Not quite the rosy pic you try to portray.

"The main purpose of the bailout was to save jobs at GM. But GM had to slash its employment and production anyway. Toyota and Honda continued to increase their U.S. factories, providing jobs for American auto workers.
If there had been no bailout, Ford, Toyota, and Honda would have picked up even more market share. Since they had U.S. plants, they would have increased jobs for Americans once the recession was over. The loss of GM would be like the loss of Pan Am, TWA, and other companies that had a strong American heritage but lost their competitiveness. It would have perhaps tugged at the heartstrings of America but not really hurt the economy. As a result, the auto industry bailout was not critical to the U.S. economy, like the rescue of AIG or the banking system."

https://www.thebalance.com/auto-indu...rysler-3305670

Quote:

---

The Big Three automakers asked Congress for help similar to the bank bailout. They warned that General Motors Company and Chrysler LLC faced bankruptcy and the loss of 1 million jobs.

---

Quote:

---

The federal government took over GM and Chrysler in March 2009. It fired GM CEO Rick Wagoner and required Chrysler to merge with Italy's Fiat S.p.A. The Obama administration used the take-over to set new auto efficiency standards. That improved air quality and forced U.S. automakers to be more competitive against Japanese and German firms.

---

Quote:

---

On December 18, 2014, the Treasury Department ended the bailout. That's when it sold its last remaining shares of Ally Financial, formerly known as General Motors Acceptance Corporation. It had bought them for $17.2 billion to infuse cash into the failing GM subsidiary. The Treasury Department sold the shares for $19.6 billion, making a $2.4 billion profit for taxpayers.

---

Quote:

---

On December 19, 2008, President Bush agreed to a $24.9 billion bailout using TARP: $13.4 billion for GM, $5.5 billion for Chrysler, and $5 billionfor GMAC.

---

Hey I thought this was Obamas idea? He inherited a doozy didn't he with a financial crisis and two off the books deficit funded wars to greet him.

No the picture wasn't rosy, but it wasn't the disaster it could have been. As you see from the outcome of Obama's (With Bushes idea) recovery. Hey millions of folks is millions of folks, and you sure didn't want them on welfare all at once did you? Can't you appreciate the good of a controlled wind down as opposed to a huge CRASH.

Despite the rights critique I still hold it was done fairly well considering the banks and financial sectors caused the collapse of global economies and safeguards were developed to prevent it with repubs and supply siders of course trying to get rid of them.

Fact is the dufus said he would stop American companies from moving to other countries and of course he LIED. Just wanted to point that out.

One reason for the rise of health care I believe can be found by repubs and their dufus fiddling around with the ACA trying to get rid of it without a plan for replacement. Sound logical to me given the facts.

Working out really well for all those GM employees. In the meantime, Toyota is now operating 14 plants in the U.S. They have received no federal funding. It is just the fruit of a well run company.

Ever been to a town where a long time plant has been closed? The towns literally die. Wonder why GM cannot build a new plant in those towns?

Quote:

---

Ever been to a town where a long time plant has been closed? The towns literally die. Wonder why GM cannot build a new plant in those towns?

---

Why would they need a new plant?

If you haven't worked it out yet, plant closures are about labour relations, new plants, new negotiations and contracts, reopening in old towns, where are the people? Skilled people move on

Bear with me as I'm still following this development,

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/bu...ar/2310253002/,

AND

https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/22/new...ico/index.html

The development of a new dinosaur?

More the perpetration of an old one. Profits over people. The business model is old as human knowledge. Older than most religions, and as powerful as any of them.

Quote:

---

Profits over people.

---

You know what they call a company that ignores the need for profits? Bankrupt.

No they call it a non profit organisation

So the need for profit trumps the needs of people?

Quote:

---

No they call it a non profit organisation

---

Even a non-profit must still balance the books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

No they call it a non profit organisation

---

Took the words right out of my mouth.

So list the non-profits you know of that are engaged in the business of manufacturing and providing jobs for hundreds or thousands of people. I find that the only people who like to talk about the need for putting people ahead of profits are people who are not running a business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Even a non-profit must still balance the books.

---

That's a totally different thing than profits over people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So list the non-profits you know of that are engaged in the business of manufacturing and providing jobs for hundreds or thousands of people. I find that the only people who like to talk about the need for putting people ahead of profits are people who are not running a business.

---

So let people die that need treatment for a life threatening condition if it doesn't make a profit?

Why don't you pay for it? If affordability is not important, then why can't Tal simply pay for it? Amazing how easy it is to decide how other people should spend their money.

