Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678
Results 64 to 71 of 71

Thread: GM could still fall despite gov.bailout

  1. #64

    Default Re: GM could still fall despite gov.bailout

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    The bank bailout was not designed to end the recession ot to end all the econoic injustice of the capalist system. It was supposed to prevent the financial systen from collapsing. If unemployment truly went up to 40% in 2008 (that the first I have heard of that number) you can thank your Washington politicians for having the guts to make the unpopular choice to bail out the banks and preventing the economy from going into freefall.

    i dont see how states were left with less money to spend either as a result of the bailot. Money was not diverted by the Federal from States to banks.
    I know that the bailout was designed to keep the system from crashing.

    As for the unemployment rate increase after the collapse, it was actually 49%, based on average unemployment rates during the year. Compare 2000-2009, and you see the increase. A brief history of U.S. unemployment - The Washington Post

    States were left with less money because of Federal cutbacks as a result of the bad economy, having to incur higher costs for unemployed and displaced workers, and less tax revenue from workers, as for just a few of the obvious reasons.

    I could go on and on what were the direct results of the collapse, but it hasn't been a "zero sum game" for our country or taxpayers, by any means. It has, and is, cost us dearly.
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  2. #65
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,962

    Default Re: GM could still fall despite gov.bailout

    Quote Originally Posted by quinn14 View Post
    ODH, I am pretty sure that anyone making over 250k a year did not get a break. I looked it up a few days ago but correct me if I'm wrong. Also, like I said before, tax breaks are never anything to stick your nose up to but the rich need to spend more to get the economy going. I don't see how punishing them with higher taxes will do that. I would rather see their money spent on buying products that the rest of us make instead of giving more to a government who has shown a long history of misspending it.
    I don't feel like looking it up either, but I am confident that saying people over 250K did not get a break is not true. A big break for me was the increased deduction for each dependent, with four dependents I got a big break that saved me a big percentage of my taxes. If I was making over $250K I would have got the same break but it would not have meant that much to me, becasue it would not have been such a big part of my taxes.
    People don't seem to realize that if you are increasing taxes on income over $250K you are only increasing the taxes starting with taxable dollar 250,001. Restoring the clinton tax rates (which I believe what is proposed) rasies tax rates rates a few percentage points on the top income bracket I think from 35% to 39%.
    So a hypothetical person with a $350K income and $50K in deductions would end up paying an extra $2,000 in taxes. Does not seem like a crazy tax increase to me especially if you truly believe the deficit in the number one issue facing the country. I also have stated previously here that I believe tax increases need to be broadbased. I am opposed to just increasing taxes on the wealthy.

    I also don't believe more tax breaks to the very rich will stimulate the economy. I do know a few people who fall into the very rich category and they have enough money to buy whatever they want. They hate paying taxes, but if you give them a $10k-20k tax break they are not going ot all of sudden spend the money on frivilous things that will stimulate the economy. Anyhting they want they are able to buy and have bought regardless of their tax rates. I do believe that certain taxes will give a big disincentive to speding their money on certain things. I tihnk during the Clinton years there was a tax put on yachts that cost above $50K. Anyone who could afford that type of yacht could afford to pay the tax, but in general they felt they were being taken advantage of and stop buying yachts.

  3. #66
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,962

    Default Re: GM could still fall despite gov.bailout

    Quote Originally Posted by ban basketball View Post
    Actually, I have to disagree with you on the bank bailout.

    Yes, we may have had the "loans" paid off, but the fact is that that we are still paying exhorbitantly with a bad economy, as a direct result of the economic crisis. Unemployment immediately went up over 40% in late 2008, and has since to really recover from that. In addition, because states were left with fewer funds to operate with it left less money for needed services in states, etc, etc.

    In short, we are still paying for that, due to a poor economy for, more or less, four years.
    So going up by 40% might be true but it is a decieving satistic. If unemployent is 1% and increases to 2% you can report a 100% increase in unemployment.
    None of this changes the argument that the bailouts were a good policy and were effective in doing what they set to do.

  4. #67
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,962

    Default Re: GM could still fall despite gov.bailout

    Quote Originally Posted by ban basketball View Post
    I know that the bailout was designed to keep the system from crashing.

