Specter on the Auto Bailout

[JSojourner]

I'm with the Republican from Pennsylvania, unless someone can change my mind.  Did you all hear what Arlen said about the auto industry bridge loan being floated?

I can't quote him directly, but the gist of it was... "I will support it as soon as I see a credible plan from the Big 3.  I will not hand them billions in cash just because they need it."

That resonated with me because, while I support the concept of government bailing out certain industries and businesses in brutal economic times, it makes no sense to do so irresponsibly.

Will this bailout/loan (whichever you prefer) be paid back?

Will there be serious accountability for CEO's and top executives?

Will the money be spent on spa weekends?

Will the UAW give up that awful job bank? Or at least agree to MUCH stricter controls?

I realize there's a domino effect here if the big three go down.  It's not just assembly line jobs that are at risk.  Tens of millions of Americans also make brakes, windshields, accessories and so forth that depend on a healthy auto industry.  But if I hear that we gave them this money and they blew a penny of it on "weekend retreats", I am going to go ballistic.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Will this bailout/loan (whichever you prefer) be paid back?

And what's the game plan for doing so.

[MODU]

While it would be nice to see a plan from the companies, I doubt one would be provided.  The only way to get them to fundamentally change their model is to go through bankruptcy.  That will give them the protection to shed hundred of union jobs which are killing the company, especially the jobs where people are being paid to do next to nothing due to bargaining agreements.  Anyone who supports the Employee Choice Act should look closely at the big three to see what kind of negative impacts giving unions too much power over a company can do.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm with the Republican from Pennsylvania

Santorum lost two years ago.

[JSojourner]

I'm with the Republican from Pennsylvania

Santorum lost two years ago.

Phil, there are some things I can just COUNT on.  Thank you.  You are like the mailman.  :-)

[Keystone Phil]

I'm with the Republican from Pennsylvania

Santorum lost two years ago.

Phil, there are some things I can just COUNT on.  Thank you.  You are like the mailman.  :-)

[I left.]

Actually...I'm with MODU on this.....but Specter is definitely a FF.

[MK13]

I'm with the Republican from Pennsylvania

Santorum lost two years ago.

Sure did.

Sen. Bob Casey = What all Democrats should be.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm with the Republican from Pennsylvania

Santorum lost two years ago.

Sure did.

Sen. Bob Casey = What all Democrats should be.

Mediocre jokes that have no real desire to serve in the office they were elected to?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm with the Republican from Pennsylvania

Santorum lost two years ago.

Sure did.

Sen. Bob Casey = What all Democrats should be.

We have enough DINOs already.

[MK13]

I'm with the Republican from Pennsylvania

Santorum lost two years ago.

Sure did.

Sen. Bob Casey = What all Democrats should be.

Mediocre jokes that have no real desire to serve in the office they were elected to?

Still bitter over that loss huh?

[opebo]

So, is Specter for nationalization?

[Keystone Phil]

I'm with the Republican from Pennsylvania

Santorum lost two years ago.

Sure did.

Sen. Bob Casey = What all Democrats should be.

Mediocre jokes that have no real desire to serve in the office they were elected to?

Still bitter over that loss huh?

Not willing to defend that worthless Senator? Not surprising.

[Torie]

What is the metric for which industries get bailed out, and which ones don't?  A good business plan, as seen through the eyes of Washington DC bureaucrats? What makes a "good" business plan. A cool carbon footprint?  Unionized workers? "Overpaying" unionized workers? What? Do you think any law firms might qualify?  Heck, you know I can set up a bank holding company too, just like the insurance companies are so they can get their cut of the pie. The other cool thing about banks, is that they are exempt from all of those silly and noisome usury laws.

[opebo]

Unionized workers? "Overpaying" unionized workers? What? Do you think any law firms might qualify? 

Obviously, public policy should encourage continual wage increases for the lower working class, while at the same time progressively taxing the upper middle ('professional') class and especially the upper (owning) class.

