steve

Furthermore, we don't know what the long-term health is for either company. However, if Obama doesn't get reelected, I would not want to own stock in either.

You know that Fiat owns most of Chrysler right? And that they are expected to own the majority by the end of the year? And that they may offer public shares, which you won't buy, shortly after... (Explain to me again how the unions have taken over....maybe quoting a source other than the Washington Times from 3 years ago.
By the way, you know what shareholders of a bankrupt company own? Nothing.
(I have shares in a company like that...)
The deal to save GM and Chrysler has turned out marvellously for the US economy, for hundreds of thousands employed in the automobile manufacturing. That the original shareholders suffered is tough. If the company had gone bankrupt they would have suffered a complete loss.
The bail out results, so far, have been nothing short of excellent. Though not perfect. Any business would be proud of results like this, and any investor would be happy as well. That the govenrments that invested have had a return beyond the contribution to the economy is a plus.
By the way, the Ontario govenrment is considering holding on to its remaining shares in Chrysler because they expect the shares will increase in value substantially over the next few years. If you were smart you might reconsider your "buy/sell" position on the stock (When stocks are again issued.)
source for claims: http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2011/0 ... ntrol.html

rickyp wrote:steve

There was this little thing called 9-11 that took just a bit out of the economy

Streve, the fact remains that the unemployment rate was 4.2% when Bush took office and never reached that level again despite his tax cuts.

Since you seem to place great emphais on the economic hit that 9/11 caused (But provide evidence only by showing the stock market reaction, which went up again shortly after the news article you quote was wrtitten.,...) Do you also you acknowledge that the economic hole that Obama inhereited was the cause of the deficit woes and horrid economy you complain about ...

If the Bush tax cuts didn't positively affect the employment levels that he inherited (4.2%) and you want to offer the complication of the 9/11 attacks as explanation why are you so unwilling to understand that the recovery from the vastly worse economic crater of 08? Oh, I know.

First, Richard, you fail to account for the dot-com burst--or any other economic event. Again, do tax rates alone determine unemployment? If not, stop pretending that they do.

Are you so DUMB that you believe the Bush tax cuts created the problem? Seriously, what is wrong with you? Read anything about the dot-com bubble and then tell me that the January 2001 unemployment rate was sustainable.

Are you going to hold Obama to the 4.2% unemployment bar? How about his promise that his brilliantly designed stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%? In formulating your answer, I ask that you include in it the fact that Obama is the smartest man to ever be President and everything he does is "unprecedented."

Thank you.

The "crater" of '08 was not caused by tax rates. If you believe it was, please say so. However, based on your other posts, you say it was a lack of regulation.

Beyond that, your buffoonish attempts to pin the problem on Bush ignore one salient fact: Democrats, as I've noted REPEATEDLY, just extended the Bush tax rates. Why did they do this, since it's so economically deleterious?

If you will not answer this question, STOP posting.

Obama inherited a rough economy--a hole as it were. So, what did he do? Dug deeper.

Again, if President Obama is doing such a great job, he can run on his record without smearing his opponent, right? Will you stipulate to that?

If all the Bush cuts had never been passed, would Obama be balancing the budget?

You are demagoguing. He has no plan. You know it, so you keep going to the "But Bush" card.

Obama is leading from behind. You're in his back pocket.

rickyp wrote:steve

Furthermore, we don't know what the long-term health is for either company. However, if Obama doesn't get reelected, I would not want to own stock in either.

You know that Fiat owns most of Chrysler right? And that they are expected to own the majority by the end of the year? And that they may offer public shares, which you won't buy, shortly after... (Explain to me again how the unions have taken over....maybe quoting a source other than the Washington Times from 3 years ago.
By the way, you know what shareholders of a bankrupt company own? Nothing.
(I have shares in a company like that...)
The deal to save GM and Chrysler has turned out marvellously for the US economy, for hundreds of thousands employed in the automobile manufacturing. That the original shareholders suffered is tough. If the company had gone bankrupt they would have suffered a complete loss.
The bail out results, so far, have been nothing short of excellent. Though not perfect. Any business would be proud of results like this, and any investor would be happy as well. That the govenrments that invested have had a return beyond the contribution to the economy is a plus.
By the way, the Ontario govenrment is considering holding on to its remaining shares in Chrysler because they expect the shares will increase in value substantially over the next few years. If you were smart you might reconsider your "buy/sell" position on the stock (When stocks are again issued.)
source for claims: http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2011/0 ... ntrol.html

If you believe this, I would encourage you to put all your money in GM and Chrysler. Let's see how that turns out.

You don't believe it. You know the situation is far from resolved. As usual, Richard, you are playing Obamaparrot.

Steve

Do tax rates determine unemployment?

