Raise Taxes:
• “I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks.”
• “finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas”
• “But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year.”
Tax Cuts With Strings – Targeted, Not broad-based cuts:
• “new small business tax credit”
• “eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment”
• “provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment”
• “give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy efficient”
• “give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America”
• “That’s why we’re nearly doubling the child care tax credit”
• “expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg”
• “give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants”
• “we will extend our middle-class tax cuts”
Regulation
• “We can’t allow financial institutions to take risks that threaten the whole economy”
• “Require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my Administration or Congress.”
• “And it’s time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.”
• “urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong [the Supreme Court ruling]”
• “We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work.”
Spending - General:
• “We need to encourage American innovation” (through “investment”)
• “launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security”
• “we will step up re-financing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages.”
• “jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.”
Spending Freeze and Reform
• “Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will.”
• “calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there’s a vote”
Spending - Education
• “When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all fifty states”
• “urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges”
• “And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required:
o “to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans,
o “and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service.”
Healthcare (Spending, Regulation and Taxes)
• “And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform.”
National Security
• We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August.
• “We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”
• “To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades.”
• “That is why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions – sanctions that are being vigorously enforced.”
• “And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: they, too, will face growing consequences.”
• “This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”
Immigration
• “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.”
My big takeaway from President Obama’s speech yesterday is that he is walled off from reality in the White House and he has absolutely no clue what average Americans are feeling these days. Clearly, after stunning losses in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts over the past few months, this Administration was sent a message from the American people that they are mad at President Obama’s big government policies. He did not hear that message and he told them last night that he is pushing forward with ObamaCare and other big government ideas. They don’t want it.
ReplyDeleteThe President, when not blaming the Bush Administration for his problems, merely thinks that the American people are not listening to him. This is good news for conservatives, because the President’s speech last night shows that he will take no action to right the ship before Congressional elections this November and he seems incapable of a nuanced approach to politics that includes a mix of conservative and liberal approaches to problem solving. The President is like the Captain of the Titanic in April of 1912 steaming past huge icebergs in the hope that his ship of state somehow makes it until the end of the year without a catastrophic collision.
The President is very good at recognizing problems and stated the obvious to the American people last night. From the President’s first State of the Union:
But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. For those who had already known poverty, life has become that much harder.
This is an I feel your pain moment for President Obama, yet he did not propose any solutions to the economic devastation, other than a jobs bill that is a scaled down retread of his failed Stimulus plan. President Obama then went on to claim that he is a tax cutter and sounded Reaganesque:
Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.
The problem with this statement is that this President will sign a version of ObamaCare (House version) that includes an income tax increase to pay for government run health care. Furthermore, the President has redefined “tax cut” to mean “tax credit.” On October 13, 2008, the Wall Street Journal critiqued the Senator Obama’s claim that he was going to cut taxes for 95 percent of working families: From the WSJ:
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.”
This critique is accurate today. The President’s plan to put Americans back to work is his proposal for a ”Jobs Bill” contains some new tax credits.
So tonight, I’m proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. I am also proposing a new small business tax credit — one that will go to over 1 million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. While we’re at it, let’s also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment and provide a tax incentive for all businesses, large and small, to invest in new plants and equipment.
All good proposals from President Obama.
ReplyDeleteAre you against the banks paying back the money they got from taxpayers?
The idea of eliminating all capital gains taxes on small business investment is a good idea. The idea of lowering or eliminating taxation on small business will spur economic growth, yet this proposal is buried in a Jobs Bill that is loaded with new federal spending. Congress is working on an $82.5 billion plan with tax credits for companies that hire, money for alternative energy and a bailout for fiscally irresponsible states. That does not sound like economic stimulus to me — sounds more like President Obama’s Stimulus Part II.
ReplyDeleteThe President, when talking about ObamaCare, showed that he did not listen to the people of Massachusetts when they elected Senator-elect Scott Brown in a referendum on ObamaCare:
Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse trading, this process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for them.
The President thinks this issue is too “complex” for the average American to understand. He also says that he didn’t explain ObamaCare more clearly to the American people. This is conclusive evidence that this President has contempt for those who disagree with him and an “I am smarter than you” attitude to governing. He implies that the American people are too dumb to understand his ObamaCare bill. They do understand. They don’t like it. At some point this Administration needs to back away from this wildly unpopular plan. The President urged Congress to double down on ObamaCare.
Here’s what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.
If Congress does finish the job of passing ObamaCare, Blue Dogs and moderate Democrats in the Senate can kiss their jobs good bye. The President and Congress’ secretly negotiated ObamaCare bill is not popular and even liberal Massachusetts has said no to a government takeover of health care. Moderate Democrats should update their resumes because Obama’s plans on health care seem like a stimulus plan for Republicans running for the House and Senate.
The President proposed a freeze in government spending after he blamed President Bush for many of his problems:
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don’t. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. We will continue to go through the budget line by line to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work. We’ve already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.
