Bush Bailouts Bigger & Obama Bailouts Smaller(?)

[boedicca]

The United States is dimly aware the Health Care Reform will help with deficit reduction. Probably nobody knows that eventually it will look some like as follows:

Insurance Programs

The federal civil service has this concept now.

Mostly, no one Democratic is showing this example at this time.

No one is going to toss their eldest virgin into the flames over National Health Care Reform. Mainly, the Republicans seem to want to get the children now on the plan, up to age 25, off the plan, and into the flames where they think they belong!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Good Birdie!)

ObamaCare will reduce the deficit? That's a myth.

ObamaCare will increase spending overall.

To cook the CBO score, they included 10 Years of taxes and 6 years of benefits. Close to $500B was taken away from Medicare (making that program insolvent sooner) and $53B was taken from Social Security (again, more insolvency sooner). They also used the taxes. for the CLASS long term care act (how are those beneficiaries going to be covered with the taxes going to ObamaCare instead?).

And most importantly of all, the cost estimates for every other entitlement program ever passed have been wildly understated compared to reality. ObamaCare will not be any different.

 

[mascale]

The CB0 Health Care Reform budget estimates would not include benefits right way because there are none right away. The Health Care Reform modified lots of other other programs to come up with some money, however, and also imposed taxes. "C." below is about $511.0 bil over a long term, and "d." below is the $420.0 bil. shown. The provisions affecting Medicare, Medicaid, and othe programs are miniscule in comparison to the $406 bil. in tax provisions. There is also education loan funding reform, in this. All these monies are long-term.

"c. These estimates reflect the effects of provisions affecting Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health programs, and include the effects of interactions between insurance coverage provisions and those programs; they also reflect the effects of education provisions."
d. "The changes in revenues include effects on Social Security revenues, which are classified as off-budget. The 10-year figure of $420 billion includes $406 billion in revenues from tax provisions (estimated by JCT) apart from receipts from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $14 billion in revenues from certain provisions affecting Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs."

$14.0 bil. long-term, is not bankrupting level in the national spending of things, year after year.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Send Osprey into air: Not Get Sued for Falling Arrows! South Los Angeles NRA, even, can be sued for New Year's Eve!"

 

[The T]

The United States is dimly aware the Health Care Reform will help with deficit reduction. Probably nobody knows that eventually it will look some like as follows:

Insurance Programs

The federal civil service has this concept now.

Mostly, no one Democratic is showing this example at this time.

No one is going to toss their eldest virgin into the flames over National Health Care Reform. Mainly, the Republicans seem to want to get the children now on the plan, up to age 25, off the plan, and into the flames where they think they belong!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Good Birdie!)

ObamaCare will reduce the deficit? That's a myth.

ObamaCare will increase spending overall.

To cook the CBO score, they included 10 Years of taxes and 6 years of benefits. Close to $500B was taken away from Medicare (making that program insolvent sooner) and $53B was taken from Social Security (again, more insolvency sooner). They also used the taxes. for the CLASS long term care act (how are those beneficiaries going to be covered with the taxes going to ObamaCare instead?).

And most importantly of all, the cost estimates for every other entitlement program ever passed have been wildly understated compared to reality. ObamaCare will not be any different.

Social Security, Medicare, are two great examples of it. And they continue to perpetuate the same kind of thinking. And it's ALL for their control over us. And that's the bottom line as to their intent.

These figures are boring the socks off of me. (And that's directed at the OP, and not you).

Government crap like this no matter from where it hails is just that...crap, and limits Liberty for WE the people, and sells us into servitude.

 

[mascale]

Wealth is Also About The Law, where there are figures.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred"
(There are indeed figures, and there are indeed figures, and there are indeed figures, and then there is Tuesday!)

 

[The T]

Wealth is Also About The Law, where there are figures.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred"
(There are indeed figures, and there are indeed figures, and there are indeed figures, and then there is Tuesday!)

Really? And what LAW is that? The ones that the Imperial FED imposes to punish the wealth makers, and ultimately the people as we see going on in force NOW?

You are really boring.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

... The economy cannot be stimulated with a tax cut! ...

No? Hmm...

Now let's see... What does the word "stimulate" mean?

Webster's defines "stimulate" as follows: : "to excite to activity or growth or to greater activity".

Now what does a tax cut do?

A tax cut reduces the liability which is incurred through economic activity.

Thus cutting the costs incurred by engaging in economic activity...

So where there exists an inherent need to otherwise engage in that activity, due to the profits generated by that activity being essential, and where the costs of engaging in that activity are reduced, it follows that the increased potential for profit, by reducing taxation (costs) on that activity would and could only serve to STIMULTE that economic activity.

Thus refuting your assertion....