No Steve they don't. But you're the guy who says that tax rates shouldn't go up, (by that you mean the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy I presume since those are the ones I think can be rescinded without a problem) because of the current recession. And I presume one part of your flimsy premise was the potential for stalling employment growth? Since you've just admitted that's not necessarily a factor on employment, lets move on...

Since you've just agreed that tax rates don't always affect employment levels, maybe now you'll also agree that tax rates don't always affect the economic fundamentals.?
You could do that by comparing the economic growth of the US through the 50's 60' 70's and 80s when tax rates were very much higher (as high as 93%, 82% and in the 50%) than currently. And you'll witness that growth was strong and reasonably consistent.
You'll also note that the reciepts of high taxes were used to pay down the accumulated debt.

There is no real chance that continuing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will stimulate the economy Steve. Why? Because it really hasn't so far... because the beneficiaries of those cuts aren't spending OR investing the savings in US industry or business. Part of that is caution because of the state of the economy ....so its self fulfilling.
If the taxes are back on, revenues would increase to the gov't, allowing 1) lower debt 2) continuance of useful programs that are employing people
Either would be good alternatives to continuing the tax cuts and allowing the rich to save.
Lowering the debt would help keep interest rates low, and interest rates often have a bigger factor on business investment decisions (expansion of plants or modernizing equipment) then taxes...

.

steve
Democrats, as I've noted REPEATEDLY, just extended the Bush tax rates. Why did they do this, since it's so economically deleterious?

I'll just point out again Steve, I don't defend democratic policies reflexively. I'm certainly not a Democrat. Nor a particular fan of all things Obama. (His trade policies havn't started to repatir the disatrous trade policies of the last 35 years either.) As a fiscal conservative, I think they made a horrible mistake in not confronting the issue of the tax cuts for the wealthy.
But I think he's a pretty smart guy and he may have timed the confrontation of the issue astutely. .Why? Because the tax cuts will be discussed after months of talking about cuts to services, like privatizing medicare . The juxtaposition will be dramatic.
Especially among older voters where he and the Dems have room to grow their support substantially.

rickyp wrote:But you're the guy who says that tax rates shouldn't go up, (by that you mean the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy I presume since those are the ones I think can be rescinded without a problem) because of the current recession. .

Wait. Isn't the recession over?

You don't know if there will/won't be unintended consequences from raising taxes, do you? The mistake that is often made is that if you raise taxes x% you will necessarily get y return. Your assumption is only true if that money that is taxed was heading for "under the mattress." In other words, if you take money from the private sector, that money doesn't get spent or invested. You don't know what businesses will not open because of your tax increase, who will not get hired, etc.

And I presume one part of your flimsy premise was the potential for stalling employment growth? Since you've just admitted that's not necessarily a factor on employment, lets move on...

Not even close to what I said. YOU have tried to draw a line between the tax rates under Clinton and the low unemployment rate. I don't buy that. I think there is a lot more that goes into it--including predictability. What Obama has done from the beginning is create an investment environment of unpredictability--healthcare, increased regulations and restrictions, poor-mouthing business, etc.

Since you've just agreed that tax rates don't always affect employment levels, maybe now you'll also agree that tax rates don't always affect the economic fundamentals.?

Did not say the former, would not agree with the latter.

You could do that by comparing the economic growth of the US through the 50's 60' 70's and 80s when tax rates were very much higher (as high as 93%, 82% and in the 50%) than currently. And you'll witness that growth was strong and reasonably consistent.
You'll also note that the reciepts of high taxes were used to pay down the accumulated debt.

This is sophomoric and I think you know that.

There is no real chance that continuing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will stimulate the economy Steve. Why? Because it really hasn't so far... because the beneficiaries of those cuts aren't spending OR investing the savings in US industry or business. Part of that is caution because of the state of the economy ....so its self fulfilling.

So, by raising taxes, what will you get? How much money will be raised? The deficit for the current fiscal year is $1.6T. How much will raising taxes get us?

If there's no downside, why didn't Democrats do it just a few months ago? Because the 2% would change elections? Even most Democrats don't believe what you're peddling Richard. Only Socialists.

rickyp wrote:steve
Democrats, as I've noted REPEATEDLY, just extended the Bush tax rates. Why did they do this, since it's so economically deleterious?

Richard, then why call them the Bush tax cuts? Seems to me they should be called "The Obama Tax rates." He signed the bill, didn't he? Wasn't Reid majority leader? Wasn't Pelosi Speaker? So, why blame poor ol' George?

As a fiscal conservative, I think they made a horrible mistake in not confronting the issue of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Is there an emoticon for infinite laughter?

You--a "fiscal conservative?"

I might believe "stand up comic," but not anything with regard to the word "conservative."

Because the tax cuts will be discussed after months of talking about cuts to services, like privatizing medicare . The juxtaposition will be dramatic.