A freeze is not a cut and this plan is only effective if the President vetoes Congress’ appropriations bills that come in over budget. The proof is in the actions of our President and we will not see if he is serious about this freeze until the appropriations process is complete later this year. On foreign policy, the President seems to be more focused on getting troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq than winning these wars:
In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011 and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption and support the rights of all Afghans — men and women alike. We are joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am confident we will succeed. As we take the fight to al-Qaida, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.
ReplyDeleteVictory is a better goal than promising that “all of our troops are coming home.” The bottom line with this speech, as with all others by this president, is that he is great at promising, but not so great at delivering. He gave a Clintonesque speech last night with a long list of issues and promises. We will know by the next State of the Union if this President is serious about promises or if he is the Promise-Breaker-In-Chief.
On the heels of shocking losses in traditionally liberal states, many Democrats have begun to question the strategy behind negative political campaigns that compare Republican challengers to former President George W. Bush, Politico.com reports.
ReplyDeleteDemocratic nominees for governor in New Jersey and Virginia and for the Senate in Massachusetts, all ran smear campaigns that compared their opponents to the former president. All three Republican candidates upset their liberal counterparts.
"Voters are pretty tired of the blame game," said Democratic strategist Steve Hildebrand, a top aide on Obama’s presidential campaign, quoted by the news source. "What a stupid strategy that was."
Meanwhile, Obama, who ran a successful presidential campaign criticizing then-President Bush, has continued to point blame at the previous administration more than a year into his first term.
Fox News reports that Obama and his top advisors have negatively mentioned the Bush administration seven different times since last week’s upset in the Massachusetts Senate election.
"The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," Obama said last week. "People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years."
Bruce that is the dumbest question ever. Are you for stealing money from the future generations and we the people so Obama can get it and give it to whoever he chooses? I can see with you progressives that lieing and stealing are not below you. TARP is to go back to the people by paying off the debt. The first jobs bill didn't do a very good job so why would I think this one would be any different? That is insane.
ReplyDeleteReally, Chris. Maybe you missed this story in the Washington Post.
ReplyDeleteEconmy Soars 5.7% in 4th Quarter, fastest in six years.
Hmmm ... fastest in 6 years ... so that would put it at about the time that a Republican Congress was in power. And now that the idiot Democratic Congress can't get their shit together enough to pass their ultra-radical leftist communist agenda (thanks to the Republicans) the economy is beginning to recover.
ReplyDeleteHey FAILk, why is it that Obummer complains about inheriting a deficit and then he goes on to EXPLODE the deficit? Why is a MONSTROUS UNWIELDY deficit only good under Obummer? ROFLMAO
As even the LIAR IN CHIEF Obummer said in his "State of the Campaign for 2012" speech, the banks have paid back almost every loan that they were FORCED to take back. Was there a set amount of time to pay it back that I wasn't aware of? What kind of government FORCES you to take a loan and then AFTER you have paid it ALL back then TAXES and FINES you? What kind of government fines and taxes even banks that took NO loan or bailout? Sounds like the MAFIA to me.
4th Quarter, hmmm ... isn't that Christmas time? I wonder if FAILk will be so quick to present his numbers for this quarter when reality sets in.
ReplyDeleteHey FAILk, be sure to break out that story to your girlfriend from the Fox 2 News story you were in last night and tell her that Obummer says everything is fine, the economy is SOARING so I guess the government doesn't have to do anything more than they have already done, right? Be sure to pass it on to all the unemployed, both present and future.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA
This must be the worst news Obummer could have gotten, that everything is fine so he now doesn't have to spend more money, or dump the TARP money into another porkulus bill, and doesn't have to take more power and control. Thank God for President Bush's TARP bill, I was firmly against it but it sure looks like that did the trick in saving the economy.
Everything isn't fine, John. Unemployment is still 10%. We need to keep doing more of what we've been doing to get the economy boiling again and so that employers start hiring large numbers of people.
ReplyDeleteAnd Obama continued the TARP program and put a big stimulus bill in place that is now starting to see real results, even though not ONE REPUBLICAN voted for it.
Way to go, Republicants
Well I guess then that THIS is all thanks to the Obummer and the Hypocrats as well. WAY TO GO HYPOCRATS! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA. In fact the only wages and benefits that really shot up are WEALTH SAPPING GOVERNMENT JOBS! That is a TRUE regressive policy!
ReplyDeleteWages and benefits rise weak 1.5 percent in 2009 By MARTIN CRUTSINGER 01/29/10
WASHINGTON (AP) — Wages and benefits paid to U.S. workers posted a modest gain in the fourth quarter, ending a year in which recession-battered workers saw their compensation rise by the smallest amount on records going back more than a quarter-century.
The Labor Department said that wages and benefits rose by 0.5 percent in the three months ending in December. For the entire year, wages and benefits were up 1.5 percent, the weakest showing on records that go back to 1982.
The anemic compensation gains have raised concerns about the durability of the economic recovery. The fear is that consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of economic activity, could falter if households don’t have the income growth to support their spending.