DUMBASS!

It's a simple immutable principle of nature.

 

[mascale]

The law of contracts tends to support wealth. More gets more. More Investment tends to support greater profit. More Savings tends to draw more interest. In Social Security, even the COLA pays higher primary benefits, even more than the Cost of Living, and successively lower primary benefit amounts, even less than the cost of living.

A tax cut for just one business, however, creates no stimulus. 50% of federal income tax filers, have no federal income tax liability. The rich aren't going to spend the money on Main Street.

Every Conservative in America is already committed to hate Main Street, and deny it stimulus. Every Tea Party member in America is already committed to hate Main Street, and deny it stimulus. That is the law.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even as crow flies, Great Eagle can't live off roach dung(?)!)

 

[logical4u]

Rasmussen polling organization has an elsewhere citied article showing that 66% of those polled believe that the people of the United States pay too much in taxes. There is a US Message Board thread showing that half of the federal income tax filers owe nothing. They in fact even get money back under the first-ever, equal-dollar amount, National COLA-like: Refundable Tax Credit, Make Work Pay!

Anyone might guess that the people of the United States are not too smart about things like math.

March 2008: Bush stimulus $29 billion for Bear Stearns/JP Morgan Chase deal
May 2008: Bush stimulus $178 billion in tax rebate checks
July 2008: Bush stimulus $300 billion for distressed homeowners
July 2008: Bush stimulus $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
September 2008: Bush stimulus $50 billion to guarantee money market funds
September 2008: Bush stimulus $25 billion to Big 3 automakers
September-November 2008: Bush stimulus $150 billion to AIG
October 2008: Bush stimulus $700 billion to banks (TARP)

Bush Total: $1.632 tril., $1.0 tril mostly to selected large corporations.

February 2009: Obama stimulus $787 billion in broad stimulus package
February 2009: Obama stimulus $75 billion for distressed homeowners
February 2009: Obama stimulus $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
March 2009: Obama stimulus $30 billion for AIG
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $15 billion for small business lending
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $1 trillion to get toxic assets off bank’s troubled asset sheets
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $22 billion for Big 3 Automakers Chrysler and GM

Obama Total: $1,130 tril. mostly to State and Local Governments and Federal Contractors, in the Stimulus. She stimulus also included the amounts of the Make Work Pay Tax Credit. Large Corporations account for about $56.0 bil.

Cash for Clunkers is in addition, but is in the same direction as the Make-Work-Pay credit kind of plan.

So who was the bigger government spender?

Ronald Reagan was among the biggest tax increasers. and created the first $1.0 trillion dollar deficit legacy on the books, in one Administration. Obama, by comparison, is relatively more redistributive, and less of a spender.

Obama Costs less than the more modern Bush Adminisration, in some accounting!

The Obama Stimulus is already working!

All of a sudden, anyone might guess that the United States knows how to macro-economic arithmetic?

This applies under the general concept, "How will the United States pay down the federal deficits if in fact more of the people have the money to do it?

The Tea Partiers and famous Palin--now even rejected by Senator Scott Brown--themselves reject the Clinton Administration legacy of several federal budget surpluses. Commedians call Clinton the first African-American President in the History of the United States. As opposed to what Reagan-Bush had created--55% black teen unemployement and youth gang murders--the outcome of the Clinton Administration increase of incomes among lower income groups actually paid off for the U. S. federal budget. The Silicon Valley bubble was also helpful, but there were people able to buy things, so that the bubble could happen.

And now, the Obama Administration has created more progress out of the downturn, with far less spending, and relative spending. The reason is that clearly it is more redistributive--in the manner of an equal-amount increase of income to rich and to the poor alike. It is therefore more liberal of policy than was Bush or Reagan, or the Other Bush.

As opposed to the Republican administrations, Arithmetic can actually be done in an Obama, Democratic Party, Fairly Liberal Administration. The GOP Conservatives, comparing and contrasting, are still not on board after whay they had done in the immediate eight years after Clinton!

Possibly at least Senator Brown, of Massachusetts, surprise, surprise, possibly appears to have relieved himself of the Bush Administration belief that all federal income tax filers actually owed taxes.

The economy cannot be stimulated with a tax cut!

"Crow, James Crow: shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many Squaws pull lever. Find many coins come from top to bottom. Hmmmm!)

Everything about Bush was bigger!
Obama is just small.

 

[Ame®icano]

The law of contracts tends to support wealth. More gets more. More Investment tends to support greater profit. More Savings tends to draw more interest. In Social Security, even the COLA pays higher primary benefits, even more than the Cost of Living, and successively lower primary benefit amounts, even less than the cost of living.

