Obama Rushes to Sell GM Stock at a Lost

The government is willing to take a loss with the bailout with GM because the Obama administration would like to sever its last ties to the auto maker; of course, at the expense of the taxpayers. It is already a lost cause. Obama dump billions into the auto industry and for what? GM built defective cars with steering wheels that come off, electric cars that causes electrical spark, electric cars that can cause an electric fire while plugged in, and building smaller cars that people don't want. It is a huge waste to the people tax dollars. This need to end right now.

(WSJ) The U.S. government plans to sell a significant share of its remaining stake in General Motors Co. this summer despite the disappointing performance of the auto maker's stock, people familiar with the matter said.

A sale within the next several months would almost certainly mean U.S. taxpayers will take a loss on their $50 billion rescue of the Detroit auto maker in 2009.

To break even, the U.S. Treasury would need to sell its remaining stake—about 500 million shares—at $53 apiece. GM closed off 27 cents a share at $29.97 in 4 p.m. trading Monday on the New York Stock Exchange, hitting a new low since its $33-a-share November initial public offering.

"Planning for the sale of our remaining GM stock is still at an early stage, and the IPO lock-up does not expire until late May," a Treasury spokesperson said. "At that point, we will consider all of our options, based on our twin goals of protecting taxpayers' interests and exiting as soon as practicable."

Shares have been hurt by rising fuel prices, industry production disruptions and management turnover. At Monday's price, and taking into account shares sold during the IPO, taxpayers would lose more than $11 billion on the rescue if the government dumped the rest of its stake now.

Government officials are willing to take the loss because the Obama administration would like to sever its last ties to the auto maker, the people familiar with the matter said. A summer sale makes it more likely Treasury could sell all of its stake in GM by year's end, avoiding a potentially controversial sale in the 2012 presidential election year.

Obama: Everybody Has To Make Some Sacrifices And Take A Haircut

Sometimes I wish Obama did use a Telepromter. It hurts me to hear stupidity. "Everybody has got to make some sacrifices, everybody's gotta take a haircut," President Obama said during a surprise visit to the WH briefing room on Tuesday.

Click video from Real Clear Politics Obama: Everybody Has To Make Some Sacrifices And Take A Haircut

Obama to make earmark threat promise in State of the Union - TheHill.com

We will see...........

Obama to make earmark threat promise in State of the Union - TheHill.com

President Drops Entitlement Reform for More Spending in the State of the Union

Instead of taking the opportunity to increase his jobs approval numbers, Obama will talk about more spending and avoid speaking about entitlement reform in the State of Union. Liberal ideology takes a precedence over rational thinking. Pushing an agenda that will fundamentally change this country in an adverse way is the only priority Obama has right now. Weakening this country with irreversible programs will lead to the destruction of the United States. Obama doesn't care. He and his family will be taken care of from the powers that run this country- POWERFUL BANKS.

(Race42012) In yet another bout of political cluelessness, the president has declined a golden opportunity to triangulate and will not be pushing entitlement reform in his State of the Union address tomorrow night. This is akin to finding a winning lottery ticket on the sidewalk and tossing it into the garbage. By advocating real, even if left-of-center, entitlement reform, President Obama would have been able to recast himself as a Clinton-style fiscal moderate at a time when his approval rating is on the uptick, and during a post-tragedy era, when Americans want to like their president again.

The reasons that a presidential call for entitlement reform would have been pitch perfect tomorrow night are legion. First, even though the economy is no longer in recession, unemployment remains high, and the average voter, while not an economist, intuits that there are major, structural problems with the American economy that need to be solved. Unfortunately, solving problems often costs money, especially when liberals are the ones coming up with the solutions. The reality is that many of our economic problems are due to irrational economic actions that are the result of public policies that disincentivize rational behavior.

That’s why entitlement reform would have solved Obama’s many woes. First of all, the savings that would be generated from a major overhaul of Social Security and Medicare would far outweigh any new spending that Obama will likely propose tomorrow night. Secondly, entitlements are the primary cause of the long-term debt issue. And third, entitlement reform, particulary of the sort that means-tests entitlements and cuts the benefits of affluent seniors, would largely impact a voting bloc that Obama has already lost anyway, and would bait Republicans into doubling down on their “early bird special” strategy that they seem to be intent on embracing, where the GOP targets older, white voters, who are a lagging, not leading, indicator of where the nation is headed.

By passing up this opportunity to make the case for entitlement reform, the president may be about to give away his newfound majority support in the polls. Americans are going to hear lots of new spending proposed by the president tomorrow night, but no way to pay for that spending, and no way to prevent the looming fiscal crisis. Suburban independents, who tend to be Concord Coalition types who hate deficits and debt, may find themselves torn between a president that they want to like, and policies that they know simply don’t add up. That will open the door a tad for the GOP in 2012, a door that had been closing over the past couple of months.

