“I Cannot Afford To Live”: Americans Get Emotional As The U.S. Economy Goes Off The Rails

[Andylusion]

Yep, and know we all know those profits and stock going up was at the expense of safety and quality control.

Under him they spent more money buying back stocks to pump up the shares than they did developing new planes.

The stock is down 30% since Dec when cutting safety corners caught up to the company.

So yeah, he did a great job in the short term to make sure shareholders got richer.

Seems that should not be the only concern for a CEO....but we seem to differ on that

What? Why do you say things when you know I can look up the SEC reports, and verify that they are wrong?
Boeing hasn't had a stock buy back since 2019, before David Calhoun was even CEO.

Boeing Stock Buybacks (Quarterly) Insights | YCharts

In depth view into Boeing Stock Buybacks (Quarterly) including historical data from 1972, charts and stats.

ycharts.com

They have spent, literally ZERO on buy backs. Why are you making up crap?

There is no evidence they cut any corners on safety. Safety is a never ending crusade. When you change things and improve things, there is always a potential for a safety problem to creep up. Just like how when air bags were first introduced, some kids in the front seat died from the air bags. That doesn't mean that all auto-manufacturers were intentionally killing children or some such nonsense that they were cutting corners.

Boeing even canceled a FAA exemption that other airliners get, in order to restore their credibility under Calhoun.

And yes, the stock price does drop when they have a crash or accident or anything else. GM's stock price drops when they have a recall. And Toyota's stock price drops when they have recall. Boeing stock price dropped when they have an investigation.

This is normal. If you think you can run any business anywhere, and never have an accident, by all means start your own business with hundreds of employees, and show us how it's done.

 

[Andylusion]

You mean like having doors fall off of planes in mid-flight due to shitty design?

But this is what the CEO is supposed to deal with. This is why they pay him the big bucks.

You want to be CEO of a company, and have a door plug blow out, and everyone on the planet blame you, because your the one in charge?

That responsibility is exactly why he's paid so much.

Unless you think the CEO was on the assembly line, and he's the one that designed that door, and failed to install the bolts correctly? Do you think that happened?

That's what a CEO does. He has to own the responsibility when things blow up. I don't want that responsibility. You don't either.

But someone has to. And you have to pay them a lot of money to own that, and deal with it.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

“I Cannot Afford To Live”: ​

Americans Get Emotional As The U.S. Economy Goes Off The Rails​

"I Cannot Afford To Live": Americans Get Emotional As The U.S. Economy Goes Off The Rails

As we approach what is likely to be the most chaotic presidential election in U.S. history, trouble signs are starting to erupt for the U.S. economy. In fact, CNN is actually admitting that "the long-predicted

theeconomiccollapseblog.com

10 Apr 2024 ~~ By Michael Snyder

As we approach what is likely to be the most chaotic presidential election in U.S. history, trouble signs are starting to erupt for the U.S. economy. In fact, CNN is actually admitting that “the long-predicted storm clouds in the economy may actually be forming”. I can’t remember the last time that I saw a CNN article with a headline like that. But at this point, it is becoming extremely difficult for the mainstream media to avoid the truth. Inflation is getting worse at the same time that many key sectors of our economy are slowing down. If you thought that the last couple of years were rough for the economy, just wait until you see what is coming next. Tremendous turmoil is on the horizon, and the American people are becoming increasingly emotional about our rapidly growing economic problems.
On Wednesday, we learned that prices jumped even more than expected during the month of March…
~Snip~
For example, Fox Business is reporting that the cost of energy “is up 36.9% from where it was in Jan. 2021″…

Tuesday’s inflation numbers punctuate what has been a dreadful three years for energy consumers. The overall cost of energy in March is up 36.9% from where it was in Jan. 2021, according to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics.​

Of course energy prices are going to go a lot higher than they are right now.
~Snip~
Just like me, so many of you can feel what is coming.
A tipping point has arrived, and the outlook for the months ahead is very bleak.
The U.S. economy is going off the rails, and the worse things get the more frustrated the American people are going to become.


Commentary:
Not according to our 46th president and his administration. We are doing so well, we don’t have to worry about the cost of illegals or of forgiving student loans, and we can freely help Ukraine with many hundreds of billions of dollars for something that could have been handled with a peace treaty.
Everything is fine!
Don't worry about housing, food, or fuel for heating, cooking or transportation. Our president has it covered.
Yes, The Rats in Washington have it covered. They tell us they won’t cut Social Security benefits, but they have no problem creating high inflation, or fudging the numbers to limit Social Security COLA’s for retirees.
The next round of inflation is going to be absolutely brutal. Many already on the brink who never would've considered crime will start to ponder it.
America's largely service sector economy will take a massive hit as what little discretionary spending still exists evaporates and near-minimum wage workers can barely afford to commute.
What happens when rural youth begin behaving like urban youth?
There is a level of hardship at which this starts to happen en-masse.

