What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

ObamaRama 8

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: ObamaRama 8

Yeah, but Plante likes Corporate welfare. Notice he isn't mentioning that, he's mentioning all the lazy *** workers. After all they're the idiots that brought the economy down and screwed everyone over.

I never claimed to be in favor of corporate welfare, but at least they're paying close to 50% in taxes on those "bonuses", in addition to being amongst the top 10% that pay 90% of the income taxes in this country. And pray tell Tundra: How does the money not go into the economy? It has to go somewhere.....either a bank, investment account, capital expenditures or other spending. It sure as hell isn't sitting under a mattress. And middle class people work in banks and investment firms too.....but they're probably not blue collar enough for you to consider job-worthy, right?

The welfare moochers aren't paying anything into the system. And please Scoob, don't call them "lazy arse workers"......because they're not WORKING.

And since we're on the issue, please expound on corporate welfare, ie., where it comes from and what it is supposed to be used for. Because more than likely, the bonuses aren't being directly paid using that money. You can't claim that the billions the government is paying for R&D and other purposes is diverted to execs in the form of bonuses, because it isn't true.....with the exception of AIG, which was a provision put into the Stimulus by Chris Dodd (D-CT)......one of the "idiots" who helped bring the country down economically. If you can show me where executive bonuses were paid directly with government-issued taxpayer money, then we can have a talk about it.

Also: Just because a bank paid out bonuses doesn't mean that those bonuses were paid with that same money from TARP. And even IF that were the case, those execs have contracts that denote how/if they even GET a bonus. If an exec fulfills the term of his/her contract, you're essentially saying that the corporation should nullify the contract and not pay the bonus? Imagine the sh*tstorm that would ensue if something like this happened to the UAW, AFL-CIO or AFSCME. So now your argument becomes "Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others?"

And seriously Tundra.....stop claiming that TARP is a 0% loan. It's simply not true. The banks that took that money have been paying billions in interest every quarter on the money that the government forced many of them to take, not to mention the billions in stock options that were given to the Fed in that same deal in exchange for the funds. I was and still am vehemently opposed to how TARP was administered, but you're badly misconstruing the details of the program.

If you really want to get rid of tax write-offs, then scrap the current progressive tax code and tax everyone the same rate. That would be a step in the direction of the "fairness" that the Left is seeking--though they'll never see it that way. It worries me that you'd rather see $300 billion spread around to 100,000 unemployed people in exchange for nothing. That says something about your warped world view.

Oh, and be sure to be really, really p*ssed at your Democrat congresspeople. Because they're the ones that passed the Stimulus and TARP in the first place.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Yeah my bad $300billion is 1,000,000 workers at $30,000/yr.
Federal Reserve Bank had $1trillion loan out to the banks at the start of the crisis, they have $2trillion now. I think the $700billion TARP was used for capital injection + toxic asset buys and yes we "made" money from the banks but we paid face value on those toxic assets so there is hefty paper losses from that and that doesn't include all the new guarantees.

Treasury buys toxic assets at face value using TARP and capital injection -> banks/hedge funds take that profit and pay us back with interest (plus FED revolving loan of $1trillion) -> taxpayers make money. booyah :(we'll just ignore the toxic assets we just bought and the guarantees we made) AND banks/hedge funds made lots and lots of money. repeat the sounding joy. repeat repeat the sounding joy of the billionaire bankers laughing all the way.

Where do you think the $400billion losses from fannie/freddie is going to?

I thought the $6trillion was in 2005 ($12trillion total) now worth maybe $4trillion ($8trillion) after the 40-50% haircut.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091229/bs_ibd_ibd/20091229issues

Now, in a sneaky move made on Christmas Eve, Treasury lifted the $400 billion cap on borrowing by the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), at least through 2012. So you, the taxpayer, are on the hook for their losses over that time -- maybe longer.

It's not chump change. Just this year, the two will post nearly $100 billion in losses -- with more to come as a wave of nonperforming home loans are erased from their balance sheets.

Thanks to government subsidized credit, Fannie and Freddie hold nearly $6 trillion in mortgage loans -- roughly half the U.S. total.
 
Last edited:
Re: ObamaRama 8

Yeah my bad $300billion is 1,000,000 workers at $30,000/yr.
Federal Reserve Bank had $1trillion loan out to the banks at the start of the crisis, they have $2trillion now. I think the $700billion TARP was used for capital injection + toxic asset buys and yes we "made" money from the banks but we paid face value on those toxic assets so there is hefty paper losses from that and that doesn't include all the new guarantees.

