ALLin, sounds like you have been programmed by Consumer Reports.

This will happen when Obama get's his overseas bank account all set up for the big deposit of course.

Once they remove this stigma, they will only have the stigma of producing high-priced inferior vehicles - not much progress happening here.

And Obama's current trip to Hawaii is costing $4 million dollars alone.

Politicians all spend taxpayer's money, what's the point, little kiddy one up?

"Some claim the cost of Bush’s frequent trips to Crawford, Texas cost taxpayers upwards of $20 million,"
http://politic365.com/2012/05/08/obamas-...

Pharm, When GW Bush was on vacation it was mostly at his ranch in Texas. No rent was needed for security. The ranch operated as the Western White House during his time there. He received many heads of state there as a working WH. Quite different than our current POTUS and spouse who expect the royal treatment on the taxpayers dime.

pharm = our nation would have benefitted GREATLY if Obama would have been on vacation every day. Instead, he hung around and punished our country severely for putting his regime in power.

Another example of how Obama defrauded the taxpayers of our once great nation by illegally rescuing a worthless company in return for union support.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repor...

Which party watches msdnc? Take your gripes to the government, the ones who say there were surpluses.

Ignoring the truth and echoing the party line has become common place for the msdnc crowd.

"Calls to several Presidential libraries reveal that President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, was on vacation more — 1,020 days — than any U.S. President since Herbert Hoover and possibly more than any other President in history.

Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was in office 12 years from 1933 to 1945, was on vacation less days than President Bush at 958 days. Calls to several Presidential Libraries reveal that no President can come close to Bush’s 1,020 days on vacation in an 8 year period. Even Lyndon Johnson, who spent 484 days at his ranch in Texas and at Camp David during his presidency, came in under Bush’s vacation time. Some claim the cost of Bush’s frequent trips to Crawford, Texas cost taxpayers upwards of $20 million, but the numbers are hard to confirm.

A recession started in 2001 as Bush took office after 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton Administration from 1993 to 2000. Bush began wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and presided over the loss of 4 million jobs. The debt when Bush left office was $10.6 trillion. In 2005, the Washington Post noted President Bush’s frequent vacations in a piece titled Vacationing Bush Poised to Set a Record as Bush took the longest single vacation — 5 weeks — of any President in 36 years."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...

Why couldn't Obama just go to his "home for Christmas?" No, he has to fly half way around the world with his entourage for an expensive vacation.The secret service rents the house on his left and the house on the right in the high rent district on the beach in Hawaii. I guess his home in Chicago this time of year is too cold for the king.

Insults again. Why am I not surprised? You don`t like being challenged, I understand that.
Send a letter to your congressman and complain about how the government keeps their records, see how far that gets you.

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Govt records that ignored ALL debt can say anything they want sheep to believe.

Reality is that government records, no matter if you agree with the way they are kept, show budget surpluses.

Paying public debt by borrowing from govt is your idea of payment? You love to ignore reality.

The link shows $452 billion of debt paid off by budget surpluses.

No answers again?

Did you not even read your own supplied link?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

Wiggle, and he is flying back in a few days to be back in Washington and then flying back to Hawaii. How mindful of him to keep expenses in check.

A simple question, does the budget show what was called for in yearly spending, or what was actually spent? A budget surplus occurs when you spend less than what your budget calls for. There are also off budget items, such as natural disaster funding, and Bush`s wars, that are now included in the proposed budget. By the way, all the SS surpluses in those years went on the books as a debt when they were used to buy US bonds. Like I said, if you have trouble accepting government records, how do you know the Treasury ones are right? I am not saying they are not, but how do you pick and choose which to believe?

LOL, deciding to ignore dept held by our own govt in a misguided accounting practice might be your idea of honesty. The treasury doesn't care who it owes the debt to, it just knows it is owed. The fact you wish to ignore it only proves you don't want to see the whole picture. Keep living in dream land.

Nice, RAF, back to your usual personal insults. I gave you government numbers also, showing surpluses for four years. Ignore them if you want, but don`t expect people to believe what you say just because you are the supposedly omnipotent RAF.

Pharm I gave you a link to the debt numbers, to the penny, and your answer is to ignore them. Keep your head in the sand, it has done you sooo well this long.

donnaw
Dec 22, 2012 at 7:34 a.m.
Not to worry now, Obama has flown to Hawaii with his entourage for the holidays. All is well.
BTW, what ever happened to "Home for the holidays?"

