It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

We can only hope the fucking scum isn't smart enough to apply such logic to the "global warming" realm.

I, for one, am keeping my fingers crossed, and depending upon professional journalists to do their jobs as objective informers of the electorate.

I, for one, am keeping my fingers crossed, and depending upon professional journalists to do their jobs as objective informers of the electorate.

#2 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2009-06-09 02:28 AM

Just like they did with the WMD's and yellow cake.

Top notch reporting.

Hope and change

SUCKERS

Whenever a pol with an checkbook full of kited checks promises he can "create jobs", you should get nervous. And as soon as he creates extraconstitutional powers to take over industries and "save" other jobs, start running the other way.

It's amazing how this press corps has turned so quickly into his lap dogs. What a bunch of pussies. Can you imagine if George Bush had made such an absurd claim? They would be asking for documentation, calling his people onto the floor, doing 60 Minutes programs on all the people whose jobs weren't created or saved, and so on.

Ah, well. Maybe they'll come around, when they realize that so many of the jobs saved won't be their own.

It's amazing how this press corps has turned so quickly into his lap dogs. What a bunch of pussies

#5 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-06-09 09:28 AM

Yeah. OK.

The media weren't cheerleading little pussies after nine one one.

"Can you imagine if George Bush had made such an absurd claim? They would be asking for documentation, calling his people onto the floor, doing 60 Minutes programs on all the people whose jobs weren't created or saved, and so on."

Curiosly, when you get caught lying to people, those people start expecting proof. GWB didn't start his presidency in that position. He created his own problems.

0bama raising the bar on political BS for future Presidents is "Change" we could do without.

Why is this news only now? Why wasn't it news before the election, when he first espoused it?

Listening to Obama's rhetoric is like listening to those Netflix ads:

"What's the square root of yellow?"
"Rootabaga"
"Correct!" chants the press and acolytes.

'"Rootabaga"(sic)'

Rutabaga?

Trying to think of a government number that isn't flimsy....thinking......thinki ng.......

damn,

I got nothin

I never heard the Bush administration whining when the great "Bush economy" based on inflated home values was getting Dubya reelected in 2004 but many people recognized it was smoke and mirrors. It is probably hard to determine how many jobs were "saved" by the stimulus but to pretend that none were would be just as inaccurate.

Funny too, that former Bush administration officials talk about jobs numbers after their dishonest methods of estimating unemployment by disregarding those who were unemployed six months or more, not talking about the underemployed and pretending that flipping hamburgers constituted manufacturing.

Flimsy lol how about pure bullshit...

Hey..the 'snake oil' salesman speaks again.. and, yes, the cowardly press passes another opportunity to challenge..!! not sure what it will take to turn the press around, but as long as BHO continues to get away with it, the 'ignorant' set will also continue to support this clown.. there is NO method to calculate the 'saved or created' jobs situation other than 'pie in the sky'... it is like the rest of his 'command performance' as the great actor on his stage, pure lines of *BS*..
as long as he delivers in a 'polished' tone of arrogance and false confidence (also known as BS), the public seems to buy into this 'non-perfoming' crap.. very little substance with him and no positive returns in action.. ain't it wonderful???

I guess the guy studying the mating patterns of the tse tse fly is camara shy.

It is probably hard to determine how many jobs were "saved" by the stimulus but to pretend that none were would be just as inaccurate.

Fair enough, but then the administration probably shouldn't be crowing specific numbers and framing those numbers as some sort of achievement.

Funny too, that former Bush administration officials talk about jobs numbers after their dishonest methods of estimating unemployment by disregarding those who were unemployed six months or more, not talking about the underemployed and pretending that flipping hamburgers constituted manufacturing.

Obama is no better than Bush...tell me something I didn't know.

Congratulations...the bar has been successfully lowered.

Monthly job loss has already been cut in half, down from 600k+ to some 300K.

And banks are lining up to pay back loans.... the taxpayers having already made a 2 billion profit on 60 billion loaned.

Trends, ladies, trends.

"Obama is no better than Bush...tell me something I didn't know."

Let's see, Bush entered the office with a surplus and a relatively healthy economy, then he was president for eight years and left the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression.
So, now, after 5 months you can say Obama is no better than Bush.
Obviously, facts and reason do not play a part in your thinking process.

NOOOOOOOOOOO!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

NO!

Sincerely,

Newt, Rush, Sarah!, Billo and Sean

the taxpayers having already made a 2 billion profit on 60 billion loaned.

That's fucking hilarious...I'm sure you're expecting your profit sharing check next week? You know, since you finally have a seat at the table and all...

