mustangGT90210

Love that field


You guys make me wish my team was in the hunt. We need Denard Robinson of weeks 1-3

StangMahn

I firggin love the smuf turf








here's my football contribution:

ford20

Thats Awesome Nathan!!!

Even watching black out drunken people is funny

Rather B.Blown

How many more gifts do we need to give GM? Jeez.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...149103202.html

ford20

What about Chrysler LLC. ???

2k7gtcs

I will not buy a GM product ever again. F*ck them!

cdynaco

"Once you go West, you never go back." LOLOL

cdynaco

You won that thing? I remember you were gettin' close. Man you were on it!

cdynaco

Wait a minute guys, don't you take legal tax deductions?

A dirty little secret (for some reason because none of the political arguments ever include this), is tax loss deductions/carry forwards for both business owners and stockholders... even bondholders... any investors. In fact I have long owned some shares in a 'holdings company' that bought the OK based Williams Comm Co. out of bankruptcy court mainly for the huge tax loss carryforwards to offset their other profitable businesses.
A BIG part of the 'Gingrich/Clinton' surplus was so many were flush with cash due to the tech/internet boom stocks and stock options, that they took profits and paid their resulting taxes in cash. You also had the 4 year spread of taxes on Trad IRA conversions to Roth IRA's which was a taxable event. That window was a huge incentive to convert.
In contrast, when GW Bush came along, after the tech crash there were billions of tax write-offs from selling shares (and selling or liquidating businesses) at a loss. That added significantly to the first term deficits for Bush (in addition to post 9/11 security spending). Added to that was Clinton's previous ruling allowing home sales to avoid cap gains tax (up to 250k. Which led to churn and burn/subprime mortgages/where we are now! Who wouldn't choose a tax free investment?).
In fact, if you're upside down, you can sell your shares at a loss, even though you really believe in the company, and as long as you wait 30 days you can re-buy the same holding and still take the tax loss that year. :O Same with index Mutual Funds and ETF's. See "wash sale rules".
Tax loss selling only makes sense because if you have to pay tax on profit, why can't you deduct when you incur a loss.

Am I right Mr. St. Louis intern?

Blue Notch

Didn't win by calling in. Lucked out and won online in their drawing. My sisters won tickets too, so everyone's happy!

2k7gtcs

Yes. Tax deductions and losses carry forward. But you can bet if my companies filed for bankruptcy protection I would lose the ability to carry these losses forward.

That's what bankruptcy is supposed to do for most. But in the case of GM and Chrysler their bankruptcies seem to have gotten special treatment. Just ask the bond holders.

cdynaco

Are you sure about that? Ex: Williams was in Chapter 11 "reorganization", and the banko judge and interested parties wanted as much as they could get (typically .10 on the dollar), but part of the agreement for Leucadia to takeover was to receive the tax losses - that could only have been incurred by the company pre-banko. The Judge approves because it was Chap 11/reorg - not an outright 'out of biz' banko. (Actually I was a secured bondholder so in exchange I got shares in LUK whereas the shareholders gotta nadda. This was back on 02, so Chap 11 for GM is not anything new.)
We may not like it but I do believe that is Chapter 11 rules. (And yes, I read prospectuses, qtr/annual reports, and bankruptcy docs that involve my holdings [eyes hurt/brain goes numb!]. Sadly I have been involved in a few of chap 11 holdings thru the tech bust and subprime bust.)

To the underlying point. I disagree with my conservative friends in that I believe that sometimes (rarely) bailouts (with provisions to pay the taxpayer back) provides benefits that outweigh the risk. Chrysler borrowed (as I understand it). GM gave preferred and common shares. I have more faith in Chrysler paying back in full vs GM - they have to float so much stock to make the taxpayer whole.
However, why do we do this (twice regarding Chrysler)? A) jobs. We have lost so many construction jobs and manufacturing jobs, that it was important to save some kind of high wage jobs. B) Payback for their effort in WWII? Not sure but that is what makes sense to me. Which leads to C) Since the US doesn't manufacture hardly anything any more, in the very real event we were attacked full on, what other industries in America could retool so quickly and become a huge supplier to the military (as they have demonstrated before!)?? Would we place an order to China? IMO, the bailout also had national security issues behind the decision.
I don't like it, but I can understand the above points. So, since I believe those points, I would have rather the bailout occurred before banko. Although it would have involved more money to GM, it would have kept how many hundreds of suppliers in bus, how many employees keeping jobs, etc. Instead those suppliers ate a boatload of losses, shareholders (& bondholders) ate a pile of crap losses, banks ate dead mortgages by the thousands, and the ALL of the related employees went on UE. Which way was more costly???

