President Obama forces GM boss Rick Wagoner to step down

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Rex_B, Mar 29, 2009.

  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    No one does. Nationalization would have these employees working for the government, which they do not. But they can't just take public dollars without public scrutiny, nor can they simply operate business as usual without restructuring. Bankruptcy would have treated them far worse.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Why not? Medicare providers have been doing it for years.

    AIG has had intense scrutiny, yet the public and Congressional mindset seems to be that if you got Fed money then you suck. AIG continues to sell off assets and is turning over the money to the government ($1Billion just yesterday). Yet the only coverage is for a spa retreat (which AIG didn't pay for) and bonuses which were actually compensation contractually owed. Nobody cares about remediation efforts. Everybody wants their pound of flesh even though it amounts to cutting off the nose to spite the face.
     
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    And are they not scrutinized? Waste and fraud exists for sure, but they DO operate under federal guidelines if they expect to get federal money.

    Stop being so defensive, this isn't about AIG, it's about GM.
     
  4. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    And that's what we are worried about.

    Wouldn't you be? It's more like being shell-shocked.
     
  5. Deceks7

    Deceks7 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    Messages:
    4,422
    Likes Received:
    539
    Are you suggesting there is less waste and fraud in programs that operate and\or are funded under federal guidelines than those supported by private entities?
     
  6. LSUAthletics

    LSUAthletics Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    49
    So we agree? The gap between the rich and the middle class will always increase. I asked luvdimtigers under what circumstance would the gap not grow when he proposed this question: "How do you explain the growing gap between the very rich and the middle class?" Still waiting for his answer.

    Investing in stocks in not necessary for the rich to survive. If you reduce their reward potential then they are not going to invest as much. By raising the capital gains tax you are reducing the reward.

    Of course not. People invest to make a profit. They will strive for the best investment instrument they believe will maximize profit after taxes.


    You are concerned with inequality which is noble. However, I believe we should be more concerned with the effects tax policies have on the overall economy. If you strive for your interpretation (or politicians) of equality at the detriment of the overall economy you are hurting the very people you're trying to help.

    Should we shoot for so called proportional tax rates even if it means hurting the overall economy? That should be the question.
     
    2 people like this.
  7. mobius481

    mobius481 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,731
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Just felt this was worth repeating. Nicely said.
     
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I'm saying that there is oversight and guidelines. There are spending caps to help prevent those $40 box of kleenex charges. There are approved procedures to help prevent surgeons from choosing surgery as a first option before medicine treatments are considered. Most procedures are covered, but they try to make them as reasonably priced as possible.

    The waste and fraud happens under both medicare and private insurance. It comes from hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical and medical suppliers. Prescription of unneeded services and and drugs, approval of unneeded procedures, overcharging, and other fraudulent practices go on all of the time.

    They prescribed my terminally ill mother a computerized, metalflake-painted, motorized, wheelchair! She didn't ask for it, she didn't need it, and she couldn't operate it very well by herself. She had 24-hour care, so she always had someone to help her, so an ordinary $400 wheelchair would have sufficed for the short time she had left.

    I think the rehabilitation doctor collaborated with the wheelchair provider for this to happen. They didn't even ask us. We were told a wheelchair was coming and that was what it was. They knew she had medicare and private insurance and money.

    It ain't that sophisticated a device, but guess what? The company that sells it lists its price as $15,675! You could buy a Harley-Davidson or an economy car for that! Medicare values it at $8,200 so the wheelchair company takes a paper loss on their taxes. Medicare will pay 80%, leaving $1,700 for her private insurance policy to pay. They actually paid $1,100 bucks and Mom got billed for $600 about a week before she died. Now I am stuck with a like-new, left-handed Star Wars wheelchair to deal with.

    I guarantee that the chair costs no more than $1,000 to construct and should retail for about $2,500. The medical industry is used to making huge markups from insurance and medicare and it needs to be regulated better. We got no choice of chairs or chair companies, no competitive bids or anything.

    The doctor wrote the prescription, so Medicare will cover it, so the wheelchair company hoses medicare for too many bucks and leaves patients with very large co-payments.
     
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    It will increase under present circumstances. It is not a certainty that this will always be the case and has not always been the case. There are other variables besides the tax rate and if they change the situation can change.

    You assume too much. The wealthy investor of whom I speak lives on his investments and can no more stop investing than an airline pilot could stop his engines and glide. The consequences are a sharp and steep decline.

    I say we are reducing the unearned bonus, The reward is the much greater profits that they earned.

    Yes, people do. But, it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that one man's ability to take advantage of the system doesn't leave others with a larger share of their stake to pay.

    They are not mutually exclusive concerns. There is a balance point to be found between those who earn by investing and those who earn by working. Discontent on either side fades when there is balance.

    Equality is inherent in our Constitution, why do you abandon it in such a cavalier fashion? But I don't advocate equality here, only balance. The people I'm trying to help is everyone collectively.

    Conservatives have developed an "every man for himself" philosophy even if it results in a large, poor criminal underclass among us. Liberals have adopted an "every man a king" philosophy even if it results in everyone having to conform to the lowest common denominator like clones. Moderates have an "We're all in this together" philosophy and seek a balance, even if it means taking some positions on both sides of center to find some common ground. I seek balance . . . This country works best the way it was in the 19th and 20th centuries--a huge middle class and very few wealthy and very few poor. All national policies should favor the middle class.

    The first question is "Does it actually hurt the economy". I don't think it does.
     
  10. mobius481

    mobius481 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,731
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Not a bad statement until you factor in the context. You have to be kidding right? Yes equal opportunity is inherent in our constitution. Current tax laws are equal among all socio economic categories. No matter how rich or poor you are, if you make a 400k salary and 200k in LTCG you will be taxed the same. But to turn this into an argument against LSUA's position against narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor then you are taking the constitution out of context and you know it. This is stooping mighty low, even for you.

    There you go again, claiming to be a moderate.:hihi:

    To answer your question, yes it does hurt the economy. Taxing capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income hurts the economy as a whole. The graph shown previously in this thread supports this and the fact that TCO even believes the highest he would ever put on capital gains is 28% and now he's even talking about changing the law to max tax on cg at 20% should tell you something. The idea that LTCG should be taxed at the same level as ordinary income is antiquated and contrary to empirical data. Can I prove that? No, but you can't prove it is untrue. We can only focus on the data and make our best guess from that.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page