Treasury buys toxic assets at face value using TARP and capital injection -> banks/hedge funds take that profit and pay us back with interest (plus FED revolving loan of $1trillion) -> taxpayers make money. booyah :(we'll just ignore the toxic assets we just bought and the guarantees we made) AND banks/hedge funds made lots and lots of money. repeat the sounding joy. repeat repeat the sounding joy of the billionaire bankers laughing all the way.

Where do you think the $400billion losses from fannie/freddie is going to?

I thought the $6trillion was in 2005 ($12trillion total) now worth maybe $4trillion ($8trillion) after the 40-50% haircut.

You're absolutely right--Fannie and Freddie are GSEs. Again, you can be p*ssed at the Dems: for installing the leadership in those government-backed giants, for stymieing the attempts to rein in reckless lending guidelines and for now raising their lending caps. That's not corporate welfare, that's the government using Fannie and Freddie to achieve a political agenda.

Of course we'll end up eating the $400 billion. Fannie and Freddie will eventually make TARP look like a $2 ante when all is said and done. Why? Because instead of fixing the damned system, our government leaders continue to buy votes using the taxpayer's money while spending at a breakneck pace.....which is a winning proposition, considering the top 10% pay 90% of all federal income taxes while the bottom 35% pay nothing. If this keeps up, 90% of us will be members of the proletariat.

And keep in mind.....many bank execs are paid bonuses in the form of stock options. They lost a lot of money when the stock prices tanked out. Their "billions" that you insinuate they are raking down isn't 100% cash money. Because of this, there would be incentive for them to run their companies in a careful manner, but that incentive may now be gone now that our government has proven that they won't let some banks fail. Which goes right back to how TARP was administered very poorly.

Now compare the numbers you brought up with social welfare programs: in fiscal 2000, the U.S. spent $1.01 trillion on welfare programs. Of that, 56% went to SS and Medicare--both wrought with fraud, abuse and waste, not to mention badly mismanaged and currently approaching bankruptcy. $300 billion of that spending was at the state level, which accounted for a THIRD of state budgets. So essentially, corporate welfare isn't nearly as expensive on an economic level as social welfare is. Then figure in the societal impacts, and your actual cost could very well increase tenfold.
 
I never claimed to be in favor of corporate welfare, but at least they're paying close to 50% in taxes on hose "bonuses", in addition to being amongst the top 10% that pay 90% of the income taxes in this country.

Not quite.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html

In 2003 the top 10% paid 65.84% of all taxes paid while the top 50% paid 96.54%. For the top 1% their income share rose while their rate dropped.

More recently:

http://www.american.com/archive/200...zine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes

The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per*cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab.

The New York Times reported recently that the average family in America with an income of $10 million or more received a half-million-dollar tax cut, while the middle class got crumbs (less than $100 shaved off their tax bill). Most of the tax cuts went to the super wealthy.

Since 1980, the share of income earned by the richest 1 percent has more than doubled, from 9 percent to 19 percent. The share of the income going to the poorest income quintile has declined. Income disparities, in absolute dollars, have grown substantially.

I think this one is interesting:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html

It compares % of taxes paid vs. % of income earned. The top earners clearly pay more of their share but the discrepency drops when you include the top 50%. More telling is that while the bottom 50% pay only 3.5% of all taxes, they also only earn 14% of all income.

I'm not making any specific points about the subject but simply correcting your error and adding some food for thought.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Average american family with an income of $10MM??

Including Tom Brady, Kevin Garnett, Will Smith and Bill Gates (assuming he earns any income) in a comparison of american incomes is misleading. Those people aren't taking any money away from the average american worker; their salaries do a great job of giving people stats to moan about but they aren't 'workers'.

The issue isn't that 1% of the people invent eBay or Microsoft or are 6'11", the issue is that such a large percentage of the population cannot earn more. To compare percent of wages earned I would stop counting in Beyonce and the Walton clan and instead look at the wages earned by people who actually work.

By distracting ourselves with skewed numbers and clammoring that people that pay $5mm in taxes a year should pay more we certainly have found a boogeyman to blame but nothing that happens is going to change the fact that movie stars, athletes and the 500 people that run Fortune 500 companies are going to make a lot of money.

We can ***** about whether they 'deserve' it but those people were born with unique talent, intelligence and/or work ethic...blaming America's ills on a few thousand people is a waste of time and solves nothing. Taking more of their money to waste on government spending isn't going to make America better nor help the bottom 50% earn more than 14% of the wages.


edit: one thing those people do is earn money given to them (indirectly) by the average american worker. What people spend their money on is scarier than who earns it. Look up how much money people spend on NFL merchandise each year, movies, pay per view MMA/WWF, directv, iphones, nail salons, tanning etc. It isn't the top 10% that own all of the crap in this country.
 