#3 | Posted by jerrytarkanian

Yet another "But Bush ... yadda yadda yadda".

-That's fucking hilarious

I see there are still those to whom numbers are a mystical concept.

#19 | Posted by Corky

Links please

You've got to be shitting me on calling that a profit. You aren't that fucking much of a cheerleader Corky, are you?

"Let's see, Bush entered the office with a surplus and a relatively healthy economy, then he was president for eight years and left the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression.
So, now, after 5 months you can say Obama is no better than Bush.
Obviously, facts and reason do not play a part in your thinking process." #20 | Posted by danni

Let's see, Obama entered the office with a deficit of 1.1 trillion (of which Obama helped in creating 700 billion's worth) and a recently unstable economy, then he was president for four months is now leaving the biggest economic disaster in the history of the U.S. not to mention several generations to come.
So, now, after 5 months you CAN say Obama is no better than Bush and worse in many many ways!

Obviously, facts and reason do not play a part in Danni's thought process.

Let's see, Bush entered the office with a surplus and a relatively healthy economy, then he was president for eight years and left the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression.
So, now, after 5 months you can say Obama is no better than Bush.
Obviously, facts and reason do not play a part in your thinking process.

Me? The first words you typed in this thread were "But Dubya did this!" Have you ever addressed any of Obama's shortcomings without seeing it through the lens of Dubya? Obviously, facts and reason do not play a part in your thinking process.

Furthermore your repeated feeble attempts to tie me to Dubya as though disdain for Obama's policies are support of Dubya are like water off a duck's back.

Let's see, Obama entered the office with a deficit of 1.1 trillion (of which Obama helped in creating 700 billion's worth) and a recently unstable economy, then he was president for four months is now leaving the biggest economic disaster in the history of the U.S. not to mention several generations to come.
So, now, after 5 months you CAN say Obama is no better than Bush and worse in many many ways!

Obviously, facts and reason do not play a part in Danni's thought process.

#27 | Posted by KBM

Try these facts on for size...

The country's jobless rate jumped to 9.4 percent in May, much above the 5.2 percent reported in April for Utah, whose official numbers for May won't be reported for another couple of weeks.

Although the U.S. number is the highest in more than 25 years -- reflecting the depth of the recession, the longest since World War II

All Of BUSH'S former employee should SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! These clowns gave us this mess, Give the President an the Congress time to fix this mess. You negativity is laughable an not helpful, GO FUCKING AWAY!!!!!

I see there are still those to whom numbers are a mystical concept.

No shit...how much money was in TARP again?

Not to mention, TARP is Dubya's economy...credit where credit is due, if you're so concerned about that sort of thing.

Bush did hand this off, but the sad fact is that we do not have the Prez nor the Congress that can fix it...need totally different mindsets and intelligence

-Links please

Any news source other than FOX.

You are right, bho has never increased the TARP monies.

Of course Bush started this TARP shit, everyone knows that you idiot.

The Obama administration is in talks with the remote South Pacific island nation of Palau to resettle a group of Chinese Muslims now held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, The Associated Press has learned.
...

A federal judge ordered them released, but an appeals court halted the order, and they have been in legal limbo ever since. Thus far no country has agreed to take any of of the 17.

...

Palau, with a population of about 20,000, is an archipelago of eight main islands plus more than 250 islets that is best known for diving and tourism and is located some 500 miles (800 kilometers) east of the Philippines in the Pacific Ocean.

...

Two of the officials said the U.S. was prepared to give Palau up to $200 million in development, budget support and other assistance in return for accepting the Uighurs.

The third official did not deny that a significant amount of money would be involved. But the official denied it would be a direct transfer to the Palau government.

Would not be a direct transfer. Oh, okay, it will be an indirect, disguised payment supposedly for other purposes, like a development grant. That makes so much difference to me. It's critically important to me that you call it something else. Because I'm a friggin' moron.

Wonderful. Everyone wins, right?

Hope and change and terrorists

SUCKERS

"Bush did hand this off, but the sad fact is that we do not have the Prez nor the Congress that can fix it...need totally different mindsets and intelligence"

Possibly true, but only a few months into his first term President Obama can change people and policies until he finds what works. He said as much going into office. No one, absolutely no one, had all the answers and figuring out how to fix 28 years of disastrous economic policies is going to take more than a few months. It took us decades to create this mess, it won't be fixed in months.

The republicans seem to think Tax cuts can fix everything.

#36 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-06-10 09:51 AM | Reply

The people in question are Weegers (spelled something like Uighars, but sounds like weeger).

It would cost a lot of money for me to want to live next to a weeger, too. But not nearly as much as it would cost them to let a neeger move in to my neighborhood.