So ... FAILk? Hello? Just want to make sure that Obummer and the Hypocrats are ready to take all the credit for how the markets and the economy behaves from now on. No more blaming, or taking credit from, Bush, right? So whatever the next quarter on shows, that's all the Hypocrat policies, right?
ReplyDeleteHmmmm continued BUSH's TARP? BWAAAAHAHAHAHA ... so you mean he didn't get rid of Bush's TARP?
ReplyDeleteUnemployment ABOVE 10%, when OBUMMER said that with porkulus it would be kept at 8% or lower?
BWAAAAHAHAHAHA ... I'm not exactly sure if you are arguing for the Hypocrats and Obummer. Sounds to me like you are indicating what a failure the Hypocrats are! LOL
Thanks for backing me up on this one FAILk!
You never answer my questions though! LOL ... if Obummer creating a massive deficit is what is required, then what is wrong with Bush doing it? Sounds like he was just implementing Hypocrat policy.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA
Answer my questions FAILk!
Because bus did it, but didn't use it to create jobs. He borrowed money to fight two unnecessary wars. And he wasn't even honest enough to put it in the regular budget, even after 8 years. Borrowing money to fight wars and decreasing taxes is just plain stupid.
ReplyDeleteObama is deficit spending to create jobs. invest in our infrastructure, build new schools, things that we actually need, since our infrastructure is crumbling all around us every day.
Bruce all Obama is doing is creating Democrats and intitlments by creating union government jobs. And how is Obama printing money like it's going out of style,literaly, going to help the economy?
ReplyDeleteJohn, So when faced with the facts that the last two quarters of 2009 were positive for growth your going to be thankfully for the mostly democratic TARP bill? Well, its a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteYour growing brother. At long last.
But the fact that the STIMULUS bill did have an effect in the growth still escapes you tells me how far we have to go.
Bet that the growth number will be revised downward after a few days, as is typical of this administration's MO.
ReplyDeleteHey guys, how about a revision to Obama's nickname "The One"?
ReplyDeleteHe has now proven beyond a doubt that he is "The Clueless One".
JoeC. $200 billion push into the economy has to have an effect. It just didn't have the effect the Democrats said it would. There is still $500 billion left to spend in the last jobs bill and that will have an effect. And printing all that money will also have an effect on the economy. And when all that money comes back into the system that will have an effect also. But it wont be the effects you think. If the first jobs bill aka stimulus bill was so great why are they talking about needing another one? And why are they even thinking about another jobs bill when they haven't spend the first one? Use some common sense man. Why do you Democrats want to steal from the TARP so bad? You do know that it will only go towoirds union jobs and pork. Instead of paying off all the money that has been taken from the next generation by not paying down the deficit? Are you trying to bankrupt this country? If not then why are you spending everything you can?
ReplyDeleteIt sure did have an effect on growth Joey. Growth of government jobs, and growth in deficit. Porkulus had nothing to do with GDP. It has everything to do with wages being the most stagnant in 27 years though. Are you willing to accept that one Joey, or are you going to be blaming it on Bush? You friggin idiots, can't give credit where it's due. BUSH'S TARP bill ... mostly Hypocratic? I'll let you and Brucie argue about that. You two mental giants let me know who is to blame ... er ... be credited with the TARP bill. Hypocratic Congress or Republican Bush. After you two get that hashed out then I will be happy to address it. Oh, Joey, are you willing to admit that it was a Republican Congress that gave Clinton his surplus, and a Hypocratic Congress that was controlling the purse strings during Bush's spending days, up to and including when the economy went south?
ReplyDeleteHey, again I'm not your brother Joey. You wish you were my brother, but you are way too nutty and skeezy to be related to me in any way.
By the way Joey, something that just irritates me a little, so I just want to help you out if you don't mind. You are (You're) using "your" in the wrong way. If it was something that I owned, you would be correct in saying it is "yours". If it is something that I AM, such as "you are" this or "you are" that, then THAT is actually a "contraction" that you're (you + are) trying to use. So you should have said things like "You're growing brother". See how that works? YOU'RE welcome in advance.
Chris, what is wrong with good union jobs? Don't we want good jobs with good wages so we can get the economy rolling again?
ReplyDeleteLow wage jobs don't do much for anyone.
I'm all for good union jobs, instead of minimum wage jobs with no benefits.
Are you really that f'ing stupid? Wait, don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question, but you probably don't know what that means, do you, Chris.
Bruce Your ALL for Cradle to Grave Government Entitlements and HOW Does that Make For a STRONG ECONOMY! Seems to ME Since 2006 Economy has Steadily Gone DOWN the Tubes! Who Controlled Congress AFTER 2006 Bruce,Certainly Not Bush! Who Controlled Fanny Mae, Freedy Max which alot of Economist POINT to was the START of OUR Economic Problems. Frank was Told Several Times Housing Market and Government Run Programs were in Trouble,What Did Frank and Dodd Do, Nothing Bruce! They Did nothing, said all Was Great and they had that FEEL GOOD Sensation Getting Citizens who COULD NOT Afford House INTO them, and HOW in the Hell Did that Work OUT! There is Enough Blame to GO Around However this Administration and Nobama have GREASED the BUCK So Much it Slides Right by THEM! John IS RIGHT Regarding Numbers and I will Bet you a Jelly Bean that NUMBERS will be Lowered! Also When Census workers ARE Hired they will Help to Lower UNEMPLOYMENT Numbers a BIT BUT what happens in 2011?
