Bush Bailouts Bigger & Obama Bailouts Smaller(?)

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6,094
Reaction score
516
Points
85
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!)
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,318
Reaction score
17,184
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Add another $400B to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under Obama - and decrease the TARP repayments by Big Banks from Bush's totals (I think this is around $200B, but may be more by now).

You should also include the giant Omnibus Spending/Earmark Bill that Obama passed to the tune of $450B.
 
OP
M

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6,094
Reaction score
516
Points
85
The Omnibus Spending bill, plus the perks, went to regular government operations. It is generally described as follows:

"The $410bn (£296) omnibus legislation, which authorises most non-defence and security-related government agencies to spend taxpayer money. . . ."

These are fairly public data, probably even in Yuan, and are not bail-outs!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Less Bailout With More Stimulus Likely Means Fine Tobbacco, even in the South of France!)
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,318
Reaction score
17,184
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
Much of it is pork or transfer payements. He signed, it goes into the tally.

Agriculture _ $20.5 billion, including a 14 percent boost over 2008 for the popular WIC program that feeds infants and poor women.

Commerce _ $9.3 billion, including $3.1 billion to conduct the 2010 Census.

Education _ $66.5 billion, a 7 percent increase over 2008 levels.

Energy _ $27 billion, including a $765 million, 54 percent hike for advanced energy research.

Health and Human Services _ $66.3 billion, including $30.3 billion for health research.

Housing and Urban Development _ $41.5 billion, including $24.5 billion for low-income and American Indian housing.

Interior _ $10.1 billion, slightly more than 2008.

Justice _ $26.1 billion, including a $715 million, 11 percent increase for the FBI.

Labor _ $15.3 billion, including a 5 percent increase for employment and training programs.

State _ $13.1 billion, a 3 percent decrease.

Transportation _ $13.5 billion, plus $53.7 billion in highway and other transportation funding financed mostly through gasoline taxes.

Treasury _ $12.7 billion, including $428 million over 2008 for the IRS, a 4 percent increase.
 
OP
M

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6,094
Reaction score
516
Points
85
Even at Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, what Obama Treasury did was so far to remove the $400 bil. cap on the 2008 programs, so those are pretty much included in the OP.

All of the other spending is at regular government agency operations. Senator Clinton does in fact work at one of them, now: But that is not a bailout, and that is not an earmark.

Senator Clinton has become famous for the "earful" kinds of remarks, so far in the new term.

April 12 is being noted as the anniverary date of the Greater Emancipator, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Of his ideas, the United Nations even outlawed slavery worldwide in 1955--which was soon enough! Other Civil Libertarians apparently noticed, and the race riots were on!

Dr. Martin Luther King was not the amassador, in fact, to the United Nations--at any time!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Madam Secretary is not the same spokesperson who couldn't figure out if the Kennedys or the Johnsons had anything to do with the Civil Rights legislatin of the 1960's!)
 
OP
M

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6,094
Reaction score
516
Points
85
Adam Smith was of the Christian Opinion that economies would be guided by, "An Invisible Hand," going "Steeeerooooke! Steeeeeroooooke! Steeeeerooooooke!" This gets taught in the schools, but in some of the parochial schools: Has caused problems.

Karl Marx was of the not-too-Christian Opinion that economies were guided by mystery, dialectical, historical forces: And so therefore everyone should shoot to kill! The Civil War happened. WWI happened. WWII happened. The Soviet Bloc finally went out of business, and the Mainland Chinese converted.

Anyone would think that Western Civilization was a kind of madness, created by not consuming one or another of the hallucenogenic varietals.

The Greater Gods of Greece had created the Pantheon, tolerant of the Pythagorean religion, and a more socially acceptable boy-love. These were not a Christian people, by comparison. So Jesus could borrow from it, and create the parable in Matt 25::14-30. There is strong resemblance to a Pythagorean explanation of the collapse of economies reported therein. Then, understanding rectangles, in Matt 20::1-16, the equal amount kind of COLA in the OP is explaned. Both the Catholic and KJV editions record the stories, in print for at least 500 years. Jesus was actually put to death.

So if the famous supply and demand market model was in place, then increase of income more to the upper values woud render it useless in the market place. All the demand would be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. End of market.

The Mainland Chinese would establish regional COLA's after the fall--of the whatever. The United States put the similar COLA, fixed percentage based--clearly wrong--into Nixon's version of Social Security.

The liberals tried to raise and index the standard deduction and personal exemptions in the 1986 federal income tax reform. That was not tied to payroll, but to tax rates. That mainly threw people off of the tax rolls, unbeknownst to the Bush II, Term I, Administration.

The Obama Stimulus package finally contained Make-Work-Pay as a Refundable Tax Credit.

Supply and Demand, which is liberal: Could start to return to the market-place. The old Conservative Version of supply and demand couldn't possibly work. Instead, there was a kind of equal-amount increase of units at each income scale point, put in place by the liberals, and demand could commence.

And so in the alternative of Conservative, Giant Government bail-outs: There are the Democratic Liberals, even running for office again, and the bail-out amounts are less, instead of more.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(California Chamber of Commerce even make funny commercials celebrating Conservative Supply and Demand! Los Angeles Times make not funny counter-comment!)
 
Last edited:
OP
M

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6,094
Reaction score
516
Points
85
Lest anyone be unware of the source and the outcome of failed values, there are these places:

Axis powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) versus Allies (U.S., Britain, France, USSR, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia).

