Top bailout recipients spending money
Posted By: Trigger Happy on 2009-04-22
In Reply to:
on federal lobbying. This makes me furious at both the companies and the government. ARGH!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/22/bailed-firms-money-lobbying/
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Charging is not spending money...it is spending someone elses money!
When you are debt free (as we are) THEN you spend money...anything else is just going into debt. I highly doubt he pays cash for anything.
And spending money
we don't have is going to save the country? What I want to know is this.....we are all about finding alternative fuel sources and we want to end our dependency on foreign oil right? So if we are going to spend and invest money, why not spent it on drilling for oil now as well as starting alternative fuel sources. Think about how many jobs that would create and they would be longterm jobs because we will constantly need energy. To me that would seem like a smart thing to spend money on instead of the pet projects and crap that congress just voted for...jerks.
People would get jobs and could then afford healthcare. That would mean less people needing government assistance....but wait......Obama and the democrats want the American people dependent on government....my bad.....so that wouldn't work for their personal agenda of having more control and power over us little people.
but it's not his money he's spending...
it is taxpayer money. that's they problem. I don't care if he spends a hundred grand on his date - if he's money. But when it's taxpayer money and he's spending it for fun, I see a problem.
The only attorneys spending money here are
the ones preying on the witch hunt delegation and receiving funds via internet extortion schemes. Obama does not have to lift a finger, just sit on the sidelines and watch the SC strike them down, one after another.
The poor are spending money, sure
but they didn't earn that money. That money could be used for education or healthcare instead of making sure poor people circulated it. I'm middle class. I have been a single mom since my son was born, no Welfare, he is 19 now. I have NEVER asked for a handout. Are you telling me that I don't spend money? I have paid for everything I have. I own a house and I haven't even received 1 dime in child support. I barely make it, but I do make it and I work my butt off to do it. It isn't fun, but who are you to tell me that I would spend more money and boost the economy more if I was on Welfare instead. My son didn't grow up with a Welfare mom and I'm sure he won't get mad at me for not helping the ecomony because of it. He doesn't even know I'm broke. For him, there is a sense of pride in earning. He is in college now and excited to be among the working class because he was never taught there was any other way, you WORK. He will get a student loan, which he will have to pay back someday. This isn't free money. He did get a Pell grant, so I guess he got a little bit of a handout, but to qualify for that, you still have to do something, go to school. The Pell grant is less than what most people get for Welfare and they don't have to do anything at all. Seriously? Poor people make this country work, who knew? And here I thought this country was built on the sweat and tears of the middle class and the hard working folks who believed in capitalism and not socialism.
So if my neighbor gives me a $1000 bucks and I go spend it, does that mean I helped my neighbor? Do I have to pay him back? Just curious.
Yep, just keep spending money we dont have, O
nm
The juvenile attitude of spending money we dont
nm
Just thinking about this bailout money.
can demand for my money back from the bailout and get it back? Would anybody listen to me? Probably not. What about hiring a lawyer? After all, the money we gave to the government was to bail out foreclosure homes and bad assets. Millions of people called in to their legislators to state NO TO THE BAILOUT. When it was time to vote on the bailout, it was first a NO. Then it was voted again and it was approved and then went down to the chain and they voted and it was approved AND YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! NONE OF THE MONEY WENT TO THE FORECLOSED HOMES AND BAD ASSETS, but to the banks and to their CEO's bonuses, jets, vacation/trips,etc. Also went to the 2 car companies?
The car companies said about 2 million would lose their jobs and hurt the economy. Well, I thought we had about 81,000 lose their jobs in 3 DAYS this week! By the way, if you watch Super Bowl this Sunday, the stadium holds around 75,000 people. Look at all those people sitting in that stadium which is about how many have lost their jobs in 3 days.
Now we are at 4.8 million collecting unemployment which probably does not count for the 81,000 who lost their jobs Mon, Tues, and Wed. Also does not count for the ones who have lost their jobs today. So what if the car companies went down. Do they still have their jets and bonuses coming? By the way, Ford is not asking again for this next bailout. I will only buy American made products and I own Ford vehicles. I know in the stimulus it states something about GMC/Chrysler to give us a discount of around 7,500 to buy a new car. Well, I DO NOT HAVE 25,000-40,000 to buy a new car. Sticking to 3-5 year old Ford vehicles.
Well, dang it! I WANT MY MONEY BACK AND "NO MORE" BEING SENT TO THE GOVERNMENT. Frankly, THEY SUCK AT THEIR JOBS! Nothing but money hungry, greed, irresponsible, ego trip jerks. I already called my legislators again and told them I do not approve this stimulus. It needs more time to be approved. I understood in the stimulus that there is nothing that states about buying foreclosed homes. Suzie Orman states we have to buy the bad assets like the first bailout was supposed to do or our homes we are in are going to be worth nothing and need to focus on new jobs or there are going to be more foreclosures. Some areas like Toledo, Ohio and areas of Michigan are not in a recession, but a depression and soon it will hit us too. Shoot, we could all be out on the streets.
So, I WANT MY MONEY BACK TO FEED MY FAMILY! NO MORE HANDOUTS TO THE GOVERNMENT. Any suggestions? Sorry, just venting.
Only bankers take bailout money which
Only bankers who have to take bailout money should not have money go toward bonuses (at least for the year or two if economy is bad), no raises, no high end vacations for all executives, take a decrease in pay, etc.
We all as families have to budget and I have had to take a decrease in pay of up to 30% and my husband's is 7% this year with no bonus. Am I complaining, No! Why? Because we are thankful we have a job right now.
