The Economy: What Would You Do?

[Bill Greenwood]

Cap, as I wrote, this past year as well as the last eight have been under the Bush tax rates and lower on corporations. If Exxon did not make a profit in the US, this was done under the lower rates, not Obama's proposed rates, so as I wrote those lower rates must not be too important and any guarantee.

As for Exxon not making a profit in the US,, I'd like to see details on that. No corp is in a 100% tax bracket, there is always going to be some margin left.

Much of what else you wrote is more than I can get into. However, two points. .You blame much of the mortgage market on a Clinton act 11 years ago. If it was so bad for all but two of the years the Bush republicans controlled Congress why wasn't it fixed? Even more, I have read that the vast majority of problem loans were not the ones made under some low income minority type program. I am not sure on this, but I have read that.

[A2C]

Cap, as I wrote, this past year as well as the last eight have been under the Bush tax rates and lower on corporations. If Exxon did not make a profit in the US, this was done under the lower rates, not Obama's proposed rates, so as I wrote those lower rates much not be too important and any guarantee.

As for Exxon not making a profit in the US,, I'd like to see details on that. No corp is in a 100% tax bracket, there is always going to be some margin left.

Much of what else you wrote is more than I can get into. However, two points. .You blame much of the mortgage market on a Clinton act 11 years ago. If it was so bad for all but two of the years the Bush republicans controlled Congress why wasn't it fixed? Even more, I have read that the vast majority of problem loans were not the ones made under some low income minority type program. I am not sure on this, but I have read that.

Bill, you have interesting things to say here, but it's not really clear to me what you are asking about specifically. Something about Exxon, and I think I already answered your last question with my answer on the chain of events set in place by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

[bdk]

Tthe question is:

WHAT WOULD YOU DO, NOW?

I would annex the Sudatenland... Oh wait! That was already done.

I agree with Tim's points. My wife's company has operations in both the US and China. Guess what? They are moving the majority of their profits to China because the tax rates are lower. Imagine that, Communist China is more business friendly than the US????

Government meddling caused the recent mortgage crisis. How is further government regulation going to fix this? In my view, industries tend towards efficiency as inefficient companies either go out of business or have their market share bought out. Regulations reduce this inherent efficiency. The government creates regulations to ensure "fairness" (whatever that is), and force industries to do things not in their best interest like make high risk loans. Of course politicians justify this by saying it is unfair to minorities so they either twist the arm of the banks to make these loans or they underwrite them. And here we are. Then the same folks that engineered the problem fix it by throwing money at it. The people who really couldn't afford the home to start with still can't afford it, especially now that the layoffs have started, so the money is for nought. It just delays the inevitable and makes the eventual crash that much more painful. Sure the banks and the borrowers share some fault, but the government provided the first pipeful of crack so the dealer could get the junkie hooked.

And to Bill, we got into this problem under a lower tax rate, but how exactly is a higher tax rate going to encourage businesses and the market to swiftly recover? Your "fair" (there's that word again) progessive tax punishes productivity. Obama even admitted as much. Again, as Tim pointed out, the upper echelons of income create the jobs (unless you consider a government three letter word "J.O.B.S." program). Do you think these people just collect money like some collect baseball cards- for the sport? Of course they do! They just can't wait for it to show up though, they have to invest it back into the economy so they can make even more. They also spend some of it on frivolities like Spitfires and Skyraiders (or T-6 parts and hangar rent on a smaller scale). While you and I may swoon over all the good Mother Teresa did in her lifetime, a moderately sized business will positively impact the lives of more people- not just give them a fish, but teach them to fish, teach their kids to fish and so on.

At any rate someone who makes $150,000.00 a year still counts as wealthy/upper middle class in 99% of the country.
I think that someone making that kind of dough can take the hit alot easier than many of the broke mechanics who post on this Forum.

You've obviously never bought a house in California!

With my money, I like to make the decision what I can afford and what I can't. I don't need some pointy headed politician to do it for me under the threat of force. Wasn't there a tea party once over taxation without representation? I'm not sure who they think they are representing, but it shore ain't me!

