Where do the stimulus horror stories end?

Brick Top

New Member
Where do the stimulus horror stories end?


By: Examiner Editorial | 10/22/11 8:05 PM





President Obama gave electric car maker Fisker Automotive a $529 million loan guarantee to build cars in the U.S. — but most of the jobs have gone to Finland.

Among the most frequently heard criticisms from Democrats of President George W. Bush and the pre-2006 Republican majorities in the House and Senate was that corporations were being coddled even as they were sending American jobs overseas. Then President Obama proposed his $787 billion economic stimulus program and promised that it would bring unemployment down to 8 percent or less while saving or creating up to 3. 5 million jobs. It's nearly three years later, the official unemployment rate is still above 9 percent (and could be double that when those who quit looking for work or are underemployed are counted), and the media is increasingly full of headlines on stories about hundreds of millions of tax dollars being wasted in stimulus program scandals, most notably the $537 million Solyndra bankruptcy.

Two more such scandals appeared this week, but these latest outrages feature a new wrinkle -- stimulus funds being used to create jobs overseas. In the first example, the Obama administration handed $7.2 million to four Oregon logging companies to hire loggers in a severely depressed industry. But according to a Department of Labor inspector general report, only two of jobs thus funded went to U.S. citizens: "Only two Oregonians were listed on the employer recruitment reports, indicating that workers in Oregon were likely unaware these job opportunities were available. In fact, although 146 U.S. workers were contacted by the three employers regarding possible employment, none were hired. Instead, 254 foreign workers were brought into the country for these jobs."
In the second new stimulus program scandal this week, the Obama administration gave electric car maker Fisker Automotive a $529 million loan guarantee to build vehicles in the United States. At the time, Vice President Biden claimed "this is seed money that will return back to the American consumer in billions and billions and billions of dollars in good new jobs." But the rest of the story came out this week when Fisker officials acknowledged that most of the 500 jobs being created are actually in Finland. Allegedly they couldn't find a suitable assembly facility here in the United States, despite the fact Detroit is the birthplace of the automotive industry, virtually every major manufacturer from around the world has put factories in this country, and there are thousands of unemployed auto workers here. Obama administration officials approved the transfer of jobs to Finland.
Something else came out this week: Public confidence in Obama's handling of the economy has hit a new low amid growing expectations that the chief executive will be a one-term president. "Obama's standing with the public is weakest on the economy and in his efforts to tackle unemployment, with about 6 in 10 disapproving of his handling of both," reported AP's Jim Kuhnhenn of the news service's most recent public opinion survey.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/where-do-stimulus-horror-stories-end#ixzz1bcMk5Cda


Obama is the worst mistake the American electorate has made in my lifetime, and there is still time left for Obama to turn out to be the worst mistake the American electorate has ever made or will ever make.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
i think you are forgetting dubya.

unlike obama, he had a cooperating congress to pass exactly what he wanted to pass.

obama has a combative congress willing to sink this country into recession just to win votes.
 

massah

Well-Known Member
and good ol GW just passed bills to increase spending in the military/homeland security/etc budgets giving "stimulus" to those private entities that make technology for them...but yes I do agree obama/the current govt is printing money like no tomorrow and handing it out like candy...oh well...ive got land to farm and animals to harvest when the shit hits the fan :D
 

Brick Top

New Member
i think you are forgetting dubya.

unlike obama, he had a cooperating congress to pass exactly what he wanted to pass.

obama has a combative congress willing to sink this country into recession just to win votes.

You seem to have forgotten, or possibly never knew, that when Dubya became president, just like now, Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House. Dubya did not have a rubber stamp Congress at his command.

Something else you have clearly missed is that the Senate, under the control of Democrats, with Harry Reid at the helm, has done extremely little when compared to the Republican controlled House. The Senate has passed little legislation while the House as passed legislation at a furious clip. It is one of the most active Houses' in many years. You also clearly missed that even after Obama said 'pass this bill now' a GAGILLION times Harry Ried did his best to sit on it and not bring it up for a floor vote in the Senate. He and other Senate Democrats did not want to touch the legislation.