Even After a Democrat Shellacking in November Obama Wants to Spend More Money

Obama is clueless what occurred in the last November election. The president admitted that the Democrats took a severe shellacking, but that is not going to stop Obama from spending more. At the present, we are going to hit the debt ceiling in the next couple months, and the Republicans are adamant to cut spending. In the past year, a series of stimulus packages gave us an above 9 percent unemployment or 17% underemployment. In the summer of July 2010 from the (Hot Air) website, they described how Obama was committed to spend $2 Billion to create 5000 jobs. The article went on to say:

Obama proposes spending $2 billion to create a total of 5,100 jobs. That will cost $392,156.87 per job. That kind of money, in the private sector at least, should fund several jobs. Heck, even a government bureaucrat costs less than that; even at the Department of Transportation, that would cover two and have enough left over for a secretary. But that’s not the only folly in this proposal. Of the 5,100 jobs Obama promises, only 1,500 of them are permanent jobs. The others are construction jobs, which will only last as long as the money flows to the project. That means we will spend over $1.3 million per “permanent” job in building this “green economy,” which looks more like a red-ink economy with even a cursory check of the numbers.

This example is nothing short of shocking. There was an example of a Los Angeles county given a stimulus of several million dollars and that produce 55 jobs. It is important to understand that the government role is never intended to create jobs. The real jobs are created by the private sector. The governments role is to spend our money. Therefore, Obama had no intent in changing his ways after the election.

(WSJ) President Barack Obama will call for new government spending on infrastructure, education and research in his State of the Union address Tuesday, sharpening his response to Republicans in Congress who are demanding deep budget cuts, people familiar with the speech said.

Mr. Obama will argue that the U.S., even while trying to reduce its budget deficit, must make targeted investments to foster job growth and boost U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The new spending could include initiatives aimed at building the renewable-energy sector—which received billions of dollars in stimulus funding—and rebuilding roads to improve transportation, people familiar with the matter said. Money to restructure the No Child Left Behind law’s testing mandates and institute more competitive grants also could be included.

While proposing new spending, Mr. Obama also will lay out significant budget cuts elsewhere, people familiar with the plans say, though they will likely fall short of what Republican lawmakers have requested.

Final Tab for Pelosi’s Speakership: $5.34 Trillion in New Debt—Or $3.66 Billion Per Day

Since Congress appropriates money, Pelosi not only spent foolishly, but bankrupt this country. Ignore Liberals being cheap with their own money, they always enjoy spending other people money without hesitation.

(CNSNews.com) - In the 1,461 days that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) served as speaker of the House, the national debt increased by a total of $5.343 trillion ($5,343,452,800,321.37) or $3.66 billion per day ($3.657,394,113.84), according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.

Pelosi was the 52nd speaker of the House. During her tenure, she amassed more debt than the first 49 speakers combined.

Pelosi served as speaker for four full years, including one leap year, making her time in that office 1,461 days. On average, the federal government added $3.66 billion ($3,657,394,113.84) in new debt for each of those days.

Pelosi not only outstripped her predecessors in the total volume of debt added to the national debt during her tenure as speaker, but also in the rate at which new debt was added. In fact, Pelosi added debt at a rate more than three times faster than her nearest competitor.

Our Tax Dollars at Work Providing a Website for Condoms

So nice to see how our tax dollars are going to worthwhile projects.(Sarcasm)

(NBCWashington.com) By far the weirdest thing on the site is the "What Kind of Condom Are You?" quiz, which like all those loathed but pervasive Facebook quizzes, uses a few superficial questions to lead to an ostensibly whimsical result. Do you like cheeseburgers and fries? You might be a latex condom. Reality TV fans could be flavored condoms. If you like being in charge at work, you’re a magnum. (The quiz tells me that my "no-frills personality is suited for the standard latex condom." Gee, thanks, D.C. government.)

Regardless of your quiz result, you’ll be getting magnums. In May, the Department of Health switched to distribution of the super-sized sheaths – because every man likes to imagine he needs one.

The Myth about Earmarks

(Politico)Shh! There’s a secret about earmarks: Eliminating them won’t save taxpayers one dime. Instead, the money will get turned back to President Barack Obama so he can direct spending as he sees fit.

So a ban on earmarks doesn’t save one dime. It does, however, do three things: 1) It trashes the Constitution and violates our oath of office; 2) it cedes Congress’s power to authorize and appropriate to the president, and 3) it gives cover to big spending.

For many years now, there have been some members of Congress who have decried earmarks to hide their real voting record on fiscal issues. In other words, they vote for huge spending increases and then blast earmarks. As a result of their incessant demagoguery, just the term “earmark” has become a dirty word for many voters.

An across-the-board ban has the unintended consequence of eliminating useful spending. Improved armor for our soldiers and unmanned aerial vehicles like the Predator drone are just a few examples of worthy congressional earmarks that have improved our national defense and would never have been funded by any administration.

To be clear, there are many earmarks that should be defeated. But we should defeat them based on their substance — not because they are earmarks.

It is important to note that earmarks have steadily decreased over the past few years, but our debt have been rising. While there are some earmarks worths keeping, there are millions in federal dollars wastefully spent for a clown show in Pennsylvania, a deer underpass in Wyoming, a Colorado dragon boat festival and a storytelling festival in Utah — just to name a few. Also, don't be dupe with stimulus bill with no congressional earmarks. The last Congress did this (Democrats) and it resulted in hundreds of outrageous expenditures that was spent through presidential earmarks. Therefore, earmarks aren't the underlying cause of our fiscal problems. It is spending. Whether we allow the President or Congress to do it, our tax dollars will be spent with or without earmarks.