To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.

Discussion:GM: Lies and Darned Lies

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> General Chat --> GM: Lies and Darned Lies


CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

30 March 2009
The Drudge Report leads with GM: Government Motors. The Wall Street Journal leads with "massive government interference."

Hmmm. Now let me see. Five or six months ago, did Uncle Sam go out looking to meddle in GM or Chrysler? I don't think so. I seem to remember GM, Chrysler and Ford coming with hat in hand and begging for Uncle Sam to help them. Did they expect this help (our dollars) to come with no strings attached? And Obama is to be blamed for this? Bull.

Rgtaxservice (talk|edits) said:

30 March 2009
Let them go under!! These company shareholders have to learn that the BIG $$$$$ the company's pay for high priced executives isn't worth it. Heck, I'd be willing to drive GM into the ground for only $5 million a year...without any stock options.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 30, 2009
But how much biz will our government buy? We own Amtrack, kind of own the Post Office (no one's real clear on that), now own much of the big banks, a car company (how do you suspect Ford feels now competing against the US govt?), some investment houses, insurance companies....I just saw a Viet vet who fought like hell AGAINST this kind of stuff. I know there are no simple answers, and I'm way too compassionate to just stand and watch people go over the cliff. But buying up these companies? How do we unwind any of that in ten years when we realize we made a huge mistake?

Joanmcq (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2009
I already offerred to drive any company into the ground for 2 million a year. A bargain, I say.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2009
What I can't stomach is the claim that government is interfering with business. I don't remember government initiating this. I remember these companies sticking their hands out for our coins.

All the parties, including the unions, would probably be better if the auto companies went Ch. 11. I mean, people fly airlines that are in Ch. 11, they will buy the cars if the warranties are honored.

One nuance on the VIET vet JR1, he was a pawn in the middle of this stuff decades ago. Who won the Vietnam war? The defense contractors, that's who. They were the only winners $$. War as corporate welfare, just as Eisenhower predicted (warning of the danger posed by the military-industrial complex).

For the life of me, I can't understand why Obama hasn't gotten rid of these banking CEO's who beached the entire economy on the rocks. I can only conclude that their campaign contributions exceeded the contribuations of the auto makers.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2009
why does the government think they need to honor the car warranties?

Will they honor the warranty on my DVD player?

Actionbsns (talk|edits) said:

31 March 2009
Kevin, I think the answer to your question is so they can sell more cars. If they sell more cars, the economy should grow, lending will become more liberal - it's a sign that things are improving. Now if they WOULD honor the warranty on the DVD player, I would be one happy camper because then I wouldn't have to listen to my husband complain about yet another one being a piece of garbage (he doesn't use quite such a nice word). He can fix the car, but not the DVD thing.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

March 31, 2009
Glad I'm not a Ford shareholder.

Crow, the reason they're playing nicer with the banks is that the banks' problems were started by Congress requiring the writing of crappy mortgages to help the unfortunate. I like helping the unfortunate, too...as you know, but I'm not sure that putting folks into houses that they couldn't afford was the best thing to do. Of course, then greed entered in and here we are.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2009
I agree, you can't make loans to people who don't have the money to repay them, and if the Democrats are at fault for that, they should be exposed for it.

One problem I have though is that this got way, way out of hand. For instance, another root of this problem is that the banks were able to legally separate themselves from the liability of the mortgage brokers. (Hear no evil, see no evil).

The mortgage brokers then went and pushed many people into subprime loans who qualified for standard underwriting. Why? The interest income stream was greater down line as they broke the loan up into derivatives, and the broker got a higher commission for the subprime loan. A recipe for disaster.

If I was king, there would be no regulation of mortgage brokers because there would be no mortgage brokers, period. You'd get your loan from BANK (S&L, credit union, whatever) like in the old days. A bank officer would sign off on the loan, and if any funny business occured, the borrower could sue the bank for fraud.

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

April 1, 2009
We cry out for some real leadership. Did you catch Daniel Hannan's speech in Parliament? Wow.