There is no logical rational and honest way to blame Republicans for Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats sitting on their thumbs instead of doing what they were elected to do.


September 27, 2011 The Do-Nothing Democrats

Dan Joppich
"Pass this bill now." Obama is still repeating this slogan ad nauseum. The problem is that after more than two weeks, still no bill has hit the floor for a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
So who's to blame for his bill not being passed yet? BO would have us believe it's Congress and in particular the Republicans, of course.
"This Congress, they are accustomed to doing nothing, and they're comfortable with doing nothing, and they keep on doing nothing," President Obama complained at a September 15 Democratic National Committee gathering in a private Washington residence.
Obama spent the summer alternating between campaigning and luxe-vacationing and found time for a quick speech and the unveiling of a vague stimulus spending plan before heading back out for another month or more of campaigning. And he has the audacity to refer to Congress as do-nothing? There is no adult in the room.
Deroy Murdock at the National Review rightly points out that we may have a do-nothing Democrat-run Senate but the Republican-led House of Reps has been very busy.
"Through September 15, the Republican House had been in session for 120 days. The Democratic Senate through the same date had been in session only 115 days."
"In terms of recorded votes, the two bodies are as different as Times Square and the Everglades. Through September 15, the GOP House had voted 711 times. Meanwhile, across the same period, the Democratic Senate had only 137 recorded votes. So, the allegedly lethargic GOP legislators whose sloth dooms the nation actually are five times as energetic as their indolent counterparts in the Democratic Senate. "
..."Our new majority has passed more than a dozen pro-growth measures designed to address the jobs crisis," Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor wrote Obama on September 6. "Aside from repeal of the 1099-reporting requirement in the health care law, however, none of the jobs measures passed by the House to date have been taken up by the Democrat-controlled Senate."
"These have included bills to reduce anti-business regulations, accelerate offshore oil production, and speed the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Canadian oil to refineries in Texas. The pipeline alone would create 20,000 jobs."
The House passed a budget on April 15th of this year while Harry Reid and the Dems haven't presented a budget since April 29, 2009. The Senate Democrats still haven't presented a continuing resolution to pay the bills come October 1st but they were quick to vote down in unison the hard-working Legislature's proposal.
One of the few actual votes in the Senate was the 0-97 vote on Obama's budget plan this year. Looks like they could find time to get behind one piece of legislation.
So where is Obama's latest stimulus deficit spending plan, the American Jobs Act? Sitting on Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid's desk because he can't even get his own Democrats to accept it. While Obama still continues to chime, "Pass this Bill," Reid says, "We've got to get rid of some issues first," he's not sure "exactly what I'm going to do yet with the president's jobs bill."
The Senate Democrats won't stand behind their president's plan, they're too busy doing nothing to propose a plan of their own, and they won't take the time to consider the Republican House jobs bills.
Obama can't blame Bush anymore. What he should be blaming is the do-nothing Democrats in the Senate.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/the_do-nothing_democrats.html
September 23, 2011 12:00 A.M.
Obama Lies about the ‘Do-Nothing Congress’
His party, not the Republicans, is the obstacle.