Bankers should do the same. They can sell their jet, get rid of their luxury cars (should be thankful they have a car at all), boats, high end vacations, etc. They can still take a vacation, like a ski trip or camping, hiking, etc. Should not have to go a hotel off some island somewhere and spend millions for the vacation with MY MONEY AND YOUR MONEY. If bankers cannot understand it is other people's money? Then they have no right to hold a money position job.
Better yet, fire the high end positions making the most money and hire the one who is unemployed and looking for a job to put food on the table who would be willing to work and do a good job. Other companies have let go many workers who were paid the most or who were shy of just 1 year from getting retirement, Motorola to name a few.
you'll believe what? the bailout money has already
nm
Unbelievable - Individual cities are now asking for money from the bailout -
What do ya'll think about this? I cannot believe it. The bailout was bad enough when it was to keep the banks from failing which was going to ruin us all, but now these individual cities are asking for money for things such as mass transit improvements, expansion of clean technology businesses, to fund long-neglected infrastructure, more police, upgrades to airport terminals and runways, upgrades to wastewater treatment plants, etc.
Where is it going to end? What happened to all the taxes people have been paying in for years anyway? Why was it not being used for those things all along? And why should I in Georgia have to pay to give people in other states money to fix things? Alaskans are not giving me part of that money they get every year from their oil... Maybe that is selfish - but if they continue to take and take from me, then what I am supposed to do? 
Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion
(Okay. Everyone in Congress and the White House, empty your pockets.)
Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion (Update1)
By Mark Pittman
Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve refused a request by Bloomberg News to disclose the recipients of more than $2 trillion of emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.
Bloomberg filed suit Nov. 7 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs, most created during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The Fed responded Dec. 8, saying it's allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. The institution confirmed that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to some of the requests.
"If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take and that's what they don't want us to know," said Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at New York-based ICP Capital LLC, which oversees $22 billion in assets.
The Fed stepped into a rescue role that was the original purpose of the Treasury's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. The central bank loans don't have the oversight safeguards that Congress imposed upon the TARP.
Total Fed lending exceeded $2 trillion for the first time Nov. 6. It rose by 138 percent, or $1.23 trillion, in the 12 weeks since Sept. 14, when central bank governors relaxed collateral standards to accept securities that weren't rated AAA.
'Been Bamboozled'
Congress is demanding more transparency from the Fed and Treasury on bailout, most recently during Dec. 10 hearings by the House Financial Services committee when Representative David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, said Americans had "been bamboozled."
Bloomberg News, a unit of New York-based Bloomberg LP, on May 21 asked the Fed to provide data on collateral posted from April 4 to May 20. The central bank said on June 19 that it needed until July 3 to search documents and determine whether it would make them public. Bloomberg didn't receive a formal response that would let it file an appeal within the legal time limit.
On Oct. 25, Bloomberg filed another request, expanding the range of when the collateral was posted. It filed suit Nov. 7.
In response to Bloomberg's request, the Fed said the U.S. is facing "an unprecedented crisis" in which "loss in confidence in and between financial institutions can occur with lightning speed and devastating effects."
Data Provider
The Fed supplied copies of three e-mails in response to a request that it disclose the identities of those supplying data on collateral as well as their contracts.
While the senders and recipients of the messages were revealed, the contents were erased except for two phrases identifying a vendor as "IDC." One of the e-mails' subject lines refers to "Interactive Data -- Auction Rate Security Advisory May 1, 2008."
Brian Willinsky, a spokesman for Bedford, Massachusetts- based Interactive Data Corp., a seller of fixed-income securities information, declined to comment.
"Notwithstanding calls for enhanced transparency, the Board must protect against the substantial, multiple harms that might result from disclosure," Jennifer J. Johnson, the secretary for the Fed's Board of Governors, said in a letter e-mailed to Bloomberg News.
'Dangerous Step'
"In its considered judgment and in view of current circumstances, it would be a dangerous step to release this otherwise confidential information," she wrote.
New York-based Citigroup Inc., which is shrinking its global workforce of 352,000 through asset sales and job cuts, is among the nine biggest banks receiving $125 billion in capital from the TARP since it was signed into law Oct. 3. More than 170 regional lenders are seeking an additional $74 billion.
Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would meet congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system.
The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg lawsuit, filed in New York, doesn't seek money damages.
'Right to Know'
"There has to be something they can tell the public because we have a right to know what they are doing," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
"It would really be a shame if we have to find this out 10 years from now after some really nasty class-action suit and our financial system has completely collapsed," she said.
The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks that handed over collateral including stocks and subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed Web site.
Borrowers include the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup and New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co., the country's biggest bank by assets.
Banks oppose any release of information because that might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group, said in an interview last month.
'Complete Truth'
"Americans don't want to get blindsided anymore," Mendez said in an interview. "They don't want it sugarcoated or whitewashed. They want the complete truth. The truth is we can't take all the pain right now."
The Bloomberg lawsuit said the collateral lists "are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression."
In response, the Fed argued that the trade-secret exemption could be expanded to include potential harm to any of the central bank's customers, said Bruce Johnson, a lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Seattle. That expansion is not contained in the freedom-of-information law, Johnson said.
"I understand where they are coming from bureaucratically, but that means it's all the more necessary for taxpayers to know what exactly is going on because of all the money that is being hurled at the banking system," Johnson said.
The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net;
Last Updated: December 12, 2008 11:35 EST
JT Plumber and family former welfare recipients.
does this mean he turns out to be an ex-commie deadbeat or what?
Obama Blows Off Medal of Honor Recipients
Obama Blows Off Medal of Honor Recipients... Not Exactly
Scott Isaacs on Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:10 AM EST
According to TSO who was at the “Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball”, this newly sworn-in President for the first time in 56 years blew off the ball (that’s 14 Inaugurations).