A tax cut for just one business, however, creates no stimulus. 50% of federal income tax filers, have no federal income tax liability. The rich aren't going to spend the money on Main Street.

Every Conservative in America is already committed to hate Main Street, and deny it stimulus. Every Tea Party member in America is already committed to hate Main Street, and deny it stimulus. That is the law.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Even as crow flies, Great Eagle can't live off roach dung(?)!)

You already embarrassed yourself in the OP with your math, yet you kept being loud in the thread that wouldn't existed if you knew how to add few numbers.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." - Mark Twain

 

[mascale]

Talk about people who can't do math! A poster who is clearly unable to point the "mistake" in the original computing is not only ignorant of math, but humanity!

Despiser of Humanity, Americano-poster, or however, can't even count up to post number 20, where the computing is clearly addressed.

Others will say that Obama TARP was $1.0 tril., when in fact it may be zero.

Americano-poster, or whatever: Couldn't figure out the math!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Screen Writers Guild Not Even: Tries To Miss $999,999,999.00)

 

[Ame®icano]

There is no explanation needed. You rushed to prove how Bush's numbers are larger then Obama's. I simply pointed out that your math based on original numbers you gave is bad. Now, instead of admitting mistake, you keep bragging how your math is actually good. No, it's not.

I understand that some mistakes are too much fun to be made just once, but you probably know already that people who keep repeating the same mistakes are not brightest cookies in the jar. Some dumb stuff can seem smart while you're doing it, until you get caught. That's moment when all fun ends.

 

[mascale]

Lazy Americano Poster!

The law was posted in the OP, and the amounts of the law were posted in the OP. The computing was off, and you personally, as a non-contributing poster, failed to point out (1) the amount of the computing problem, and (2) ask whether or not some part of the law was at fault.

In post #20 it shown how some part of the law was at fault. It is was correct to point out that the Obama Troubled Assets relief could have been $1.0 tril. It was also correct to point out that the Obama Trouble Assets relief wasn't going to cost anywhere near that much. Others might then have objected.

Someone caught the problem without trying to make an honest question of it, intending harm to all other posters, and so the matter was cleared up in post #20. Why you personally so hate other posters as to want to make some spurious name for yourself is not at all clear.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!'
(Her Majesty's Government does understand that The Colonies have their ways about the law!)

 

[Ame®icano]

Lazy Americano Poster!

The law was posted in the OP, and the amounts of the law were posted in the OP. The computing was off, and you personally, as a non-contributing poster, failed to point out (1) the amount of the computing problem, and (2) ask whether or not some part of the law was at fault.

In post #20 it shown how some part of the law was at fault. It is was correct to point out that the Obama Troubled Assets relief could have been $1.0 tril. It was also correct to point out that the Obama Trouble Assets relief wasn't going to cost anywhere near that much. Others might then have objected.

Someone caught the problem without trying to make an honest question of it, intending harm to all other posters, and so the matter was cleared up in post #20. Why you personally so hate other posters as to want to make some spurious name for yourself is not at all clear.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!'
(Her Majesty's Government does understand that The Colonies have their ways about the law!)

Let me clear something up. In my post #16 i simply wrote that your math is wrong by $999 billion. Therefore your OP and title of this thread doesn't make sense. My first reply to you was addressing your math, nothing else.

Now, some people think that if they don't die doing something stupid for the first time, most likely they won't die if they do it again. Dude, you can't defend your math, period.

Now since you got me going, let's see what else you're trying to prove.

Just as you stated that Obama's $1T to purchase toxic assets might be a zero, I could say that $700B TARP is not stimulus. The purpose of stimulus is to stimulate economy. $700 billion TARP is money borrowed to the banks to keep them in business, and that money, by law, is to be returned to the treasury with interest, therefore is not a stimulus.

Btw, that $1T is actually $1.25T committed by the Federal Reserve from which $775.6B is spent. You forgot to mention $500B committed for Term Auction Facility ($109B spent), $300B for bond repurchase, Student loan guarantees $195B committed ($32B spent)...

You wanna talk numbers, then show them all, not cherry pick only what fits your picture.

 

[mascale]

Lazy Poster Americano couldn't clear up even steamy fog from reading glasses.

(1) The $999 bil. figure doesn't appear in post #16, with any question about whether or not there is anything else to discuss!

(2) Bush TARP is a Mega Giant Government Bailout of the rich. That even became more noticeable when they paid themselves the bonuses from the money.
Even the Tea Party was for that then and now, or it was not. The Republicans have a big problem with Republicans!

(3) The matter of the Obama program, generating the $1.0 tril. estimate, was that maximum Main Street effect would happen with Minimum taxpayer expense. That is also shown in the post #20 correction. It is not shown in the figures that lazy Poster, disinforming, Americano tried to show as cherry-picking evidence.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Flying Crow spot cherries dropping. Better than roach dung, for Soaring Eagle. Diving happens(?)!)