Got it. Brilliant. Obama's going to run around flogging the tax cuts--that Democrats passed and he signed--while promising to bankrupt the country by doing nothing about Medicare?

Obama: "a different kind of leader--the kind who follows." It's a great slogan!

Especially among older voters where he and the Dems have room to grow their support substantially.

In other words, the President and Democrats are going to . . . demagogue.

Wow. Who knew?

Richard, then why call them the Bush tax cuts?

Its a pretty effective label. Its stuck so far.
And I assume he'll campaign on being forced to compromise with republicans during the economic recovery just to get something done. But as the topic comes up anew he'll not compromise this time.
Most voters like people in congress to try and compromise. So, it'll be tough for republicans to stick him with the responsibility for tax cuts for the wealthy unless they somehow turn 180% and start demanding they be rescinded....
(Its called sucking and blowing at the same time)

You--a "fiscal conservative?"

I am. If you go back to the earliest comments I poster on this board you'll note I predicted the US about to hit a wall due to high deficits, high trade deficits and the exporting of jobs. I knew nothing about the deregulation of the financial sectors that would blow up, but the other three elements I knew were part of a toxic problem.
Why? Well, in Canada we ran out size deficits for a decade, particularly under Mulroney and our fiscal situation was near disastrous. The Wall Street Journal was calling us a third world country. With 15 years of both spending restraint and surpluses (thanks in part to a robust economy) we wrestled that to the ground. If it weren't for the global recession necessitating deficits in the last few years .... we'd be in an incredibly rosy situation today. And as it is, our economy, thanks to the most conservative bank regulatory regime in the world, is in the best shape of the G8.
But all that's based on the right level of taxation, spending and policies that encourage trade surpluses. (Alright, being energy and resource rich helps a lot.)
But in the end Steve, anyone who calls themselves a fiscal conservative in the States today and didn't argue strenuously against the excesses of George Bush (including his poorly constructed tax cuts) whilst they were happening is just being fashionable. (You defended his policies back when Steve. As you reflexively do, as to you there are only two sides to any issue. . So I'm talking to you.) It's why although I think Ron Paul is a bit daft, at least I respect his consistency. He argued all through Bushes tenure about the deficits and spending. Not many republicans were with him.

OBama's solutions on Medicare aren't great Steve. I agree. But then I think more radical fixes are required then is possible in the political environment of your nation. He will use the issue of Medicare to great advantage though. republicans are stuck defending the Ryan recommendations and they seem scary to many, and to the republican core the necessitates of making it work (cost control mechanisms, are ideological anathema. Its going to be a good issue for Obama.(Again, not because he has brilliant policies himself, but because the electorate will trust him more than Paul Ryan's "vouchers".. And they don't have to trust him out right, just more than whoever runs against him with Ryan's plan anchored to him or her.

And I assume he'll campaign on being forced to compromise with republicans...

Why was he "forced to compromise"?
The democrats had a majority and could pass anything they wanted, Obama could have followed through on his campaign promise without care to what Republicans said. He probably will campaign on such nonsense and will probably get away with it, but when we have people like you who refuse to acknowledge reality and support Obama regardless of what he does, regardless of the many promises broken, how are things going to "change"?

Just a couple of points about the car discussion: 1) The unions gave serious concessions that wiped out a large liability on GM's balance sheet, and in return they got a piece of the company. They did do better than bond and shareholders, but its not like they got something for nothing. 2) GM's long-term debt is now just 10% of Ford's (10 bil vs 100 bil.) That's a major competitive advantage. 3) Culturally, GM still has serious problems, but their balance sheet and their product line is much better than it has been in two generations. That is all. Excuse the interruption.

tom

Why was he "forced to compromise"?

I seem to remember procedural delays like filibusters no? (Or threats thereof). The repuiblicans certainly inundated the air waves with "no new taxes"...no?
Now, he could have gone full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes, .... but the public wanted a resolution that wouldn't have been arrived at in that situation.
And in the end, his position is likely to be," look we compromised on this once. It hasn't helped. We need the revenue. Its only fair that the rates return and that the revenue be used to attack deficits and needs like Medicare."
Explain for me, what the response to this position will be? Squabbling over whether or not he really needed to compormise last time, hardly seems like an effective communication in an election year. I*'m sure that the hard core Republicans will eat up that kind of nit picking....but not Independents or seniors really concerned about Medicare.

Ricky:

As a fiscal conservative, I think they made a horrible mistake in not confronting the issue of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

Ricky has mentioned this before, and I meant to respond. Perhaps this is true in a narrow sense. Ricky is saying that we should balance our books (over the economic cycle) and not waste money.