Thank you Democrats.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Obama handed Trump a great economy. He passed a tax break like Bush did when he gave Clinton's surplus away to the rich. It gave us a very small bump in Obama's already good economy. Trump slowed the economy starting a trade war with China. Like a bull in a china shop. I want a diplomat to be POTUS you want an authoritarian who EVERYONE you don't agree with should fear.

You cheer when Trump says cops should rough up suspects who are cuffed then buy his bible with the constitution and bill or rights included?

READ IT BITCH! Thanks American hating Democrats

 

[AntonToo]

So the GSEs avoided all the risk sub-prime stuff

I'm getting real bored with having to correct your never ending stream of stupidity.

NO THEY DIDN'T AVOID RISK, THEY HAD HUGE RISK MANAGMENT FAILURES ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE MARKET.

 

[AntonToo]

Yes. Before 1997, there were ZERO sub-prime mortgage backed securities. ZERO.

Dumbass, I'm asking you to compare GSE to non-GSE real estate securities market performance.

You said GSE had the biggest failures - SHOW THAT.

 

[Andylusion]

Great points. I love good corporations. Not all corporations are as socially responsible. For example, during the 2000's, the highest paid CEO's from the biggest companies, all sent THE MOST jobs overseas. Because it increased profits. So the CEO of course got PAID. I don't blame them. You want to bring jobs back homeand make those CEO's pay American wages? How much?

Well yes, the CEO is going to get paid whether the jobs are here in the US, or overseas. If they don't get paid, they would close down their corporations in the US completely, and move them overseas.

So the only question you need to ask is why are they moving jobs overseas?

Because it costs too much to build something here. That's it. You need reduce taxes and regulations, to make creating jobs in the US more profitable.

Because you jacking up regulations, and jacking up taxes.... that's not going to bring a single job to the US. If anything, that will drive more jobs out of the US.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm getting real bored with having to correct your never ending stream of stupidity.

NO THEY DIDN'T AVOID RISK, THEY HAD HUGE RISK MANAGMENT FAILURES ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE MARKET.

And when did that start? 1997 Freddie Mac gave sub-prime mortgage backed securities a "AAA" rating by guaranteeing them.
Do you want me to post the 1997 press release again?

 

[Andylusion]

Dumbass, I'm asking you to compare GSE to non-GSE real estate securities market performance.

You said GSE had the biggest failures - SHOW THAT.

I already did. They had the most toxic securities, and guarantees of toxic securities anywhere in the market.

You do know how the GSEs interact in the market right?

The GSE are not just buyers of mortgage backed securities.
They also guarantee mortgage backed Securities.

Understand what that means. That means that private lenders, making private loans, bundling them into Mortgage Backed Securities, then have the GSEs like Freddie Mac, guarantee that Mortgage Backed Security.

So when you say "the private market" that private market for sub-prime mortgage backed securities, ONLY EXISTS... because the GSEs guaranteed them.

That's why the GSEs were the biggest bailout of the entire sub-prime crash. It wasn't just because of the failure of their Alt-A loans. It was also because they guaranteed hundreds of billions of dollars in Sub-prime loans throughout the market.

And it all started with Freddie Mac. If Freddie Mac had not guaranteed sub-prime mortgage backed securities.... not one single sub-prime Mortgage backed security would have ever existed, even to this day.

 

[AntonToo]

And when did that start? 1997 Freddie Mac gave sub-prime mortgage backed securities a "AAA" rating by guaranteeing them.
Do you want me to post the 1997 press release again?

Aaaand? Whats you point dummy? Dat Clinton did it in 97 and thats the end of the story?

Not only Bush admin fix anything, they ecouraged expansion of GSE sub-prime backed securitization goals - do you give a shit? NOPE
Do you give a shit about Bush admin deregulating funding requirements? NOPE.
Do you care about his Home Ownership initiatives and promotion of exotic rate-adjustable morgages? NOPE.

NOTHING, like the two bit partisan tool that you are, you don't give a shit about anything except to pin a recession on some Democrat who was in office 8 years before it happened.

 

[Markle]

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. In its first year, the number of companies paying no taxes went from 30 to 60.

They've reported they owe absolutely nothing on the billions of dollars in profits they earned last year.


At least 60 companies reported that their 2018 federal tax rates amounted to effectively zero, or even less than zero, on income earned on U.S. operations

So Uncle Sam gets nothing.

The number is more than twice as many as ITEP found roughly, per year, on average in an earlier, multi-year analysis before the new tax law went into effect.