ReplyDeleteBruce Regarding High Wages and Unions. Howd That Work for the BIG Three? I Know its Bushes Fault!
Unions are job destroyers. I make a good wage through HARD WORK, not because I THREATEN the owner of my business! Because I have MARKETABLE SKILLS, which I EARNED, not because I have a SIT DOWN STRIKE if I have to work a little OVERTIME, and then BLOCK OTHER PEOPLE FROM WORKING THAT JOB through threats of violence and coercion.
ReplyDeleteWhat an idiot you are Bruce and Joey. You guys think because you are employed by organized crime ... er ... "labor" you have the right to tell a business owner, who built his business from the ground up, taking a chance on his dream, taking the RISK involved in building a business, how to run his business?! Commies.
Nothing is wrong with union jobs. But you left out the part of UNION GOVERNMET JOBS. See the difference? Governemnt jobs don't do much for the country either. You did know that it takes the mostly private sectors tax revenue to pay for all those jobs didn't you? At what point do we the non govt employees get to critical mass? Govt jobs are not an asset but a liability? Do you know what that means in economics? How many people have to work and pay taxes to pay for that $71,000 average paying govt job? And don't forget that the ave. American only makes $41,000. Is that how the unions and the Democrats are going to make up for all the lost manufaturing union jobs? And we all know that unions don't have to pay the same taxes as we the people do. And if this was really about making jobs then pay the union members what the private sector is and they could hire twice as many people. This is just a power play by the Democrats and the unions. Have you ever tryed to iliminate a gov't worker no matter what they did or didn't do? That is why it is a liability. Do you have a problem with the private sector that most Americans make their living from? Why don't you want to grow the private sector? You do know they are what pays the bills in this country since 80% of jobs created in the past 233 yrs has been in the private sector? Now in contrast would you say that it is opposite for communist countries? See why you progressives are really just neo-communists or on that path.
ReplyDeleteBruce out of the Big Three witch company is doing by far the best? I'll give you a hint:they are not socialized or govt owned,they did not take our money to survive,That union took big cuts to save their capitalist company and as a reward they will be getting some nice size bonuses. I have talked to UAW members from all three companies and the UAW members are waking up to the fact6 that they need to take care of their comapany and they will in turn be taken care of.Win win. But while the other two feed off of the lifeblood of the companies they work for one of the Two govt control companies most likely will be disbanded. We told you it would happen like this. We told you Ford would do the best. You told us if they didn't get the money they would go bankrupt. You were wrong because they still went bankrupt. The worse part is the little two are still not doing well and those UAW members wish they worked for FORD. Captialism isn't purfect but socialism has never worked. The only way GM will get back on track is if they get the govt off their back by paying off the loan.
ReplyDeleteBut we know that wont happen because look at what hasd happend to the banks. Use common sense.
THE TALE OF A DEMOCRAT-RUN CONGRESS
ReplyDeleteBy Matthew Clemente on Jan 29, 2010
Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report projecting that our national debt will rise from $7.5 trillion (53% of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $15 trillion (67% of GDP) by 2020. Such shocking predictions leave many Americans wondering, why is the national debt skyrocketing out of control? Certainly both parties are guilty of pushing tax, borrow and spend agendas that cripple our economy and leave us financially dependent. But since the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007, these problems have gotten dramatically worse. Under the Democrat controlled Congress:
The national debt has increased by 41.8%: When the Democrats gained control of Congress in January of 2007, the national debt was $8.67 trillion. It currently stands at a staggering $12.3 trillion. That is an increase of $3.63 trillion.
The deficit has nearly tripled: From FY 1996-2007, a Republican controlled Congress ran a cumulative deficit of $1.2 trillion. From FY 2008-2010, a Democrat controlled Congress will run a $3.2 trillion deficit.
The deficit was higher in FY 2009 than in every year from FY 1996-FY 2007 combined: The deficit in FY 2009 was $1.42 trillion. The cumulative deficit from FY 1996-FY 2007 was $1.25 trillion. The FY 2010 deficit is projected to be $1.349 trillion.
The debt limit has been increased five times: Congress is currently considering proposals to increase the debt limit for a sixth time from $8.965 trillion to $14.29 trillion. If enacted the debt limit will have increased by 59.4% since the Democrats gained power.
Annual deficits have turned into monthly deficits: On average, in FY 2009 and FY 2010, Congress will run monthly deficits that exceed the annual deficits of the past 12 years.
When the Democrats gained control of Congress, the CBO projected that the federal government would run a budget surplus of $800 billion between FY 2008-2017. Now, over that same period, the federal government is projected to run a deficit of $7.4 trillion.
