Which Among You Dupes Thought GM and Chrysler Would -- Or Could -- Pay Back Your Tax Dollars?
in [Toyota]
|
Prev: GM, Ford, Toyota Sales Rise After Clunkers Hangover, Ghettomobiles kill Chrysler, down 33%.
Next: Download for FREE fotos, music, software, games, videos, movies and much more
From: Mike Hunter on 4 Nov 2009 12:49 Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are they just stupid? "John Galt" <kady101(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:rZ1Im.129356$Jp1.97376(a)en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com... > alt.politics.bush wrote: >> On Nov 3, 4:49 pm, "God'sLittleAnus" <perryneh...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Digest >>> >>> The Washington Post >>> Tuesday, November 3, 2009 >>> >>> AUTOMOTIVE >>> >>> "U.S. investment likely lost, GAO says" >>> >>> TAXPAYERS are unlikely to recover their full investment in General >>> Motors or Chrysler, U.S. government investigators said Monday in the >>> latest review to cast doubts that the government will recoup the $80 >>> billion it poured into the two automakers. >>> >>> The Government Accountability Office concluded that General Motors and >>> Chrysler likely will not be valuable enough for the Treasury >>> Department to break even on its investment in the two auto companies >>> that went through bankruptcy earlier this year. >>> >>> The GAO also revealed that the Obama administration is closely >>> scrutinizing the finances of GM and Chrysler and has set some >>> requirements on production even though it has said it will maintain a >>> hands-off approach on the automakers' daily operations. >>> >>> To recover the loans Treasury gave Chrysler and GM to keep them >>> afloat, the automakers would have to reach valuations they did not >>> approach even when they were healthier. >>> >>> GM spokesman Greg Martin said "if we get our job done, the government >>> has an excellent chance of getting a return on its investment." >>> Chrysler declined to comment. >>> >>> -- Associated Press >>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/02/AR200... >> >> What value do you put on keeping the economy running? > > Are you seriously suggesting that there were no alternatives to the > government investing in the automakers? > > JG >
From: Lamont Cranston on 4 Nov 2009 13:22 Mike Hunter wrote: > Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds > had lowered > tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate the economy. For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30 cents of stimulus is created. Food stamps are the most effective way. For every dollar of food stamps issued, $1.73 of economic stimulus is created. http://www.movingupusa.org/?tag=food-stamps
From: Lamont Cranston on 4 Nov 2009 15:40 Beam Me Up Scotty wrote: > Lamont Cranston wrote: >> Mike Hunter wrote: >>> Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds >>> had lowered >>> tax RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the >>> economy >> >> Tax cuts are among the least effective ways to stimulate >> the economy. >> For every dollar that taxes are cut, only about 30 cents >> of stimulus >> is created. Food stamps are the most effective way. For >> every >> dollar of food stamps issued, $1.73 of economic stimulus >> is created. >> >> http://www.movingupusa.org/?tag=food-stamps >> >> > So food stamps are worth more than the U.S. Dollar? Your reading comprehension seems to be extremely faulty. Neither I nor the cited article makes any such statement.
From: Jeff Strickland on 4 Nov 2009 20:03 "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message news:ddCdnfmTuqKOv2_XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > Mike Hunter wrote: >> Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax >> RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than >> taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government >> never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the >> Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO >> and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get >> the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are >> they just stupid? > > Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in > history. > > The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people > paying taxes, he was spending future taxes. > > Jeff > Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10 months has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And Obama is still going. PS By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent.
From: Roy Blankenship on 4 Nov 2009 20:28
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hct88c$mg9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "dr_jeff" <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote in message > news:ddCdnfmTuqKOv2_XnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > Mike Hunter wrote: > >> Seems to me we would have been better served if the Feds had lowered tax > >> RATES, so we could buy more stuff and grow the economy, rather than > >> taking money from us to give it too others. Why does the government > >> never learn from history? When Kennedy, Reagan and Bush got the > >> Congress to lower tax RATES, the income to the US Treasury when UP. BO > >> and the Dim Congress prefer to spend money we do not have to try to get > >> the same result, not so smart. Did they not TAKE Economics 101, or are > >> they just stupid? > > > > Yet Bush left the country with the biggest deficit and national debt in > > history. > > > > The big difference is that Bush was not spending the money of people > > paying taxes, he was spending future taxes. > > > > Jeff > > > > Obama has grown the deficit by four times. Obama's debt after just 10 months > has dwarfed the debt of all eight years of the Bush Administration. And > Obama is still going. > > PS > By definition, ALL deficits are funded by future taxes. Obama is spending > four times the amount of future taxes that Bush spent. > Your post is disingenuous. Bush grabbed money and gave it to Wall St, overseas interests, no-bid contracts, KBR, etc. Obama is trying to spend money HERE on US to get the economy going, and you are objecting? Were you objecting when Bush was spending us into this mess? |