Full unionization is an economically useful goal, both for reducing the power disadvantage of the workers in question, and for the maintainence of healthy demand. 

[Wakie]

You know, it is a little ridiculous for the auto industry to come asking for money from the tax payers when they won't cut the super expensive perks for their top management such as the private jets.

[opebo]

You know, it is a little ridiculous for the auto industry to come asking for money from the tax payers when they won't cut the super expensive perks for their top management such as the private jets.

Petty and misdirected spite, Wakie.  Either critique perks like 'private' jets in all cases or leave them alone - the public/private dichotomy is nonsense. 

[Torie]

How does this concept of paying workers more than the value of their productivity work Opebo?  And how do we decide who gets paid more than they are worth, and who doesn't? I suppose we could pay everybody more than they are worth. The downside of that is that taxation rate to support that might be a bit Draconian, and of course that would mean higher income folks even if paid more than they are worth would be net losers. And what is your ideal tax rate schedule Opebo, and what would be the top marginal rate, and when would you hit it? Would there be any deductions allowed?

[??????????]

I'm with the Republican from Pennsylvania

[opebo]

How does this concept of paying workers more than the value of their productivity work Opebo?

Dear Torie, the whole of capitalism and america is built upon paying workers less than their productivity! 

And how do we decide who gets paid more than they are worth, and who doesn't? I suppose we could pay everybody more than they are worth. The downside of that is that taxation rate to support that might be a bit Draconian, and of course that would mean higher income folks even if paid more than they are worth would be net losers. And what is your ideal tax rate schedule Opebo, and what would be the top marginal rate, and when would you hit it? Would there be any deductions allowed?

Dude, we already 'pay' people people based entirely upon their political power - according to how much they own.  'Worth', as you are using the term, is an entirely political formulation, not the objective market you imagine it to be. 

Regarding my policy prescriptions, they would simply be to re-distribute a goodly chunk of the currently State-exacted rentier income of the owners to the actual producers (workers).  I should think a tax rate of 70% or so would be worth a try, kicking in at perhaps $500,000.  Deductions are all right, as long as they are carefully targetted to force the privileged to give orders which will have at least some benefit to the oppressed.

[Torie]

Is that 70% rate include state income taxes, or are they on top?  What would be the marginal rate for someone earning 250K, a number which thanks to Obama now has a certain cachet.

By the way, you know you are paying your workers too much if folks won't buy your products because their price tag is too high, and if you lower the price, you can't turn a profit due to the cost of production. It is kind of like a little signal giving to the business owner by the market.

[opebo]

Is that 70% rate include state income taxes, or are they on top?  What would be the marginal rate for someone earning 250K, a number which thanks to Obama now has a certain cachet.

No I think current law provides for a deduction of state income taxes does it not?  I'm not particularly comitted one way or the other on that.  But certainly a lower rate than 70% may be acceptable on incomes of $250K, say something like 50%.  Keep in mind that all taxes upon the upper classes are actually privilege reduction strategies, Torie, and not an actual 'taking' of 'their' money - at most you could call it a 'taking back'.

[Torie]

Is that 70% rate include state income taxes, or are they on top?  What would be the marginal rate for someone earning 250K, a number which thanks to Obama now has a certain cachet.

No I think current law provides for a deduction of state income taxes does it not?  I'm not particularly comitted one way or the other on that.  But certainly a lower rate than 70% may be acceptable on incomes of $250K, say something like 50%.  Keep in mind that all taxes upon the upper classes are actually privilege reduction strategies, Torie, and not an actual 'taking' of 'their' money - at most you could call it a 'taking back'.

Hey, Opebo, as long as we don't go down the wealth tax road, I'm bullet proof. I've made most of my money.  My biggest problem is trying to think up ways to spend it.

This privilege meme of yours is a bit overdone. But I suppose there is some accuracy in saying that the rich benefit more from protecting property rights, and corporeal safety by virtue of keeping the sans culotte  barbarians outside the gate.