Last edited:
Re: ObamaRama 8

If you really want to get rid of tax write-offs, then scrap the current progressive tax code and tax everyone the same rate. That would be a step in the direction of the "fairness" that the Left is seeking--though they'll never see it that way. It worries me that you'd rather see $300 billion spread around to 100,000 unemployed people in exchange for nothing. That says something about your warped world view.
There will never be a flat tax because the system that is in place benefits the rich and powerful. Rich and powerful people have no problem getting things done in Washington, and if they wanted it they'd get it.

I'd have no problem with a flat tax. I have certain rules about what a flat tax really is, and I'm sure rich people have a completely different idea what a flat tax is.

Oh, and there are just as many regressive taxes out there as progressive. And all these numbers your showing are federal only which is a skewed version of the truth since in my local school system to survive has to get Federal, State, and Local funding. And that's not their fault, that's the way the system is set up. IF all of is in my school district could stop paying the Federal, and State Education taxes we'd be more than happy to make up the local AND we'd come out dollars ahead.

So, bring on your fair tax, flat tax whatever. It's not me that doesn't want it. It's the phat cats and politicians who don't want it cause it decreases their power and increases mine.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Not quite.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.guest.html

In 2003 the top 10% paid 65.84% of all taxes paid while the top 50% paid 96.54%. For the top 1% their income share rose while their rate dropped.

More recently:

http://www.american.com/archive/200...zine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes



I think this one is interesting:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html

It compares % of taxes paid vs. % of income earned. The top earners clearly pay more of their share but the discrepency drops when you include the top 50%. More telling is that while the bottom 50% pay only 3.5% of all taxes, they also only earn 14% of all income.

I'm not making any specific points about the subject but simply correcting your error and adding some food for thought.

And the obvious follow-up is that all of those stats are solely about income taxes, not the total tax burden (sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc). This is, at best, a refinement in accuracy of an incomplete picture.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

And the obvious follow-up is that all of those stats are solely about income taxes, not the total tax burden (sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc). This is, at best, a refinement in accuracy of an incomplete picture.

Thanks. I'm glad someone else finally said that.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

pirate, exactly what did I write had anything to do with your rant? I made no opinions about what tax rates should or should not be, I merely corrected a prior error.

And you pointed that out in your post, which is why I didn't quote your comments. Not sure I agree that you only corrected an error, but I have no issue with people expressing opinions or including info that would lead the reader to a conclusion/direction.

I did quote the one line of an article you included. Only to point out the oddity of the phrase 'average American family making $10MM', like there is anything average in that subset.

Your post did stimulate my comments, kinda the whole idea of a discussion board, unless I am completely missing the point.

While my post wasn't emotionless, it wasn't intended to be a rant with no content...I intended to add the perspective that including the highest threshold of income earners doesn't help to accurately assess the issues with income, taxes, tax rates and tax cuts in this country. A similar point would be to assess the inclusion of part-time, students, seasonal and other 'low income' workers into the equation and how they skew the numbers as well.

I believe that very smart people choose to publish those stats in their position documents knowing full well that it catches the eye and helps the casual observer quickly come to the conclusion that the problem is income and tax inequality.

That may not have been your intention, but the income & tax numbers are frequently used, in my opinion, in an intentionally incomplete manner...leaving out state taxes and the net tax position while leaving the impression that somehow Bill Gates earning a billion dollars selling software across the globe is a sign that the average american is getting screwed and the only way to make it fair is if Bill paid more taxes.

Aside from my disagreement with the math in that scenario...I'm more concerned that we have convinced our society that the way to solve the problem isn't to produce better students, encourage more Microsofts and strive to pull the bottom 50% up...but instead just blame those that have succeeded as if pulling them down will somehow pull everybody else up.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

USA Nationalizes GMAC

Like to see how the auditors do that one!

Wait until you see the beauties that get auto loans from GMAC after this one goes down......

It's going to be ugly. This will be the auto loan equivalent of Fannie/Freddie. Because as we all know, owning a car is a right.....like health care and home ownership.....:rolleyes:

This is getting absurd. :mad:
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

However, that black-and-white scenario begs the question: When will we see policies (not one-time funding) that are designed to create jobs?

So what would you suggest, oh wise one?

Lemme guess, cut taxes on the wealthy, cut the corporate income tax, and lower the capital gains tax.

Gee, a public healthcare option would have been a boon to all those struggling companies out there, who now wouldn't have to sink so much of their earnings into healthcare bennies for their employees. But we couldn't have that, could we, cause that's 'socialism', and that's bad.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

So what would you suggest, oh wise one?

