Browns owner may be $4,000,000,000 in debt

[Nanker]

Welcome to Hell, thread.

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Eh, I thought mine was funnier.

 

Anyway, the suggestion that more "regulation" would have prevented these guys from ripping off their customers is just plain silly.

 

As far as tea parties, or any others, for that matter...belonging to a political party is a sign of suspect intelligence. If you need a politician to tell you how to vote, we shouldn't be letting you vote.

 

Belonging to a political party does not mean that you allow some politician to determine your vote. It means you have a say in who gets elected by your vote in the primaries.

[BuffaloBill]

Welcome to Hell, thread.

 

What would Dante have to say about PPP?

[DC Tom]

What would Dante have to say about PPP?

 

He'd have to invent a tenth circle - Stupidity. At the center of which is conner, forcing you to role a die until it comes up 3.5

[beerme1]

Something that shouldn't be overlooked as far as the debt goes, Flying J and Pilot generate enormous revenues. I would cautiously say enough to service the debt. Of course after the upheaval after the scumbag Haslam is in a Federal Pen for fraud that may be a different story. But on their own I like the Flying J / Pilots chances as they have the market cornered for their market. My .02

[Nanker]

What would Dante have to say about PPP?

I think he posts in the other forum.

[OCinBuffalo]

I think all of you are missing the boat here.

 

Since the beginning, Fox News has been pushing for deregulation of everything. In fact, there are even against this thing:

 

http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00hMKESOurCIkg/Energy-Saving-Gas-Regulator.jpg

 

for 2 reasons:

1. It saves energy, and that is bad, because Fox News is run by the oil companies, and their corrupted scientists appear regularly. They have no interest in saving energy, or saving money, because for all their talk about economic freedom, they just want more money.

2. It's made in China, and that is bad, because Fox News has this preoccupation with socialism, and a distorted view of it. For some crazy reason they can't seem to find a single country where socialism has made a marked improvement. They just don't see Sweden as the world power it truly is.

 

Fox News has been against these guys from the beginning as well:

 

 

what else explains the near destruction of the career of everybody on that list, except Keifer Sutherland, who also happens to be right-leaning? Coincidence, or a concerted effort by Fox News to destroy the heroes of regulation?

 

And what of this guy?

 

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22702915.jpg

 

Many of you would be surprised to learn that he is now one of the best regulators in the country. But, you've never heard of him, have you? Why? Constant marginalization of regulators and regulation from, you guessed it: Fox News.

[Orton's Arm]

First this is another case that we need MORE regulation not less in this country. This is very similar to what Romney's firm did in that they paid themselves first and saddled the company with even more debt. Second how does the NFL not figure this stuff out when vetting the deal???

 

Let's say you want to buy a machine for $1 million. The machine is expected to produce $100,000 a year in operating profit. There are two ways you can get that $1 million for the machine: debt and equity. For example: you could use 0% bonds and 100% equity investment, or a 50/50 mix of debt and equity, or 80% debt and 20% equity. Or any other ratio you care for. (Equity is like your down payment on your home. Debt is like your mortgage.)

 

Let's say that you pay for the machine with 100% equity. The equity holders will get a 10% rate of return. On the other hand, let's say you pay for the machine with a 50/50 mix of debt versus equity. The debt holders get a 7% return on their bonds, which means the company can afford to pay a 13% return to the equity holders. That's a better return than the 10% they could have gotten, had the machine been paid for with pure equity. On the other hand, the equity holders are now at more risk, because the company is more leveraged. The increased risk balances out the higher return.

 

There is no one debt/equity ratio that's right for every company. Generally, more debt and less equity is considered a high risk, high reward proposition. Suppose a company wanted to have a 95/5 debt-equity ratio. The people that would be buying that company's stock and bonds are big boys. They know how to read a balance sheet, and they understand the implications of a 95/5 debt equity ratio. Any decision they make will be made with their eyes open. If these investors were children, unable to understand even the most basic aspects of corporate finance, it would be necessary for government regulators to step in and protect the investors from themselves.

 

Executives and major investors tend to be highly confident people; and as such are sometimes vulnerable to mistakes born of overconfidence. It's possible for overconfident owners + executives to make a company too highly leveraged--to accumulate too much debt. When this happens, the company tends to get driven into bankruptcy. Bain Capital has never needed to seek bankruptcy protection. Prior to Mitt Romney's entry into politics, there had been no reason for anyone to describe Bain as anything other than a very well-run company.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[3rdnlng]

 

 

Let's say you want to buy a machine for $1 million. The machine is expected to produce $100,000 a year in operating profit. There are two ways you can get that $1 million for the machine: debt and equity. For example: you could use 0% bonds and 100% equity investment, or a 50/50 mix of debt and equity, or 80% debt and 20% equity. Or any other ratio you care for. (Equity is like your down payment on your home. Debt is like your mortgage.)