Some background on the ball;
The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. It started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.
Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations, among them the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.
So where was our new President instead of honoring Medal of Honor recipients who by some miracle are still alive? According to Huffington Post, this was his schedule for Inaugural celebrations;
Later that day, the Presidential Inaugural Committee will host 10 official inaugural balls:
— Neighborhood Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Obama Home States (Illinois and Hawaii) Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Biden Home States (Pennsylvania and Delaware) Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Midwest Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Mid-Atlantic Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Western Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.
— Commander in Chief’s Ball at the National Building Museum.
— Southern Inaugural Ball at the National Guard Armory.
— Eastern Inaugural Ball at Union Station.
— Youth Inaugural Ball at the Washington Hilton.
Unofficial balls include:
— Congressional Black Caucus Inaugural Ball at the Capitol Hilton.
— Creative Coalition Inaugural Ball at the Harman Center for the Arts.
— Recording Industry Association of America’s ball for Feeding America.
— BET’s Inaugural Ball at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.
— Africa on the Potomac inaugural celebration at Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Va.
— American Music Inaugural Ball at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.
— Inaugural Purple Ball at the Fairmont Hotel.
— Human Rights Campaign’s Equality Ball at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel.
— Inaugural Peace Ball at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum.
— Impact Film Fund ball.
Mr. Wolf from Blackfive sends along this link to which Inaugural Balls Obama actually attended last night.
Source
Blackfive, which I read occasionally for military pieces, confirmed that President Obama did not come to the inaugural ball. So I became curious because the only two sources were two blogs and one source that consisted of initials. Therefore, I did what any rational person would do: I contacted the American Legion to get the straight story from the people who would know. I was put in contact with a very pleasant gentleman named Craig Roberts who is the American Legion's Media Relations Manager and after our conversation he e-mailed me this statement which I will include in its entirety:
In answer to your inquiry:
The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th. The quadrennial event is co-sponsored with fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year’s event which was held in the Renaissance Washington DC Hotel.
President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. The new President’s absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The American Legion, as an organization, does not feel offended or “snubbed.”
Thank you,
Craig Roberts
Media Relations Manager
The American Legion
1608 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
202.263.2982 (direct)
First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Roberts for taking my call and taking the time to compose this statement so that I can share it on behalf of the American Legion. So to those fellow Obama supporters that think this ball did not happen, it did. It was omitted from the media outlets it was omitted from because of logistical challenges due to the extraordinary number of people that flooded Washington D.C. to see Barack Obama be inaugurated as the 44th president and it is not yet on the American Legion's website (as I type this at 8:30 A.M. on 1-23-09) because of some difficulties in updating the website. However, there will be media coverage of the event forthcoming.
I have found out also that the likely reason that Barack Obama attended the auxiliary balls that he did is because six of the balls that he attended were held in the same building. Therefore, attending those balls and the others that he attended were the most efficient with regards to security. It is no secret that President Obama has had questions surrounding his security, that is evident by observing that he was the earliest presidential candidate ever to get a security detail. If the Secret Service felt it prudent to guard him so early in the campaign can the reader imagine what the Secret Service feels is prudent now that he is the President of the United States?
The most likely reason that President Obama did not go to the "Salute to Heroes" inaugural ball is because it was held in the Renaissance Hotel which consists of 16 floors. There was an event called the "Illinois Party - Presidential Event" held at the Renaissance the night before that the then-President-elect did not attend either (I have a call in to the President's press office asking for confirmation of this information which was given to me by one of my sources for this story). Given the amount of time and resources it would have taken to clear a 16 floor hotel as well as protect it while President Obama was inside, I can only guess that he was advised by his Presidential Protection Detail not to attend either inaugural ball because of the building and the inherent problems in securing and then protecting it. The sheer number of people crowding the streets and staying in the hotel surely presented a formidable screening problem as well. But, there's your story... it's not as sexy as "Barack Obama Hates The Military" but it is the truth as best I can tell after talking to the organization responsible for hosting the event and doing some research and educated guesswork about why a security team wouldn't want to protect a principal in the Renaissance with more than 2 million extra people in Washington D.C.
Update: It would appear that, according to Stars & Stripes that Obama had some Medal of Honor recipients at an inaugural ball that he attended. This gives the number of living Medal of Honor recipients as 99, but I believe that two have passed away since that number was compiled leaving 97. There are 7 in this picture and there were 47 at the American Legion inaugural event. I'm curious if there were more at the event this photo was taken at.
Further update: I received an e-mail from Mr. Roberts today (which I would have gotten yesterday if I had not miscommunicated my e-mail address to him) with his original statement along with a new statement. I will include both statements in their entirety:
My statement on behalf of our National Adjutant, Dan Wheeler:
"The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th . The quadrennial event is co-sponsored by fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year's event. President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. From The American Legion's point of view, the new President's absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The National Adjutant of The American Legion states that, as an organization, The Legion does not feel offended or "snubbed" by the President's failure to appear."
Mr. Wheeler's message as of noon today (January 26):
"We extended an invitation as we always do. There are numerous Balls and we know he can't attend them all. Of course, we would have loved for him to make an appearance, but he didn't. It's a logisticalnightmare. He did meet with the troops at the Commander In Chief's Ball, and we are grateful for that. Our Ball wasn't about the President; it was about the Medal of Honor recipients and the veterans and families who were there. We are grateful that the Vice President appeared, and our guests were very appreciative.
