big business getting more "stuff"
JC29856
Posts: 9,617
more examples of government handouts to big businesses that want "stuff":
explains that the bailed out AIG in 2008 is now cashing in on foreclosures
http://www.prweb.com/releases/AIG-real- ... 085923.htm
sweetheart real estate deals for private equity investors from the foreclosure to rental scam, $81M in houses for only $12M! one single deal hows that for welfare!
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/ ... pense.html
i will continue to add to this thread so check back often
explains that the bailed out AIG in 2008 is now cashing in on foreclosures
http://www.prweb.com/releases/AIG-real- ... 085923.htm
sweetheart real estate deals for private equity investors from the foreclosure to rental scam, $81M in houses for only $12M! one single deal hows that for welfare!
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/10/ ... pense.html
i will continue to add to this thread so check back often
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/inde ... _pass.html
http://www.registerguard.com/web/update ... s.html.csp
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article ... boost-jobs
i cant consider anything until i have all the facts in front of me, which i dont? i do consider nike threats to move to another state as sort of "blackmail", you?
you used the buzz word "incentive"... "welfare" and "entitlements" to humans in need, "incentive" to corporations that make billions
State and local governments need to ride a fine line with taxation. A business likes to make profit and if they feel they are being impacted to much they look for greener pastures. I don't think that would be considered blackmail.
It's similar to Hollywood moving thousands of miles away from their residence and studios and resources to save and make money. A town like Pittsburg or Vancounver or Winnipeg offers incentive and Hollywood saves money.
here are few things that didnt go over the fiscal cliff
Bonus Depreciation, R&D Tax Credit – These are well-known corporate boondoggles. The research tax credit was projected to cost $8B for 2010 and 2011, and the depreciation provisions were projected to cost about $110B for those two years, with some of that made up in later years.
Help out NASCAR - Sec 312 extends the “seven year recovery period for motorsports entertainment complex property”, which is to say it allows anyone who builds a racetrack and associated facilities to get tax breaks on it. This one was projected to cost $43 million over two years.
A hundred million or so for Railroads - Sec. 306 provides tax credits to certain railroads for maintaining their tracks. It’s unclear why private businesses should be compensated for their costs of doing business. This is worth roughly $165 million a year.
Disney’s Gotta Eat - Sec. 317 is “Extension of special expensing rules for certain film and television productions”. It’s a relatively straightforward subsidy to Hollywood studios, and according to the Joint Tax Committee, was projected to cost $150m for 2010 and 2011.
I guess that means we should get ready for another 4,200 different Duck uniform combinations.
Subsidies for Goldman Sachs Headquarters – Sec. 328 extends “tax exempt financing for York Liberty Zone,” which was a program to provide post-9/11 recovery funds. Rather than going to small businesses affected, however, this was, according to Bloomberg, “little more than a subsidy for fancy Manhattan apartments and office towers for Goldman Sachs and Bank of America Corp.” Michael Bloomberg himself actually thought the program was excessive, so that’s saying something. According to David Cay Johnston’s The Fine Print, Goldman got $1.6 billion in tax free financing for its new massive headquarters through Liberty Bonds.
“We applaud the Bureau for offering a legal safe harbor to lenders when they originate loans that meet the rigorous ‘qualified mortgage’ standards in the rule,” said Debra Still, chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, in a statement. “This approach should allow lenders to offer sustainable mortgage credit to a great number of qualified borrowers without having to risk unreasonable and overly punitive litigation and penalties.” (Could New Tighter Mortgage Rules Actually Ease Lending?” Forbes)
The banks are happy because they got everything they wanted; blanket legal immunity for garbage mortgages they plan to offload onto US taxpayers, a green light to resume extending credit to high-risk borrowers, and a first-rate public relations campaign that makes the entire coup look like genuine consumer protection. As one cheery bankster quipped, “This was the Superbowl of rules”.
“Do qualified mortgages have a minimum down payment or credit score requirement?
No. Instead, the rules focus primarily on documenting a borrower’s ability to make monthly payments.” (“What the CFPB Measures Mean For Borrowers”, Wall Street Journal)
“As regulators complete new mortgage rules, banks are about to get a significant advantage: protection against homeowner lawsuits … some banking and housing specialists worry that borrowers are losing a critical safeguard. Industries rarely get broad protection from consumer lawsuits, and banks would seem unlikely candidates given the range of abuses revealed during the housing bust.” (“Banks Seek a Shield in Mortgage Rules”, New York Times)
“Big financial institutions have faced an onslaught of litigation since the downturn, although mostly by the government, investors and other companies instead of borrowers. In February, five large mortgage banks reached a $26 billion settlement with government authorities that aimed, in part, to hold banks accountable for foreclosure abuses.”
The banks want the new rule to shield them from future losses that will naturally accrue when they start ripping people off again.
There’s one more tidbit in the new QM rule that’s worth noting, a provision that states that “loans would be deemed qualified mortgages if borrowers are spending no more than 43% of their pretax income on monthly debt payments.”
“43% pretax income”?
That means that borrowers can qualify even if they’ll have to fork over 50% or more of their weekly paycheck. How many of those loans are going to get repaid?