Did not suggest that it could be fixed in a short time period, just the fact that we still have the same Congress and a new figurehead, of which neither really understand the situation in the first place.. spitting out BS does not make him knowlegeable or the leader to get it done... unfortunately, he is TOO MUCH of a lightweight.. we will wind up further down the tube with him and his staff...

Well if anyone would know pure fiction, it would be Bush administration official.

You can find their economics policies listed under comedy.

#41 | Posted by 726

Once again, this is not about bush and his failings. Get over him.

"Once again, this is not about bush and his failings. Get over him."

Get over him? Okay. Just as soon as the aftershocks of his disaster of a presidency have worn off. It'll be a while yet, so take it easy, relax, and deal with it (something The Deciderer has always thought was someone else's responsiblity).

The republicans seem to think Tax cuts can fix everything.

#38 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-06-10 09:59 AM

You are correct, tho Dem's seem to think Drasticly Increased Fed Govn't spending can fix everything.

BTW, both parties are dead wrong as both their solutions are "absolutes" & NEITHER party has done was HAS to be done to control deficits .... & that is CONTROL SPENDING. It really doesn't matter WHAT the money is spent on, Red Ink is RED INK .... if you spend more than you take in, things will get fucked up. When you spend more than you take in by $1.8T+ in a single yr ..... the math just doesn't work & every Dem/Repub knows this, EVERY ONE OF THEM.

If you are going to spend this much money, Obama & the Dem congress HAVE to find matching revenues (not borrowed moneies) the problem is, they WILL NOT do that 'cause they know they would lose every election from now till the turn of the century. Quite cowardly that they are willing to spend but not willing to generate the revenues. They will not do the right thing 'cause they will lose power. Quite sad .... & before you say "well the GOP .... " You are correct, the GOP was run & full of cowards as well .... but even those crooks didn't spend at this level or the projected level for the next 8+ yrs.

Pres Obama needs to worry less about his 2nd term & hit the damn reset button once & for all. He may not get re-elected, but history would show a GREAT Pres that had the courage to do "the right thing" for the short/long term health of our country.

"If you are going to spend this much money, Obama & the Dem congress HAVE to find matching revenues (not borrowed moneies) the problem is, they WILL NOT do that 'cause they know they would lose every election from now till the turn of the century."

Yes, repealing the Reagan and the Bush tax cuts would take courage. It would also be a meaningless effort because, like you say, they would then be turned out of office and the Rethugs would just give themselves a new tax cut and continue America's descent into second world status.

#43 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

In that case it will take decades to get over what your messiah is doing to us. What bush did pales in comparison?

Your love for bho and or hatred for bush is blinding you.

Time to hit the links

Laters SUCKERS

Danni the republicans realize if they bankrupt the govt they can fulfill a lifelong dream of ending every social program we have. Why else would they continue to make deep tax cuts while increasing spending? They want a system of haves and have nots. Also the tax cuts help very few Average Americans. Getting back a few hundred dollars does little for the average American yet some will choose that over getting free health care which is far more beneficial. The republican party has managed to convince many stupid people that helping the rich get richer benefits the poor.

Yes, repealing the Reagan and the Bush tax cuts would take courage. It would also be a meaningless effort because, like you say, they would then be turned out of office and the Rethugs would just give themselves a new tax cut and continue America's descent into second world status.

#45 | Posted by danni at 2009-06-10 10:18 AM

Repeal them all you want .... but the math of history shows that will DECREASE the Fed's intake of overall Revenues.

That is not a Repub or Dem or Lib or Conservative statement, that is a historical facts over the past 50 yrs.

When Kennedy cut taxes, Fed revenues surged. When Carter increased taxes, revenues plunged. When Reagan cut taxes, again, Fed Revenues surged, when Bush 41 raised taxes, Fed Revenues plunged. When Clinton raised taxes, revenues flatlined (up a bit), when Bush 43 cut taxes, revenues surged. The problem in every single case where revenues rose, spending also rose ...... the ONLY time in the last 50 yrs that anyone can make a cliam towards true 'balanced budgets' was Clinton & that had little to do with his meger (less that 0.9%) increase in Fed Revenues, it was 99% due to SPENDING CONTROLS .... controls that did not happen until the Dem's were replaced but fiscally responsible Repubs in congress.

Stop buying the hype Danni, learn/know/live the realities of the past 50 yrs.

"What bush did pales in comparison?"

Answer: No.

Your love for bho and or hatred for bush is blinding you.
#46 | Posted by chickenrancher | Flag: Give This Boy A Mirror

Northern Europe has a higher standard of living while 60% of their wages go towards taxes. They are on to something I believe.

