Info about the bailouts you should know
Unless your oblivious to everything happening in America right now, you’ve been told how Obama saved America from complete fiscal devastation. Problem is, what Obama “saved” is costing each and every one of us so damn much money it’s painful to think about.
Quick, how many billions in the red are taxpayers on the bailout of GM? AIG? Fannie and Freddie? Is it true that the government has reaped a profit from bailing out the banks?
It should be easy to find answers to such questions. But while it’s a snap to find rosy administration claims about the bailout, finding hard numbers is much more difficult.
That’s why, since the bailouts began in 2008, we’ve maintained a frequently updated site to provide them. Now we’ve retooled our database to make it even easier to find these sorts of answers.
So you can effortlessly discover that it’s $27 billion for GM, $23 billion for AIG, $91 billion for Fannie, $51 billion for Freddie, and yes, the bank investments have so far returned a profit of $19 billion.
Now, I’m not saying the feds shouldn’t ever put taxpayer money into a company that is struggling. But I will say that putting money into a company that would be better off going through a structured bankruptcy than to get the easy way out (aka a government handout) is a mistake that only leads to American taxpayers being out a lot of money. (bold is my emphasis)
For the TARP, it depends on the biggest remaining investments: AIG and the remains of the auto bailout, GM and GMAC (now called Ally Financial). The net outstanding amount of those three companies together is about $61 billion. At this point, it seems likely that Treasury will ultimately recoup its bailout of AIG. The auto companies, on the other hand, seem likely to result in a loss approaching $20 billion, according to both Treasury Department and Congressional Budget Office estimates.
When people hear about the losses we will incur because of the fed’s decision to bail the auto industry out of the messes they put themselves into, GM is usually the only company that comes up. And while GM is the biggest culprit to stick their bad debt to the American people, we can’t ignore Chrysler enjoying the free Obama money they gladly accepted and aren’t paying back. (Again, bold emphasis done by me)
Ultimately, the bailout of GM seems likely to result in the TARP’s single biggest loss. But since the government still holds about a third of the company’s stock (currently worth about $10 billion), we don’t include it on our list of losers yet. It’s possible the government will sell the stock for more than it’s currently worth, recouping more of its investment.
For now, the reigning bust is the $2.3 billion investment in the bank CIT, which landed in bankruptcy less than a year after its bailout. Second on the list is Chrysler, which resulted in a $1.3 billion loss.
Of course, when the One brags about saving the auto industry, he fails to mention these billions in losses. Go figure, eh?
Definitely check out the whole article. Reports like this are important because they point out where your and my money are going via the fed’s discretion and whether or not we will ever see that money again. And without them? People may actually be foolish enough to think Obama is telling the whole truth when it comes to his bailouts.
.
.
If vouchers for seniors is such a bad idea, why is Obama’s HHS launching a voucher program?
Hmmmmmm . . . . . . .
In his convention speech in Charlotte, President Obama vowed to block the Republican Medicare reform plan because “no American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies.”
But back in Washington, his Health and Human Services Department is launching a pilot program that would shift up to 2 million of the poorest and most-vulnerable seniors out of the federal Medicare program and into private health insurance plans overseen by the states.
The administration has accepted applications from 18 states to participate in the program, which would give states money to purchase managed-care plans for people who are either disabled or poor enough to qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. HHS approved the first state plan, one for Massachusetts, last month.
But why oh why would the One put a voucher plan into place when he and his side have been telling us vouchers will result in old people being pushed over a cliff to their gravity-induced deaths? (see lefty TV commercial below) Can you say 1) it will work and 2) this:
California is already counting on more than $500 million in budget savings from its own program this year. Most states are proposing to automatically enroll people. Those who don’t want to participate would need to opt out. The Massachusetts plan includes that feature.
Potential cost savings are a big incentive for states. Patients who qualify for both federal health programs are a costly population and include many who need nursing-home care or other expensive services. About 40 percent of Medicaid’s costs go toward patients who are also eligible for Medicare. Advocates of the pilot program also say it could lead to better coordination of care for patients who often struggle to navigate the two different programs.
I can already hear the lefties trying to spin this one by saying “Obama’s plan doesn’t force people into vouchers like Ryan’s!!!” Too bad they would be completely and totally wrong (via Ed Morrissey)
Bear in mind that Ryan’s plan made the vouchers optional; seniors could choose the traditional government-run Medicare plan or opt for a private insurance plan from a federal exchange of approved insurers. Ryan also allows all seniors to choose, and didn’t force the poorest seniors to take the voucher option. Not only will Obama push just the poorest seniors into this plan, in some states they’d have to know to opt back in to traditional Medicare.
Can’t wait to hear Obama and Biden trying to spin this one in the debates. I’m sure somehow they will say it’s Bush’s fault.
And as promised, the commercial. Maybe the lefties can make a new commercial with a middle age black guy pushing grandma to her death. Unless that would be RAAAAAACISSSSSSST!!!!!!
.
.
U.S. National Debt since 2000
On the eve of our federal government running up a debt of $16 trillion, or just over $50,000 per American ($140,000 per actual taxpayer), let’s take a look at the U.S. national debt over time, starting in 2000. Pay close attention to which party was in power in the Senate and House and the debt increases under that party’s leadership in Congress.