[A2C]

At any rate someone who makes $150,000.00 a year still counts as wealthy/upper middle class in 99% of the country.
I think that someone making that kind of dough can take the hit alot easier than many of the broke mechanics who post on this Forum.

I must second bdk. That's not the point, the federal government has no right to steal money as bdk says taxation w/o representation. So whether I make 150,000 or 550,000 they need to lower taxes, because my taxes pay for programs we don't need. While hindering my pay or ability to hire more employees. As Bdk said taxation w/o representation.

On the other hand the government only has the particular rights spelled out in the constitution; for the military and some other limited items. It says nowhere in the constitution the following: to spread the wealth, to give to the poor, to create socialism, to pay for bridges to nowhere. Theoretically taxes should be about half of what they are now. All the other spending is probably unconstitutional.

So another contention conservatives have with B.O. he wants to create class envy/warfare, and has made several attempts to promote resentment of the poor towards the rich. He tries to create the solution by punishing the rich by raising taxes. This too is unconstitutional, and I venture to say UnAmerican.

I'm really surprised more people didn't see these blatant shananigans, before voting.

[muddyboots]

You mean you don't have the right to vote or run for office in order to be represented? Man. I must have missed something in civics all those years ago.

[A2C]

Do you mean representation without consent?

[RyanShort1]

2. It is my understanding that the taxes will be raised on the wealthy, those who make over $250,000.00 per year. That means all A&P mechanics don't have to worry about their taxes going up!

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but the A & Ps I know are worried that the folks making more than $250K are going to be finding ways to cut costs or will no longer be able to afford to hire folks like them because of the increased tax burden... especially the "little guys" that can afford a Cessna 182 or King Air or something like that but not a corporate jet. I think it will tend to push our country into more of the Marxist doctrine of bourgeoisie vs. proletariat. It's really quite clear if you study the Marxist style of non-violent initial takeover - which will eventually lead to their pitting the one group vs. the other in order to create a crisis that they can manage...

Oh, and guys, the areas of the country that are losing industry at the steepest rates are the places where unions have had their nice little run. Other places like the state where I live that have the right to work, we may not make as much on paper, but we can still afford a good life, the housing prices are more reasonable, and most of the folks I know still have their jobs.

I do believe that the trickle down effect of the mis-management of this overblown and mis-identified "crisis" will hurt most everyone in the country. But remember, we've gone through tough times before (my grandparents came out of the Great Depression doing fairly well), and if the free market is allowed to operate without restraint, new jobs, new companies, and new entrepreneurs will arise to fill the gaps.

Ryan

[A2C]

Yes Ryan:

Right indeed! as you said here "

I do believe that the trickle down effect of the mis-management of this overblown and mis-identified "crisis" will hurt most everyone in the country.

AKA Tax the rich and give to the poor = trickle-up poverty

[RyanShort1]

One other point. Just to be clear, I did NOT vote for either of the major candidates in the election. I happen to agree with the "other" side on one point. Both the Democrats AND the Republicans have allowed and promoted socialism through government programs, laws, foreign policy, and spending. Frankly, I can't vote for that because that's not what I believe in. I only voted for those candidates that I felt would be responsible. So muddy, Bill, etc... please don't lump me with the "Bush-lover" crowd. I didn't vote for him either time before, and wouldn't vote for him today - unless he gave substantial proof that he would follow the principles I believe are needed for sound government.

Ryan

[A2C]

Hey Ryan:

I think that's what a lot of people have done. I think many people object to this lesser of 2 evils stuff. If we had another Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan things would've been far different.

[RyanShort1]

My personal biggest fear is that we are now to a point, where Marxist-run state education (this is indisputable) has raised a dumbed-down generation (or two or three now) that cannot see Marxism right in front of them, and indeed find it attractive and reasonable. That is what the election of Mr. Obama tells me. The next biggest fear is that other Marxist doctrines (the outworking of which can be seen in other countries that have been successfully taken over by them) besides their economic doctrines will eventually be implemented as well, by people who have "sworn" to uphold the US Constitution - which thankfully still technically stands in their way.

