Friday, December 12, 2008

Troll bait - auto bailout edition

Here you go, trolls. Your very own free speech zone. Aren't you lucky? Can't say we never gave you anything.


Seven of Six said...

Damn... you got me!!

iamcoyote said...

Get it? Bait. Fishing troll?

Man, I crack myself up!

Anjha said...


Is that Muck in the picture?

iamcoyote said...

It's anyone who wants to troll!

muckdog said...

Looks like Bush is telling Paulson, or demanding, to use the TARP money to postpone the bankruptcy off GM to the next administration.

Reading about Ford. They are in better shape than GM.

Seven of Six said...

GM just temporarily closed down 21 plants. I guess it's one way to survive until Obama comes into office.

Better than a strike... just a long unpaid vacation. At least some can file for unemployment or use vacation/sick days to survive.
Those unemployment numbers are going to be staggering in December, January, February... hell, the rest of the year.

Seven of Six said...

This is really impolite and plain fucking rude.
Sorry, We’re Booked, White House Tells Obamas.

The White House has turned down a request from the family of President-elect Barack Obama to move into Blair House in early January so that his daughters can start school on January 5.

The Obamas were told that Blair House, where incoming presidents usually stay in the five days before Inauguration Day, is booked in early January, a spokesperson to the Obama transition said. “We explored the idea so that the girls could start school on schedule,’ the spokesperson said. “But, there were previously scheduled events and guests that couldn’t be displaced.”

It remained unclear who on Bushes guest list outranked the incoming President.

muckdog said...

Seven, what is peter schiff saying? I've missed bulls and bears the past few...

Seven of Six said...

Here is what Schiff is saying...

Some pretty tough medicine.

I think if the government can alleviate some of the "legacy" costs it will take a heavy burden off GM. Then fire GM's management, immediately, start over.

muckdog said...

Thanks. He has had the hot hand. A decline in living standards, eh?

I think a bailout is likely over the weekend so I bought a bunch of GM today. Quick flip Monday if it works. A loss if it doesn't. LOL.

Seven of Six said...

A decline in living standards, eh?

That's what I don't get, I guess he see's Union folks at 17 bucks an hour. Of course by that time we will have min. wage at 14 bucks an hour. But if everyone had healthcare it might be a decent trade off.

CEO's back to only 25 million a year? In reality, no one is worth more than a million.

Judith said...

Yeah Seven of Six. I read that story about the Obamas not being able to move into the Blair House. I think it is meant to be a slap by Bush, showing a total lack of civility and rudeness. I sure would like to know who out ranks the President-Elect of this Country.

Judith said...

Maybe Jeffrey is getting one last shot at the frat boy.

muckdog said...

It's what some financial guy once called "the hubcap theory."

If you have one guy in Detroit willing to make hubcaps at $35 an hour, and another in Malaysia willing to make hubcaps for $5 an hour, where will the jobs go? No set of man-made laws will stop simple economics.

It's the growth of entitlements that is causing all of the debt. Lots of troops overseas doesn't help, either. Neither do the government regulations. Did you see the climate change boondoggle signed in CA the other day? Estimated to cost businesses about $25B. Yikes.

Yes, that was the sound of moving vans firing up to take even more businesses out of CA. Fantastic. I guess the good news is that if the only jobs in CA are the ones out picking pears and strawberries, maybe the air quality will improve. Well, they do burn the the rice straw.

More good news for the Asian tiger countries, though. More US jobs are headed their way while we fight the global warming hoax.

Seven of Six said...

Did you see the climate change boondoggle signed in CA the other day? Estimated to cost businesses about $25B.

Provide me some links, I'd like to read up on it.
You know it's needed. And it will probably provide a lot of much needed jobs.

No global warming hoax muck, and you know it. Stop being silly.

Have you heard the incoming "Energy Secretary" Dr. Chu... smart dude... has some dire warnings about displaced coastal populations that will put a global strain on everyone and every resource.