"That having been said, there are much more important issues to dwell on, which we intend to do. We look forward to working with the new administration on ensuring full and guaranteed funding for VA health care services, and the very best treatment for our service people who have been wounded, and on the quality of life of all members of the Armed Forces and their families, as well as the maintenance of a national security force that will deter any enemy from considering an attack on America."
Printing money we dont have? Borrowing money
nm
It takes money to make money. nm
Dem vs. GOP spending
You can look this all up, but thought this might help. We'll see if it works. This doesn't even include the last 2 years. Note the very first column - 37 presidents over 198 years.
If they don't like spending.......
Where did over $10 trillion go over the last 8 years?
I'm sorry but spending more and more
money is the path to destruction. The reason Bush's tax cuts didn't work was because we were still spending WAY too much money in government. More government programs will only cost us more money, raise our taxes, and the American people will be hurting more. Businesses that employ people will cut back knowing taxes are going up and more people will lose jobs. Some businesses will go under and more people will lose jobs. I just do not see this spending spree and government programs helping us at all. I do not want a bigger government. I do not want government to have more control because God knows they can't even do their part without screwing something up. We have too many corrupt people in Washington who are trying to pay off the special interest groups that got them elected in the first place. If Obama signs this omnibus bill, that will be the final nail in his coffin for me. I gave him a chance and all I've seen is lie after lie. I truly feel that he is running this country even more into the ground.
If I am wrong, I will gladly admit that, but I will have to see a major turn around in order for me to admit that. Right now....all I can see more government control and future bankruptcy for our country and it scares the dickens out of me.
Cut military spending!
How about we spend less on war and more on the citizens of the United States? Those who have family members in the military whose livelihood depends on war may call this socialism, but I call it common sense!
How about spending all that energy doing
Sorry if you call what you have been doing work, but it shouldn't surprise me. Most O lovers aren't worried about hard work, just free money.
Spending under control...huh?
Yeah.....an 825 billion dollar stimulus package that won't really work....sounds like spending is under control to me. Holy crow people! Nothing like adding that to our huge deficit now and how many days as he been in office? Is that like a new record of making the deficit shoot up so fast within the first month of a presidency. Impressive....NOT.
This spending is just a drop
in the pocket at what they will actually have to spend to buy us out of this mess. We can't afford to spend our way out of this. They are going to have a spend a lot more money realistically do create the jobs they are talking about. Plus, all this money won't be going into the system right away. To me this package is crap.
At least with major tax cuts businesses could work their way out without government controlling them. I do not like the idea of our government controlling so much.
With all the spending he is proposing
to make government bigger.......he will bankrupt this country.
Runaway Spending
Meet the Press: GOP Whip Cantor Hides Behind Troops to Explain Runaway Spending
by: Scott Isaacs
GOP House Whip Eric Cantor (R - Virginia) gave a gem of a performance today on NBC's Meet The Press, this site's parent company which is ultimately owned by General Electric. Cantor's job was to criticize the administration while trying to convince David Gregory, and by extension the American people, that his own personal behavior in Congress as well as the collective behavior of the GOP in Congress prior to the Obama administration was immaterial to the current situation.
First up on Cantor's checklist was to attack the administration on not having a concrete plan yet to remove troubled assets from the balance books of American banks. When confronted with the fact that the Republicans had no current plan and that the previous Republican administration was completely befuddled by the whole issue of the troubled assets and how to value & remove them Cantor insisted that it was important that America look forward, not backward.
Second was to go on the offensive against the administration in the name of wasteful spending. Whilst criticizing the Obama administration's stimulus plan, Cantor loudly lamented (while holding up a sheaf of papers) that the poor Republicans had a plan of their own but it was totally ignored by the press and, thus, ignored by the public. Cantor then went to bat on the 2009 budget bill that Obama signed into law criticizing the earmarks and the dreadful deficit spending. David Gregory then asked Cantor "People are wondering where these fiscal conservative convictions were when Republicans in Congress were complicit in President Bush's spending." Cantor's reply was quick and predictable: Of course they did! But it was for a good cause: the troops! How dare anyone question a massive budget bill in which a fraction of the massive spending goes towards outfitting our troops? Cantor slyly avoided the point that the regular Pentagon money was in the runaway budgets that the Republican Congresses approved but the specific money to operate the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were specifically appropriated as emergency measures so that they would not have to be tabulated all together and give the public a sticker shock and awe campaign over how much our Arabian adventure was actually costing. Nor did he give the Democrats that voted for this last budget the same out that he himself took: they were just doing it for the troops because we should all take care of our troops and that is what a patriotic American would do: okay anything with even a fraction of military spending in it even if the rest is massive and unneeded pork barrel spending. Despite the fact that we are still very much at war in Afghanistan, which apparently slipped Cantor's mind, he left the blame to lay squarely on Congressional Democrats. It got more entertaining when Gregory asked Cantor if it was true, as the Democrats had presented data to show, that Cantor had supported 46,000 earmarks in his time in Congress. It was at this point that Cantor said with heartfelt sincerity that there was more than enough blame to go around but that now was the time to be forward-looking and heed his and Minority Leader John Boehner's call for a moratorium on earmarks. Cantor also generously offered the Republicans in Congress' help in supporting any veto that President Obama wanted to use on a Democratic-written bill and, if need be, the Republicans would even move on Obama's behalf to repeal any legislation that Obama feels was a bad idea. It was a very touching moment of bipartisanship... a member of the other party selflessly offering to help the President undo everything he has done over the past 50 days.