Dang women your a nasty thing for the Holidays aren't you!
His 'entourage' is his FAMILY, and of course the protection the POTUS deserves, you know like the suits Ryan got which was paid for by the tax payer.
If you had any say in the matter please tell us why he is not allowed to go to his 'home town' where the rest of his family is to enjoy Christmas.
Please remove the candy cane you have apparently sat on.
Where are your complaints about Scooter boy never being in the state he has drivin into the ground with HIGH unemployment?

The government can save hundreds of billions of dollars by simply defaulting on all 30-year Treasury Bonds issued between June 2011 and June 2012. It just so happens that Bernanke bought all of these, so two problems would be solved with one stone.

When someone shows you official government records,from 2009, and you complain about "twisted" accounting methods, how can you be sure of what the Treasury is saying? Are your stats better than everybody elses? The "twisted" accounting methods are how the government reports on the budgets, believe them or not. Take your complaints to them, and while you are at it ask them if the SS trust fund contains worthless paper, because if it does they can write off about $3 trillion of the US debt.

If there was a surplus there would be a flat debt or a reduction, neither of those things ever happened. The US treasury tracks these things to the penny, not based on projections or twisted accounting methods that the OMB and CBO, under both parties, use.

Keep living in fantasy land or look at the numbers, your choice.

"A decade ago, Washington grappled with a problem that seems unreal in today’s economic climate – what to do with the budget surplus? In 2000, George W. Bush had campaigned on a pledge to return part of the surplus to taxpayers in the form of an across-the-board tax cut. Bush’s opponent, Al Gore, countered with his famous “lock box” proposal, a promise to devote surpluses to shore up Social Security and Medicare."
http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/11/b...
RAF, so, Bush lied about the surpluses too? As I recall, he also promised to still reduce the debt by a trillion or two if he got his tax cuts.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...

http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-...

Does this mean GM won't be coming back to Janesville?

Not to worry now, Obama has flown to Hawaii with his entourage for the holidays. All is well.
BTW, what ever happened to "Home for the holidays?" Why can't he just go to his home in Chicago instead of half way around the world, especially with the state of things as they are in DC? He spends money like its someone else's. oh that's right, it is. I guess we are rolling in money. Wouldn't it be nice if he expressed the idea that things are tough this year for lots of American families so let's throttle it down and have a nice holiday at home in Chicago.

Yes neat budget Obama submitted, REJECTED by every member of the house and senate by both parties. Hardly a serious starting point when not one person from your own party will support it.

The worst part about it, this is the second year in a row this has happened. While at the same time the senate, uner dem control, has failed to pass a national budget for almost 4 years...so much for leadership. All this as our nation has had 4 years of +1 trillion dollar deficits; sad.

Pharm intersting blog, too bad it starts with false information; "With federal revenue soaring in 2000, generating budget surpluses"

Surpluses suggest more than one year of non-deficit budgets yet that NEVER happened. If there was any non-deficit budget year our national debt for that year would have been flat. In reality it has risen every year since the late 1950's.

Perhaps you and that blogger need a history lesson based on real facts. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repor...

Wow, TCB, I would hate to ever be as wrong as you.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

"With federal revenue soaring in 2000, generating budget surpluses, there was pent-up desire for a tax cut, especially among Republicans.

George W. Bush had just been elected on a pledge to cut taxes, but his plan did not get much traction among Democrats until then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan warned Congress of a dangerous new specter — that the government would pay down the national debt, and there would be no place to park excess funds.

“At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses currently projected imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government,” he declared.

Yep, you read that right. The perceived danger was — believe it or not — that there would be no national debt left."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact...
Interesting

According to you.

Pharm,

The CBS poll also states that 63% of Americans also believe the country is on the wrong track. That is up from 60%...but Obamas personal approval numbers continue to remain high.

It is simply a poll-it is not powered sufficiently to demonstrate statistical significance. However, a huge majority think the country, lead by obama is on the wrong track. The net is Obama has no political capital to spend.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/obamas-approval...

garyprimer
Dec 20, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.
Yes, it is hard to believe when Obama's appoval ratings are still in the low 40% and only 36% say the country is heading in the right direction.

This only a month after an election with mounting evidence of extreme voter fraud.

R.I.P. Uncle Sam

Janesvillean,

The President has not proposed a budget. Where is his plan to cut the deficit? Trillion + in new increased taxes less 800 Billion in less spending = MORE deficit?

There is no plan to cut spending-only increase it. WHo will Obama blame for this economy? Bush?

Janesvillean,

The President has not proposed a budget. Where is his plan to cut the deficit? Trillion + in new increased taxes less 800 Billion in less spending = MORE deficit?

There is no plan to cut spending-only increase it. WHo will Obama blame for this economy? Bush?

fordfan, no I don't I think it is pretty obvious I am completely against government being involved in private business.

Anyone care to put out an over under date on when GM will need their next bailout?

Every sale of stock, of course, must have a buyer on the other end. So that leads to the obvious question of: "Who is dumb enough to buy the shares of GM from the government?"
Key up PT Barnum here...There is a a sucker born every minute!

When is ford going to pay back their money. As of nov, they have only paid back 2.5%....
.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120112/BU...

916WI, that is not the President's plan. In fact, the President's budget reduces the deficit more than any other proposed budget. But if it makes you feel better to just lie, go ahead. In any case, the GM share purchase was part of the TARP fund which was proposed and passed under George W. Bush, and this stock repurchase does not affect the overall deficit, despite what FOX News would dupe you into believing. We're really tired of living in the world of facts and debating the likes of you who live in an imaginary world of your own crayon colors.

Eagle - do you pick and choose?

Regardless of what the union haters say, the bottom line is the bailout of the auto industry (and the banking industry) SAVED the taxpayer money. Add it up, put 1 million people out of work. For every $1000 you have to pay them for benefits, that is one billion dollars. For every $1000 they don't pay in taxes because they are out of work, that is another billion. Look at it any way you want, it SAVED the taxpayer money even if GM doesn't pay back another dime. It also helped keep us out of the next great Depression. Garyprimer has it spot on, we would be looking back at 08 as the good old days compared to what we would be in today had we gone into a real depression.

Yeah, it's hard to believe
that Romney and Ryan
did not win the White House.
It appears to be especially hard
for Romney to believe.

"The economic damage to this country would have been unfathomable.
We would be looking back at 2008 as the good old days.
It seems that the Republican House is still
working to that end."
------------
yep--the president's plan which involves trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, adding to the existing trillions of dollars in national debt is definitely a sign of an amazing economy with many good things to come......oh wait!

gary.......They didn't have the stomach for it--which is why they bought bonds.....duh:)

'Shows how little you know. I am against all tax credits, of any kind. I also think there should be no tax deductions and a simple flat tax, no need for the IRS.'

RAF=Ron Swanson:)

I agree on the gold part, that is much more secure but if anyone did have stock and held it because of the government bailout was suppose to increase its value, which is short sided at best you are correct they deserve to get burned however the fact fact that government intervention had a direct effect on the lowering of the stock value is indisputable. Bottom line keep government out of private business and we will all be better off.

I guess that some of the rest of you owned a bigger stake in the company than I did.
My advice to you is don't buy stocks if
you don't have the stomach for it,
or at the very least diversify.
On second thought,
you should all buy gold.
;-)

You may not choose to believe it,
but it remains true.
The economic damage to this country would have been unfathomable.
We would be looking back at 2008 as the good old days.
It seems that the Republican House is still
working to that end.

garyprimer, oh well if you say everyone win I guess I can overlook the massive loss of taxpayer money and the kickbacks that this essentially was. but thank God you say it is a winner for everyone. LOL

fordfan, nice to see you se it as corporate welfare as I do. Do you support it for all industries or do you pick and choose?

Except for the original shareholders, garyprimer. Guess they weren't part of "everyone".

There are winners and losers along the way,
but everyone wins in the end on this one.
You may not choose to believe it,
but it remains true.

Shows how little you know. I am against all tax credits, of any kind. I also think there should be no tax deductions and a simple flat tax, no need for the IRS.

RAF - As a true conservative, I thought you would like all of that corporate welfare and those tax breaks. Must be that you don't like US cars or US jobs that can pay your opulent government pension :)

General Motors Co. will drive away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

Bass please list another company that came out of bankruptcy and was still allowed to write off previous losses, under the old company, with the new one. The only reason GM is showing record profits is because they haven't paid one dime in taxes.