Goods and services are VOLUNTARY, not so with treatments for illnesses. That requires INSURANCE unless you are that rich you can afford almost anything. Affordability is important and I have not indicated otherwise. Just don't lump health insurance into the same category as a new truck. Hey if you want to die of cancer go ahead, but don't tell me someone that wants to be cared for but cannot afford insurance, should die.

What does that have to do with YOUR money any way? We have already talked about taxes, and funding the social safety net, so if you are not happy with that then you change it. So far your efforts have not led to the repeal of the law that allows government to tax for the general welfare of it's citizens.

Comes down to you not caring if people can't afford INSURANCE right?

Quote:

---

Goods and services are VOLUNTARY, not so with treatments for illnesses.

---

I would actually rank food, clothing, and shelter ahead of health care.

Quote:

---

That requires INSURANCE unless you are that rich you can afford almost anything. Affordability is important and I have not indicated otherwise. Just don't lump health insurance into the same category as a new truck.

---

I'm all for insurance. The great majority of health care procedures do not require rich people type money. As for trucks, you were the one who said you would buy a truck rather than use that money to pay for your own health care.

Quote:

---

What does that have to do with YOUR money any way? We have already talked about taxes, and funding the social safety net, so if you are not happy with that then you change it. So far your efforts have not led to the repeal of the law that allows government to tax for the general welfare of it's citizens.

---

Taxes have a lot to do with my money. As I have stated many times before, I get tired of liberals who want to claim some kind of moral high ground because they are willing to force other people to take care of the poor. So far as I can tell, most liberal dems don't care one whit for the poor if it comes down to them having to spend their own money.

We could try an interesting experiment. We could allow people to designate a voluntary tax that would be used ONLY for helping the poor. All other welfare programs would cease and no borrowed money could be used. If I had to guess, I'd say that most of the money given would come from conservatives. I'd even be willing to go one step farther and put a tax surcharge (2% of income??) that EVERYONE would have to pay that would be used for poor people. Only that money could be used. At least then we would all be aware of what is going to help poor people. But as for this garbage that I hear frequently to the effect that we need to go after the wealthy because, after all, liberals are big-hearted people, I just find it to be a nauseating idea and I have made it one of my missions in life to never let a lib get away with it.

But all of that aside, if we do not slow down the growth of health care costs, we are heading to a place where we will have the best health care that no one can afford.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I would actually rank food, clothing, and shelter ahead of health care.

---

As would I, but if you have health issues it's hard to balance those priorities and something has to give. I lived off rice and beans and didn't buy a new coat back in the day, but it's a different story now. Cat food doesn't sound appealing right now.

Quote:

---

I'm all for insurance. The great majority of health care procedures do not require rich people type money. As for trucks, you were the one who said you would buy a truck rather than use that money to pay for your own health care.

---

That may well be true for healthy people, but hundreds of millions Americans have chronic conditions, and I remember your account of your own experience and a broken cut finger might break my bank lol. As for the truck, I can say my health care costs right now do account in great part why I'm not shopping for one, as well as auto insurance. Those are rather high too. NO lol about it.

Quote:

---

Taxes have a lot to do with my money. As I have stated many times before, I get tired of liberals who want to claim some kind of moral high ground because they are willing to force other people to take care of the poor. So far as I can tell, most liberal dems don't care one whit for the poor if it comes down to them having to spend their own money.

---

Find a conservative shoulder to cry on with that nonsense!

Quote:

---

We could try an interesting experiment. We could allow people to designate a voluntary tax that would be used ONLY for helping the poor. All other welfare programs would cease and no borrowed money could be used. If I had to guess, I'd say that most of the money given would come from conservatives. I'd even be willing to go one step farther and put a tax surcharge (2% of income??) that EVERYONE would have to pay that would be used for poor people. Only that money could be used. At least then we would all be aware of what is going to help poor people. But as for this garbage that I hear frequently to the effect that we need to go after the wealthy because, after all, liberals are big-hearted people, I just find it to be a nauseating idea and I have made it one of my missions in life to never let a lib get away with it.

---

We already have those taxes, fees, and programs or some form or another, and I don't wish to go after the wealthy, but they should pay their fair share but the tax code isn't fair either. Thanks to bought and paid for conservative repubs who worship at the alter of the MO'MONEY crowd and its been my mission to oppose that kind of hypocrisy by conservatives who have gotten away with that attacks on the poor and helpless and needy for a really long time

Quote:

---

But all of that aside, if we do not slow down the growth of health care costs, we are heading to a place where we will have the best health care that no one can afford.

---

We agree pretty much on that my friend just have differing views on how to accomplish it. I favor universal health care, or Medicare for all as a way to centralize and control costs for health care. The free market would help if it didn't lean so supply side in my opinion. I would be more comfortable with a non profit approach than some CEO charged with growing profits.

