Perhaps you should peruse John Kerry and his bride's off shore accounts before you toss another liberal stone.

Why would that matter? Feds need to go after all of these tax avoiders who wear Bermuda shorts -- regardless of political affiliation or whether their last name is Kerry or Romney.

Why would that matter? Feds need to go after all of these tax avoiders who wear Bermuda shorts -- regardless of political affiliation or whether their last name is Kerry or Romney.

 

This topic answers for me why some of the uber-wealthy can retain their liberal public persona....it doesn't cost them anything, because they KNOW, the rich will get richer, and their tax accountants and lawyers are generally going to be one-step ahead of any government policy changes. As long as there are off-shore shelters with lower tax rates or other benefits, that is where thier money will go.

You are referring to Bush....right?

I've got an old Buick. Thanks to President Obama, I can still get parts for it.

My favorite is No. 16 -- the president not only saved the auto industry, he also saved the economy of the entire Midwest. We're not talking about cutting a little red tape here, bub. We're talking about keeping people out of soup lines.

 

As far as the rise in the stock market, it wouldn't bother me a bit to see my portfolio lose value if Uncle Sam seriously goes after the tax avoiders who are setting up tax shelters in the Cayman Islands.

 

He saved the UAW. And did that by artificially bankrupting two major car companies and allowing one to be bought by a foreign entity and then gave half of the other one to the UAW. All an enormous cost to us - the taxpayers. Billions were lost since the government sold its shares at a very high loss upon its phased exit. It was an American version of the Chavez nationalism plays.

 

GM would have survived or someone would have created a new GM - but it would have been without the unions. As an owner/lessor of 3 GM vehicles I know that GM would not have just evaporated away as portrayed in the 'saving' narrative.

I've got an old Buick. Thanks to President Obama, I can still get parts for it.

 

Yes...the parts come from China.

... or someone would have created a new GM ...

No way.

Why would that matter? Feds need to go after all of these tax avoiders who wear Bermuda shorts -- regardless of political affiliation or whether their last name is Kerry or Romney.

Oh, I agree. It shouldn't matter.

Yes...the parts come from China.

Read a few years back that Toyotas have more U.S.-made parts than Fords.

The legislation was passed prior to the 1994 republican changeover (1993). I blamed neither ther republicans nor the democrats. I simply pointed out that to SOLELY link the 2008 financial crisis to the administration at that time is popular, but not factual. (I can't find the smug emoticon.)

 

The TBTF banks should get the bulk of the blame - along with a sleeping (at best) SEC during the Bush years.

 

During the 2000s there was the housing party based on lax/loose policies established in the 1990s. But then came derivatives - financial instruments that were packaging and repackaging of things like risky mortgages. Though somewhere in the instrument were real mortgages that were still backed by real property that had real value (or in accounting terms solid 'book value') - even if that value went down and had a loss associated with it. But with all the repackaging unraveling the real value was impossible and thus the only measure was end instrument. And when the market value for these nebulous instruments dropped to zero the TBTF banks had to write them down - to zero. Why - some blame belongs to the wonderful (sarc) Sarbanes-Oxly law - that law make companies report things as 'market value' vs. 'book value'. And hence the 'crisis'. Banks - thanks to their new get rich schemes of 'derivatives' AND short-sighted legislation now had 'toxic assets' (ie the TA in TARP).

 

Throw in hedge funds who started the activity of basically betting against an ever rising market and they had interest in putting the squeeze on to drive up the value of their 'hedged investments' - which were really bets against a rising market place and you have 'the crisis'.

 

Bush's SEC was - at best - asleep at the wheel. Or maybe they just were not smart enough to understand what the risks the TBTF banks where creating with derivatives and the impact of hedge funds and the ramifications of the SOX law. But the formerly mundane - but stable - world of finance became the wild, wild west in the 2000s. I am not sure if any lessons were really learned by them or the current administration. As I have noted - this administration has many bankers or family of bankers in key roles. They really have not reformed or changed anything since 2008. The inter-tangled relationship of the government and the Fed and the TBTF banks continues.

 

It all started with Lehman Brothers - and someone basically killed of Lehman with a squeeze. But to this day the truth of what happened there is still not fully known. But hedge funds were the winners - and still are the winners of this supposed disaster.

 

 

Housing bubble, loose credit policies, derivatives, hedge funds, bad laws....the perfect storm. Blaming it all on one administration or another is way to simplistic.