Gregory then brought up the specter of government stabilization of the financial system through buying up the troubled assets. Cantor specifically said that this was priority #1. Gregory asked Cantor if he would be willing to deviate from the current Republican stance of rigid fiscal conservatism to spend the money needed to gather up these troubled assets and remove them from the game board until they had recovered to the point that they were not toxic on the banks' balance sheets anymore. Cantor hemmed and hawed saying it would depend how much it would cost and so on. Gregory then hit him with the Big "T": $2 trillion. Cantor demurred as best he could, avoiding an answer from then until the end of the interview.
Pundits and Republicans both label Cantor as one of the up-and-coming rising stars in the Republican Party. He seems to need more experience on Meet The Press before he takes a serious spokesman role. If David Gregory can roll you, Tim Russert (bless his soul, I miss him) would have eaten you with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.
Spending..AND not even reading what they are
nm
Hopefully we will no longer be spending billions on the
.
So agree with you. It is a spending stimulus.
No social security, nothing for the future but debt. I bet a country will be ready to buy us soon. Probably China, Iran, and Russia just waiting to buy us and take over. Shoot, probably it is in the stimulus bill because NOT ONE PERSON HAS HAD TIME TO READ IT AND GOVERNMENT PASSED IT. HOW STUPID!!!!!!!!
Government Spending: Is It Worth $62,000 to You?.....sm
Government Spending: Is It Worth $62,000 to You?
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Author, “Freedomnomics”/Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland
The stimulus bill had to be passed quickly. President Obama warned that not passing it would result in disaster. He warned that any delay was “inexcusable.” The 1,071 page stimulus bill had to be voted on quickly — so quickly this last week that the House and the Senate couldn’t even provide politicians the 48 hours they were supposed to have to read it.
The legislation was not put up on the Web until 11 PM on February 12 and the House passed it just 12 hours later. The Senate started voting on it only hours after that. Politician after politician admitted or complained that it was physically impossible to read the bill. As it was, the copies available on the Web for voters had all sorts of hand markings on it that sometimes made it difficult to figure out exactly what the bill proposed.
Just to let this sink in — the amount of money that the government is committing to spend this year is equivalent to the average taxpayer just writing the government a check today for $62,200.
Despite all this pressure, Obama seems rather laid back after the bill was passed — he doesn’t plan the signing ceremony until Tuesday. As the New York Post noted, after passage, Obama “promptly took off for a three-day holiday getaway.” Possibly, Obama’s vacation was well deserved, but why couldn’t Congress have held debate and voted over the weekend or on Monday to allow extra time to read the bill?
It was not just the House and Senate rules that were set aside to get this vote through quickly. Promises were broken also. During the presidential campaign, Obama promised voters at least 5 days to study legislation. Obama’s presidential campaign Web site claimed that any earmark should have a written justification as well as “72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate.” Of course, the whole spending bill is at odds with Obama’s promise to cut “net” government spending.
But the Democrats had help ramming this through. Three Republican Senators — Arlen Specter, Olympia Snow, and Susan Collins — could have voted for more time for debate. It was only with all three of their votes that the Democrats were able to reach the exact 60 votes they needed Friday to pass the bill. If any one of these three senators had asked for more time to read the bill and allow others to analyze it, they would have gotten it.
Not only did the final “stimulus” bill have major changes from what had been voted on previously by the House and Senate, but the amount of money involved is staggering. With 90 million tax filers who actually pay taxes, the $787 billion means the average taxpayer will pay over $8,700.
By itself, adding $8,700 to the average tax bill should get everyone’s attention. But that is on top of everything else that we are spending this year. With the stimulus bill, the $700 billion financial bailout (half spent by Bush and half by Obama), and the bailout for the auto companies, this year’s deficit is already at about$1.7 trillion — almost $19,000 per taxpayer. With more possible bailouts for the auto industry and others, that total might rise further.
But the stimulus won’t just raise government expenditures for the next two years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that from 2010 to 2019 government expenditures for just 20 provisions will increase by almost $2.4 trillion. Assuming a 4.5 percent interest rate, that is the equivalent of about $1.9 trillion today. Adding that to the previous total brings the total to about $40,000 owed per taxpayer.
But that is not all the money that taxpayers are going to be on the hook for. Last week, the Obama administration promised another $2 trillion for the financial bailout. The decisions that we are making just this year are adding up to $5.6 trillion — $62,200 per taxpayer. Just to let this sink in — the amount of money that the government is committing to spend this year is equivalent to the average taxpayer just writing the government a check today for $62,200.
Each one of these expenditures are getting pushed through quickly, but it is all adding up. People have to weigh this against benefits such as the $400 per person tax credit that those who make less than $75,000 per year are going to get under the stimulus.
And that is not the end of the costs that we will face this year. From even more health care reforms to environmental regulation and global warming to even more money for autos and other companies, the bills are going to get bigger. Some costs will temporarily be hidden through borrowing, but others will mean higher immediate taxes and higher product prices.
But the average taxpayer faces a simple question: are they getting $62,200 worth of benefits from all these government expenditures this year? If so, they are going to be poorer. My guess is that most of us are going to be a lot poorer.
John R. Lott, Jr. is the author of “Freedomnomics” and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.
WELFARE SPENDING MADNESS!!
And for those that say you HAVE to work to get welfare,...... NO YOU DON'T! I see that waaaay too much where I live...... mostly just generation after generation living off ME!!!! So, MORE government is just FINE with them!!
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=578936
I do not think that was the Obama's personal spending there -
why should they reimburse that? Obama did not even know anything in advance about it.
It took spending 1-1/2 BILLION dollars a month...sm
over years on the war in Iraq to get us to this point, borrowing from other countries, the highest deficit ever, printing money by the government with no gold behind it to drive the value of our dollar down around the world. Nothing to do with the democrats. When Bush became president we had a huge surplus. Did you forget that?