Clinton to Bush debt (Republican run Senate and House)
.
Bush to himself debt (Republican run Senate and House)
.
Bush to Obama (Democrat run Senate and House)
.
as of Sept 3, 2012 (shortly before it crosses over to the magical $16 trillion mark, or $16 million times one million)
.
projected 2016, if we keep going in the same direction
.
Keep this bit of info in mind when it comes time to voting the community organizer out of office in November.
.
.
About that super awesome Obama stimulus
Heard the latest claim that The One has created more jobs than Reagan? (from the mouth of Obama’s deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter)
Well, I think that worker probably has a good understanding of what’s happened over the past four years in terms of the president coming in and seeing 800,000 jobs lost on the day that the president was being sworn in, and seeing the president moving pretty quickly to stem the losses, to turn the economy around, and over the past, you know, 27 months we’ve created 4.5 million private sector jobs. That’s more jobs than in the Bush recovery, in the Reagan recovery, there’s obviously more we need to do, and as I said to Mika at the at beginning of the program, I think that unemployed worker probably sees one person in this race trying to move the country forward and that’s the president.
Just got one question with this claim. If there were 4.5 million jobs created because of the Obama stimulus, then why do the unemployment numbers look like this?
Usually, if there are more people working now than before, the math would work out so that the number of people not working now would be lower than before, not higher. Yet somehow the unemployment rate is higher now than it was when Obama was sworn in (and yes, I swore a lot that day). To give you more exact numbers:
Unemployment when Obama took office – 7.8%
Unemployment now – 8.3%
Of course, we all know why unemployment is higher today than when Barry O took over. More people are out of work. It doesn’t matter if 4.5 million private sector jobs were created, as is being claimed. More . . . . . people . . . . . are . . . . . out . . . . . of . . . . . work.
Pretty much explains why the lefties don’t want to talk about the number of American’s out of work, eh?
Now you’ll notice on the nice chart above the green dot in the upper right corner with the green words saying “Unemployment rate if labor force participation was the same as when Obama took office in Jan. 2009″ right after the figure 11%. This should make you take pause, scratch your head, drop your eyebrows a bit and say “whaaaaaaaa??????”
The labor force is actually 365,000 workers smaller today than it was in June, 2009 when the recession supposedly ended. Counting population growth since then, the economy is actually missing 7.7 million workers that would be in the work force if the labor force participation rate had remained the same since the supposed end of the recession three years ago.
As Investor’s Business Daily reported on May 7, “That’s in stark contrast to every other post-World War II expansion, which saw the labor force climb by the millions at this point in their recoveries, even as unemployment rates were driven down.” Indeed, if labor force participation had stayed the same as it was when the recession supposedly ended in June, 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11%, as Investor’s Business Daily also reported on May 7. That is a more realistic number because those millions of workers missing from the work force still exist and still do not have jobs.
That is the only way that the unemployment rate has been falling at all, working people giving up and dropping out of the work force. As the Wall Street Journal reported in their weekend edition of May 5-6, “Nearly three years into the [Obama] recovery, the U.S. still employs five million fewer workers than before the recession.”
Not only is the unemployment rate higher now than it was when Mr. Hopenchange took over, but the “actual unemployment rate” doesn’t represent the real difference in unemployment between now and then because of the drop in participation.
Can you say DOHHHHH!!!!?
I don’t care what Team Obama and the progressive liberal lefties say when it comes to the job he is doing. Obama has done nothing to help move America out of the recession we were in in when he took over, and in reality because he was unable to do anything except increase the national debt and cause uncertainty in the private sector, the very sector that made America great, Obama has done a tremendous amount of harm to America and if re-elected in 2012 he promises more of the same.
So, about that super awesome Obama stimulus . . . . . . . .
.
.
You can’t deal with the truth, according to WI Lib Gwen Moore
Has anyone insulted your intelligence lately? If you are an American citizen, the answer is yes. You just didn’t know it until now.
“He thinks people can deal with ‘the truth,’ ” Democratic U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore of Milwaukee said of Ryan’s budget-cut plan. “We shall see if they can deal with the truth.”
This brings up a couple of questions. What is this truth Moore doesn’t believe the American people can handle? And why isn’t she sharing it with the people she is paid to represent?
I know what this truth is, since I’ve been following and promoting Paul Ryan for a long time (I called him the face of the conservative movement before most people knew his name) and I know many of you know the truth as well. The fiscal hell America is in now is nothing compared to how much worse it will get if we keep down our current path. Paul Ryan has been on the forefront of bringing this truth to light for years now and with his new role as VP candidate he has the second biggest stage in the world to speak from, making it so everyone will hear what he has to say (some like me say the biggest stage because Ryan is as big as Romney in this election).
People like the progressive Gwen Moore aren’t so stupid that they don’t know what will happen under their leadership. But they know no matter what happens America will still be here, albeit morphed into their ideal country (bonus for them). As long as Moore and Obama and all the other socialist loving progressives can convince 50.1% of Americans they can’t deal with the truth, they can remain in power and it will be up to them what you need to know, and can handle, and what you don’t and can’t.
“We shall see if they can deal with the truth.”
Yes we shall, Moore. Yes we shall.
.
.