He saved the UAW. And did that by artificially bankrupting two major car companies and allowing one to be bought by a foreign entity and then gave half of the other one to the UAW. All an enormous cost to us - the taxpayers. Billions were lost since the government sold its shares at a very high loss upon its phased exit. It was an American version of the Chavez nationalism plays.

 

 

GM would have survived or someone would have created a new GM - but it would have been without the unions. As an owner/lessor of 3 GM vehicles I know that GM would not have just evaporated away as portrayed in the 'saving' narrative.

 

Also, union jobs and retirement benefits were spared, but non-bargaining unit benefits were liquidated and that section of the employee base took the biggest hit. But...this is why the AFLCIO contributed 80 mio USD to Obama's campaign.

 

To pretend that one side of the aisle is lily-pure and idealistic and the other side is money grubbing corporate minions is ludicrous. One side of the aisle is just better at winning national elections of late.

 

 

Housing bubble, loose credit policies, derivatives, hedge funds, bad laws....the perfect storm. Blaming it all on one administration or another is way to simplistic.

 

Agreed.

 

I also believe there were members of the Bilderberger group who got even richer off of all of this.

No way.

 

Sure they would have. 'Create' not from scratch but some investment group would have saved major parts. The truck lines like Suburban, Tahoe, Silverado are lasting icons and would have easily survived. They would have jettisoned the failing divisions faster and a leaner more viable GM would have emerged. But they also would have restructured or eliminated the UAW contracts - and politically that unacceptable. Hence the government driven bankruptcy and gifting of GM to the UAW.

 

Had the UAW collapsed it would have been a political earthquake. I actually do believe in the usefulness of unions and their right to exist and do what they are designed to do. But the UAW, and unions in the private sector, would have taken a big hit had the market been allowed to deal with the issue.

Sure they would have. 'Create' not from scratch but some investment group would have saved major parts. The truck lines like Suburban, Tahoe, Silverado are lasting icons and would have easily survived. They would have jettisoned the failing divisions faster and a leaner more viable GM would have emerged. But they also would have restructured or eliminated the UAW contracts - and politically that unacceptable. Hence the government driven bankruptcy and gifting of GM to the UAW.

 

Had the UAW collapsed it would have been a political earthquake. I actually do believe in the usefulness of unions and their right to exist and do what they are designed to do. But the UAW, and unions in the private sector, would have taken a big hit had the market been allowed to deal with the issue.

A Chinese, Indian, European or Japanese automaker buying out GM (and Chrysler) is the likely scenario, as opposed to an "investment group." Had GM failed, it's assets would likely have been purchased by a foreign company. Maybe you're comfortable with that scenario; I'm not. So tip your hat to presidential leadership in this case.

 

You vastly overrate the influence of unions in both the economic and political arenas. Doesn't the non-union Toyota plant in Georgetown pay higher than a UAW-equivalent wage?

The legislation was passed prior to the 1994 republican changeover (1993). I blamed neither ther republicans nor the democrats. I simply pointed out that to SOLELY link the 2008 financial crisis to the administration at that time is popular, but not factual. (I can't find the smug emoticon.)

 

Really.

 

Clinton had mainly a democrat controlled house and senate during his presidency. After 2007, Bush had a democrat majority.

 

Don't let the facts confuse a good storyline though.

 

What, in the first sentence above is true?

 

What do you call the last sentence?

A Chinese, Indian, European or Japanese automaker buying out GM (and Chrysler) is the likely scenario, as opposed to an "investment group." Had GM failed, it's assets would likely have been purchased by a foreign company. Maybe you're comfortable with that scenario; I'm not. So tip your hat to presidential leadership in this case.

 

You vastly overrate the influence of unions in both the economic and political arenas. Doesn't the non-union Toyota plant in Georgetown pay higher than a UAW-equivalent wage?

 

And what happened to Chrysler that was basically forced through the same process?

 

Sadly, I would agree that GM may have become foreign owned. Probably HQed in Ireland - :lol2:. And, sadly, it is bad statement on American business leadership. For American workers it probably makes little difference - people working for Toyota, BMW, Honda, etc. seem to be doing OK. But the boldness of American investment does seems to be lacking. And the 'leaders' tend to act more like Gordon Gecko rather than Lee Iaccoca or Donald Trump.