Stop buying the hype Danni, learn/know/live the realities of the past 50 yrs.

#49 | Posted by Axxe
Axxe, DANNI get's her economic talking points from that baby on the etrade commercials - don't try to fix her. Her motto is: working man good, management bad. - no matter what the situation.

Funny how the left always accuses the right of wanting a two class society when they are the ones always thinking of ways to make the "rich" and the "poor" opponents.

28 years of disastrous economic policies? - DUMMI Really? I did not know we were in a depression for the last 28years.

Bush press officials credibility levels are somewhat below that of Baghdad Bob.

Unless somebody's found those ICBMs, WMDs and bff texts from bin laden overnight.

Northern Europe has a higher standard of living while 60% of their wages go towards taxes. They are on to something I believe.

#51 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-06-10 10:30 AM

Then that is what the congressional Dem & Pres Obama should do. I'm sure the American public will support that. ...... errr ...... NOT

It would be entertaining to see it happen. The ONLY way they would go thru would be if the Pres declared Martial Law & put every moment of our daily lives under govn't control 'cause I promise you, doing what you say would cause much strife, much real violence & a whole-sale revolution.

On 2nd thougth, they SHOULD try that. At that point I would be happy & proud to show them the door by any means necessary :)

the taxpayers having already made a 2 billion profit on 60 billion loaned.
-Dorky

"Links please"

Any news source other than FOX.
www.ere.net
www.independent.co.uk
#34 | Posted by Dorky at 2009-06-10 09:49 AM

From Dorky's link:

"The US government will be repaid a third of the money it pumped into the country's teetering banks last year"

How does being paid back a third of what you lent out constitute a "profit?" Do tell, Dorky.

Loan sharks don't even get that kind of return for fucks sake.

Once again, this is not about bush and his failings. Get over him.

#42 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-06-10 10:06 AM

What article are you reading?

How does being paid back a third of what you lent out constitute a "profit?" Do tell, Dorky.

#55 | Posted by JOE

Well, perhaps because there is accrued interest being paid back, along with the principle balance?

How does being paid back a third of what you lent out constitute a "profit?" Do tell, Dorky.

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2009-06-10 10:40 AM

Do a google and find out.

fiscally responsible Repubs in congress.

$9 trillion in debt is fiscally responsible?

You should get a funny flag for that one.

I love all the little Dems here ignoring that it's not just Bush officials raising the issue.

It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

Monthly job loss has already been cut in half, down from 600k+ to some 300K.

#19 | Posted by Corky at 2009-06-10 09:26 AM

$9 trillion in debt is fiscally responsible?

You should get a funny flag for that one.

#60 | Posted by 726 at 2009-06-10 10:47 AM

You are either slow or pathetic. It was CLEAR by my post that I was referancing the GOP controlled congress during the Clinton yrs .... you know, from 1994 to about 2000. The check & balances worked. Clinton was willing to cut certain social programs (like Welfare reform with GREAT results) & easing of some bsuiness regulations, the GOP congress had to eat other cuts (specifically military) & slightly higher taxes at the top end. Either way, they came to a working formula that took in MORE money than they spent.

When Bush 43 took over, all that fiscal responsibility took a backseat .... the GOP spent like Dems & even overspent their rising revenues (from further tax cuts). The GOP deserved to get bounced .... tho those who have replaced them seem to be far worse. How ironic that a Bush 43 & GOP controlled congress & their average of a $400B anual budget deficit looks GREAT compared to what we will have in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 .... you get the point.

The U.S. Fed Govn't takes in at most $2.8T in taxes/fees/etc .... THAT is what their spening limit needs to be. If they feel that HAVE to spend $4T+ .... they need to find the revenue & NOW .... not 5yrs or 10yrs or 20yrs from now, that formula doesn't work & the past 3000yrs of human history shows this EVERY single time.

"Well, perhaps because there is accrued interest being paid back, along with the principle balance?"

So they were paid back a third, but the interest made up for more than the other two thirds? That's a particularly wild theory to be guessing about.

So they were paid back a third, but the interest made up for more than the other two thirds? That's a particularly wild theory to be guessing about.

#64 | Posted by JOE

I hope to God you're not thinking of going into corporate or contract law.

Let's say I make 3 loans of $1,000. One of those loans gets paid off, plus $100 in accrued interest. 1/3 of my outstanding loans have now been paid off and $100 of profit realized.

So unless you're operating on the assumption that the rest won't be paid back, Corky's original statement is true.