Joanmcq (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2009
Congress didn't require the writing of crappy mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. The push was against 'redlineing' whole neighborhoods where you couldn't get a loan whatever your credit, or pushing minorities automatically into subprime crap when their credit was good. This morphed into the deregulation that spawned this mess, especially the dichotomy between the broker/bank/investor. The broker was compensated highest for writing the highest cost loan he could get the buyer to sign without any risk, the bank wasn't at risk since they sold the paper. So its dumped on the investor who relied on the rating agency and so on and so on.

TexCPA (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2009
why does the government think they need to honor the car warranties? Made in america

Will they honor the warranty on my DVD player? No, Made in chaina

this guy scares me [[1]]

and of course i politely rub a different way....

What I can't stomach is the claim that government is interfering with business...

watch..Inside the Meltdown [[2]],

Government has and will always 'interfere'.

TexCPA 23:33, 31 March 2009 (CDT)

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2009
I don't know Tex, don't you think the regulators and the business class had gotten a little too chummy before the bubble burst? I mean, that whistleblower laid the entire Madoff case out for the SEC like in 2001, and they said "we'll get back to you"? I still think there must have been criminal activity inside the SEC... was Madoff paying someone off?

Just please, please don't mention Obama's name around a smoker today. This even effects me as I like an occassional chaw of plug tobacco when I plow my vegetable garden:

"After midnight Tuesday the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes jumped from 39 cents to a dollar and from two cents to 50 cents for small cigars. The tax on loose cigarette tobacco skyrocketed from $1.98 a pound to $24.78, potentially wiping out the market for roll-your-own cigarette smokers.

The tax hikes are intended to pay for expanded health care for children.

At Discount Smoke & Tobacco in Smyrna, some customers are already revolting.

“Oh they’re raising hell,” said store manager Sam Merchant. “They’re saying Obama go to hell. One guy wanted to protest in front of my store.”

President Obama, himself a cigarette smoker struggling to quit, in February signed the legislation raising tobacco taxes to fund the State Children’s Health Insurance Program." Fair use from the AJC.

Rgtaxservice (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2009
Crow, as a smoker myself, its starting to feel like we've become 2nd class citizens.

Regardless of the intended use of the tax, I've always felt that the tobacco tax should be used solely for the benefit of smokers. This tax should be used to fund iron lungs and respirators for smokers.

Here in PA, smoking is prohibited in most bars to appease those affected by second hand smoke. Yet no one seems to care about those of us affected by first hand smoke...except to tax us. I was salmon fishing in upstate NY a few years ago. NY has had a public smoking ban for years. There I was standing outside the bar smoking and watching the footgame through a window in the pouring rain. I was drenched. To my amazement, I glaze through the window to see a woman walk into the bar with a dog under her arm.

What's wrong with that picture? I'm on the outside looking in - soaked, while Fluffy gets to belly up to the bar.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2009
A man goes to a bar with his dog. He goes up to the bar and asks for a drink. The bartender says "You can't bring that dog in here!" The guy, without missing a beat, says "This is my seeing-eye dog." "Oh man, " the bartender says, "I'm sorry, here, the first one's on me." The man takes his drink and goes to a table near the door.

Another guy walks in the bar with a Chihuahua. The first guys sees him, stops him and says "You can't bring that dog in here unless you tell him it's a seeing-eye dog." The second man graciously thanks the first man and continues to the bar. He asks for a drink. The bartender says "Hey, you can't bring that dog in here!"

The second man replies "This is my seeing-eye dog." The bartender says, "No, I don't think so. They do not have Chihuahuas as seeing-eye dogs." The man pauses for a half-second and replies "What?!?! They gave me a Chihuahua?!?"

Deback (talk|edits) said:

April 1, 2009
"the federal tax on a pack of cigarettes jumped from 39 cents to a dollar"

So much for 95% of workers NOT paying a dime more in tax!

TexCPA (talk|edits) said:

1 April 2009
Crow, I agree, that's why the politicians on both sides dropped the ball and my concerns with barney frank,

[[3]]

TexCPA 11:23, 1 April 2009 (CDT)

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools