OGT: Obama Address To Congress (2/24/09, 8 PM, FOX NEWS HD)

[Tahoe]

I believe that too. Is that correct though?

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

Did anybody see Debbie Stabenow when they did the camera shots looking out into the crowd.

Stood out like a fat Debra Messing.

[Uncle Mxy]

What did people think of the Jindal reply?

It seemed awfully flat and stale to me, but I only watched the first few minutes because of an unexpected knock at the door.

[Tahoe]

I didn't see it. Hopefully the knock at your door was a hottie.

[Vinny]

What did people think of the Jindal reply?

It seemed awfully flat and stale to me, but I only watched the first few minutes because of an unexpected knock at the door.

I think Jindal's reply and the republicans' attitude in general is completely killing them. They just seem so out of touch and desperate, and the polls back that up. I have to think that they're doing all this so that they have soundbytes to back up being opposed to the current plan if it fails, and then they'll be backing off soon so they can cover both sides.

It seems so transparent, i'd be embarrassed if i were them.

[Tahoe]

lol

[Wilfredo Ledezma]

I didn't see Jindal's speech last night.

It's obvious he's paving the way to be the GOP candidate for 2012.

He's going to have his hands full.

I'd rather Palin be the GOP candidate in 2012, so we can just get it over with and be done with her.

[Fool]

I believe that too. Is that correct though?

Iraq is ten billion a month. That's a lot of months to get it up to 800 billion. So I think the Obama thing is correct.

[Uncle Mxy]

The long-term costs for Iraq are huge, and come out of different piles of money than the $10-12 billion/month Iraq appropriations. Think about the long-term medical and education expenses, long-term costs associated with a continued presence even after the "war troops" go away, the tax benefits to employers with employees called to action, etc. That's why it can credibly be called a trillion+ dollar war even though we haven't spent that much on it directly yet.

[Uncle Mxy]

More money was spent on bailouts under Bush than under Obama, thus far, and that's even if you account for half the TARP funds not being spent under Bush. The AIG bailout, Fannie+Freddie bailouts, various bank bailouts, etc. add up to some huge numbers -- I seem to recall it being $1.8 trillion. Ahh, just dug it up. Here it is:

http://www.greenfaucet.com/?q=node/2754

• $700 Billion – Treasury to purchase toxic mortgages and other non-performing assets from financial institutions.
• $50 Billion – To guarantee principal in money market mutual funds.
• $10 Billion+ – Treasury purchases of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in September. More to come.
• $144 Billion – In additional MBS purchases by FNM and FRE. Limit $850 billion. FNM’s portfolio currently holds $758.1 billion and FRE holds $798.2 billion.
• $85 Billion – AIG bridge loan giving the Fed a 79.9% controlling stake in the firm.
• $87 Billion – Repayments to JP Morgan (JPM) for providing financing to underpin trades with the now bankrupt Lehman Brothers. In response to the Fed & Treasury’s stand against providing public funds to consummate a deal.
• $200 Billion – $100 billion capital infusion for FNM and FRE by the Treasury.
• $300 Billion – Provided to the FHA to refinance failing mortgages into new, reduced principal loans with a federal guarantee as part of the housing bill. • $4 Billion – Provided to local communities to purchase and repair abandoned homes due to foreclosure.
• $29 Billion – Financing for JPM’s takeover of Bear Sterns. The Fed takes $30 billion in non-performing assets as collateral.
• $200 Billion – Currently outstanding loans to banks through the Fed’s Term Auction Facility. Recently updated to allow loans of 84 days in addition to the original 28-days.

Whack off $350 billion of that because half the TARP money is being spent under Obama, but you still have $1.5 trillion under Bush for bailouts, vs. $1.2 trillion or so for Obama. So far.