Deroy Murdock


‘This Congress, they are accustomed to doing nothing, and they’re comfortable with doing nothing, and they keep on doing nothing,” President Obama whined at a September 15 Democratic National Committee gathering in a private Washington residence.
Now that his “Blame Bush” hobby horse finally has retired to the glue factory, Obama resorts to pinning America’s woes on the “Do-Nothing Congress.” If only these parliamentarians would stop taking endless lunches, sipping cocktails at Capitol Hill happy hours, and napping at their desks, America might have some chance of returning to normal.
Obama speaks as if the entire Congress were in lock-step Republican opposition to his every initiative. Damn those pesky elephants! Of course, Obama’s rhetoric cynically turns things upside down.
Congress consists of a do-something House of Representatives, run by Republicans, and a do-nothing Senate controlled by Obama’s very own Democrats. Obama evidently believes that if he can keep spouting clever lies and distortions, no one will call him on it. Well, it’s time to do so.
The 112th Congress has been characterized by a very active legislative pace in the Republican House, featuring the passage of many measures designed to revive America’s exhausted economy.
The Democratic Senate, meanwhile, is a much lazier place, where House Republicans’ measures go to die.
The figures bear this out, beyond debate.
Through September 15, the Republican House had been in session for 120 days. The Democratic Senate through the same date had been in session only 115 days.

In terms of recorded votes, the two bodies are as different as Times Square and the Everglades. Through September 15, the GOP House had voted 711 times. Meanwhile, across the same period, the Democratic Senate had only 137 recorded votes. So, the allegedly lethargic GOP legislators whose sloth dooms the nation actually are five times as energetic as their indolent counterparts in the Democratic Senate.
This distinction might discredit House Republicans if they wasted their time voting on National Apricot Yogurt Month and similar matters of national urgency. In fact, Republicans have approved serious legislation designed to get America moving.
“Our new majority has passed more than a dozen pro-growth measures designed to address the jobs crisis,” Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor wrote Obama on September 6. “Aside from repeal of the 1099-reporting requirement in the health care law, however, none of the jobs measures passed by the House to date have been taken up by the Democrat-controlled Senate.”
These have included bills to reduce anti-business regulations, accelerate offshore oil production, and speed the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry Canadian petroleum to refineries in Texas. The pipeline alone would create 20,000 jobs.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid seems to be in no rush to consider Obama’s American Jobs Act, even though Obama wants it enacted “right now!”
“We’ve got to get rid of some issues first,” Reid said. For now, he is not sure “exactly what I’m going to do yet with the president’s jobs bill,” especially since some of Reid’s own Democrats, such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Jim Webb of Virginia, seem ho-hum about Obama’s $447 billion Stimulus Jr.
While House Republicans adopted a budget last April 15, the Democratic Senate has not approved a budget since April 29, 2009. This Democratic inaction seems to violate the U.S. Congressional Budget Act, which requires passage of an annual budget resolution. Indeed, the Senate rejected Obama’s budget in May by a vote of 0 to 97 — with every Democrat in the chamber voting nay.
Obama can disagree with every piece of paper passed by the GOP House. But when he slyly bashes Republicans by accusing “this Congress” of “doing nothing,” he simply is lying through his teeth. If Obama wants the entire Congress to get something done, he should tell Harry Reid to wake up and do his job.
— New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a nationally syndicated columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.


http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278069/obama-lies-about-do-nothing-congress-deroy-murdock
At least Congressional Republicans are trying to improve things, but Congressional Democrats have no interest in doing anything at all. Not even passing a budget .... for years now .... not since 2009.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
You seem to have forgotten, or possibly never knew, that when Dubya became president, just like now, Democrats controlled the Senate and Republicans controlled the House. Dubya did not have a rubber stamp Congress at his command.

Something else you have clearly missed is that the Senate, under the control of Democrats, with Harry Reid at the helm, has done extremely little when compared to the Republican controlled House. The Senate has passed little legislation while the House as passed legislation at a furious clip. It is one of the most active Houses' in many years. You also clearly missed that even after Obama said 'pass this bill now' a GAGILLION times Harry Ried did his best to sit on it and not bring it up for a floor vote in the Senate. He and other Senate Democrats did not want to touch the legislation.

There is no logical rational and honest way to blame Republicans for Harry Reid and his Senate Democrats sitting on their thumbs instead of doing what they were elected to do.