Amazon.com Inc. and entertainment streaming service Netflix Inc., in addition to global oil giant Chevron Corp., pharmaceutical manufacturer Eli Lilly and Co., and farming and commercial equipment manufacturer Deere & Co.

The identified companies were "able to zero out their federal income taxes on $79 billion in U.S. pretax income," according to the ITEP report, which was released today. "Instead of paying $16.4 billion in taxes, as the new 21 percent corporate tax rate requires, these companies enjoyed a net corporate tax rebate of $4.3 billion, blowing a $20.7 billion hole in the federal budget last year." To compile the list, ITEP analyzed the 2018 financial filings of the country's largest 560 publicly-held companies.

The controversial Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, signed by President Donald Trump in December 2017, lowered the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent, among other cuts. That's partly to blame for giving corporations an easier way out of paying taxes

Twice as many companies paying zero taxes under Trump tax bill

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent. In its first year, the number of companies paying no taxes went from 30 to 60.

www.nbcnews.com

IF any of that is relevant, why did REVENUES INCREASE?

 

[Andylusion]

Aaaand? Whats you point dummy? Dat Clinton did it in 97 and thats the end of the story?

Not only Bush admin fix anything, they ecouraged expansion of GSE sub-prime backed securitization goals - do you give a shit? NOPE, you don't dare comment on that.

Once a housing bubble is in progress, the end result is always a pop. And worse, everyone said there was no problem. In fact Bush and the Republicans repeatedly tried to investigate the GSEs and pass new regulations to prevent a catastrophe. Which is way better than the Democrats who did everything in their power to make sure we had a crash.



Here you can see all the Republicans want to try and control the situation, and all the Democrats are saying there is no issue, and the GSEs are doing a great job.
Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae, even said directly "These mortgages are 'riskless'"
Go to 7:44 in the video. Franklin Raines, appointed by Bill Clinton to the "Office of Management and Budget" in 1996, and became CEO of Fannie Mae in 1999.

That guy, said Mortgage backed securities were "riskless".

Bush and the Republicans were the ONLY people trying to stop this disaster.

 

[AntonToo]

I already did. They had the most toxic securities, and guarantees of toxic securities anywhere in the market.

View attachment 933167

Dumbass what the hell does your graph have to do with comparing performance of real estate securities portfolios?

Do you understand anything at all?

And lets for a second pretend that your graph somehow represents such comparison:

GSE's held about 50% of all American mortgage debt, if you add up all the other financial institutions in your graph (the other 50%) and ASSume their exposure was also from securitization then GSE's bail was actually SMALLER with respect to the volume they were dealing with.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That's what a CEO does. He has to own the responsibility when things blow up. I don't want that responsibility. You don't either.

and he owns the responsibility by saying "whoops, my bad, I will resign" and gets 30 million in stock.

that will really teach em!

 

[sealybobo]

So your own article contradicts you.

"rebate"
Rebate - "a partial refund to someone who has paid too much money for tax, rent, or a utility."

Because the income tax rate fell from 35% to 21%.

I don't know what your tax rate is, but let's say that your tax rate is the 37% rate. So all year long you are having tax withholding according to the 37% tax rate.

Now lets say that at the end of the year, they pass a bill to reduce the top marginal rate from 37% to 30% or whatever. Well you have been paying in 37% of your income all year. You would get a "rebate" at the end of the year. The government would cut you a check.

Not because you paid zero tax. If you paid zero tax, there would be no rebate. You just paid too much tax. You are getting back an over payment. You still paid taxes. You just paid too much taxes, because they lowered the tax rate.

So even your own article that you posted, basically proves your claim wrong. A rebate means they paid taxes. They paid so much taxes, that they were owed a rebate.

No, you're missing something. I'm not an accountant but basically, these mega corps aren't paying any taxes. Somehow. And, you fucking Republican hypocrites. I remember when Obama was president you pointed to GE and said they paid no taxes. See? You said. See? Obama does it too. Why doesn't Obama tax GE?

Trump doubled the companies who now pay no taxes. Not a shocker.

And if I explained how it works, you'd say it makes them smart, and they shouldn't pay taxes. So ultimately if that's what you believe, fundamentally, you're wrong. IMO.

 

[sealybobo]

Well yes, the CEO is going to get paid whether the jobs are here in the US, or overseas. If they don't get paid, they would close down their corporations in the US completely, and move them overseas.

So the only question you need to ask is why are they moving jobs overseas?

Because it costs too much to build something here. That's it. You need reduce taxes and regulations, to make creating jobs in the US more profitable.

Because you jacking up regulations, and jacking up taxes.... that's not going to bring a single job to the US. If anything, that will drive more jobs out of the US.