Muck, You really should hear Thom Hartmann's reasoning for the failure of the United States economic position in the world.
It's towards the end of the You-Tube clip, the first part is about Union busting. Tell me what you think.

Seven of Six said...

What's your opinion of Bernard Madoff's 50 Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme! Former head of NASDAQ!

muckdog said...

I just clicked the link to your YOUTUBE.

Here is climate change agenda not science link.

muckdog said...

Thom Hartmann's comments about losing millions of jobs if US automakers shut down is wrong on multiple levels.

First, US demand for cars would still exist. Somebody would have to make the cars that are no longer produced by The Big Three. So Toyota, Honda, and Nissan would build more cars and need those workers.

Next, Chapter 11 is "reorganization" not "liquidation." So the Big Three would continue to exist anyways.

Three, the Big Three are already laying folks off now as I type as they try to reorganize outside of Chapter 11. I don't think that'll succeed long term, but it may be enough to get them into 2009.

And he bashed Reaganomics, which has nothing to do with where we find ourselves. We pay more in total taxes now than we did at the end of the Carter administration. Reagan also raised taxes, raised the payroll tax, and elimated tons of tax write-offs and loopholes. Reagan also demanded that government spending be cut, and that never happened.

And George Bush was a liberal president when it came to the budget. He and the GOP congress spent money like drunken sailors on shore leave. Exactly the opposite of what the GOP promised for the past few decades. They said they were the party of smaller government. Pffft. Liars.

We're nowhere near Reaganomics here in 2008.

muckdog said...

The story around Bernard Madoff is extremely maddening. I don't know how he thought he'd get away with a scam like that. You have to feel with the people who threw money in his direction.

I don't buy mutual funds or use a financial guru. Those guys don't know any more than anyone else. Have you ever met these financial "wizards?" Good grief. It's like talking to an expert on sports betting. They tend to be smooth talkers with a big-school background. I don't think they're smarter than anyone else, though.

I just started learning it on my own early on. I tend to beat the SP500 every year. Maybe not this year, unless the rally lasts through the end of the year.

Worst case scenaro is that I scam myself out of money. LOL.

muckdog said...

More on Bernie Madoff.

And an SNL skit. LOL.

Seven of Six said...

Muck, What you don't deny is that it is a coherent effort to bust Unions.

Mostly though I have to disagree about your position on Reaganomics.

Hartmann states, (paraphrase): "We were the largest exporter of manufactured goods, importer of raw materials and the largest creditor nation in the world. Now, we import the largest number of manufactured goods, export the largest amount of raw materials and are the largest debtor nation in the world. And it's all because of Reaganomics."

He is basically saying we have ended up in this shithole because of what Reagan started... how can you argue with that?

muckdog said...

I don't think Hartmann understands what he's talking about. Notice in the video how he always shifts his eyes from the camera. He doesn't know. He's just spouting an opinion. A wrong one at that.

It's very expensive to do business here. Taxes and labor. We have a high corporate tax rate. We have high labor costs. So it's cheaper to make goods overseas and ship them over here. What does Reaganomics have to do with that?

The other scapegoat is free trade, but if you ban free trade then it's depression time. And if you blame free trade, then you have to blame... Bill Clinton for NAFTA and GATT! Yowch!

We're spending a ton on entitlement programs and the military. That's the problem.

Reagan was right. We need to cut spending so that we're not borrowing money from other nations, and cut taxes to encourage businesses to stay here.

Unfortunately, Reagan was unable to cut spending. I think it's impossible. You can't get elected cutting spending. So we'll eventually go under.

Peter Schiff is right about that.

muckdog said...

I don't know if there is an effort to bust up the UAW. The reality is that these companies are losing billions a month. They can't print their own currency, and now it's nearly impossible for them to issue bonds in this credit market with their business model.

Seven of Six said...