Two are of Asia, Two are of North America, Two are of Australia, One is of Africa, One is of South America, and most of it happened in the 15 ciivilized places in Europe.

Mostly, the planet was not involved. Mostly, the civilized Western Nations were fully involved.

The sudden new interest in travel to Europe would happen after Holocaust. and After the Marshall Plan: When the toilets were flowing again, for so many in the United States.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(Great Spirit Of Many Nations: Knows Failed Values!)
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
Add another $400B to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under Obama - and decrease the TARP repayments by Big Banks from Bush's totals (I think this is around $200B, but may be more by now).

You should also include the giant Omnibus Spending/Earmark Bill that Obama passed to the tune of $450B.
And wait until Health Care gets in high gear...(IF it is allowed to, for now it remains contested).
 

boedicca

Uppity Water Nymph
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
55,318
Reaction score
17,184
Points
2,250
Location
The Land of Funk
At bottom, this is about deficit spending. If Bush's deficits were bad (and they were), quadrupling them (at a minimum) is worse.
 
OP
M

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6,094
Reaction score
516
Points
85
There are a number of new revenue sources in the new Health Care Reform Act. The best assessment anyone can point to about it is at Congressional Budget Office, relected in the RealClearPolitics linking familiar to many on the message board.

CBO Release Score on Health CareBill - Real Clear Politics – TIME.com

The Democrats actually needed to pull out a federal civil service benefits booklet to explain the new program. Federal civil servants have a number of plans to choose from. These are the same federal enployees that pay for their pensions, (annuity), out of their paychecks.

The concept is neither new, disabling, demeaning, or impoverishing. The national plan even has subsidies to cover the premiums.

And there are various and sundry taxes--including on relatively petty items that probably millions know nothing about, much less that they can be taxed. Anyone for a VAT can be for National Health Care reform.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Osprey of Venice Beach, even: Can be seen to soar with Seagulls, at great heights, in the morning skies!)
 
Last edited:

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
At bottom, this is about deficit spending. If Bush's deficits were bad (and they were), quadrupling them (at a minimum) is worse.
And that's where the rubber meets the road. And what's worse? We are told today that the job market isn't expected to improve for the next two years. So spend more they shall.

Government MUST stop spending and cut their spending. I propose in HALF. Cut taxes more. Get the problem off our backs, and watch us soar again.

Problem? They won't. Progressives never do.
 

Ame®icano

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
21,576
Reaction score
4,391
Points
280
Location
Michigan
Anyone might guess that the people of the United States are not too smart about things like math.

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.
Uhm... I agree, you're one of those who need to learn things like math.

Obama's total is $2,129 trillion.
 
OP
M

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6,094
Reaction score
516
Points
85
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!)
 

The T

George S. Patton Party
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
48,082
Reaction score
5,533
Points
1,773
Location
What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
Ame®icano;2201570 said:
Anyone might guess that the people of the United States are not too smart about things like math.

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.
Uhm... I agree, you're one of those who need to learn things like math.

Obama's total is $2,129 trillion.
And it will get higher. And notice now? Any stimulus coming out now isn't called 'Stimulus'...they're referred to as "Job Bills"...
 

Lumpy 1

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
40,441
Reaction score
13,397
Points
2,290
Ame®icano;2201570 said:
Anyone might guess that the people of the United States are not too smart about things like math.

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.
Uhm... I agree, you're one of those who need to learn things like math.

Obama's total is $2,129 trillion.
Boy... that's got to be embarrassing....:clap2:

By the way weren't Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac told they were unlimited (spend whatever) later in the year?
 
Last edited:
OP
M

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
6,094
Reaction score
516
Points
85
It is not reasonable to include an estimate, and the cost may in fact become zero. It was not the kind of "bailout" that was going to cost all that much money, if any money at all. The thing actually uses $75.0 bil. to generate upwards of $1.0 tril. of participation, like in a usual business transaction, not as in direct money bailout. TARP, by contrast, has big banks repaying it, but little banks of dubious ability to repay.

Public-Private Investment Program--

"Three Basic Principles: Using $75 to $100 billion in TARP capital and capital from private investors, the Public-Private Investment Program will generate $500 billion in purchasing power to buy legacy assets – with the potential to expand to $1 trillion over time. The Public-Private Investment Program will be designed around three basic principles:
• Maximizing the Impact of Each Taxpayer Dollar: First, by using government financing in
partnership with the FDIC and Federal Reserve and co-investment with private sector investors, substantial purchasing power will be created, making the most of taxpayer resources.
• Shared Risk and Profits With Private Sector Participants: Second, the Public-Private
Investment Program ensures that private sector participants invest alongside the taxpayer, with the private sector investors standing to lose their entire investment in a downside scenario and the taxpayer sharing in profitable returns.
• Private Sector Price Discovery: Third, to reduce the likelihood that the government will overpay for these assets, private sector investors competing with one another will establish the price of the loans and securities purchased under the program."

As you noticed, nobody noticed: But if you look at my computing, there is a $1.0 bil. dollar value assigned, that could be as much as $75.0 bil, or $100.0 bil.

The TARP money, furthermore, is already assigned in the 2008 program. It is not as though a brand new funding authorization amount was required.

The final point in support is that "Troubled Assets," usually means poor people's mortgages, or other loans. Some would call that a redistributive assistance program.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Venice Beach squirrels, mainly looking for nuts. . . .or berries. . . .unless they are loaded!)
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top