At least Congressional Republicans are trying to improve things, but Congressional Democrats have no interest in doing anything at all. Not even passing a budget .... for years now .... not since 2009.
lol...spin machine.... the republicans in the senate are responsible for filibustering every democrat piece of legislation even when both houses had a democrat majority...

reality...always getting in the way of partisan hackery....
 

dukeanthony

New Member
goddammit

i want you to right now show the quote where obama sa8id if stimulus passed unemployment would not go over 8%

and most of the stimulus was tax cuts and loans that got paid back

you are lying s brick top
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
goddammit

i want you to right now show the quote where obama sa8id if stimulus passed unemployment would not go over 8%

and most of the stimulus was tax cuts and loans that got paid back

you are lying s brick top
Obama's Administration said it, specifically Christina Romer.
 

Brick Top

New Member
lol...spin machine.... the republicans in the senate are responsible for filibustering every democrat piece of legislation even when both houses had a democrat majority...

reality...always getting in the way of partisan hackery....

Riiiiiight. So when Democrats have used the filibusterer when the minority party in the Senate it was totally Kool and the Gang, but when Republicans use it then they are obstructionists and in the wrong, Right?

Typical uber-liberal double standard.

The filibuster is important. If plans to radically remake the country don’t have broad support among lawmakers and the public, the nation can do without it. The Founding Fathers wanted to make it hard to pass laws, thus protecting the minority and individuals from the tyranny of the majority. (Example of the tyranny of the majority, ObamaCare, crammed down the throat of a nation that did not want it, and hates it even more now that it's damage is beginning to be seen.)

The founding fathers were no fools. They didn't want what Obama and his ilk drool over, a rubber stamp Congress that allows them to pass anything and everything they want, but the nation does not want. The founding fathers knew the danger an out of control Congress would be.


.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
Riiiiiight. So when Democrats have used the filibusterer when the minority party in the Senate it was totally Kool and the Gang, but when Republicans use it then they are obstructionists and in the wrong, Right?

Typical uber-liberal double standard.

The filibuster is important. If plans to radically remake the country don’t have broad support among lawmakers and the public, the nation can do without it. The Founding Fathers wanted to make it hard to pass laws, thus protecting the minority and individuals from the tyranny of the majority. (Example of the tyranny of the majority, ObamaCare, crammed down the throat of a nation that did not want it, and hates it even more now that it's damage is beginning to be seen.)

The founding fathers were no fools. They didn't want what Obama and his ilk drool over, a rubber stamp Congress that allows them to pass anything and everything they want, but the nation does not want. The founding fathers knew the danger an out of control Congress would be.


.
that would be totally awesome if true.

the 'filibuster' is a congressional rule, not a part of the US constitution.... it wasn't intended to obstruct every legislation a particular party opposed either... it just happens to have that effect, but it's really about wanting to extend the amount of time the bill is debated on the floor... lol
 

Brick Top

New Member
and most of the stimulus was tax cuts and loans that got paid back

you are lying s brick top
This was as of March. Have the numbers changed greatly since then? If so, please supply up to date figures.

Just a reminder: TARP still at least $123 billion in red

Share3
posted at 2:55 pm on March 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly



The Obama administration has gone on an odd public-relations blitz to prop up the public’s perception of TARP, as ProPublica’s Paul Kiel notices. TARP originated in the Bush administration and became so politically toxic that it would make an easy talking point for Barack Obama to use to disparage GOP fiscal stewardship. However, Obama’s use of TARP to engineer his own government interventions in private markets means that he needs to convince taxpayers that TARP not only saved the American economy but will be a good investment over the long run.
Unfortunately, as Kiel reports, that’s simply not true. After spending $700 billion nearly three years ago, more than a third of it is still red ink, and probably unrecoverable:
At ProPublica, we’ve provided a comprehensive bailout database since TARP’s launch. It shows not only how much money has gone to each recipient, but how much each has paid in interest and dividend payments. With all this data, we’re able to clearly show how deep in the hole the program remains. And the answer as of today is $123 billion.
Add that to the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which our site also tracks and is separate from the TARP — and taxpayers are $257 billion in the hole.
Although the bailout has extended to nearly a thousand institutions, just a few are primarily responsible for the continued deficit: Fannie and Freddie, of course, AIG, and the auto companies (GM, Chrysler, GMAC).
Fannie and Freddie account for slightly more than half of the red ink, as noted above. Those were part of the original TARP rescue effort, although the Obama administration is the one that requested and received a repeal of the cap for capital infusions into both GSEs. The original TARP plan capped the potential subsidies to $200 million. To this day, the White House has yet to propose a plan to close down Fannie and Freddie and end their connection to the federal government.
But that’s only half of the red ink. Most of the other half comes from AIG’s bailout, which is expected to end up with a small profit for taxpayers as Treasury sells its 92% stake in the underwriter, and Obama’s own TARP projects:
But the government’s rescue of the auto industry (specifically, GM, Chrysler, and GMAC) almost certainly won’t ever make its way out of the red. As of today, the hole is $47 billion.
George Bush’s private-sector recipients were entirely related to the financial industry — banks and AIG, which insured financial transactions. The banks have all repaid their TARP grants, with interest, and the money will eventually come out of AIG. But the money sunk into the automakers will almost never get repaid, as is the case for the money from the two GSEs, especially the continuing cash they absorb in winding down their portfolios.
Not only that, but as TARP’s special inspector Neil Barofsky testified earlier this month, even the public uses of TARP under the Obama administration have been a bust:
In prepared testimony Wednesday before a House subcommittee on housing, Barofsky said the unpleasant truth about most HAMP loan modifications was not just that they failed but that, after trials stretching for many months, they left participants in worse financial shape than when they began.
It’s a problem Geithner has refused to face, although the Treasury secretary has acknowledged that the incentives paid to loan servicers under HAMP “have not been powerful enough,” Barofsky said in the testimony, which was posted online by the House Financial Services Committee.
Citing “near universal agreement” that HAMP has failed to meet its goals, Barofsky noted that current debate centers “on whether the program should be terminated, replaced or revamped.”
“Treasury, it seems, stands alone in defending the status quo,” he said.
The watchdog panel overseeing TARP said that its continuing operation sends strong signals that the US will bail out financial institutions rather than allow them to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions:
The watchdog panel for the $700 billion bank bailout faulted the U.S. government for the last time on Wednesday, saying the program helped underpin the perception that federal authorities will always prevent troubled financial firms from failing.
In its final report on the bank bailout, the panel attacked the government for not being transparent enough and not articulating clear goals for its foreclosure prevention program.
It also said federal intervention transformed the notion of ‘too big to fail’ into a stark reality.
That’s what the public-relations blitz wants to defend — a status quo painted in deeply red ink, with the backing of the federal government.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/17/just-a-reminder-tarp-still-at-least-123-billion-in-red/
 

Brick Top

New Member
Originally Posted by dukeanthony
goddammit

i want you to right now show the quote where obama sa8id if stimulus passed unemployment would not go over 8%
Obama's Administration said it, specifically Christina Romer.

Flashback: President Obama’s Advisers Predicted The Stimulus Would Keep The Unemployment Rate Below 8%:
(Romer and Bernstein, “The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan,”)
The Unemployment Rate Remains Higher Than Obama Officials Predicted Would Occur Either With Or Without The Stimulus. The Romer-Bernstein analysis projected that by this time – the end of Q2 2011 – unemployment would be less 7% with the stimulus in effect and roughly 8% without the stimulus. (Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, White Paper, “The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan,” 1/9/09)



That is more proof that Obama wasted the stimulus funds (taxpayer dollars) in a failed attempt to do what is impossible to do through planned governmental waste.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
...The Romer-Bernstein analysis projected...
as i said, it was a projection.

most private entities make projections that don't pan out. i can conclude form this that private entities are just as bad as government, thus we must do away with both and roam the land picking berries and shitting in shallow holes.

