Deep Financial Trouble?

[Xerxes]

CuckFinn has me blocked so can someone please make sure he sees this. The bank bailout, TARP, was signed into law by Dubya in October of 2008, prior to the election. Dubya also provided an extraordinary loan to Chrysler and GM to allow Obama the opportunity to do with them as he desired. Obama chose to give 17.5% of the new company's stock to the union for no cash contribution and wipe out the secured creditors. GM will go bankrupt again because political favoritism kept them from curing the structural issues the company has. I do appreciate it when leftists support bailouts for the rich and giant corporations, though. Hopefully Uncle Sugar can get a university bailout going so that Kirk and Gary can each buy another ivory backscratcher.

I have no idea if he's blocked me or not but I'll give it shot for you.

 

[Fryowa]

CuckFinn has me blocked so can someone please make sure he sees this.

You mean HackFudd? He blocked me too. He's an octogenarian still playing the "I'm going to take my ball and go home" card.

 

[Fryowa]

I have no idea if he's blocked me or not but I'll give it shot for you.

Tell him Fryowa says Hello as well, please. Just don't want him to get lonely during this pandemic thing.

 

[Xerxes]

Tell him Fryowa says Hello as well, please. Just don't want him to get lonely during this pandemic thing.

Will do

 

[uihawk82]

Our Country is in great financial difficulty, which could have been resolved a long time ago. We have done it before against greater odds. My most recent memory was Obama bailing us out of the greatest depression in our history.

Yes it does look like our country is in bad financial shape if you are talking about the national debt and the yearly budget overruns, as well as way too much money in the hands of the very few which drastically curtails demand for goods and with that money in more peoples hands a large stimulus to produce goods knowing their is money to buy th the goods.

But when looking at the national debt we should also look at national assets. Various energy/coal and petrol experts and research institutions state that the US owns 8 times the national debt in these energy reserves. Then there are all the mineral rights owned by the US, again a huge number.

The national debt in a lot of way is a red herring used by a lot of politicians to bash the other side.

I think the US should start charging a more realistic amount for mineral and natural resources when they sell them or rent out royalties as some prices go back to the late 1800's (I cant remember the name of the legislation or laws).

The US could add a lot of tollways for interstate and bridges. The US owns a huge amount of real estate it could rent out except for some weird laws and rules.

The US has a lot of assets and could have a lot of income streams.

I think it is better to go somewhat away from the income tax and go to use taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes, etc as in you use them you pay for them. All of this can solve a lot of these problems.

 

[uihawk82]

"in the black" is the loosest term in the entire accounting world.

.

Wow, call it a loose term but it quickly describes if a venture is solvent or maybe bleeding money as in the red, you know blood. It is a perfectly quick and descriptive term to use but no you have to go on and on about a bunch of financial and economic mumbo jumbo. Yet you didn't even discuss how the UI ath dept got to this point as I was trying to discuss. But basically all of these programs live on the edge financially because they budget to pay their bills and provide a service but not to make some big profit.

 

[HuckFinn]

Yes it does look like our country is in bad financial shape if you are talking about the national debt and the yearly budget overruns, as well as way too much money in the hands of the very few which drastically curtails demand for goods and with that money in more peoples hands a large stimulus to produce goods knowing their is money to buy th the goods.

But when looking at the national debt we should also look at national assets. Various energy/coal and petrol experts and research institutions state that the US owns 8 times the national debt in these energy reserves. Then there are all the mineral rights owned by the US, again a huge number.

The national debt in a lot of way is a red herring used by a lot of politicians to bash the other side.

I think the US should start charging a more realistic amount for mineral and natural resources when they sell them or rent out royalties as some prices go back to the late 1800's (I cant remember the name of the legislation or laws).

The US could add a lot of tollways for interstate and bridges. The US owns a huge amount of real estate it could rent out except for some weird laws and rules.

The US has a lot of assets and could have a lot of income streams.

I think it is better to go somewhat away from the income tax and go to use taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes, etc as in you use them you pay for them. All of this can solve a lot of these problems.

The national debt means very little in the real world. The problem I see is the allocation of resources. Progressive taxes make the most sense. I agree with you on the use of our assets. I recall when the supports for wind and solar and water were criticized heavily. Those three assets alone are now paying dividends.

 

[uihawk82]

The national debt means very little in the real world. The problem I see is the allocation of resources. Progressive taxes make the most sense. I agree with you on the use of our assets. I recall when the supports for wind and solar and water were criticized heavily. Those three assets alone are now paying dividends.

supply siders took over economics in 1981 and the shift of so much wealth to so few and financial stagnation for so many have really weakened this country along with offspring of jobs so shareholders etc can make another dime

 

[okeefe4prez]

I think the US should start charging a more realistic amount for mineral and natural resources when they sell them or rent out royalties as some prices go back to the late 1800's (I cant remember the name of the legislation or laws).

Those are called mineral rights and severance taxes. Other than with respect to federally owned land, they are creatures of state law. Texas has enshrined educational funding from mineral rights and severance taxes in its constitution. That is one of the reasons they don't have an income tax. The state gets a phat chunk of cash off of the oil and gas they pull out of the ground.