Stop the spending on stupid earmarks,
give the middle class some real tax cuts, and have some patience. Things aren't going to change overnight and they're not going to change by continuing to throw money at it every day.
PA liquor control board spending $173,000
to teach their state liquor store employees how to be more courteous and knowledgeable of the booze they sell and make sure they're really up to snuff on info ABOUT the booze they sell...... How in the heck does this CREATE MORE JOBS? WHAT A JOKE AND A STINKING WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY!!! 
and start spending them taking care of those...
who no longer function because they don't need to hide it at all anymore and taking care of the emphysema and other problems it causes. Just my opinion. Like I said, I am clearly in the minority here, but I think it is a stupid idea to legalize pot.
He was NOT "one of the good ones". Voted for the spending.
I was glad to see the people of both parties come together to repudiate this Congressman. Now, let's carry this kind of common sense on into the next elections!
ANOTHER Big-Spending Bill Going to be Rammed Down Our Throats
House committee okays massive climate spending bill.
It's pretty obvious. The Democrats plan to get all of their spending bills in while they have the chance. What isn't apparently so obvious to them is that the public is growing more and more fed up with all of this at a time when WE CANNOT AFFORD IT, even if we did want the intrusion into our lives.
Bailouts. Stimulus. Auto takeovers. New emission standards. Universal healthcare. Mandated paid vacation. Afghanistan. Climate. All of these things will raise prices and the increase is the same thing as an increase in taxes. Meanwhile, taxes themselves are being raised at all levels of government.
Meanwhile, the offshore drilling passed by law last year has yet to be implemented, so oil companies are still having to drill miles out in deep ocean at a cost that is many times higher. Can anyone say sky-rocketing gas prices?
Looks like we'll have to teach them another lesson in 2010 like we did in 1992 and 1994 - and the Democrats vastly misunderstand what just happened in the California vote, obviously. That's okay. They'll finally get it about the time that they find themselves looking for work starting in January, 2011.
GOP govs with large deficits who are increasing spending are
can be found:
1. Schwartzeneggar, California.
2. M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut
3. Sonny Perdue, Georgia
4. Linda Lingle, Hawaii
5. Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota
6. Haley Barbour, Mississippi
7. Jim Gibbons, Nevada
8. Michael Rounds, South Dakota
9. Jim Douglas, Vermont
BTW, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is expecting to go into deficit spending this year. Despite being a socialist, commie, Kool-aid drinking comrade, I think the world of Bobby Jindal and the GOP would do well to start moving him up in the leadership ranks. I mention him just because I think it is unfair to judge the governors of any state, regardless of party, as being greedy, self-serving, or any other such nonsense in economic conditions such as these.
I would much rather see tax funds being directed toward education, road construction, infrastructure, social programs, Medicaid, etc, rather than tax cuts for the rich, corporate retreats, golden parachutes, astronomical CEO bonuses, disappearing credit stimulus funding to banks with no accountability and the like.
Read JTBB post again. She has made excellent points that pretty much sum up the situaion. Obama will be hearing from all sides in due time before he decides what to do and how to go about it. Get used to it. This is open commnication. It just looks weird to you after 8 years of behind-closed-doors secret session pseudoleadership issuing forth from hunkered-down bunkers in undisclosed locations.
Yup - that's what I thought "The O" is spending over 170K on his coronation
Real good logic there. NOT
*Whatever It Takes* by Peggy Noonan re: Bush's out of control spending
 
Warning: This is a L-O-N-G article, written by a conservative former speech writer for both President Reagan and Bush's daddy. The condensed version for the conservative trolls with admitted limited attention span: Bush is a very UNconservative BIG SPENDER with no means or concern how all this will be repaid. In other words, he represents the complete ANTITHESIS (opposite) of conservative values that you all claim to have. I guess that's what happens when you elect a spoiled, rich kid who was born to privilege and never had to worry about paying for anything.
PEGGY NOONAN
'Whatever It Takes'
Is Bush's big spending a bridge to nowhere?
Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:01 a.m.
George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--But where's the money going to come from?--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying Republicans don't care about black people, and They're always tightwads with the poor.
In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork.
That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--whatever it takes--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.
George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.
This, I believe, is the administration's shrewd if unhelpful reading of history: In a 50-50 nation, people expect and accept high spending. They don't like partisan bickering, there's nothing to gain by arguing around the edges, and arguing around the edges of spending bills is all we get to do anymore. The administration believes there's nothing in it for the Republicans to run around whining about cost. We will spend a lot and the Democrats will spend a lot. But the White House is more competent and will not raise taxes, so they believe Republicans win on this one in the long term.
Domestic politics: The administration believes it is time for the Republican Party to prove to the minority groups of the United States, and to those under stress, that the Republicans are their party, and not the enemy. The Democrats talk a good game, but Republicans deliver, and we know the facts. A lot of American families are broken, single mothers bringing up kids without a father come to see the government as the guy who'll help. It's right to help and we don't lose by helping.
Iraq: Mr. Bush decided long ago--I suspect on Sept. 12, 2001--that he would allow no secondary or tertiary issue to get in the way of the national unity needed to forge the war on terror. So no fighting with Congress over who put the pork in the pan. Cook it, eat it, go on to face the world arm in arm.
As for vanity, the president's aides sometimes seem to see themselves as The New Conservatives, a brave band of brothers who care about the poor, unlike those nasty, crabbed, cheapskate conservatives of an older, less enlightened era.