 

[Ame®icano]

Lazy Poster Americano couldn't clear up even steamy fog from reading glasses.

(1) The $999 bil. figure doesn't appear in post #16, with any question about whether or not there is anything else to discuss!

(2) Bush TARP is a Mega Giant Government Bailout of the rich. That even became more noticeable when they paid themselves the bonuses from the money.
Even the Tea Party was for that then and now, or it was not. The Republicans have a big problem with Republicans!

(3) The matter of the Obama program, generating the $1.0 tril. estimate, was that maximum Main Street effect would happen with Minimum taxpayer expense. That is also shown in the post #20 correction. It is not shown in the figures that lazy Poster, disinforming, Americano tried to show as cherry-picking evidence.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Flying Crow spot cherries dropping. Better than roach dung, for Soaring Eagle. Diving happens(?)!)

(1) It doesn't???? I can't believe you still didn't realize that your math is bad. Let's try it again.

February 2009: Obama stimulus $787 billion in broad stimulus package
February 2009: Obama stimulus $75 billion for distressed homeowners
February 2009: Obama stimulus $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
March 2009: Obama stimulus $30 billion for AIG
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $15 billion for small business lending
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $1 trillion to get toxic assets off bank’s troubled asset sheets
March 2009: Obama Stimulus $22 billion for Big 3 Automakers Chrysler and GM

Obama Total: $1,130 tril.

If you add those numbers correctly, total is not $1.130 trillion. Total is $2.129 trillion.

The difference in between those two numbers is $999B.

Until you learn how to add and subtract, there is nothing to discuss.

 

[Oddball]

Lazy Americano Poster!

The law was posted in the OP, and the amounts of the law were posted in the OP. The computing was off, and you personally, as a non-contributing poster, failed to point out (1) the amount of the computing problem, and (2) ask whether or not some part of the law was at fault.

In post #20 it shown how some part of the law was at fault. It is was correct to point out that the Obama Troubled Assets relief could have been $1.0 tril. It was also correct to point out that the Obama Trouble Assets relief wasn't going to cost anywhere near that much. Others might then have objected.

Someone caught the problem without trying to make an honest question of it, intending harm to all other posters, and so the matter was cleared up in post #20. Why you personally so hate other posters as to want to make some spurious name for yourself is not at all clear.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!'
(Her Majesty's Government does understand that The Colonies have their ways about the law!)

Let me clear something up. In my post #16 i simply wrote that your math is wrong by $999 billion. Therefore your OP and title of this thread doesn't make sense....

There's something ya don't see everyday.

 

[mascale]

So Lazy, and now clearly illiterate Americano Poster, still misses the point of the opening post, at the outset:

"Rasmussen polling organization has an elsewhere cited article showing that 66% of those polled believe that the people of the United States pay too much in taxes. There is a US Message Board thread showing that half of the federal income tax filers owe nothing. They in fact even get money back under the first-ever, equal-dollar amount, National COLA-like: Refundable Tax Credit, Make Work Pay!"

"Anyone might guess that the people of the United States are not too smart about things like math."

So like so many lazy and clearly illiterate people in the United States, Americano takes apart mascale's computing--continuously, continuously, continuously--ignoring the evidence of the statute--continuously, continuously, continuously!

In Post 20 the "mis-computing" is acknowledged, that The $1.0 tril. Obama referenced funds were actually an estimate, not at all like the other bailouts. So the $1.0 tril. had been assigned a $1.0 bil., amount: And was so acknowledged!

Lazy, and clearly illiterate, Americano poster effectively claims that the Americano arithmetic computing is the only accurate computing, because in statute it is clearly not the accurate computing(?)!

Above: "Anyone might guess that the people of the United States are not too smart about things like math!" In Americano poster's current state of mind, then wrong computing is actually the right computing, just like in the statute(?)!

That would be like finding the Weapons of Mass Destructon in the National Intelligence Estimates, when in fact they were not there.

And so there is the meaning of the thread!

Anyone notices that lazy, illiterate, arrogant poster--Americanos's computing basics--are actually easily lethal of outcome!

So then there is a Federal Reserve emergency Term Auction Facility infusions basis, commenced in the Bush Administration. That is normal Fed, Emergency Operations. Bond repurchases are normal operations, which even businesses do, and also with equities. Student Loan Guarantees are not bail-outs, but are federal program operations.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Dead Confederates Understood Slavery to be the way of life at the time. Then there is the recent Abolitonist take on it, of the Republican who hated the Confederacy,--amd it peoples--from the start: The Governor of Virginia!)