 

Let's say that you pay for the machine with 100% equity. The equity holders will get a 10% rate of return. On the other hand, let's say you pay for the machine with a 50/50 mix of debt versus equity. The debt holders get a 7% return on their bonds, which means the company can afford to pay a 13% return to the equity holders. That's a better return than the 10% they could have gotten, had the machine been paid for with pure equity. On the other hand, the equity holders are now at more risk, because the company is more leveraged. The increased risk balances out the higher return.

 

There is no one debt/equity ratio that's right for every company. Generally, more debt and less equity is considered a high risk, high reward proposition. Suppose a company wanted to have a 95/5 debt-equity ratio. The people that would be buying that company's stock and bonds are big boys. They know how to read a balance sheet, and they understand the implications of a 95/5 debt equity ratio. Any decision they make will be made with their eyes open. If these investors were children, unable to understand even the most basic aspects of corporate finance, it would be necessary for government regulators to step in and protect the investors from themselves.

 

Executives and major investors tend to be highly confident people; and as such are sometimes vulnerable to mistakes born of overconfidence. It's possible for overconfident owners + executives to make a company too highly leveraged--to accumulate too much debt. When this happens, the company tends to get driven into bankruptcy. Bain Capital has never needed to seek bankruptcy protection. Prior to Mitt Romney's entry into politics, there had been no reason for anyone to describe Bain as anything other than a very well-run company.

 

Very well stated. Regulations can work both ways. I consider the Community Reinvestment Act as regulation that keyed the housing collapse. At the same time the lack of regulation of Fannie & Freddie fueled that collapse.

[Tcali]

Eh, I thought mine was funnier.

 

Anyway, the suggestion that more "regulation" would have prevented these guys from ripping off their customers is just plain silly.

 

As far as tea parties, or any others, for that matter...belonging to a political party is a sign of suspect intelligence. If you need a politician to tell you how to vote, we shouldn't be letting you vote.

tea party isn't a political party.--and some people with intelligence who want to get things done do actually still belong to political parties.me--im independent.

 

Very well stated. Regulations can work both ways. I consider the Community Reinvestment Act as regulation that keyed the housing collapse. At the same time the lack of regulation of Fannie & Freddie fueled that collapse.

absolutely----give anyone a loan..work at McDonalds?? want a 300k loan for a house in ca??? sure--u can just re-fi later.---and true as well re fannie and Freddie.

 

I think all of you are missing the boat here.

 

Since the beginning, Fox News has been pushing for deregulation of everything. In fact, there are even against this thing:

 

http://image.made-in...s-Regulator.jpg

 

for 2 reasons:

1. It saves energy, and that is bad, because Fox News is run by the oil companies, and their corrupted scientists appear regularly. They have no interest in saving energy, or saving money, because for all their talk about economic freedom, they just want more money.

2. It's made in China, and that is bad, because Fox News has this preoccupation with socialism, and a distorted view of it. For some crazy reason they can't seem to find a single country where socialism has made a marked improvement. They just don't see Sweden as the world power it truly is.

 

Fox News has been against these guys from the beginning as well:

 

 

what else explains the near destruction of the career of everybody on that list, except Keifer Sutherland, who also happens to be right-leaning? Coincidence, or a concerted effort by Fox News to destroy the heroes of regulation?

 

And what of this guy?

 

http://cdn.memegener...0x/22702915.jpg

 

Many of you would be surprised to learn that he is now one of the best regulators in the country. But, you've never heard of him, have you? Why? Constant marginalization of regulators and regulation from, you guessed it: Fox News.

huhh? the oil companies make people watch FOX?

[3rdnlng]

 

tea party isn't a political party.--and some people with intelligence who want to get things done do actually still belong to political parties.me--im independent.

 

 

absolutely----give anyone a loan..work at McDonalds?? want a 300k loan for a house in ca??? sure--u can just re-fi later.---and true as well re fannie and Freddie.

 

 

huhh? the oil companies make people watch FOX?

 

He's trolling a poster in the Nazi Flag thread named "Whites Bay" for claiming that the guy flying the flag must have gotten the idea from Fox News. Although "Whites Bay" seems like an idiot, "OCinBuffalo" is code for "off my meds".

[Ted William's frozen head]

 

Don't be foolish. Supply creates demand.

 

In this case, a supply of government influence created by an activist government with the authority to involve itself in every aspect of it's citizens lives, and the power to extract it's wealth via taxation.

 

Demand will always arise to meet supply where the product is desireable.

 

The only way to eliminate the problem is to eliminate the supply.

 

Eliminate activist government, and you'll see corruption dry up.

Taxation is at a historical low. WHERE are all the jobs from "Trickle down" B.S. we've been fed for 30+ years?

Keep drinkin' the neoCON Kool-Aid.........

