Grand_Moff_Joseph: Before the revisionist historians get here, a reminder that TARP was originally developed by the Bush WH.

Something Republicans were quick to ignore back when they were convinced that it was going to be an utter failure. As I recall, it was Democrats who were in support of it during the entire period when the Tea Baggers were calling it the work of Satan.

I don't care if it was a Democrat or Republican. Whatever helps the United States, helps me.

lennavan 2012-04-14 03:06:04 PM

When private businesses are going bankrupt, you call the bankruptcy courts, it sure as fark ain't the government.

NEWSFLASH!!

Courts are not part of a government!

I'd like to see some tarp numbers to see just how much profit. I bought AIG post apocalypse and it's pretty stagnant, so I'd like to hear more. It's also nice that now (if) its profiting, it's bushs decision. When it failed it was obummers. I think both parties need to stop the venture capital business and no more bailouts.

Wouldn't it have been great if we had privatized SS right before the market tanked?

jpo2269: lennavan Smartest
Funniest
2012-04-14 03:51:04 PM


jpo2269: zarberg Smartest
Funniest

And is this same provision in the IRS code available to other manufacturers in other areas of production? Here's a hint...they are. Name one that is targeted, or specific to Big Oil please.

Not following your direction here are two. There are several more

See section 263(c) of IRC for preferential deductions for intangible drilling costs for oil and gas wells as just one example. See also Sec. 193.for extra deductions for Tertiary injectants which only applies to oil and gas wells. You need more?

sdd2000


Smartest
Funniest

2012-04-15 09:48:51 AM

jpo2269: lennavan Smartest
Funniest
2012-04-14 03:51:04 PM


jpo2269: zarberg Smartest
Funniest

And is this same provision in the IRS code available to other manufacturers in other areas of production? Here's a hint...they are. Name one that is targeted, or specific to Big Oil please.

Not following your direction here are two. There are several more

See section 263(c) of IRC for preferential deductions for intangible drilling costs for oil and gas wells as just one example. See also Sec. 193.for extra deductions for Tertiary injectants which only applies to oil and gas wells. You need more?

Do you have more? As for Section 263, that is not a specific set aside for "Big Oil" as it covers capital expenditures for businesses in general. Sure, the subsection (c) does deal with oil production, but once again, the entire section is available to businesses in general.

That being said, your example of Section 193, while it could be argued that it isn't just "Big Oil" that could benefit from that exemption, it would be intellectually dishonest to pretend your example didn't satisfy my question and you have indeed provided a positive source.

crab66: Wouldn't it have been great if we had privatized SS right before the market tanked?

It would probably be better if we had done it right after the market tanked. Buy low and sell high and all that.

Do I have more as another example oil and gas are allowed a 100% depletion deduction, timber and other goods only 50%

Gunther: The difference seems incredibly minor to me, but I get the feeling you aren't gonna budge on this. Hows about we switch "punishment" for "negative reinforcement"? The term is clunky as hell, but hopefully unobjectionable.

No, I won't budget, it seems you won't either. The difference is incredibly important because the terms you use require an action to be performed. You think by doing nothing, we are actively harming the country. These are contradictory. Doing nothing = actively harming? Ridiculous. The bees are doing the negative reinforcement, not me. My inaction simply means I'm not preventing negative reinforcement from happening.

The difference matters because how you view it is where you feel the default situation is. You think a lack of action is akin to punishing the country. We should not punish the country, so by default we should bailout the companies, unless someone has a good reason not to. This is why I keep saying it sounds like you believe they have a right to a bailout, because your default situation is to bail them out. My default is to not bail them out, unless there's an enormous overriding reason to. Turns out in this case there was.

Gunther: They were willing to risk economic collapse for no tangible benefit.

My point above is perfectly detailed here. Your perspective is wrong. Doing nothing is not taking a risk. The corporations were the ones taking the risk. Your kid throwing the rock is the one taking the risk. Government not intervening is not risk, you not saving your kid from the bees is not the risk. You are assigning blame in the wrong place and it matters.

lennavan: Gunther: They were willing to risk economic collapse for no tangible benefit.