Republicans have grown alarmed at federal spending. It has come to a head not only because of Katrina but because of the huge pork-filled highway bill the president signed last month, which comes with its own poster child for bad behavior, the Bridge to Nowhere. The famous bridge in Alaska that costs $223 million and that connects one little place with two penguins and a bear with another little place with two bears and a penguin. The Bridge to Nowhere sounds, to conservative ears, like a metaphor for where endless careless spending leaves you. From the Bridge to the 21st Century to the Bridge to Nowhere: It doesn't feel like progress.
A lot of Bush supporters assumed the president would get serious about spending in his second term. With the highway bill he showed we misread his intentions.
The administration, in answering charges of profligate spending, has taken, interestingly, to slighting old conservative hero Ronald Reagan. This week it was the e-mail of a high White House aide informing us that Ronald Reagan spent tons of money bailing out the banks in the savings-and-loan scandal. This was startling information to Reaganites who remembered it was a fellow named George H.W. Bush who did that. Last month it was the president who blandly seemed to suggest that Reagan cut and ran after the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon.
Poor Reagan. If only he'd been strong he could have been a good president.
Before that, Mr. Mehlman was knocking previous generations of Republican leaders who just weren't as progressive as George W. Bush on race relations. I'm sure the administration would think to criticize the leadership of Bill Clinton if they weren't so busy having jolly mind-melds with him on Katrina relief. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, is using his new closeness with the administration to add an edge of authority to his slams on Bush. That's a pol who knows how to do it.
At any rate, Republican officials start diminishing Ronald Reagan, it is a bad sign about where they are psychologically. In the White House of George H.W. Bush they called the Reagan administration the pre-Bush era. See where it got them.
Sometimes I think the Bush White House needs to be told: It's good to be a revolutionary. But do you guys really need to be opening up endless new fronts? Do you need--metaphor switch--seven or eight big pots boiling on the stove all at the same time? You think the kitchen and the house might get a little too hot that way?
The Republican (as opposed to conservative) default position when faced with criticism of the Bush administration is: But Kerry would have been worse! The Democrats are worse! All too true. The Democrats right now remind me of what the veteran political strategist David Garth told me about politicians. He was a veteran of many campaigns and many campaigners. I asked him if most or many of the politicians he'd worked with had serious and defining political beliefs. David thought for a moment and then said, Most of them started with philosophy. But they wound up with hunger. That's how the Democrats seem to me these days: unorganized people who don't know what they stand for but want to win, because winning's pleasurable and profitable.
But saying The Bush administration is a lot better than having Democrats in there is not an answer to criticism, it's a way to squelch it. Which is another Bridge to Nowhere.
Mr. Bush started spending after 9/11. Again, anything to avoid a second level fight that distracts from the primary fight, the war on terror. That is, Mr. Bush had his reasons. They were not foolish. At the time they seemed smart. But four years later it is hard for a conservative not to protest. Some big mistakes have been made.
First and foremost Mr. Bush has abandoned all rhetorical ground. He never even speaks of high spending. He doesn't argue against it, and he doesn't make the moral case against it. When forced to spend, Reagan didn't like it, and he said so. He also tried to cut. Mr. Bush seems to like it and doesn't try to cut. He doesn't warn that endless high spending can leave a nation tapped out and future generations hemmed in. In abandoning this ground Bush has abandoned a great deal--including a primary argument of conservatism and a primary reason for voting Republican. And who will fill this rhetorical vacuum? Hillary Clinton. She knows an opening when she sees one, and knows her base won't believe her when she decries waste.
Second, Mr. Bush seems not to be noticing that once government spending reaches a new high level it is very hard to get it down, even a little, ever. So a decision to raise spending now is in effect a decision to raise spending forever.
Third, Mr. Bush seems not to be operating as if he knows the difficulties--the impossibility, really--of spending wisely from the federal level. Here is a secret we all should know: It is really not possible for a big federal government based in Washington to spend completely wisely, constructively and helpfully, and with a sense of personal responsibility. What is possible is to write the check. After that? In New Jersey they took federal Homeland Security funds and bought garbage trucks. FEMA was a hack-stack.
The one time a Homeland Security Department official spoke to me about that crucial new agency's efforts, she talked mostly about a memoir she was writing about a selfless HS official who tries to balance the demands of motherhood against the needs of a great nation. When she finally asked for advice on homeland security, I told her that her department's Web page is nothing but an advertisement for how great the department is, and since some people might actually turn to the site for help if their city is nuked it might be nice to offer survival hints. She took notes and nodded. It alarmed me that they needed to be told the obvious. But it didn't surprise me.
Of the $100 billion that may be spent on New Orleans, let's be serious. We love Louisiana and feel for Louisiana, but we all know what Louisiana is, a very human state with rather particular flaws. As Huey Long once said, Some day Louisiana will have honest government, and they won't like it. We all know this, yes? Louisiana has many traditions, and one is a rich and unvaried culture of corruption. How much of the $100 billion coming its way is going to fall off the table? Half? OK, let's not get carried away. More than half.
Town spending tends to be more effective than county spending. County spending tends--tends--to be more efficacious than state spending. State spending tends to be more constructive than federal spending. This is how life works. The area closest to where the buck came from is most likely to be more careful with the buck. This is part of the reason conservatives are so disturbed by the gushing federal spigot.
Money is power. More money for the federal government and used by the federal government is more power for the federal government. Is this good? Is this what energy in the executive is--Here's a check? Are the philosophical differences between the two major parties coming down, in terms of spending, to Who's your daddy? He's not your daddy, I'm your daddy. Do we want this? Do our kids? Is it safe? Is it, in its own way, a national security issue?