You know the best corporations are the ones not paying taxes. Who are you trying to kid... it's the crazy schemes that prevent the government from collecting coporate taxes. SF Chronicle post:

About two-thirds of U.S. companies and foreign firms doing business in this country paid no federal income taxes from 1998 to 2005, according to a study by the Government Accountability Office. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., called the report "a shocking indictment of the current tax system."

To be sure, many of the nonpayers were small or new companies that probably made no money. But the report said that about a quarter of large corporations - ones that had more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts - paid no taxes. In 2005, for instance, 3,565 large U.S. companies and 998 large foreign-owned companies operating here did not pay any income taxes.

There are numerous legal ways a corporation can duck taxes. The most obvious one: If you don't make money, you don't have to pay taxes. Companies also can write off previous years' losses, get tax exemptions for a plethora of expenses, use R&D credits, even wipe out tax liability when their employees exercise stock options.

But corporations can do a lot of creative accounting to "lose" money - and sometimes that can cross the line.

One such practice identified by the report is "transfer pricing abuse." Essentially, that means shuffling money among corporate subsidiaries by charging pumped-up fees for goods and services instead of market-rate "arms-length" prices.

Adam Hughes, director of federal fiscal policy at OMB Watch, a nonpartisan government accountability watchdog, explained how transfer pricing works.

"A company will incorporate offshore where there are no taxes," he said. "That (parent) company charges the U.S. company lots of money for things like the trademark for the company logo. The U.S. company says, 'I made $50 million, but my stupid parent company charged me $50 million for the logo.' The U.S. company gets to deduct the royalty fees as an expense and move profits to the parent company offshore in a tax-free haven."

From a liberal blogger:

What is ignored in this discussion, though, is the myth that these businesses are being appropriately taxed for the services they receive and the benefits they provide. Why are so many frivolous, privileged, elitist, self-serving, restricted costs exempt from taxation the cost of corporate jets, lawyers and lawsuits, stock buy-backs, corporate travel, country club memberships, limousine services for executives, healthcare costs, pensions, profit-sharing, and the sometimes ludicrous and alarming costs of advertising? As most economic theories will attest, the less you tax something, the more of it you will usually get. Are these really the kind of expenditures we want to get more of, or would we like to see them decreased?

What should actually happen is for items of this type to become AFTER tax expenses which would mean that stockholders, not taxpayers, would be paying for them. This would make stockholders insist on LOWERING these costs to increase dividends instead of the current way in which corporate executives INCREASE them to reduce their taxable obligations.

It's the avoidance of paying taxes by corporations and wealthy individuals for services that should, very reasonably, be taxed that is at the heart of the taxation delusion. Many wealthy individuals have things provided for them by the corporations or businesses who employ them that are neither taxed nor recognized as income. Country club memberships, corporate credit cards, investment or legal advice, the lease of an expensive automobile or limousine, low or no-interest loans, stock options, deferred compensation accounts, rented homes or other living accommodations, corporate yachts, ski lodges, exclusive tickets to theater performances, the opera, or sporting events, hunting clubs, and even paid assistants as chauffeurs, maids, chefs, nannies, dog and horse groomers, and landscapers which are lavishly provided to executives of many corporations with no tax obligations accruing to either the corporation who writes them off as operating expenses or the individual who is not required to account for them as income. This kind of corporate largesse is more than a gratuity, it is a major part of our taxation deficiency!

This is not to say that these privileges should be disallowed, it is merely to say that they should be taxed. If the corporations want to provide them to executives, then make them an AFTER tax expense, don't allow them to be treated as BEFORE tax expenses. On the other hand, if they are for individual services, they should be accounted for as individual income. In this way, stockholders will monitor and approve executive compensation more closely, or individuals will not receive these perks without claiming them as income.

Let's at least be FAIR about who pays taxes, and recognize that PRICES are really the culprit in dwindling household budgets."

Anjha said...

Muck - you really aren't that stupid, are you?

I always thought that the stupid talking points that you post are just part of your stchick. You cannot really believe this crap can you? No one is that stupid (except, I guess, the 46% of our population that voted Republican in this last presidential election - OY.)