Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Our favorite golddigger, Zsa Zsa, is at it again:
[list]Teresa Heinz Kerry says "only an idiot" would fail to support her husband's health care plan.

Didn't Edwards criticize Kerry's plan back in the primaries?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Was this famous memo nothing but a forgery? Stay tuned folks.

Brilliant. A discussion of fonts. Who can read this shit?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Brilliant. A discussion of fonts. Who can read this shit?

No one at the NYT, I'm guessing.

(C'mon, now. I won't tell you what I'm reading right now, as that would be slighly outable, but I will tell you that I'd rather be reading about fonts.)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
No one does. These are simply subjects with which the various sides can screw each other into the floor. It's too close of an election to actually speak of issues - might alienate an undecided somewhere.

hmph. It's possibly going to end up alienating this decided.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
hmph. It's possibly going to end up alienating this decided.

"Undecided"?

You haven't decided if you'll vote for Bush?

Uh huh.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
No one does. These are simply subjects with which the various sides can screw each other into the floor. It's too close of an election to actually speak of issues - might alienate an undecided somewhere.

2

Although some blame for this lies with the media coverage of the race. Kerry or Bush can give a long speech, but can't pick the short clip you hear. Whether or not policy appeals to us as voters, the media thinks it doesn't appeal to us as consumers, and would rather try to persuade us to watch their channel or buy their paper by gotcha politics. Plus, there's a bias towards covering the campaign as a horse race, with the emphasis on tactics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Equity financing is seldom less expensive than debt for two reasons. The fees taken by underwriters are larger on equity issues than on debt issues, and significantly larger than on standard bank borrowing or the CP market. In addition, corporations, all things being equal, would rather incur debt because interest is deductible, while dividends are not.

How can you make this statement without knowing the relative interest rates? And your statement regarding underwriters fees is just not accurate, especially considering that there is a ton of debt issued in the junk bond market.

Investors, not corporations, like dividends. They are willing to pay more for stock paying dividends. That is why Microsoft paid dividends.

Who do you think corporations are? They are investors with a box around them, nothing else.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Whether or not policy appeals to us as voters, the media thinks it doesn't appeal to us as consumers, and would rather try to persuade us to watch their channel or buy their paper by gotcha politics. Plus, there's a bias towards covering the campaign as a horse race, with the emphasis on tactics.

Sadly, to our discredit as thinking voters, they are only giving their (mass) audience what it wants.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
They are investors with a box around them, nothing else.

You've met my goofy uncle Roland, haven't you?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Undecided"?

You haven't decided if you'll vote for Bush?

Uh huh.

Read, Bilmore, read.

I love when you put in quotes the opposite of the thing said.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Read, Bilmore, read.

I love when you put in quotes the opposite of the thing said.

Yeah, I missed that one.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
How can you make this statement without knowing the relative interest rates? And your statement regarding underwriters fees is just not accurate, especially considering that there is a ton of debt issued in the junk bond market.

1. Relative interest rates don't matter, corporate issuers as a whole will pay less in dividends than they will for interest because interest generates a tax benefit. This is what I do for a living, so I'm fairly comfortable with the concept. This is also why there are markets for things like DECS and MIPS.

2. Are you forgetting, overlooking, or just not pausing to think about your statement vis. junk bonds? If they're issuing junk, it's because they are bleeding capital and couldn't pay a dividend to begin with.

Who do you think corporations are? They are investors with a box around them, nothing else.

Actually, for relevance to this issue, they are debtors, not investors or creditors. You were discussing the attractiveness of issuing equity v. debt, so the relevant position of the corporation in the discussion is as a consumer of capital, not a supplier.

If you want to consider the corporation as an investor, then your point is lacking any logic at all. Corporate shareholdes have enjoyed a dividends received deduction for decades, ranging from 70% to 100%, depending on the size of their holding in the corporate shareholder. Thus, they have no place at all in the discussion of the Bush dividend tax break, since it doesn't apply to them.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Read, Bilmore, read.

I love when you put in quotes the opposite of the thing said.

Once he quits this law gig, he's looking for an editorial position with the AP

[viet_mom]

Originally posted by bilmore
Sadly, to our discredit as thinking voters, they are only giving their (mass) audience what it wants.

I love watching Kathleen Hall Jamieson speak on this issue and others. Most recently the other night on PBS.

With all due respect (and perhaps I'm just cynical) but I do not believe even 25% of voters would be able to fully and completely grasp the intricasies of topics such as the following issues and potential economic resolutions to them: taxes, health care and others. At least, that is, know them well enough so that when one party responds to a detailed point by the other party, the voter will not be easily confused (or deceived/misled by the point or counterpoint). Maybe I'm just a perfectionist but I really believe that to fully understand many of our economic challenges, we would literally need a semester of classes on each of these topics.

Vietmom

PS - I'm looking on this board for info about the rumors about forgery of President Bush's National Guard duty.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
1. Relative interest rates don't matter, corporate issuers as a whole will pay less in dividends than they will for interest because interest generates a tax benefit. This is what I do for a living, so I'm fairly comfortable with the concept. This is also why there are markets for things like DECS and MIPS.

I'm not following you. You said above that debt is cheaper. This seems to suggest the opposite result (i.e, the argument I initially made).

[quote]2. Are you forgetting, overlooking, or just not pausing to think about your statement vis. junk bonds? If they're issuing junk, it's because they are bleeding capital and couldn't pay a dividend to begin with.[quote]

Untrue, but not worth discussing because it is irrevelant. Strike junk and just consider the bond market.

Actually, for relevance to this issue, they are debtors, not investors or creditors. You were discussing the attractiveness of issuing equity v. debt, so the relevant position of the corporation in the discussion is as a consumer of capital, not a supplier.

If you want to consider the corporation as an investor, then your point is lacking any logic at all. Corporate shareholdes have enjoyed a dividends received deduction for decades, ranging from 70% to 100%, depending on the size of their holding in the corporate shareholder. Thus, they have no place at all in the discussion of the Bush dividend tax break, since it doesn't apply to them.

You suggested above that it benefits companies, not investors. My point is that they are really one in the same, i.e., what is good for the company is essentially the same as what is good for its shareholders. You can't really disagree with this (well you could, but you would be wrong).