2k7gtcs

It's a matter of rewarding failure. Something this administration and the Bush administration seemed to be good at.

You know I'm a market supporter. Either you survive and prosper or you fall to the side. Someone or something will fill the demand. It's inevitable. It my seem simplistic and cruel, but the only thing worse than welfare, is corporate welfare. And the past 2 years have been sick with it. You just can't keep throwing good money after bad. Are they too big to fail next time?

Blue Notch

Maybe I'll go to bed early tonight...

cdynaco

I agree. I really do. I've fought all my life and my entire family has earned our way. The free enterprise system is risky and most don't get the reward. But enough do to motivate others to try. America is a fantastic opportunity.

However, banko is part of our Constitution, right? So that when people/businesses fail, they have a final option to avoid homelessness for the purpose of starting over and trying yet again.

And as regards the rest, this whole deal was just too **** big to do nothing. The entire world was imploding if you remember. Fast! Did you follow LIBOR? Nobody trusted our economy and were bailing fast! And I'm not talking about ObamaSham's subsequent *%&^$#@@(*&!

I can eat some losses. And already have. But I can't go through the 30's. I'll be in a freakin' soup line. With way too many people - incl builders. And I know plenty of high end builders that are there now. Look up Running Y and the numerous builders, subs, suppliers that are sitting on hundreds of thousands/millions of chap 11 losses. They're going to deduct it just like GM. It's the law.

The auto manufacturers are our only big industry players (and airline manufacturers) that build anything of mechanical significance on US soil (for the most part). And they delivered BIG time during WWII!!

cdynaco

And so you're going to college why?

These friendly intellectual discussions are what its about son.

2k7gtcs

I whole heartedly agree with banko protection. It is absolutely necessary. Maybe I should have made that clear before. It is part of the system, both 7 and 11, but this was not run like any other typical bankruptcy. That's all I'm really complaining about. They needed chapter 11 to clear themselves from the burdens of the pensions and healthcare demands they themselves accepted in their union contracts. But the government stepped in on this one and used our dollars to shore this company up all the while taking a chunk of the company and giving it to the unions. If GM was truly worth saving or if it was even remotely economically viable someone would have stepped in and bought up the assets and restarted GM clear of the debt. Or the pieces would have been sold off to recoup the losses. We have no idea what would have happened now, but if the government had not stepped in, it does not necessarily mean that these workers would have lost their jobs.

And the national security argument was a flier to appease the right or at least reduce the howls and screaming, you and I both know that the ONLY reason GM was too big to fail and needed the government bailout was the unions. Everything the democratic party does, it does for unions. They are on in the same. The DP is the leadership, and the unions are the army. Without their army they don't stand a chance.

2k7gtcs

And this leads me to another point...

The business cycle. I'm sorry folks, but this exists. It's the way of things. For Obama, Bush, Bernanke, and Geitner to think they are so smart to be able to take out the peaks and the troughs completely is utter lunacy. Monetary policy to 'soften' the lows and highs is understandable but both Bush and Obama have been on record saying they wanted an end to the ups and downs of the business cycle. Obama doesn't know any better. He wouldn't know a business from a hole in the ground. But Bush with his harvard MBA should have known better. If he actually didn't sleep through class.

cdynaco

Looks like (the valley in) Oregon is on the same wavelength. Another pete and repeat governorship.

2k7gtcs

This is really well done, 1.5 million views, can't believe I've never seen it before.