Lemme guess, cut taxes on the wealthy, cut the corporate income tax, and lower the capital gains tax.

Gee, a public healthcare option would have been a boon to all those struggling companies out there, who now wouldn't have to sink so much of their earnings into healthcare bennies for their employees. But we couldn't have that, could we, cause that's 'socialism', and that's bad.
Well we now own GMAC - that's socialism.

See the Newt videos under the 2010 thread and come back and talk.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

And what makes it truly jaw-dropping, is that 50% number, that median income, is somewhere around $46,000.

So yeah, those making more than $46,000 pay 96% of the income taxes in this country. Who do those rich people think they are?
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Well we now own GMAC - that's socialism.

See the Newt videos under the 2010 thread and come back and talk.

Newt? As in Gingrich?

Why would I even take anything that crook has to say seriously? He's a buffoon.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

So what would you suggest, oh wise one?

Lemme guess, cut taxes on the wealthy, cut the corporate income tax, and lower the capital gains tax.

Gee, a public healthcare option would have been a boon to all those struggling companies out there, who now wouldn't have to sink so much of their earnings into healthcare bennies for their employees. But we couldn't have that, could we, cause that's 'socialism', and that's bad.

Hey bud: Employer contributions to employee health care benefits are currently tax deductible. Do a little research before you start spouting off.

Instead of pouring money in to social welfare programs, I'd rather see that money spent on loans for business start-up programs, business expansion progams and on-the-job training programs. From the nearly $1 trillion spent in the Stimulus bill, here is what the SBA received:

$730 million. That's it. Less than one percent of the Stimulus went to help small business, America's largest employer. But it gets worse:

The bill provides $730 million to SBA and makes changes to the agency’s lending and investment programs so that they can reach more small businesses that need help. The funding includes:

• $375 million for temporary fee reductions or eliminations on SBA loans and increased SBA guaranteed shares, up to 90 percent for certain loans
• $255 million for a new loan program to help small businesses meet existing debt payments
• $30 million for expanding SBA’s Microloan program, enough to finance up to $50 million in new lending and $24 million in technical assistance grants to microlenders
• $20 million for technology systems to streamline SBA’s lending and oversight processes
• $15 million for expanding SBA’s Surety Bond Guarantee program
• $25 million for staffing up to meet demands for new programs
• $10 million for the Office of Inspector General

A total crock.

In addition, tax cuts on small business would be a Godsend. Of course, small business has a pretty loose connotation--what is small in one industry may be large in another; profit margins range from a percent or two up to hundreds of percentage points. So the tax cuts on business would need to be sweeping in nature in order to free up the capital necessary to create an influx of business spending--which includes capital expenditures, increased production and HIRING. Those are two of the first things I would suggest, however......

.....I noticed your complete lack of any useful ideas, per usual standard rufus operating procedure. A whole lot of hollow, rhetorical BS flowing out of your ear hole. Care to share any of your bright ideas, Mao? I mean, aside from having the government run everything?
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Hey bud: Employer contributions to employee health care benefits are currently tax deductible. Do a little research before you start spouting off.
No chit. Looks like business doesn't want to get rid of this little piece of corporate welfare. I would assume this means that they get much more benefit writing them off than it costs them to insure their employees. And yet, all we kept hearing was how business would dump their employees off into the public plan.
Instead of pouring money in to social welfare programs, I'd rather see that money spent on loans for business start-up programs, business expansion progams and on-the-job training programs.

Isn't this want banks are for? So, why aren't they lending? Cause they have a much better deal taking the 0% loan money the fed is throwing at them and parking that money into treasuries. Gauranteed 3-4% profit, without having to do anything.

.....I noticed your complete lack of any useful ideas, per usual standard rufus operating procedure. A whole lot of hollow, rhetorical BS flowing out of your ear hole. Care to share any of your bright ideas, Mao? I mean, aside from having the government run everything?

I just wanted to see what Mr. Knowitall had to offer. Same old corporatist bullchit. You're a regular idiot savant.
 
Re: ObamaRama 8

Don't get me wrong, Newtie's ideas are by and large unworkable, and he has more baggage than anybody out there. It would be the equivalent of John Edwards running for President again.

However, if you handed out sanity tests for the prospective GOP candidates in 2012, I believe he's the only one that I'd put money on to pass. Huckleberry, Palin, DeMint, etc are all nuts. Romney has no prayer. While I wouldn't be voting for the man, Gingrich would lose no worse than McCain did in the last election, and would most likely hold the South. Palin/Huckleberry/Romney/etc are going to get creamed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top