That's my suggestion for an experiment that has proven to work all over the world. Or maybe doctors, hospitals and insurance providers guarantee a good outcome or don't get paid (Sarcasm font for last comment).

This might help control those costs too!

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...5qKNMDetFw--~C

Quote:

---

We already have those taxes, fees, and programs or some form or another, and I don't wish to go after the wealthy, but they should pay their fair share but the tax code isn't fair either.

---

So the tax code is not fair? When the top 5% of income earners make 36% of the income but pay 60% of the taxes, that sounds much more than fair to me.

No, it is not fair, because the statistics are skewed as always, corporations should pay more it is the price of doing business and so should high income individuals. The best way would be a simple tax on the gross with no deductions and fiddle room. God sorted it out long ago, just take 10% off the top

Quote:

---

God sorted it out long ago, just take 10% off the top

---

Well, that would mean the top 5% would make 36% of the income but pay only 36% of the taxes, so they would be all for it. Congratulations, Clete. You have now become a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative. So much for those skewed stats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

No, it is not fair, because the statistics are skewed as always, corporations should pay more it is the price of doing business and so should high income individuals. The best way would be a simple tax on the gross with no deductions and fiddle room. God sorted it out long ago, just take 10% off the top

---

I don't believe God said take 10% off the top, but you got the rest right so welcome to the logical thinkers club. My conservative friend seems to have taken what he wanted and discarded the rest.

Top 5% makes 36% of income but pays 60% of the taxes. We just have to toss your unfair tax rates argument out the window.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Well, that would mean the top 5% would make 36% of the income but pay only 36% of the taxes, so they would be all for it. Congratulations, Clete. You have now become a rock-ribbed fiscal conservative. So much for those skewed stats.

---

I just aim to be fair, progressive taxation isn't very progressive. Yes, I am a fiscal conservative in as much as I think we should have a solid fiscal system, not destroy incentive and not tax the poor. But I also think that government has a role in making the system work for all, not just the big end of town

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I don't believe God said take 10% off the top, but you got the rest right so welcome to the logical thinkers club. My conservative friend seems to have taken what he wanted and discarded the rest.

---

No it was his system in the Old Testament, and those participating had the benefit of a social welfare program, health care and so on

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Top 5% makes 36% of income but pays 60% of the taxes. We just have to toss your unfair tax rates argument out the window.

---

Unfortunately that's not how a budget works, as the NEEDS of the country should be what dictates tax policy, and while everyone has their own ideas what is NEEDED and NOT, conditions are what has to be applied and we have a lot of history dealing with supply side economics, great for rich guys during a growth period, until THEY screw it up, and we have a financial crisis that needs to be addressed. Reagan raised taxes when needed, and even the first Bush saw that same need but was booted out when he couldn't keep his promise to not raise taxes. While I was not a fan of either, there were some logical and good things they did fiscally. It's totally irresponsible to not have a plan, and process for such events and a bankrupt loving dufus is certainly leading us down that bankruptcy path.

You should have recognized this when he and his repub sycophants FAILED to implement a better plan than Obama care, promised for almost a decade now, and gave big money to rich guys who always want even more (maybe we all do), and started a feckless trade war while touting his great new treaties that NK, China, and Russia laugh at publicly.

Bottom line JL, is that tax cuts for rich guys have NEVER paid for themselves, NEVER paid for the debt, and NEVER stimulated the economy, and the bump it does provide is VERY temporary. You conservatives just keep sticking by your man and enjoy the circus while it's in town. I hope that window is open when you decide to throw out your fiscal LOGIC.

Quote:

---

gave big money to rich guys

---

One more time. The rich guys are paying 60% of the income tax in our country.

Quote:

---

Bottom line JL, is that tax cuts for rich guys have NEVER paid for themselves, NEVER paid for the debt, and NEVER stimulated the economy,

---

Go back and look at the Reagan years. Fed tax revenues increased by 65% in only eight years. The economy took off like a rocket. Same thing is happening now. The problem is not revenue, it is spending.

No the Reagan years were rough on us Midwest people working in manufacturing. Maybe it boomed for you, cool. That's not how many of us remembered the 80's. Conservatives were elated as they loved supply side economics and accepted the crumbs that trickled down, but everybody I knew were taking anything they could find to make ends meet. I have repeatedly said though that his economic flexibility was a great trait that I admired. That was back when conservatives were reasonable and a lot easier to work with. Yeah, that's right I had a lot of admiration for the conservatives of that time, some of which are still around, and but a shadow of there former selves.