This is an $8.2 trillion deterioration of the budget outlook from just three years earlier.
Where did it become the government's job to create jobs anyway? Where is that spelled out in the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteThat is a communist idea.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCommunism is working for China. In fact communist China is buying america. Bite that Johnny,Al and Bonsai.
ReplyDeleteI deleted the prior comment to correct some typos. I am re-posting, hopefully with corrections.
ReplyDeleteChris, as far as the auto companies, you just have your economics wrong. GM says now they will have paid back their $6.7 billion loan by June of this year.
By the government having loaned them the $6.7 the loss of about 4 million jobs at GM and its suppliers was prevented. The loan was actually a really good deal for taxpayers.
And it was a lot less expensive to loan GM the money than pay the unemployment compensation for the people that would have been laid off.
It was just good business, period.
No question, Ford saw the downturn coming and addressed it better than GM did, but letting GM to out of business would have been a disaster of monumental proportions and a lot more expensive to the public treasury in the long run.
Then I suppose you'd be criticizing the President for not having done anything to save GM when your taxes had to go up to pay for the massive unemployment benefits. You can't have it both ways.
It doesn't look to me like GM is going anywhere. They may never be the size they once were, but they do still exist and so do all the jobs they provide, along with their suppliers.
Also, the suppliers to Ford are many of the same suppliers to GM and Chrysler. So what would have happened to Ford if the suppliers they depend on had gone out of business? No more Ford either.
Use a little common sense, Chris.
John, the government doesn't create jobs directly. They do create an economic environment that makes it more or less favorable for the private sector to hire people and for consumers to be able to afford goods and services that the private sector provides.
Well FAILk, you and I agree absolutely on that last part! And you know the #1 way they can "create an economic environment that makes it more or less favorable for the private sector to hire people and for consumers to be able to afford goods and services that the private sector provides." as you so eloquently put it? By STAYING THE F**K OUT OF IT. The ONLY thing the government does by getting involved is picking winners and losers. Seriously, that is all they can do. They TAKE from taxpayers and successful businesses, and they guess (or, most often, are bribed) which other business that money goes to. When it's the FREE American people who would be best at deciding which business thrives and which doesn't. But I see you enjoy having the government dictate which business thrives. I wonder if you would be so happy if you, say, owned a wind-turbine shop and saw the government give a bunch of your money to another wind-turbine shop because of their donations to the President's war chest? Or if they gave a bunch of your money to solar-panels producers, while your business went belly-up? This is serious stuff FAILk, and it's stuff that you OBVIOUSLY do not put ANY thought into. Seriously, you don't, do you? You don't think about anything.
ReplyDeleteHere's another point: The government is spending like a motherf**ker, so ... where are they going to get the money to repay the debts? Where does the money come from, some time in the future when China is asking for it's loans repaid with interest Bruce? That money has to come from somewhere ... so FAILk, where is it going to come from? You, me, large and small businesses ... and it will be CRIPPLING. But Obummer will be long gone by then, and maybe you can blame it on somebody else. Just like now!
And FAILk, do you know how the government can make it more favorable to hire people? Only way I can think of FAILk is to tax those businesses LESS so they have MORE money to spend on EMPLOYEES! Simple economics for a simple FAILk.
Bruce Ford had to pay back loans to the banks and made $2 billion. Did you forget that part? Out of the Big3 Ford is the only one that is doing any good. Chrysler is by far the worse. GM still has to get rid of assets. BF you always look at half the picture. Chris made the most sense out of the two of you. Jay-Ney, Communism does work for the government but the people aren doing so well. I know I lived in China for the last 3 yrs. I also lived in Russia and they are more free then we are now. We are well on the way to communism and that isn't a good thing. We have time and a Constitution to fix what has been done, but it wont be easy.
ReplyDeleteI see you have Roi Chinn as a follower. Bruce do you know who Roi Chinn is? If not then read about him.
ReplyDeleteJay-Ney ... WTF?!? ROFLMAO ... you and FAILk and your China love. Jay-Ney, how about you cruise on over to Cuba if you love communism so much? Or better yet, I hear Venezuela now has completely government-controlled media, so if you move there you don't even have to worry about things like Fox News that must drive you crazy (you know, independent media).
ReplyDeleteHey Jay-NEY
ReplyDeleteAsk the Millions OVER in China How Great its is Or TURN YOUR BRAIN BACK on and Find Chinese HERE WHO Have Fled China and TELL them About YOUR GREAT ASSESSMENT!
Bruce As John SAYS Get the GOVERNMENT the Hell OUT of the WAY and Private Sector and Capitolism WILL Work! Private Sector Aint the Problem, BIG GOVERNMENT IS!
Once More Bruce If YOU Work and its Private Sector JOB WHOM SIGNS Your Paycheck! Rich Guy or Poor GUY. Just Wondering!
Honda just made a big recall on their rice burners.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you call it spending, which to me implies the money is being wasted. I call it investing. I have no problem investing in infrastructure. We have a $4 trillion infrastructure deficit in this country, necessary repairs and new facilities that have to be built to keep our country running.