At a conservative gathering this summer the talk turned to high spending. An intelligent young journalist observed that we shouldn't be surprised at Mr. Bush's spending, he ran from the beginning as a compassionate conservative. The journalist noted that he'd never liked that phrase, that most conservatives he knew had disliked it, and I agreed. But conservatives understood Mr. Bush's thinking: they knew he was trying to signal to those voters who did not assume that conservatism held within it sympathy and regard for human beings, in fact springs from that sympathy and regard.
But conservatives also understood compassionate conservatism to be a form of the philosophy that is serious about the higher effectiveness of faith-based approaches to healing poverty--you spend prudently not to maintain the status quo, and not to avoid criticism, but to actually make things better. It meant an active and engaged interest in poverty and its pathologies. It meant a new way of doing old business.
I never understood compassionate conservatism to mean, and I don't know anyone who understood it to mean, a return to the pork-laden legislation of the 1970s. We did not understand it to mean never vetoing a spending bill. We did not understand it to mean a historic level of spending. We did not understand it to be a step back toward old ways that were bad ways.
I for one feel we need to go back to conservatism 101. We can start with a quote from Gerald Ford, if he isn't too much of a crabbed and reactionary old Republican to quote. He said, A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
The administration knows that Republicans are becoming alarmed. Its attitude is: We're having some trouble with part of the base but--smile--we can weather that.
Well, they probably can, short term.
Long term, they've had bad history with weather. It can change.
Here are some questions for conservative and Republicans. In answering them, they will be defining their future party.
If we are going to spend like the romantics and operators of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society;
If we are going to thereby change the very meaning and nature of conservatism;
If we are going to increase spending and the debt every year;
If we are going to become a movement that supports big government and a party whose unspoken motto is Whatever it takes;
If all these things, shouldn't we perhaps at least discuss it? Shouldn't we be talking about it? Shouldn't our senators, congressmen and governors who wish to lead in the future come forward to take a stand?
And shouldn't the Bush administration seriously address these questions, share more of their thinking, assumptions and philosophy?
It is possible that political history will show, in time, that those who worried about spending in 2005 were dinosaurs. If we are, we are. But we shouldn't become extinct without a roar.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father, forthcoming in November from Penguin, which you can preorder from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Sorry, but Palin has been preaching about CUTTING SPENDING, what a double talker she is, she's a
mnnn
TARP has been followed by Obama's massive spending and expansion of government.
I have been very critical of both parties and of the previous administration for the bailouts.
However, I am also growing very tired of the current administration's childish efforts to lay off anything bad that happens (in any area) now or going forward on the previous administration, while happily taking credit for anything that might be positive.
We hear the current administration crow whenever there's even a SLIGHT improvement in the economic indicators (ignoring the fact that the numbers are still very bad) and saying that "Obama's plan" is working. However, if one of those same numbers goes down, they continue to blame the past administration.
Now, you can believe that they themselves don't believe what they're saying. They know, for instance, that Obama's plan hasn't even had time to make any impact on the economy. And, they know that a whole heck of a lot of them had as big a hand in the economic problems and in the bailouts as the previous administration had. So, they're basically counting on their ability to put a fast one over on the American public.
Surely, they can't believe that we're ALL stupid enough that we can't see through this. Nope. What they're counting on is that ENOUGH of us will swallow this transparent pack of lies - and I wouldn't bet the farm that they're wrong, either. A lot of Americans do not pay attention to government the way we on this forum obviously do.
I'm so relieved. We're spending $6 million for explosives detection
I was just thinking the other day: If I'm Obama, I'm saying to he!! with spending enough money to secure the borders. The main threat is that Jackson Hole airport.
I'm telling you, people, the government has gone positively insane. $6 million would go a VERY long way at the border. Oh, but wait - that wouldn't make good pork politics, now, would it?
I'm so relieved. We're spending $6 million for explosives detection
I was just thinking the other day: If I'm Obama, I'm saying to he!! with spending enough money to secure the borders. The main threat is that Jackson Hole airport.
I'm telling you, people, the government has gone positively insane. $6 million would go a VERY long way at the border. Oh, but wait - that wouldn't make good pork politics, now, would it?
Bailout
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of our money, frist by inflation and then by deflation; the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks) will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered"
-President Thomas Jefferson
here's your bailout
I think that all the CEOs of the big three along with all their members of the board and whatnot, all the big wigs, that have made millions screwing people over for years and years should dip into their OWN pockets and sell a few houses, cancel a few vacations, cash in a few money markets and get their own companies out of debt. Then, when the books are balanced, the people who have been making 80,000 a year to push a button should take a pay cut and NOT go on strike and live like the rest of real America. Then they should be fine.
Bailout
if they fail, do you realize it would affect everyone. Millions of jobs in the auto industry alone. If people don't have jobs, they can't spend money anywhere. Stores will start to close, etc. It will affect everyone.
Bailout
I totally agree 1000% with your analysis - the only time these greedy CEO's give a hoot about us is when they see their profits increase. You can bet your last five cents that if one of us went to them asking for money - they would call the police!! It would be interesting to see the salaries of CEO's in Europe as opposed to what these guys continually fleece us for...
About That First Bailout
Do you remember who told us "we had to act now or we might face dooms day (sic)" with all that bailout money? It was Hank Paulsen and George Bush. We may as well have flushed that first TARP payment down the toilet. There was no accountability, and no one knows where all that money went.
At least the present stimulus package has accountability built into it and some limits as to what can and can't be done with the money.
the bailout IS making
the US a socialist country - compliments of your beloved GWB and McPalin. congratulations you got your wish.
No Bailout for the rich
Say no to the bailout. The FBI is investigating all of these companies for criminal mortgage fraud.
|
