The GOP got elected to "cut" the deficit, but their efforts to repeal the so-called ObamaCare would according to the Congressional Budget Office actually add over $230 billion to the said Deficit.

In other words, get a new paint job for your car by driving it over a cliff.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/80967/breaking-cbo-confirms-repeal-stuff-you-wont

Dont worry everyone Obamas stimulus plan will kick in soon. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA what a joke .....

If this is the best retort I can expect from certain folks on the boards, well I feel much better.

If you post articles/opinions, etc. even expecting or anticipating 'retorts', then you're already going down the wrong road.

Whatever your views, you should get them out there either via link or your own words, let all know how you feel on a particular issue and not realy be concerned about what responses come...whether in agreement or disagreement.

That way you have nothing to worry about...ever. At least not on the Gangster BB....

An interesting sidenote to this is that the new Republican leadership in the House proclaimed that any bill that would add to the deficit must include a measure showing that spending would be slashed or eliminated elsewhere in an equal amount. But the inevitale bill seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act is exempt conveniently from this requirement. It would seem that they are less concerned about the deficit as they are about delivering a political blow to the President.

If the President came out and said that he is introducing a bill that will cure cancer if it passes, the Republicans would block it. The same is true for the Democrats - they would do the same to a Republican president. It is disgusting to watch the political gamesmanship that goes on. This particular case proves the point - they don't care at all about reducing the deficit - never have and never will. The only difference between the parties is where the spending goes, and even that is not all that different. Where's Ross Perot when you need him?

You are a moron. The original stimulus was Bush's bailout. The Obama stimulus for the auto industry has worked brilliantly, and but for the knuckle draggers in congress, he could have spent more and gotten us out of it sooner. Why don't you go to Alaska and hang out with Sarah "Blood Libel" Palin.

Don Smitty is not a moron... he just enjoys getting a rise out of anyone with differing political views. Much like another member here from the same general area in Jersey. Don't fault them for being difficult; their brains are oxygen starved from breathing in all that polluted Jersey air. They can't help it.

Seriously, please stop the personal attacks. Politics brings out the worst in all of us.

Hey, I'm not sure but I think I resent that remark. (Unless South Jersey gets a exception to the statement).

Absolutely does, DM. I was referring to the north central part of the state ... the part that smells funny.

GM got over $49 billion in taxpayer money. Just for the taxpayers to break even General Motors must have a net worth of somewhere in the $66 billion area. When General Motors came out of bankruptcy the United States Treasury converted most of those loans into a percentage stake in the company's stock. General Motors did NOT repay any of the loans from its earnings.

Now let's talk about Citi. The government, or should I say taxpayers, gave them bailout money. Made a LOAN to them. However Citi did NOT pay back the the loan in $$$. Instead the government was given Citi stock at a rate of approximately $1 per share, a rate that would equal the total amount of $$ given to Citi for the bailout. When the Citi stock finally rose a few months back, the government SOLD those shares and that is how the government recouped the taxpayers money that was LOANED to Citi. It was a very risky move and in truth it was NEVER clearly explained to the public just how the bailout money was going to be recouped. As a mater of fact the government took a HUGE risk in setting up the payback for these loans *see footnote

Citi did NOT really pay back the LOAN to the taxpayers as it was being reported all over the news several months ago.

And I won't even go into A.I.G. or unemployment.

One could argue that the bailout given to GM was a success. Time will tell.

As for Citi, although I feel that the government was not forthcoming on how they were going to hold Citi accountable in paying back A LOAN, but instead took a huge risk with our tax money, in the end it did work out. BUt overall the bailout has not been a total success just yet because when you lump together all of the the banks, the car companies, and A.I.G., the Treasury has recouped only something like $200 billion of the $600 billion. Whether it will ALL work out still remains to be seen.





*which it turned out were not really loans but investment risks where our tax money was used in playing the stock market. Thank GOD that it wound up, at least with Citi, working out for the taxpayers. But tell me, where have all the profits that were made by our Government on the selling of the Citi stock gone to? No one in government has given a clear answer when presented with this question!

My understanding was that the "loans" to these companies were secured with equity so that upon default the Federal government could liquidate the companies assets to recoup the amount of the loans.

Re: Citigroup - The U.S. government sold off its remaining shares in Citigroup back in early December for $4.35 each, marking an exit from ownership in the bailed-out banking giant with a $12 billion gross profit for taxpayers.

DC is right, it was NEVER clearly explained to the public just how the bailout money was going to be recouped. But that $12 billion figure is what I keep hearing.

The Treasury invested a total of $45 billion to bail out Citigroup in 2008 and 2009 during the financial crisis. The company paid back $20 billion in preferred stock, while another $25 billion was converted to 7.7 billion common shares held by the Treasury.

As far as the bailed-out insurer American International Group goes, just as olivant already stated, the Treasury converted all its preferred shares of AIG into common stock of the insurer, claiming almost 93 percent of the company’s total shares. After a recapitalization deal closes on Friday, the Treasury will own 92.1 percent of AIG. The government rescued AIG from the brink of failure in September 2008 in a bailout that topped $182 billion.

This afternoon some of America's top bankers were in Manhattan to make a pitch for managing what could be one of the largest share sales in history -- a secondary offering for AIG. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan, etc. are all contending to be the banker who manages the deal.

GM and Chrysler had to provide the government with stock warrants giving it the option to buy GM and Chrysler stock at a specific price. Had those companies gone into total bankruptcy, those stocks and warrants would have not been worth a penny making the government nothing more than an unsecured creditor. When these terms and conditions were questioned by some in power, it was then that the U.S. Treasury revised the terms of the "loans" where part of the "loans" were supposedly "secured" by assets not already promised to other entities with the balance of the "loans" "secured" against assets that HAD been already promised to other entities who had already placed liens against some of the auto companies that were given bailout money!


Giving bailout money under theses terms and conditions is like giving someone a home equity loan or a line of credit when that someone has an upside down mortgage with all kinds liens against their home or property.

The government took a very high risk, with OUR tax dollars, in the way that they provided these companies with "loans" to bail them out.

I don't think anyone really wanted to see the big auto companies fail, if for nothing else than for nostalgia's sake. These are the same companies who propelled this country to world power status and modernization after WWII.

Of course, Ford is the one big auto company that turned down the government bailout money (they did however have to cut 40% of their employees along with drastically scaling down their overall product line).

Didn't the GOP learn from the 1990s? Just call up Newt and ask him how it worked out for him.

Will GOP shut down the government over Healthcare funds?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/george-clooney-contracts-malaria_n_811724.html

Also, 18% polled Americans only want full HCR repeal.

Mr. Obama said last night that tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."

Fact is, The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on assumptions that are arguable, at best.

To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.

In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.


EDIT - Obama care would indeed increase the deficit and debt as has been made clear by both the Chief Actuary of Medicare and CBO health care cost projections.