ReplyDeleteThe way the money gets paid back is by putting more people back to work, the government collecting payroll taxes and other taxes. If we continue the unemployment we have had recently, our economy is unsustainable, but just cutting spending won't get the job done.
Getting the government out of the way isn't the answer in this case. That's how the banks were able to take the country to the verge of economic collapse, the government "got out of the way" and the banks were running gambling casinos with thier customers' money.
Regardless of what you conservatives think, government is necessary and reasonable regulation is also necessary. Get that through your thick skulls.
If new facilities HAVE to be built to keep our country running have no fear Bruce, they WILL be built by the ones who think it is necessary.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the bridge to nowhere was necessary? If it was necessary then it would have been built by the people who deemed it acceptable to live there. Just because somebody builds a house on the edge of a beach, that does not mean that I should foot the bill to build them a seawall to keep the sea from washing their mansion away!
God, you really are dumb as a stump. If you want to read something interesting and informative FAILk, don't be afraid of a little knowledge, just read this here:
By the Way, Free Markets Are Free
Friday, January 29, 2010 by George F. Smith
http://mises.org/daily/4036
You are talking communism and socialism FAILk when the government decides what jobs are necessary and what work is necessary, and pays for the jobs by re-distributing wealth. I think we can both agree on that correct? S you admit you are communist or socialist at least?
Hey FAILk, one other thing, if banks were allowed to fail or faced repercussions for shady deals, they would regulate THEMSELVES. That is, if they wanted to stay in business and have customers. Businesses don't need the government regulating them if they want to stay in business. Regulations are just the government's way of paying off their buddies. That's a fact.
We don't need to build yet more roads that we can't afford to maintain you dumbass. It's like paying someone to dig a hole, and then paying another guy to fill that hole. It's busy work and once those jobs are completed, where do the workers go you dummy? Back to the unemployment line for you!
John, by being ideologically stubborn, you neglect the reality of the situation that existed with the banks. I didn't like the bank bailouts either, believe me.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe it was a genuine catastrophe in the making had action not been taken. The situation that happened could have been avoided if regulators hadn't been asleep at the switch, but that's another story.
Maintaining roads and bridges is necessary. It is not busy work. Why don't you drive on some of Michigan's roads and maybe you'd find out for yourself, or our crumbling bridges, some of which have collapsed, killing people or our aging sewer systems, they all need upkeep which we've been kicking down the road for decades.
No, the bridge to nowhere was not necessary and Sarah Palin was for it before she was against it, but that's another story.
So, John, would you have an economy without any regulation whatsoever? You really are a dumb as a stone, if that's what you think we should be doing.
Yeah FAILk, are you telling me that company's don't regulate themselves right now? Is that what you are trying to tell me, that company's don't regulate themselves without the government forcing them to?
ReplyDeleteFAILk, are you telling me that a STATE'S highway system should be the concern of the FEDERAL government? Is that what you are telling me? That some states can manage to maintain their roads, but because Michigan cannot that should be borne by the state of, say, Ohio that CAN manage their money correctly?!?! You are a total dumbass. I never said that maintaining isn't necessary. You just read what you want to FAILk. YOU are the one that wants to take productive members of society that have been laid off and have the government borrow money from China so they can build yet MORE roads that we cannot afford to maintain. THEN, when the new roads have been built, then WHAT FAILk?!?! LAY THEM OFF AGAIN? PAY TO HAVE THEM SIT AROUND? PAY TO HAVE THEM MAINTAIN YET MORE ROADS THAT WE CAN"T AFFORD?!?! You are DUMB as a STUMP.
WAAAAAAAAAH. blubber blubber blubber ... I didn't want the bailouts either ... whine whine whine. F You FAILk. It's YOUR Barney Frank and Dodd that got us in this mess. Where were the regulators then FAILk?!?! Regulations were in place when that guy's ponzi scheme wiped out BILLIONS. And who is regulating the government's SS and Medicare PONZI SCHEMES? Your regulations are a JOKE FAILk.
That was quite a slap against Granholm and her crumbling infrastructure FAILk. BWAAAAHAHAHAHA
ReplyDeleteYes, I will have to admit that Granholm's mismanagement over the last 8 years have really left Michigan's infrastructure in a pitiful shape. Glad we agree on that one too FAILk.
So FAILk, your problem is that we have not been paying enough taxes to maintain the roads, am I reading that correctly? Your tax bill has been too low, and you were unable to send more in, or collect a little less, to pay for your safety on the roads? Don't kick it down the road FAILk, chip in bitch! Send in a little extra with your taxes to save our crumbling infrastructure.
ReplyDeleteRegulators were asleep at the switch ... so what we need are MORE regulations that they can be "asleep at the switch" with? BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA
ReplyDeleteUtter. Lieberal. Stupidity.
Lordy lordy, HOW did banks ever survive before the government decided they had the right to regulate them?! I for the life of me cannot figure that one out. For a hundred and fifty years somehow America survived and thrived with Big Government Brother looking out for them and nannying. Stupid lieberals.