But to most people fiscal conservatism also means low taxes and low government spending. Fiscal conservatism isn't mutually exclusive with Keynesian, but there's not a lot of overlap. Also to be a true fiscal conservative, you have to approach government solutions to problems very conservatively. There's a general view that the government cure will be worse than the capitalist disease. But on issue after issue, Ricky is in favor of government involvement. Whether it is pollution or trade policy or education policy or energy policy or income inequality, or housing policy, or regulation of financial markets, etc. Ricky believes that government can play a productive and proactive role. That's not a criticism; I sometimes agree, and sometimes do not.

So, as a political label, I don't think that the fiscal conservative label is accurate.

rickyp wrote:

Richard, then why call them the Bush tax cuts?

Its a pretty effective label. Its stuck so far.

But, blaming Bush for what Democrats did--is that honest?

Btw, I've heard that repealing these tax cuts on the rich would yield $80B. So, let's see . . . just another $1.52T to go!

And I assume he'll campaign on being forced to compromise with republicans during the economic recovery just to get something done. But as the topic comes up anew he'll not compromise this time.
Most voters like people in congress to try and compromise. So, it'll be tough for republicans to stick him with the responsibility for tax cuts for the wealthy unless they somehow turn 180% and start demanding they be rescinded....
(Its called sucking and blowing at the same time)

Do you know when the extensions expire?

(Hint: it's after the next election)

So, that's really not going to work as an issue--if the Republican has a clue.

Obama: "I'll repeal tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans."

Republican: "Didn't you, and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate, extend those cuts in December 2008?"

Thank you. Come again.

rickyp wrote:

Richard, then why call them the Bush tax cuts?

Its a pretty effective label. Its stuck so far.

"Because he signed the bill that implemented them having backed it's progress through Congress", would be a better answer. Steve seems to think that undoing something is the same as doing it, which isn't actually the case.

Btw, I've heard that repealing these tax cuts on the rich would yield $80B. So, let's see . . . just another $1.52T to go!

You slagged off the ending of tax breaks for industry that would reduce the deficit by about $2-3bn a year, and now against a tax rise (or reversion) that would reduce it by about $80bn a year. But they are still reductions in the deficit. We could easily pick items in the Ryan plan and complain that they are but a drop in the ocean, couldn't we?

But hey, don't let the fact that you are attacking the Dems for their 'demagoguery' distract you from your... oh.

As for your putative Q&A, the answer could well be "Yes, but then we were in recession and increases in tax could have affected the recovery. Now that we are recovering, and the rich are making more than they were before, it's time for them to help pay the bills"

As for whether the Republican candidate will have a clue, the Primaries haven't started yet. It remains to be seen whether the clued up are able to defeat the clueless.

danivon wrote:"Because he signed the bill that implemented them having backed it's progress through Congress", would be a better answer. Steve seems to think that undoing something is the same as doing it, which isn't actually the case..

Right, except Obama didn't undo them or fail to repeal them. He actually signed a law that prevented them from sunsetting (expiring), as they would have. So, they are every bit his responsibility. They are the Obama Tax Cuts.

Btw, what legislation has he/Democrats in Congress proposed to raise taxes?

We could easily pick items in the Ryan plan and complain that they are but a drop in the ocean, couldn't we?

You could, but it would be so typically disingenuous of you.

Ryan has actually put forth a budget. The House passed it.

President Obama has put forth a budget. It was defeated in the Senate, 97-0. Before this vote, he put forth a "plan" that could have fit on the backside of a napkin--no details fleshing it out have yet been put forth.

The Democratically-controlled Senate has voted "no" on two budgets (Ryan's and the President's). They have yet to cobble together a budget--in over two years.

What Democrats have done is defend the status quo--they want to keep spending as if it doesn't matter and don't seem to want to be constrained by a budget (no matter what the Constitution says). So, that they have found a couple of tax increases they like doesn't mean they have a plan.

They don't.

But hey, don't let the fact that you are attacking the Dems for their 'demagoguery' distract you from your... oh.

You don't understand the word. I'm not changing what they're saying. I am simply looking at the record--no budget from the Senate in more than two years. No budget from the President that he supports (he submitted one, then undercut it with new proposals after Ryan's plan was released).

Please explain what the Democrats' budget proposal is and you will have me on the charge of "demagoguery." Until then, you've got exactly what they've got--nothing.

As for your putative Q&A, the answer could well be "Yes, but then we were in recession and increases in tax could have affected the recovery. Now that we are recovering, and the rich are making more than they were before, it's time for them to help pay the bills"

Uh-huh. Recovery? Let's see:

Consumer confidence--down 6 points.

Housing values? Lowest in 5 years.

Private sector hiring last month? 39,000.

Growth of GDP? 1.8%

Oh yeah, it's a BOOM!

As for whether the Republican candidate will have a clue, the Primaries haven't started yet. It remains to be seen whether the clued up are able to defeat the clueless

One thing is known: the President is clueless. He has no idea what he is doing. If some things turn out right (killing UBL), well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.