WARNING: The following post includes reality, which may cause the Drudge Righties to break out in a rash, suffer explosive diariahha or an intense desire to fellate Rush Limbaugh (okay, the last one isn't so much a side-effect as an ongoing desire):

. We have estimated that our rural development programs have saved or created more than 500,000 jobs just since the Bush Administration took office in January of 2001.

"These funds are part of the Bush Administration's ongoing efforts to spur economic development in rural areas and will help save or create more than 1,800 jobs."

"These funds will help support local economic development agencies, finance infrastructure improvements, establish low-interest revolving loan funds, and help jurisdictions implement regional business and community development plans," Dorr said. "The funding announced today is expected to save or create more than 2,300 jobs in 20 states."

On 2nd thougth, they SHOULD try that. At that point I would be happy & proud to show them the door by any means necessary :)

#54 | Posted by Axxe

You could try but your arsenal would be no match for the national guard. You would be just another dead republican that tried to fight the govt

#65 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-06-10 11:06 AM

LOL LOL LOL .... when has Corporate or Contract Law ever had anything to do with U.S. Govn't bailouts??

Seriously, you CAN NOT apply standard or even non-standard business practices when talking about this stuff.

Over the past 3 to 4 decades & multiple govn't bailouts, how many made money? Hell, how many broke even?

Joe has a valid position, more often than not, the U.S. Govn't (i.e. Taxpayers) have lost our shirts, pants, socks & even undies to such deals.

So unless you're operating on the assumption that the rest won't be paid back, Corky's original statement is true.

Well there's GM, Chrysler and AIG for starters...or is this like Dubya and the war? "That is separate from the other money we've loaned out."

Right. Somehow getting back a 1/3 of what you lent is considered "profit"? Did the definitions change?

Over the past 3 to 4 decades & multiple govn't bailouts, how many made money? Hell, how many broke even?

#68 | Posted by Axxe

Chrysler?

And Joe's position flies in the face of basic accounting. Corky's original statement was true.

WASHINGTON - Ten of the biggest U.S. financial companies got a green light Tuesday to return US$68 billion in federal bailout money - freeing the banks from limits on executive pay and leaving the government with a small gain on the rescue cash.

While the paybacks could be a signal that the banking industry is stabilizing, analysts say it is far from a clean bill of health, and some said it was too soon to let the banks give back the money.

Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said the returned money would go "back into general revenue" and could even be used to bail out banks again.

Still, the government has collected $1.8 billion from dividends on shares of preferred stock it received in exchange for bailout money, he said. And the government still holds warrants to buy shares of bank stock at cut-rate prices in the future.

Somehow getting back a 1/3 of what you lent is considered "profit"?

It is if the amount owed is not reduced by 1/3-IE interest. From what I have seen here, the only answer is "not enough information is known."

" even overspent their rising revenues (from further tax cuts)."

Try again. Bush's tax cuts didn't increase revenue, once adjusted for inflation.

"Let's say I make 3 loans of $1,000. One of those loans gets paid off, plus $100 in accrued interest. 1/3 of my outstanding loans have now been paid off and $100 of profit realized."

And yet overall, you have lent out $3,000 and been paid back $1,100. If you're so confident that the rest of the funds would be paid back, feel free to call up the U.S. Treasury and offer to buy their accounts receivable. I'm sure savvy investors are banging down the door to get a hold of those debts.

Right. Somehow getting back a 1/3 of what you lent is considered "profit"? Did the definitions change?

www.investorwords.com

Nope, they didn't, so what the fuck are you talking about?

#70 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Each one of those loans individually are an "investment". In accounting, each stands on its own as to whether or not it was profitable.

These are the same political whiners who cried and cried when Bubba bailed out Mexico for 50 billion, and we made money on that deal, too.

If it weren't for all the political hyperbole, we might actually get something done in this country.

You could try but your arsenal would be no match for the national guard. You would be just another dead republican that tried to fight the govt

#67 | Posted by rastaninja at 2009-06-10 11:09 AM

Well, like I said, the Pres would have to unleash the military on it's citizens to stop the citizens from throwing them to the curb. I guess if you are ok with this Pres or any Pres using the military against it's own citizens .... that's your right. Funny tho, you are advocating using the military against American's, you YOU have been one of the biggest critics of using our military against those who want to kill American citizen in LARGE numbers.

You would make Stalin & Hitler blush with envy :)

And yet overall, you have lent out $3,000 and been paid back $1,100. If you're so confident that the rest of the funds would be paid back, feel free to call up the U.S. Treasury and offer to buy their accounts receivable. I'm sure savvy investors are banging down the door to get a hold of those debts.

#75 | Posted by JOE

Nevertheless, regardless of your attempt to shift the goal posts, Corky's original statement is true. It is possible that in the future the entire program could show a loss, yes. But at this point - no.