ReplyDeleteI do like how you skipped over the bridge to nowhere FAILk. If Palin was for it makes no difference in the world to me, so please don't think that the fact she was for it in any way dismisses this. That bridge to nowhere is just a drop in the bucket of all the useless makework BS that our government boondoggles.
Up to 1941, the average cost per citizen to maintain the federal government was $25 IN TODAY'S DOLLARS.
It was, as of 2005, $10,000 PER CITIZEN.
Thank you Hypocrats.
A Conservative Teacher nails it again:
ReplyDeletehttp://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-government-employs-slave-labor-to.html
FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 2010
US Government Employs Slave Labor to Compete Against Private Companies
The United States government is forcing federal prisoners to make products that federal agencies have to buy, undercutting and driving out of business companies in Michigan and elsewhere.
Federal Prison Industries, Inc., also known as UNICOR, is a wholly owned government corporation created in 1934 by statute and Executive Order that produces goods and services from the labor of inmates of the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons. In fiscal year 2008, UNICOR employed 21,836 inmates and generated US$854.3 million in sales. UNICOR has 109 factories in federal prisons, producing about 175 different types of products and services, including electronics, green technology, automotive components, industrial products, and office furniture.
Under US laws and regulations, federal agencies, with the exception of the Department of Defense, are required to purchase products offered by UNICOR. This "mandatory source clause" lets UNICOR unfairly compete with private businesses, all while paying substandard wages and require that inmates work in unsafe conditions.
I'm probably way off on this, but my dad produces furniture and automotive parts, and can't get a job, and I would hate to believe that a part of the reason for this is that the US government is employing slave labor to produce substandard quality goods in unsafe work conditions for resale to other government agencies.
WHITE HOUSE: YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT JOBS ARE "PETTY" By Julie Borowski on Jan 29, 2010
ReplyDeleteDuring Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday, he claimed that the “stimulus” bill has been a continuous success. He attempted to reassure the American people by explaining that it had “saved” hundreds of thousands of jobs so far.
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders. And we are on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year. The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That's right - the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill.
Due to the White House’s ever-changing job statistics, it has become nearly impossible to keep track of how many jobs the "stimulus" has supposedly “created.” Three officials from the Obama administration interviewed earlier this week had inconsistent information about how much of an impact the “stimulus” has had on job creation.
Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace asserted that:
Just last quarter, we finally saw the first positive economic job growth in more than a year, largely as a result of the recovery plan that's put money back into our economy, that saved or created 1.5 million jobs.
David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to President Obama, on CNN’s State of the Union believed that the “stimulus” had created considerably more jobs:
created more than – or saved more than 2 million jobs.
Valerie Jerrett, Senior Advisor to Obama, on NBC’s Meet the Press had a significantly lower estimate of the number of jobs “saved”:
The Recovery Act saved thousands and thousands of jobs.
Apparently, the Obama administration cannot agree on which misleading job statistic to use during interviews. The vast differences in these job statistics would leave any concerned person asking a variety of questions. Since Americans have invested billions of taxpayer dollars into the “stimulus”, they should have every right to know how exactly these “saved” jobs are being calculated and the accuracy of this data. According to White House spokesman Bill Burton, these reasonable questions should be deemed “petty.”
Talk show host Bill Wills in Cleveland interviewed Bill Burton on the air:
WILLS: And finally Mr. Burton, on the Sunday shows, there were three different answers from the White House on jobs created out of the stimulus. Have you guys gotten together on that number yet?
BURTON: I have to say this is one of the more petty things that I’ve heard brought up in the last couple of days.
The range of the job creation data presented by the Obama administration is over one million. To the roughly estimated 15 million Americans out of work, the discrepancy of one million jobs does not seem petty. It's time for the White House to be truthful and consistent--the "stimulus" has failed and zero jobs have been created due to the massive spending bill.
Bruce in Mich. the govt takes out taxes for the roads and bridges. We pay it through our gas tax. But now that isn't enough. It's never enough for the glutonous govt. They will ask for more money aqnd get it. Then they will ask for more and more and more. Just like with budgets and the educational system. They keep asking for more so they can waste it.
ReplyDeleteAnon, that isn't enough. The State of Michigan doesn't have enough money to meet the federal match and is cutting its road budget by almost $600 million. That's a lot of roads that won't get fixed.
ReplyDeleteGood. F 'em. Let some company put in a toll road some place where they can earn a buck and will keep them in better shape then the government can do it. Happens all over the US. If the government will get the F out of the way people could and would be happy to take care of problems. I don't need the State of Michigan blackmailing me to maintain roads.
ReplyDeleteFAILk, you never answered my question about where the money to pay off this massive deficit will come from.