Edited July 3, 2013 by Ted William's frozen head

[meazza]

Taxation is at a historical low. WHERE are all the jobs from "Trickle down" B.S. we've been fed for 30+ years?

Keep drinkin' the neoCON Kool-Aid.........

 

I think your brain needs a little more thawing before you speak.

 

You should probably compare the tax rates between states and the level of unemployment.

[IDBillzFan]

Taxation is at a historical low. WHERE are all the jobs from "Trickle down" B.S. we've been fed for 30+ years?

Keep drinkin' the neoCON Kool-Aid.........

 

You need to keep current. Trickle down stopped five years ago, when we began the Obama plan for trickle up poverty.

 

The number of people in poverty, on food stamps and relying on welfare is at an all-time high. So far, so good, eh?

[dayman]

You need to keep current. Trickle down stopped five years ago, when we began the Obama plan for trickle up poverty.

 

The number of people in poverty, on food stamps and relying on welfare is at an all-time high. So far, so good, eh?

 

While I don't care to take a side in this particular debate, I will comment that if you are to accept "trickle down" did not work for 30 years...pointing to a recent period of 4 is not a good response.

Edited July 4, 2013 by SameOldBills

[3rdnlng]

 

 

You need to keep current. Trickle down stopped five years ago, when we began the Obama plan for trickle up poverty.

 

The number of people in poverty, on food stamps and relying on welfare is at an all-time high. So far, so good, eh?

 

Well, his narrative wouldn't work by blaming Bush so he had to go back to Reagan. Yes, thirty + years of a bad economy. If only we could go back to the Utopia of the Jimmy Carter era.

[Orton's Arm]

Taxation is at a historical low. WHERE are all the jobs from "Trickle down" B.S. we've been fed for 30+ years?

Keep drinkin' the neoCON Kool-Aid.........

 

You are correct to state that tax revenues are lower than usual. From 1971 - the present, the high point of federal tax revenues occurred around the year 2000; when they peaked at 21% of GDP. Federal tax revenues have since declined to less than 16% of GDP.

 

Back in 2000, federal spending represented 18% of GDP--which together with the high tax revenue caused a surplus. But that's changed: federal spending now consumes 23% or more of GDP. The difference between the 16% of GDP the government takes in as federal revenue and the 23% it spends represents the federal deficit.

 

The government's economic power does not consist solely of federal spending. Every time new regulations are made or new bureaucracies created, politicians in Washington increase their control over the economy. The U.S. economy is a hybrid model; partway between a free market and Soviet-style central economic planning.

 

There are a number of things the U.S. could do to get itself out of its current economic mess. But perhaps the single most important would be to create a friendlier environment for entrepreneurs. Fewer paperwork obligations. Fewer government bureaucracies. Simpler, more transparent, more even-handed legislation. Less politicization of all things employment-related. Entrepreneurs represent the main engine of job creation. Any burdens we lay on their shoulders will result in the destruction of jobs. Any burdens we can remove from their shoulders will result in the creation of new jobs.

[IDBillzFan]

While I don't care to take a side in this particular debate, I will comment that if you are to accept "trickle down" did not work for 30 years...pointing to a recent period of 4 is not a good response.

 

Maybe I'm suggesting that the trickle up poverty plan is working better in four years than the trick down plan did in 30. On its current trajectory, one can only imagine how successful the trickle up poverty plan will be after 30 years of implementation.

 

Or maybe I was just being a wiseass to someone whose entire post relied on phrases like "trick down BS" and "neo-con Kool-aid.?"

Edited July 4, 2013 by LABillzFan

[Orton's Arm]

Maybe I'm suggesting that the trickle up poverty plan is working better in four years than the trick down plan did in 30. On its current trajectory, one can only imagine how successful the trickle up poverty plan will be after 30 years of implementation.

 

Or maybe I was just being a wiseass to someone whose entire post relied on phrases like "trick down BS" and "neo-con Kool-aid.?"

 

Obama's economic experiment has been tried before, in Western Europe. High levels of government spending. Large, very active regulatory agencies, not afraid to impose plenty of paperwork requirements or complex new regulations. More and more obligations for employers for each person they hire. An overall economy controlled mostly by politicians and bureaucrats; not by businesspeople.

 

At least in Western Europe, the result of all this was a high level of ongoing unemployment and a reduced level of entrepreneurship. Hardest-hit are recent college grads, many of whom spend years unemployed before landing their first job.

 

Glad to know this experiment is working out a lot better in the U.S. than it had over in Western Europe.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Taxation is at a historical low. WHERE are all the jobs from "Trickle down" B.S. we've been fed for 30+ years?

Keep drinkin' the neoCON Kool-Aid.........

All this post has informed me of, is that you don't actually know a) what trickle-down economics are, b) the historic timeline of their use in the United States, and c) what economic model the United States currently uses. So, 0 for 3.

 

In baseball they call that "strikeing out".