These are the same political whiners who cried and cried when Bubba bailed out Mexico for 50 billion, and we made money on that deal, too.

Take a look in your crystal ball and tell me how much we'll make from AIG, Chrysler and GM...

"Still, the government has collected $1.8 billion from dividends on shares of preferred stock it received in exchange for bailout money"

#80

I don't have crystal balls, but since you do, may I recommend a stainless steel jockstrap?

Take a look in your crystal ball and tell me how much we'll make from AIG, Chrysler and GM...

#80 | Posted by IraqiBukkake

Who knows? Nobody thought the first Chrysler bailout would pay off. But thanks to an ugly little thing called the K Car, it sure did.

Funny how those who were so outraged when they thought those who said the surge would fail were premature in their judgment are so quick to hop on that very same bandwagon.

Nevertheless, regardless of your attempt to shift the goal posts, Corky's original statement is true. It is possible that in the future the entire program could show a loss, yes. But at this point - no.

#79 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-06-10 11:20 AM

That is a CRAPPY way (at best) to look at it & you know it. The TARP/Bailout funds are ALL one sum of money that the Govn't used to solve multiple problems.

Think of it like this. If the Bank borrows me $1M to buy 100 acers of land ($10K/acer) & I sell 33 acers for $396K ($12K/acer), I can 'claim' a profit of $2K/acer on what I sold .... but if I have 0 ability to predict or know if I will ever sell the other portions, the bank is going to say "NO F'ing WAY" to lending me more money.

Corky's assertion that we have already made a $2B in REAL profit is about as valid as Obama's claim of "Saved or Created" jobs .... they phrase can not be varified 'cause it's not real.

"Each one of those loans individually are an "investment". In accounting, each stands on its own as to whether or not it was profitable."

Well in that case, produce some evidence that the $1.8 Billion in dividends Dorky referenced above came from the same loans that were paid back. Otherwise, produce some evidence of interest being paid back on those loans. Otherwise, you have not shown a profit on any particular loan.

Nevertheless, regardless of your attempt to shift the goal posts, Corky's original statement is true. It is possible that in the future the entire program could show a loss, yes. But at this point - no.

With 9:06 left in the first quarter of the NBA finals game last night, the Lakers beat the Orlando Magic 8 - 2 to take a 3 games to 0 lead.

#83 has a point as well. When you say "the taxpayers" have made a profit, the suggestion is that they have taken in more money than they have given out.

"Otherwise, produce some evidence of interest being paid back on those loans."

So your default assumption is interest was paid, just not on this third of the loans?

If a private citizen undertook this transaction, the IRS would treat it as a profit at this point.

Isn't that enough?

Take a look in your crystal ball and tell me how much we'll make from AIG, Chrysler and GM...

I'm betting more than we'll see in paybacks of scammed money from halliburton and the other contractors who were looting and pillaging the Treasury. And remember, add in sales taxes, auto workers pay taxes and open plants and dealerships pay property taxes and so on and so on...

If someone's going to split the loans into individual "investments" for purposes of computing a profit, then yes, some evidence will need to be produced indicating that any interest paid was on those "investments" that have been paid back.

"If a private citizen undertook this transaction, the IRS would treat it as a profit at this point.
Isn't that enough?"

And if a private bank undertook the sum of these transactions, and then tried to tell its shareholders it had made a "profit," the shareholders would laugh them out of the board room.

Your analogy is a poignant one, though. The IRS will classify something as a "profit" as early as technically possible, much like the lefties are doing here to make Obama's policy seem economically prudent.

-Well in that case, produce some evidence that the $1.8 Billion in dividends Dorky referenced above came from the same loans that were paid back.

Try reading the article.

#88 | Posted by Danforth

There's a moment of clarity.

"If someone's going to split the loans into individual "investments" for purposes of computing a profit, then yes, some evidence will need to be produced indicating that any interest paid was on those "investments" that have been paid back."

If you can find a bundle of similar investments where all but a third pay interest, you'll have a point. Otherwise, your premise is ludicrous.

"Your analogy is a poignant one, though. The IRS will classify something as a "profit" as early as technically possible"

No...they classify it as a profit because you've actually made a profit. You bought three units, and sold one for a profit. Just because the other two haven't sold yet doesn't mean you're operating at a loss.

If a private citizen undertook this transaction, the IRS would treat it as a profit at this point.

Isn't that enough?

#88 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-10 11:34 AM
Not entirely true. This was an "investment". If I invest $1M, I do not get taxed until I get MORE than $1M back.

As of now, it is NOT profit unless the other loans also pay up.