My point above is perfectly detailed here. Your perspective is wrong. Doing nothing is not taking a risk. The corporations were the ones taking the risk. Your kid throwing the rock is the one taking the risk. Government not intervening is not risk, you not saving your kid from the bees is not the risk. You are assigning blame in the wrong place and it matters.

And to follow up - in your childish/adult point you made, you analogize the corporations as the kid. I would further suggest the corporations are big boys now. Nothing wrong with saving your 2 year old from some bees. But if your 40 year old son is still throwing rocks at beehives, might be time to stop the helicopter parenting.

Kittypie070: lennavan 2012-04-14 03:06:04 PM

When private businesses are going bankrupt, you call the bankruptcy courts, it sure as fark ain't the government.

NEWSFLASH!!

Courts are not part of a government!

NEWFLASH - Pedantic argument preceding - NEWSFLASH

Good point, courts are government. I apologize if you misunderstood what I wrote. Oh, you completely understood what I meant and were being a douche? K. What do you want me to change, Government to federal government? Nope, there are federal courts. How about Congress/The White House?

All along I have been posting "government bailout" but apparently you misunderstood me. When I say government bailout, I did not mean the courts. I can see how you might have honestly mistaken what I was saying: someone was forcing you to be a dick. Tell them to stop.

$7.7 trillion

Amount in undisclosed loans the Federal Reserve made to struggling financial institutions, according to the new Bloomberg report. That "dwarf[s] the Treasury Department's better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]," say Bob Ivry, Bradley Keoun, and Phil Kuntz at Bloomberg

$9.5 trillion

Total held on Sept. 20, 2011. Rather than help curb the practice that caused the financial crisis, "the Fed and its secret financing helped America's biggest financial firms get bigger and go on to pay employees as much as they did at the height of the housing bubble," say Ivry, Keoun, and Kuntz

TARP is irrelevant.

I'll give Bush credit for it, but I still disagree fundamentally with the idea that a company can be "too big to fail." Economic growth, especially in recovery periods, has traditionally been carried by small businesses and small banks, propping up the failed giants, though netting us a profit, has substantially hurt the ability of small businesses to grow against their government-subsidized competition. I don't understand how it is people argued for propping up the giants, but argued against fixing the number one cause of personal bankruptcy and the single largest drag on our economy (healthcare expense related bankruptcy).

Step 1: use money that isn't yours to bail out failed businesses

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit

/hidden step 4: tell the people whose money you used that because you made a profit, it was worth it for them.

//super secret step 5: don't actually admit that your "profits" were well below a market rate of return on private investments. Just make unsubstantiated positive remarks without any real data or analysis.

sdd2000


Smartest
Funniest

2012-04-15 10:58:53 AM

Do I have more as another example oil and gas are allowed a 100% depletion deduction, timber and other goods only 50%

Question for you on this example. If a timber company takes the 50% accelerated depreciation, can they still expense operating expenses during the life of the project?

I ask because oil companies can take either the accelerated depreciation, or the write off to operating expenses, which depending on the life of the project might not be such a great deal.

Arthen: $7.7 trillion

Amount in undisclosed loans the Federal Reserve made to struggling financial institutions, according to the new Bloomberg report. That "dwarf[s] the Treasury Department's better-known $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]," say Bob Ivry, Bradley Keoun, and Phil Kuntz at Bloomberg

of course those are overnight loans which get paid back the next day. But I'm sure you knew that and understood that it isn't even remotely the same thing.

crab66: Wouldn't it have been great if we had privatized SS right before the market tanked?

crab66: Wouldn't it have been great if we had privatized SS right before the market tanked?

Ss has a 1.2% roi

Some would say it has already been tanked

Keep on trying

sammyk: ...because the fact is the federal government should not be in the business of bailing out private industry.

Why? Because they might make money and save a lot of jobs doing it?

lennavan: You think a lack of action is akin to punishing the country

No, I think allowing the country to suffer severe negative consequences when you could prevent it because you think it will teach corporations some sort of lesson is bugfark crazy.

lennavan: , you analogize the corporations as the kid. I would further suggest the corporations are big boys now.

They really, really aren't. We used to take a "hands off" approach to corporations, and here's how it worked out (new window).