That is more proof that Obama wasted the stimulus funds (taxpayer dollars) in a failed attempt to do what is impossible to do through planned governmental waste.
i got thousands of dollars in tax breaks and they put in extra lanes on the highway into town. not nearly as much sitting in traffic.

what did you do with all the tax breaks? or are you sucking off social security now, old man?

damn that government money! :cuss:
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Riiiiiight. So when Democrats have used the filibusterer when the minority party in the Senate it was totally Kool and the Gang, but when Republicans use it then they are obstructionists and in the wrong, Right?

Typical uber-liberal double standard.

The filibuster is important. If plans to radically remake the country don’t have broad support among lawmakers and the public, the nation can do without it. The Founding Fathers wanted to make it hard to pass laws, thus protecting the minority and individuals from the tyranny of the majority. (Example of the tyranny of the majority, ObamaCare, crammed down the throat of a nation that did not want it, and hates it even more now that it's damage is beginning to be seen.)

The founding fathers were no fools. They didn't want what Obama and his ilk drool over, a rubber stamp Congress that allows them to pass anything and everything they want, but the nation does not want. The founding fathers knew the danger an out of control Congress would be.


.

"Dems don't DO anything, compared to Republicans"
"Well, it looks that way, but in reality, Republicans obstruct Dems attempts to do something"
"Dems obstruct as much as Republicans" (actually they don't)

Notice the tactic. The point was that Republicans do more than Dems, not who obstructs more. Typical rightist double talk
I'm afraid.

Republicans claim that smaller less intrusive government is better government but they claim now that making more laws is better government - you guys don't get to have it both ways.

We all understand the tyranny of the majority, but if the Majority of the country doesn't want "obamacare" than rightfully it would be the tyranny of the minority. The majority of the country wants reform, serious health care reform and republicans, claiming only now that they want the same, did nothing when they had both houses, nothing. Republicans still have nothing to offer on that front except contempt for the MAJORITY of those who want change now.
 

Brick Top

New Member
i got thousands of dollars in tax breaks and they put in extra lanes on the highway into town. not nearly as much sitting in traffic.


what did you do with all the tax breaks?
The tax breaks you refer to were largely targeted for the middle class, they were targeted for couples, they were targeted for couples with children and for families earning $12,850 to $16,333. They weren't what I would describe as being highly beneficial to me as you describe them being for you.


or are you sucking off social security now, old man?
I'm not that old, yet. I live off investment income.



damn that government money! :cuss:

Typical liberal point of view ..... "government money." The government is like a child that can demand how much money it's parents gives it in allowance. The money it has was not earned, therefore it is not in actuality it's own money. The government demands it's tribute, it demands it's allowance, and then it spends the taxpayers money.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The tax breaks you refer to were largely targeted for the middle class, they were targeted for couples, they were targeted for couples with children and for families earning $12,850 to $16,333. They weren't what I would describe as being highly beneficial to me as you describe them being for you.
anyone that worked got to keep $400 more just for working.

do you know how many lights you can buy with $800? the real fun comes with putting something under those light though :eyesmoke:
 

dukeanthony

New Member
Flashback: President Obama’s Advisers Predicted The Stimulus Would Keep The Unemployment Rate Below 8%:
(Romer and Bernstein, “The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan,”)
The Unemployment Rate Remains Higher Than Obama Officials Predicted Would Occur Either With Or Without The Stimulus. The Romer-Bernstein analysis projected that by this time – the end of Q2 2011 – unemployment would be less 7% with the stimulus in effect and roughly 8% without the stimulus. (Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, White Paper, “The Job Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Plan,” 1/9/09)



That is more proof that Obama wasted the stimulus funds (taxpayer dollars) in a failed attempt to do what is impossible to do through planned governmental waste.
So What did the non partisan CBO project?
 
Top