the Congress to lower tax
> RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress
> prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get the same result, not so
> smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid?
Neither. The most important thing is being ideologically pure, and if
the ideologic goal is to grow government, you never give anything back.
JG
Lamont Cranston
> Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds
> had lowered
> tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy
Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate the
economy. For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30
cents of stimulus is created. Food stamps are the most
effective way. For every dollar of food stamps issued,
$1.73 of economic stimulus is created.
http://www.movingupusa.org/?tag=food-stamps
John Galt
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
>> tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy
>
> Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate the economy.
> For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30 cents of stimulus is
> created.
You're off by half, according to both the Fed (and Christina Romer).
Greenspan's data prior to 2002 also showed the same ROI.
Regardless, in a consumer-driven slump, you're not going to get recovery
until the consumers are better off.
There are no hard and fast rules about what the right way to increase
economic activity is in a given recession. They are all different.
YOu'll remember that one of the most famous quotes of Keynes is "When
the facts change, I change my mind."
Food stamps are the most effective way.
That's correct, but you're not going to reboot consumer spending in that
fashion. This is a consumer led downturn, it doesn't reverse until the
consumer's personal balance sheets are unwound and back in order. They
have tons of debt to pay off before they start spending again.
JG
Beam Me Up Scotty
HHHHHhhhmmmmm?
I might actually believe that.
Lamont Cranston
Your reading comprehension seems to be extremely faulty.
Neither I nor the cited article makes any such statement.
dr_jeff
> Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
> RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than taking
> money from us to give it too others. Why does the government never learn
> from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the Congress to lower tax
> RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress
> prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get the same result, not so
> smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid?
Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
history.
The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.
Jeff
Jeff Strickland
"dr_jeff" <u...@msu.edu> wrote in message
news:ddCdnfmTuqKOv2_X...@giganews.com...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax
>> RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than
>> taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government
>> never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the
>> Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO
>> and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get
>> the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are
>> they just stupid?
>
> Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
> history.
>
> The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
> paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.
>
> Jeff
>
Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10 months
has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And
Obama is still going.
PS
By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.
dr_jeff
Not true. Bush's last budget's deficit was nearly as big as Obama's
first. The big difference is that Obama has a plan to help the economy.
Unfortunately, stimulus is required.
Jeff
dr_jeff
<...>
> PS
> By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending
> four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.
Not true. If the government funds have surplus, you can spend that.
Unfortunately, I don't think the gov't ever has a surplus.
Roy Blankenship
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hct88c$mg9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Your post is disingenuous. Bush grabbed money and gave it to Wall St,
overseas interests, no-bid contracts, KBR, etc. Obama is trying to spend
money HERE on US to get the economy going, and you are objecting? Were you
objecting when Bush was spending us into this mess?
Jeff Strickland
"Roy Blankenship" <point...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:itKdnUUag-OKt2_X...@earthlink.com...
Wake up. Obama is doing the same thing. If he really wanted to get the
economy going, he'd be slashing yours and my taxes. He'd make sure the banks
didn't raise our credit card rates ESPECIALLY after giving them billions in
stimulous dollars -- dollars that if you and I had, we would spend stuff we
need and that would give somebody a job to make so we could buy it.
Obama is driving straight at the cliff with his foot firmly planted on the
gas pedal, AND he appears to have drained the fluid from the braking system.
Oil prices are going up because the value of the dollar is going down.
Supplies are high, demand is low, yet the price of oil is going up. That can
only happen if the value of the currency used to buy and sell oil is going
down.
John Galt
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered
>> tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather
>> than taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the
>> government never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush
>> got the Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury
>> when UP. BO and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not
>> have to try to get the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE
>> Economics 101, or are they just stupid?
>
> Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in
> history.
Yes, but tax receipts indeed increased under the lower rates. Receipts
are only one side of the equation.
>
> The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people
> paying taxes, he was spending future taxes.
Yes. But if Bush pioneered this practice, the current guy is perfecting it.
JG
Roy Blankenship
You are projecting a lot of what happened in the Bush era to Obama. Weren't
oil prices AND gas prices through the roof during the Bush reign?
And, actually, it got people started on a good path, conserving and looking
at alternative fuels and transportation.
I think there is something happening bigger than the people we see running
the country. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, why? The money going to
Iraq could resolve health-care by itself, $12,000,000,000 a month? Why is
there no outcry about this? There is something happening that the American
people are not being told. We are there to benefit some bigger picture and
regardless of who seems to be running the store, the will of the American
people is not being assuaged. No, everyone is worried about people they will
never meet getting married, as if their relationship affects them. Geez...
Jeff Strickland
Yes, prices were high, but demand was high and supply was low. Today, we
have little demand and full reserves. High supply and low demand _ought_ to
bring prices down.
> And, actually, it got people started on a good path, conserving and
> looking
> at alternative fuels and transportation.
>
> I think there is something happening bigger than the people we see running
> the country. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, why? The money going to
> Iraq could resolve health-care by itself, $12,000,000,000 a month? Why is
> there no outcry about this? There is something happening that the American
> people are not being told. We are there to benefit some bigger picture and
> regardless of who seems to be running the store, the will of the American
> people is not being assuaged. No, everyone is worried about people they
> will
> never meet getting married, as if their relationship affects them. Geez...
>
>
That argument pretends that if we weren't in Iraq there would be no health
care problems. The facts are clear, we had the same "health care problems"
before we went to Iraq as we have today, therefore there is nothing to
support the assertion that we would divert the dollars from Iraq to health
care.
Health care is poised to be taken over by government, and this represents
1/6 (17%) of the GDP. The military is about 3% of GDP.
Day Brown
> Food stamps are the most effective way.
> That's correct, but you're not going to reboot consumer spending in that
> fashion. This is a consumer led downturn, it doesn't reverse until the
> consumer's personal balance sheets are unwound and back in order. They
> have tons of debt to pay off before they start spending again.
Machiavelli said oligarchs always corrupt republics until they have all
the money and the masses are so broke they no longer have anything to
loose in a revolution. Which is why Solon, in setting up the Athenian
democracy, burned all the mortgages.
He also banned slavery so that the large landowners would no long have a
source of cheap labor to work the fields. Thus, land ownership fell back
into the hands of those competent enuf to work it themselves.
For similar reasons, the counties in my neck of Ozark woods SECEEDED
from the Confederate government in Little Rock. They were not going to
fight to protect the property rights of landed estates and slave owners.
Whether we like it or not, when the consumer class feels poor enuf, they
will find the leadership to seize the assets of the rich to rebalance
the books. And when the masses again feel they have some investment in
the system to protect and hand down to their kids, then they will be far
more energetic in developing the resources and assets to do so.
And whether we like it or not, cosumer/workers will form coops to buy,
at wholesale the same as corporations, whatever their members need, and
sell what they produce into the global market with a far lower cost of
management.
Lamont Cranston
Wrong. The CBO projected the 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion
based on Bush's 2009 budget and 2009 tax revenue estimates
weeks before Obama took office. The 2009 deficit belongs to
Bush.
alt.politics.bush
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think a superior investment would be for the US military to order
upwards to 3,000 V-22 Osprey, with the option to sell delivery slots
to commerical operators and/or to surplus delivered a/c as they exceed
mission requirements.