The dufus doesn't hold a fig to any of those guys and is a poor mans Reagan at best. More like Tricky Nixon, and likely to meet the same fate.

Reagan's last six years GDP growth ranged anywhere from 3.5 to 7.2%, so I really can't explain how you remember things, but the rest of the world knows what explosive growth that was. He inherited 12% unemployment and took it down to 4%, which is fantastically better than Mr. Obama did, even though Reagan had to face high unemployment AND high inflation left from Jimmy Carter.

As you can see below, average income went up enormously both in the Reagan and Clinton years. Obama? Not so much. As for Mr. Trump, well, you can see for yourself.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...._Timeline.png

Well I guess we didn't get that trickle down, and went through lay offs and reduced working hours, and pay cuts. I did specify Midwest and manufacturing though, didn't I? Look I'm glad you done good under Reagan, but obviously everyone did NOT, but I would respectfully ask you NOT dismiss my own experience just because you know nothing about it. I gave King Reagan (And both Bushes in fact), his due as part of a bigger picture, but that doesn't make him a god, nor the best prez we ever had, a fact you drill about Obama who you give no credit to. I mean you have never acknowledge Obamas upward trajectory by your own graph he gave the dufus, unlike what repubs have historically left dems, yes even King Reagan left his predecessor Bush in a pickle that conservatives didn't like his common sense approach to dealing with it, even though it was Reagans policy throughout his presidency.

Your graph illustrates my point, and you should get a link for that graph so we can see what else you left out. It's not like I don't trust your research or conclusion, but I hope you don't mind if I verify it for myself do you?

"Trust but verify"... King Ronald Reagan.

GREAT advice I have kept close.

Quote:

---

I would respectfully ask you NOT dismiss my own experience just because you know nothing about it.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Your graph illustrates my point, and you should get a link for that graph so we can see what else you left out. It's not like I don't trust your research or conclusion, but I hope you don't mind if I verify it for myself do you?

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ...._Timeline.png

Thanks guy, on both counts. Much appreciate your understanding.

I think we have to add more data to the equation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U...old_income.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...old_income.png

Quote:

---

This chart shows how U.S. economic growth is not translating to higher family incomes. U.S. real GDP per household, a measure of average total income per household, has increased since 2000 while the real median income per household did not regain 1999 levels again until 2016, indicating a trend of greater income inequality.^[1][2]

---

I suggest reading the full text below the chart though. Strangely the disparity gap widens during the Clinton years and he balanced the budget. I made boo-koo bucks during his presidency, and he raised taxes.

One way or the other, it went up during the Reagan and Clinton years and down with Obama. Going up now with Trump.

I edited my post a bit, don't know if that makes a difference. Actually the graph shows it was already going down with Obama and has risen steadily through his terms and continues at about the same trajectory with Trump.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/09/u...a-economy.html

Quote:

---

...But growth has also been unusually steady, set in motion by Mr. Obama’s extraordinary economic interventions early in his presidency. This is now one of the longest periods of uninterrupted economic growth in American history, with 95 straight months of job creation.In the 19 months starting after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, the economy has created 3.58 million new jobs — but that is still shy of the 3.96 million created in the last 19 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency. The nation’s economy has grown at a steadily higher pace in the past year than it did during the end of Mr. Obama’s term, reaching an annualized rate of 4.2 percent in the second quarter of this year.

But the last time it was that high was in 2014 — when Mr. Obama was in charge.

---

Lets talk when the lying dufus has a fuller record to talk about. Conservatives reluctance to give the ex prez his due is notable.

You are mixing job creation with average income. I was referring to average income which fell steadily under most of Obama's years. I wouldn't deny that Mr. Obama made some progress in the economy, but he did so at a cost of almost 10 trillion dollars of national debt. That's about 30,000 dollars of debt for every man, woman, and child in the United States. That does not strike me as something to be proud of. And yes, the dummies in the republican congress share some of the blame.

That's a really interesting graph you posted. I had not considered the difference between "average income" and "median income".

I followed your link and got a ton of data points to explore. From your link the data on income becomes skewed by adding income to the rich guys and not the average guy's income, in addition if new job creation is just measured in jobs and not wages, you get a nice upward graph, and a low unemployment number, but no account for workforce participation, which again skews the picture. There are many factors involved and any one of those factors can make a difference between accurate and inaccurate much like buying a new auto or house and not factoring in the insurance, taxes, or utilities. You cannot get the true costs without those and other factors.

I wasn't mixing things just considering other factors is all, and your link provided those. I know drives my wife nuts when she gets a great sale, and I ask her about the shipping and handling.