This money we are talking about was the TARP funds. It was not broken down to start with when passes, the entire sum is all together. I am sure SOME investment made from the TARP funds will provide upside earnings .... but history shows that as a whole, the chance at an overall profit or even a break-even situation is unlikely.

Either way, doesn't really matter, even if it did make money, they going to cut you, me, anyone else a check? Seeing as it WAS/IS yours/my money?

Is it Joe that Lawyer or Joe the Accountant?

I get SO confused.

On topic, how surprising is that the WSJ would call the job evidence, "flimsy"?

Not at all.

"As of now, it is NOT profit unless the other loans also pay up."

Put that on your final, and you flunk the course.

"On topic, how surprising is that the WSJ would call the job evidence, "flimsy"?"

They're also the idiots who backed Bush's tax cuts at every turn, and actually posted an editorial claiming 'tax cuts increase revenue', meaning either they're too stupid to pass an Econ 101 midterm, or they expect their readers to be that stupid.

Payment of principle is never "gain" on investment, it is simply a return of capital. Thus, one never recognizes gain on return of the principal amount actually loaned, only on the proceeds generated by that principal.

"This was an "investment". If I invest $1M, I do not get taxed until I get MORE than $1M back."

Wrong. If you buy $1M in stock, the stock rises 10% and you sell half of it, you've made a profit on that stock you sold, and will probably owe income taxes. You haven't gotten more than $1M back, and you get taxed.

Put that on your final, and you flunk the course.

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-06-10 11:42 AM

Again, we are not talking about business, we are talking about Govn't.

Also, it's not like the Fed had this loaned out money in their pocket .... they had to BORROW it from someone & they had to pay interest on it as well, that also was not factored into the "profit" claims.

Like I pointed out, the TARP funds are all linked together. Let me know if we EVER get close to getting even 80% of the $700B back. Claim all the 'individual' profits you want .... in the end the program is nothing but Red Ink & red ink signals a LOSS ..... PERIOD.

"Try reading the article."

I did, please paste the portion that directly answers my question.

"they had to BORROW it from someone & they had to pay interest on it as well, that also was not factored into the "profit" claims."

It looks like a 10% return over a short period of time. Who do you borrow from that charges you more than that?

"in the end the program is nothing but Red Ink & red ink signals a LOSS ..... PERIOD."

True, but the whole program is not the topic, it's this one aspect, and on this one aspect, the gov't actually made a profit.

"If you can find a bundle of similar investments where all but a third pay interest, you'll have a point. Otherwise, your premise is ludicrous."

If Dorky's going to claim a profit was made, then it's on him to show that a profit was made. It's not on me to find an example of a time when profit wasn't made.

"Saved or created" is a common claim used by all polticians long before Obama, so why is it suddenly a problem? Just like unemployment numbers suddenly became an issue under Bush- the short sighted memory of partisans sucks.

"It's not on me to find an example of a time when profit wasn't made."

Again, your premise is ludicrous.

"...used by all polticians long before Obama, so why is it suddenly a problem?"

Let's go to the teleprompter for the answer....

If you cannot follow Gibbs' statement, then may I suggest remedial reading classes?

Or perhaps you could research the story yourself and provide a substantive retort instead of always being the recalcitrant pettifogger?

If you want to say a profit was made, then show me the amount of money loaned and the amount of money paid back which resulted in a profit. Seems fairly simple of the fact a profit was made is so obvious.

if

"Your analogy is a poignant one, though. The IRS will classify something as a "profit" as early as technically possible, much like the lefties are doing here to make Obama's policy seem economically prudent."

The TARP was created under Bush, how easily (conveniently) some forget.

The TARP was created under Bush, how easily (conveniently) some forget.

#110 | Posted by danni

Well then - just the part released under Bush is the part returning a profit. Obama, not so much.

Sincerely,

The Right

Funny how when a lefty is praising the effectiveness of TARP, it's Obama's policy, but as soon as a righty starts bashing on it, it's Bush's policy.

(see Danni / Sanan above)

More than 1.6 million jobs have disappeared since the stimulus package was signed in February. Government can't create jobs, only dependency. Make-work jobs will not turn the economy around.

'"We would never have used a formula like 'save or create.' To begin with, the number is pure fiction -- the administration has no way to measure how many jobs are actually being 'saved.' And if we had tried to use something this flimsy, the press would never have let us get away with it." -- Tony Fratto, Deputy Press Secretary under President George W. Bush'

I think Obama's economic policies stink. But for any Bushie to claim that they didn't get away with something is crazy. The bullshit they spewed to gain support for Iraq was ridiculous and they were never properly taken to task for that blatant betrayal.