    As for the unemployment rate increase after the collapse, it was actually 49%, based on average unemployment rates during the year. Compare 2000-2009, and you see the increase. A brief history of U.S. unemployment - The Washington Post

    States were left with less money because of Federal cutbacks as a result of the bad economy, having to incur higher costs for unemployed and displaced workers, and less tax revenue from workers, as for just a few of the obvious reasons.

    I could go on and on what were the direct results of the collapse, but it hasn't been a "zero sum game" for our country or taxpayers, by any means. It has, and is, cost us dearly.
    I still do not see any evidence that the bailout has taken money from other programs. I remeber it being controversial becasue it was an emergency fund that was forced through, no spending was cut to finance the banks. I unerstand the visceral reaction against bailouts, but I don't see any evidence that it was not successful.

    And I am pretty based on the size of the deficit that the Federal government has not been cutting back on anyhting recently. I recall that a big part of the stimulus was grants to states to keep teachers, cops and other public employees on the job and now that the stimulus sending is done that money is no longer being sent to the states, but this is not becasue the money was spent on a bailout.

  5. #68

    Default Re: GM could still fall despite gov.bailout

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    So going up by 40% might be true but it is a decieving satistic. If unemployent is 1% and increases to 2% you can report a 100% increase in unemployment.
    None of this changes the argument that the bailouts were a good policy and were effective in doing what they set to do.
    A percentage increase is a deceiving way to present how unemployment has gone up?! How would you have presented it? I'm not sure if I know of a more accurate way.

    Yes, the bailouts accomplished what they were supposed to accomplish; I agree.
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  6. #69

    Default Re: GM could still fall despite gov.bailout

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    I still do not see any evidence that the bailout has taken money from other programs. I remeber it being controversial becasue it was an emergency fund that was forced through, no spending was cut to finance the banks. I unerstand the visceral reaction against bailouts, but I don't see any evidence that it was not successful.

    And I am pretty based on the size of the deficit that the Federal government has not been cutting back on anyhting recently. I recall that a big part of the stimulus was grants to states to keep teachers, cops and other public employees on the job and now that the stimulus sending is done that money is no longer being sent to the states, but this is not becasue the money was spent on a bailout.
    In post # 52, you said this: The bailouts worked! Economic Armageddon was avoided at essentially no net loss to the government. And if you believe the experts financial collapse was a real possibility. (Emphasis mine).

    When I initially said that I have to disagree with you over it being, as I called it, a "zero sum game," this was what I meant. The ecconomic collapse DID cost us dearly, in all of the areas that I pointed out. If you weren't aware of any Federal cuts as a result of it, come see us here in Iowa and we'll show you a few.

    It DID cost tremendous amounts of money, and still is costing us.
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

  7. #70
    World Champ ODH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,962

    Default Re: GM could still fall despite gov.bailout

    Quote Originally Posted by ban basketball View Post
    In post # 52, you said this: The bailouts worked! Economic Armageddon was avoided at essentially no net loss to the government. And if you believe the experts financial collapse was a real possibility. (Emphasis mine).

    When I initially said that I have to disagree with you over it being, as I called it, a "zero sum game," this was what I meant. The ecconomic collapse DID cost us dearly, in all of the areas that I pointed out. If you weren't aware of any Federal cuts as a result of it, come see us here in Iowa and we'll show you a few.

    It DID cost tremendous amounts of money, and still is costing us.
    Not sure what you are saying: The the bailouts costs us a lot of money or that the rescession (it was not an economic collapse) hurt a lot of people. I believe you are conflating the bailouts with the damage done by the recession. The cuts in Iowa I assume are due to the recession not the bailout.

  8. #71

    Default Re: GM could still fall despite gov.bailout

    Quote Originally Posted by ODH View Post
    Not sure what you are saying: The the bailouts costs us a lot of money or that the rescession (it was not an economic collapse) hurt a lot of people. I believe you are conflating the bailouts with the damage done by the recession. The cuts in Iowa I assume are due to the recession not the bailout.
    Again, read the bold and italics in your quote. The bailouts were apparently a "zero sum game," yes, but the economic armegeddon (collapse/recession, I say "collapse," because stock markets and markets collapsed worldwide for several days, if I recall) was not avoided for free. It may not have been "armegeddon," but it DID and still is costing us.
    UNI Panthers...Because it's just right.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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