That's not what Trump is saying. He's saying tariffs. BIG tariffs. Doesn't matter that it's cheaper to make it over there. You don't think that's going to cause "inflation" which is the cost of things to go up?

But, perhaps what you are saying is true. But like NAFTA, don't flip flop on us years down the road and say Democrats went along with charging companies no taxes, even though they use our government, military and courts and roads more than we do. And they benefit from our public schools, cops, ambulances. But you say they shouldn't pay taxes because they employ people. Got it. I disagree but that's just me. I don't bend over for corporations. Know who else doesn't? China. If corporations want to do business in China, they follow China's laws and rules. Pay employees a fair wage. And pay taxes to the state.

Also, don't cry that your taxes went up and the debt is out of control.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Nope. I've been paying attention since Carter. You're being fooled by Republicans. I've been doing this for 45 years. I know, the GOP, is not the party for the middle class or poor. It hasn't been since god knows when but Reagan fooled us into believing he was but meanwhile he was actually the beginning of the end. All his policies, have made the middle class poorer and the rich richer.

Let's be honest. From 1978, union membership represented 35% of our work force. Those guys made good money. Today only 5% of us are in unions. And during those 40 years, the rich and corporations $ has gone up due to GOP policies.

It's funny that in the 2000's you attacked uneducated blue collar workers. You said they were overpaid. Now you say you want to pay them more? Interesting.

When have I ever attacked blue collar workers of any kind? I view blue collar workers as the backbone of the US economy.

 

[AntonToo]

Here you can see all the Republicans want to try and control the situation, and all the Democrats are saying there is no issue, and the GSEs are doing a great job.
Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae, even said directly "These mortgages are 'riskless'"
Go to 7:44 in the video. Franklin Raines, appointed by Bill Clinton to the "Office of Management and Budget" in 1996, and became CEO of Fannie Mae in 1999.

That guy, said Mortgage backed securities were "riskless".

And you know what Republican response to that "riskless" statement was?.... HEAD NODDING.

It wasn't just SOME people that real estate was riskless it was just about EVERYONE that thought that.

If Republicans had any real forsight then had both plenty of time and plenty of political means to address the issue.

They had none and spent their time on irrelevant questioning of GSE accounting, not the fact that under-regulated sub-prime lending presented a sytemic risk that was ecouraged and leveraged by securization GSE's were part of.

So take that partisan finger and put it you know where.

 

[Markle]

That's not what Trump is saying. He's saying tariffs. BIG tariffs. Doesn't matter that it's cheaper to make it over there. You don't think that's going to cause "inflation" which is the cost of things to go up?

But, perhaps what you are saying is true. But like NAFTA, don't flip flop on us years down the road and say Democrats went along with charging companies no taxes, even though they use our government, military and courts and roads more than we do. And they benefit from our public schools, cops, ambulances. But you say they shouldn't pay taxes because they employ people. Got it. I disagree but that's just me. I don't bend over for corporations. Know who else doesn't? China. If corporations want to do business in China, they follow China's laws and rules. Pay employees a fair wage. And pay taxes to the state.

Also, don't cry that your taxes went up and the debt is out of control.

I thought you wanted more things made here in America. How did President Biden's efforts control inflation? Do you want more things made here or do you want them cheaper and made overseas?

Although futile, I'll ask again differently; maybe a bit of a hint?

Suppose the income taxes paid by a corporation go from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000. The government would have $1,000,000 more to spend, right?

The customers of that business pay that $1,000,000 more to the company to buy their widgets. Right?

 

[Markle]

Once a housing bubble is in progress, the end result is always a pop. And worse, everyone said there was no problem. In fact Bush and the Republicans repeatedly tried to investigate the GSEs and pass new regulations to prevent a catastrophe. Which is way better than the Democrats who did everything in their power to make sure we had a crash.



Here you can see all the Republicans want to try and control the situation, and all the Democrats are saying there is no issue, and the GSEs are doing a great job.
Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae, even said directly "These mortgages are 'riskless'"
Go to 7:44 in the video. Franklin Raines, appointed by Bill Clinton to the "Office of Management and Budget" in 1996, and became CEO of Fannie Mae in 1999.

That guy, said Mortgage backed securities were "riskless".

Bush and the Republicans were the ONLY people trying to stop this disaster.

The Democrats have beautiful hearts, just so they're spending/risking other people's money.

From USNews and World Report

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle
By Sam Dealey
September 10, 2008

[…]

So five years ago, there was one of those rare moments in Washington when the branches and personalities of government—in this case, the Bush administration—are less interested in protecting or expanding their turf than in fixing a looming catastrophe. What was Frank's response to the proposal?

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

[…]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/sam-dealey/2008/09/10/barney-franks-fannie-and-freddie-muddle