Huh, so the corporation turned a profit when its executives' salaries were capped and money was not being spent on various corporate benefits (ie corporate jet)...?

It was not an industry it was a private business. The twisted bankruptcy set a nasty position by excluding the most secured investors, bond holders, instead bailing out labor.

So corporate welfare is ok when it is directed towards union based industries in which the 'members' get 30k to relocate while keeping salary and benefits and a 5k signing bonus on the latest contract? I just want to make sure I am up to speed on the new rules as we move along.

RAF and LMC, you are both correct about a "normal" bankruptcy. Two problems with that, one is,it was not normal. There has never been a failure of an industry that large. Number two is there also was no private money available that would invest or banks that would lend large sums of money. If you remember, there were banks failing all over the place at that time. (Lehman Brothers was the largest). It was hard to find a bank that would give you a home loan, let alone invest in a whole industry.

Both Bush and Obama (two guys that are smarter than us and also have some pretty smart advisers) recognized what would happen if the American Auto industry were to fail at that critical time when our country was on the brink of depression. The numbers are pretty simple, Take a million people and have to pay them $1000. (less than 3 weeks unemployment) That equals 1 Billion dollars. Now, if that same group isn't working they also aren't paying taxes in. That is another billion dollars for every $1000 in taxes that they are NOT paying. That doesn't account for the PBGC payments and any other social programs that a million people will use. (food stamps, medicare and any other of the too many social programs that we have). It doesn't take very long to recover the 10 or 12 billion that the government is going to lose on the GM investment. Keep in mind, the American auto industry is as strong and in the best shape that it has been in for the past 40 years. The bailouts kept all those people working and paying in taxes instead of the workers collecting benefits from the taxpayer. In the long run, it cost the taxpayer less to bail out the industry rather than let it fail at that critical time.

BTW, the government keeping people working isn't a new thing the WPA and the CCC are two examples that helped us out of the great depression.

non_grata, its irrelevant if those jobs are not sustainable other than from taxpayer money then why not funnel money into other companies losing money? Dangerous and slippery slope you are advocating.

Well said RAF "The idea the "govt" kept people working in this is just silly. A normal bankruptcy would have done the same thing, without federal dollars being involved. Worse case, liquidation, some might have lost jobs but would have been replaced or changed once the assets were bought and used by the next owner."

The idea the "govt" kept people working in this is just silly. A normal bankruptcy would have done the same thing, without federal dollars being involved. Worse case, liquidation, some might have lost jobs but would have been replaced or changed once the assets were bought and used by the next owner.

I don't see anyone talking about the money the government saved because it kept over a million people working (paying taxes IN) verses them being out of work "COLLECTING" benefits. The government (taxpayer) would also be on the hook to pay the pension benefits that the PBGC would have had to pay out. That is the government unit that guarantees all large pension funds. Keep in mind that this all happened when the US was in the worst economic crisis since the great depression.

There were some pretty smart people that figured this out back in 2008 - 09 and that is why the auto industry is still in business and doing very well.

How about instead, GM pays $100. a share, that way the TARP makes a profit & the profit goes to reduce the debt that was increased from GM getting & others getting bailed out.

Then they can sell the others at market or even better gift them to some of the past workers & spouses they screwed over.

The Govt,i.e the tax payer is taking a huge loss on GM stock. Now the Govt-ie tax payers need 70/share for the remaining 300 Million shares to break even. Lets not forget the bondholders got nothing. This is govt efficiency at its finest!

I guess "protecting the tax payers interest" means no one is accountable for losing tax payers money.

Billion. Still quite short.

You should keep reading. The article says it saved a million jobs. I'm gonna guess that those one million jobs are paying more than 12 dollars in taxes per year. So the payback is quite short on that 12 million.

"If the government sells its remaining 300 million shares for $30 each, it would get another $9 billion. That means taxpayers would recoup around $38 billion, or about 77 percent of their investment. But they would still lose around $12 billion on the deal."

This about sums up why government needs to stay out of private business and why the majority of politicians are not business people. Unbelievable, all I was hearing is about how GM was saved, sure looks like it was, on the taxpayers dime.