Thread: Obama is kicking ass!

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Taxes are deducted by a paycheck company hired by your employer normally. So in most cases yes you pay taxes, and then when you do your taxes you get it all back. Can't say for cases of contract work/self employment, etc.

Contractors and self employed have the same principle if your using a payroll company or an accountant. I'll also add if your getting everything you put in back then you need to consider a new line of work and that goes for self employed and nonself employed.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

I hear this BS about too big to fail, bring others down, blah, blah, blah. Let's look at something from a capitalist standpoint here. Let's assume that say the Camaro, a GM product in case you weren't aware, has the potential to be a profitable line post GM collapse, assuming GM never gets the bailout. If this is the case then I would be my upcoming presidential vote that some other corporation, likely a car manufacturer, would at least by that line. So, the people that make that line, and the people that make the stuff that makes that line, and everyone else down the line gets a paycheck from HN instead of GM going forward. No jobs lost.

Now let's assume that the Suburban line is not going to be a profitable line post GM collapse, once again assuming they don't get bailed out. That product line will not be picked up by any other corporations. Yes, I will agree the people that make that product, and all the people down the line that support that product, will have to change jobs to stay employed, or might lose their job all together, and might have to change careers. BUT if the line has no chance of being profitable then why should the government, the taxpayers, or GM prop it up with massive stacks of cash?

Propping up an unsustainable product/service just to keep the economy from suffering in the short term is the same thought process that got us into the housing crisis.

Well, I obviously look at things from a socialist standpoint, but I can play along. Anyways, you are looking at this wrong because it isn't that simple. You have to understand that without this bailout, GM would have had to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and cease operations. Then, they likely would have been liquidated to pay off debts. Those are definitely lost jobs. The bailout allowed them to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure and stay in business.

If another company bought a brand out of bankruptcy during a hypothetical GM liquidation, why would they necessarily by the plants and use the same suppliers? Why would they keep production in the United States? The bailout saved over a million jobs that would have been lost if it failed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/op...=3&ref=opinion
Bailouts saved auto industry

Originally Posted by CivilWars

They may, or may not, have used the same plants/suppliers/employees, but they would have to use someone, right? So Bill in Detroit lost a job, but Frank in Dallas got a job. That is not a job lost or saved. We can play hypothetical all day long, and neither of us can prove the other wrong.

As someone who lives in the Detroit area, it makes huge fucking difference to me. The auto industry fails, Michigan fails. If Michigan fails, the federal government will be spending even more to keep us treading water. Hell, there is no guarantee any other auto companies would want to buy brands. I showed a study which outlined the jobs saved, and the resulting return to profitability for GM speaks for themselves. This was a smashing success, whether you want to admit it or not.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

However, there are countless examples of other LARGE companies doing the EXACT thing GM did without a giant government bailout. See Burger King for one example.

After take a quick second to look into Burger King, it seems that it was one of its independent franchisees, AmeriKing, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2002. That's not the same situation as GM. In 2002, we were not in the middle of a financial crisis. We were in 2009, and that meant they couldn't get any private credit or financing. It was either the government steps in and provides that financing, or they declare Chapter 7 and cease operations. That was also an independent company, not Burger King itself.

you know what fovgayzer? why don´t we just give everyone money...let´s just give it away..."hey, you went on a business venture but had bad luck, bad administration, bad decisions and went broke? You´re not competitive enough in a global market now? oh, your expenses are $3MM a month? Here´s $5MM...enjoy...thank you hardworking tax payers

Why don´t we just give all the taxpayer´s money away to those unfortunate enough to have made bad decisions and can´t make ends meet anymore?