Ryan - signing off for the night

[CAPFlyer]

Cap, as I wrote, this past year as well as the last eight have been under the Bush tax rates and lower on corporations. If Exxon did not make a profit in the US, this was done under the lower rates, not Obama's proposed rates, so as I wrote those lower rates must not be too important and any guarantee.

As for Exxon not making a profit in the US,, I'd like to see details on that. No corp is in a 100% tax bracket, there is always going to be some margin left.

Much of what else you wrote is more than I can get into. However, two points. .You blame much of the mortgage market on a Clinton act 11 years ago. If it was so bad for all but two of the years the Bush republicans controlled Congress why wasn't it fixed? Even more, I have read that the vast majority of problem loans were not the ones made under some low income minority type program. I am not sure on this, but I have read that.

Bill - on ExxonMobil you can see it yourself - http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Fil ... gs3q08.pdf. Specifically, read page 6 & 7 and then view the chart on page 9 (Attachment I). The highlights -

Total Revenue - 137.8 billion
Total Costs - 111.6 billion
Income before Taxes - 26.2 billion
Income Taxes - 11.3 billion
Net Income - 14.8 billion

Additionally -
Sales based taxes - 9.3 billion
All other taxes - 11.9 billion
Total Taxes - 32.5 billion

Then move to Page 10 (Attachment II) which discusses their Net Income -

Upstream revenue (US) - 1.9 billion
Downstream revenue (US) - 1.0 billion
Chemical revenue (US) - .3 billion
Total (US) - 3.2 billion

Compare this to the rest of the world (same Attachment) -

Upstream revenue (non-US) - 9.1 billion
Downstream revenue (non-US) - 2.0 billion
Chemical revenue (non-US) - .8 billion
Total (non-US) - 11.9 billion

So, they paid 11.3 billion in Income Taxes for 3.2 billion in Net Income in the US. So, the government got almost 3.5 times the money that they made in the US. So, who's rich? THE GOVERNMENT!

[Broken-Wrench]

[quote="RyanShort1"]My personal biggest fear is that we are now to a point, where Marxist-run state education (this is indisputable) has raised a dumbed-down generation (or two or three now) that cannot see Marxism right in front of them, and indeed find it attractive and reasonable. That is what the election of Mr. Obama tells me. The next biggest fear is that other Marxist doctrines (the outworking of which can be seen in other countries that have been successfully taken over by them) besides their economic doctrines will eventually be implemented as well, by people who have "sworn" to uphold the US Constitution - which thankfully still technically stands in their way.

Ryan - signing off for the night[/quote]

Vary good post Ryan

[Bill Greenwood]

A2C, you write "Who started Fannie Mae, I believe it was Clinton." Where do you get this stuff? Is Rush back on the pills? I don't doubt that you believe it, deep in the right lobe of your right brain( yes, I am trying to use a little humor), but I looked it up and WIK says FM had a predecessor in 1938 and got the congressional charter in 1968. F Mac in 1970. Now I know you guys like to see Clinton as the villian, but he wasn't born in 1938 and wasn't president until 1993 to 2001. In 1968 I think he was practicing "not inhaling".

Still, you never answered my main question. Did we have an excellent economy under Clinton, or not? What are the facts on employment, stock market,budget etc.? If so, then the SLIGHTLY higher taxes don't seem to have hurt. Wik says Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any Pres in 50 years. I doubt if he got that with a bad economy? He's not my personal favorite, never was, but his economy was.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Sat Nov 08, 2008 9:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Bill Greenwood]

Cap, it is possible you are correct about EXXon, but I don't think so. It seems you are placing the entire US tax burden on just their US income, so that is not a valid way of looking at it. I should know this better, I have some Exxon stock, and my training is in finance and investments. But I'd rather talk about football or Spitfires. Anyway, wherever Exxon made their $ 14. 6 billion, they can afford some tax. Or would you rather you and I pick up their share? Maybe we can put a luxury tax on every Snap On tool sold to make up for Exxon and give them a break?

As for as the int business, I should know more, but really don't. I do feel that we need to have a good economy on our own domestic business and can't just depend on foreign investors to carry us. Isn't that true?