ReplyDeleteLOL ... somebody get this idiot a teleprompter STAT! ROFLMAO ... looks like we have three more years of this idiot to look forward to. He makes Bush look like a brain surgeon:
ReplyDeletehttp://dailycaller.com/2010/01/29/obama-the-middle-east-has-plagued-the-region-for-centuries-video/
John, you're the best. You trounce all over Brucie. He sounds so simple minded all of the time. What is it with socialists/commies like him that they just don't recognize that eventually the money runs out and you can't keep on taking from the productive? Oh yeah - that's right, he benefits from a progressive fake utopia because he isn't one of the productive.
ReplyDeleteJOHN You Had a Great Run and Bruce Must have a Migrain By Now with ALL the TRUTH he Must of ABSORBED with NO PLACE to Use it! Well Done!
ReplyDeleteMore astro-turfing from the LIEberal Hypocrats. Looks like the unions are running scared. Let's keep the pressure on. Parting question: what do regressives fear about states rights? That's an integral part of The Constitution of These United States of America. Oh, right, they don't like The Constitution, as it limits powers.
ReplyDeleteLabor union money linked to anti-Tea Party Web site
By Alex Pappas — The Daily Caller 01/29/10
From the Web site TheTeaPartyIsOver.org
Organized labor may be putting their dollars behind an online effort to take down Tea Party groups and their “radical ideas.”
A new Web site, TheTeaPartyIsOver.org, has connections to unions, including the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
The American Public Policy Committee pays for the site, whose self-declared mission is to “prevent the Tea Party’s dangerous ideas from gaining legislative traction.”
According to Opensecrets.org, the top two financial backers of the American Public Policy Committee this year are Patriot Majority West and Patriot Majority, largely funded by union dollars.
During the 2008 election cycle, the AFSCME contributed $5.8 million and the SEIU donated $770,000 to Patriot Majority. Teamsters Union also donated $250,000, United Food & Commercial Workers Union gave $125,000 and the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO donated $6,500 to the group.
Attempts to contact the American Public Policy Committee and Patriot Majority were not successful.
The site encourages visitors to call Republicans Randy Hultgren, Arie Friedman and David McAloon — all running for the U.S. House in Illinois — to “reject the dangerous ideas of the Tea Party.”
“This movement is a fad,” the Web site reads, whose “ideas include undermining the legitimacy of the federal government in favor of a radical right-wing form of state’s rights.”
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
ReplyDeletePresident makes Top 10 list of corrupt politicians
Believes he 'can violate privacy rights of Americans' without legal consequence
December 29, 2009
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
President Obama has been named to a "Top 10" list he'd likely be grateful to avoid: Judicial Watch's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians," for 2009.
"The Obama White House believes," said the report from the organization that monitors government for corruption, and sues when it chooses, "it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability."
The report released yesterday said Obama joined the likes of Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.; Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; Attorney General Eric Holder; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.; and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., on the list.
"Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's scheme to sell the president's former Senate seat to the highest bidder," the report said.
"Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability," the report said.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=120407
LOL ... thanks Al. You know what they say, the truth shall set you free. FAILk must be free as a bird now!
ReplyDeleteIt must really suck to be bruce now. Supermajority in the Senate is gone, Obamacare is on life support (until the death panel decides to pull the plug), the IPCC and the global warming lies are finally being exposed, and Toyota is in dire straits with their safety and quality issue and prolonged denail of a problem.
ReplyDeleteAnd to top it all off, while watching the State of the Union address, brucie boy felt a tingling going down his leg. When he got up his pants were all wet and urine stained.
Craven, it's still a good time to be a liberal Democrat. We still have a huge majority in both houses of Congress. President Obama kicked some major butt at the GOP House retreat and the meme that Republicans are the party of No is catching on.
ReplyDeleteTeabaggers/conservatives look like they've overplayed their hand and the economy is looking up, growing 5.7% in the 4th quarter.
Hopefully unemployment will start turning around soon and we'll be putting people back to work in good paying jobs.
The State of the Union was great and the Republicans sat on their hands, even for tax cuts for the middle class.
Health care reform will get done and Americans will be grateful for the reforms that help them be able to get the care they need.
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... so what if you STILL have a majority even after losing Teddy Kennedy's seat in the bluest of the blue states to a Republican. You guys had a SUPER majority idiot and you STILL couldn't do anything because you are a bunch of corrupt bitches! LOL
ReplyDeleteHOW did that liar Obummer kick any butt?!? ROFLMAO ... just because you say he did doesn't mean he did! Hey Brucie, while you are busy owning the 5.7, don't forget to own the worst wage increases since just about ever. You claiming that one too putz?!?! ROFLMAO
The "State of the Union" was mislabeled. It should have been called The State of the Campaign, because all I heard was campaigning bullshit. Did he actually say how poorly the country was actually doing? Nope. It was all about the ultra-radical liberal tripe that he will continue to push, in an effort to give the majority to the Republicans in 2010 and 2012. BWAAAAHAHAHAHA
Good for the Republicans; it appears only the Hypocrats applaud lies and deceit! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... did you see that report that showed how nobody believed a word that liar said!?!
Health care reform will get done?!!? Oh golly I hope so; that would be the final nail in the Hypocrat's coffin!