If you want to say a profit was made, then show me the amount of money loaned and the amount of money paid back which resulted in a profit. Seems fairly simple of the fact a profit was made is so obvious.

#108 | Posted by JOE at 2009-06-10 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag

Seriously, claiming a profit was made flies in the face of reality. If they're claiming it, you'd think they could prove it.

It's insulting for them to blow hundreds of billions and then claim we're making a profit on it when everyone knows damn well we'll never get paid back.

"The TARP was created under Bush, how easily (conveniently) some forget."

I opposed it then too. Your point?

"We would never have used a formula like 'save or create

Well of course you wouldn't because you didn't!

You are either slow or pathetic. It was CLEAR by my post that I was referancing the GOP controlled congress during the Clinton yrs ....

Yes and all the Senators and Reps from the GOP resigned in 2001 right?

"Obama is no better than Bush...tell me something I didn't know."

Let's see, Bush entered the office with a surplus and a relatively healthy economy, then he was president for eight years and left the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression.
So, now, after 5 months you can say Obama is no better than Bush.
Obviously, facts and reason do not play a part in your thinking process.

#20 | Posted by danni

what a frickin projection danni you are the biggest dim wit half wit no wit around these parts.

bush and the term 'flimsy excuse' have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common...

All is well...

ARE YOU SERIOUS??

The right is suddenly going to start lecturing others on the reporting of jobs?

Get fuckin' real. Those douche-nozzles never found a stat they couldn't twist in their favor.

Barack Obama is the most knowledgeable politician we've seen in a generation. The only reason he can throw out all these whoppers is that he knows--he KNOWS--that most of the Washington press corps, and the Air America DocCorkyUnityTarkanian crowd, will let him. He's a liar, and nobody cares.

Gonna start to get expensive. Hope you libbies don't mind.

"Hope you libbies don't mind."

Not in the least.
Thanks for your concern.
My, but fresh air is doing wonders for removing the sty stench the Bushies told you GOPiggy Rubes was perfume.
Swak!
~The Libbies Who Populate Your Delusions

I'm glad. You're too funny.

Let's see, Obama entered the office with a deficit of 1.1 trillion (of which Obama helped in creating 700 billion's worth) and a recently unstable economy, then he was president for four months is now leaving the biggest economic disaster in the history of the U.S. not to mention several generations to come.
So, now, after 5 months you CAN say Obama is no better than Bush and worse in many many ways!

Obviously, facts and reason do not play a part in Danni's thought process.

#27 | Posted by KBM

That is such ignorant bullshit - you guys REALLY don't know what you talking about. "Deficit" and "debt" are not the same thing.

Obama's "contribution" to the size of the debt is about 7% compared to Bush's 30+% and the shrinking economy, according to an easy-to-Google analysis of CBO documents. The shorter-term deficit spending under these economic conditions is not particularly surprising- nor worrisome- and it has the support of a consensus of economists.

OK - let loose with the ad hominem attacks on CBO members - it's your only argument when facts are arrayed against you guys.

BTW - when things do turn around, will you admit that you were full of shit the entire time?

Even the liberal AP is calling Obama on his b.s. numbers and so is the Wall Street Journal. There is no way to count jobs "saved". It's bullsh!t. The only numbers we see are huge job losses in the millions. Unemployment is over 9% and rising. Obama has no answer. He made such a huge deal about needing the Stimulus Bill and how it would be such a disaster without it. It gets passed and the Commander-In-Crap has only spent 5%. I guess the lying sack of sh!t didn't need the money asap after all.

BTW - when things do turn around, will you admit that you were full of shit the entire time?

#125 | Posted by midiman at 2009-06-10 09:05 PM

It's amazing how this press corps has turned so quickly into his lap dogs. What a bunch of pussies

#5 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-06-09 09:28 AM

Yeah. OK.

The media weren't cheerleading little pussies after nine one one.

#6 | Posted by jerrytarkanian at 2009-06-09 11

I probably have asked you this before but JUST WHAT CAUSED THAT COMA that you must have been in
you had to be in a coma during the bush years and the media........and the left..
attacking him and his appointees and his family and his Iq and every aspect of his life and career.

SO please tell me if the DRS told you what put you in that coma...

All Of BUSH'S former employee should SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! These clowns gave us this mess, Give the President an the Congress time to fix this mess. You negativity is laughable an not helpful, GO FUCKING AWAY!!!!!

#31 | Posted by celisary at 2009

THATABABY

throw in your 'special' line of bullshit..
even though it doesnt take a mensa member to see how the so called SAVED jobs number is nothing but a fucking lie from fucking liars.