Fake Stimulus Numbers and the Treasury's Unlimited Power with a Bunch of Bad Investments
Sic Ibid via WC Varones:
Obama is finally getting rid of the idiotic phrase/category of jobs "Saved or Created" by porkulus/stimulus money. [Say, how are we liking the other new phrases he's given us, like "man-caused disaster" and "overseas contingency operation" so far, anyway?]
Just how fraudulent is Obama's method of counting jobs as "saved or created", you ask? Well, you see, he likes to count jobs that already exist as jobs that he personally "Saved or Created".In other words, if the project is being funded with stimulus dollars – even if the person worked at that company or organization before and will work the same place afterwards – that’s a stimulus job…I, like the rest of us, learned from the mainstream media that Obama Created the Earth and the United States, and Golf Carts, but I'm now even more impressed by his powers. This power to create something that already exists is, frankly, a phenomenon I hope the scientists at the CERN particle accelerator will test soon, as soon as they're done locating the imaginary and non-existent Congressional Districts into which millions of dollars in real Stimulus Money actually went.
It was suggested to me on my way in to work today that the whole issue with the made-up districts could be a simple "IT error" though I find that one difficult to swallow. Really? That's not what I heard, let's just blame BOTH fake zip codes AND made up congressional districts. When does it end?
It's cool, it was on recovery.gov, if you can't trust your own government, who can you trust?
And if you really want a good laugh, there's always the Treasury's financialstability.gov to wash it all down, with one of the top links JDA's personal favorite exit strategy. Hahahahahahaha let's click it.
So what is their genius exit strategy? Extending TARP through October of 2010. But don't worry, they don't expect to deploy more than $550 billion more and insist the taxpayer "saved" $200 billion. I am not really sure who does their accounting but someone needs to swoop in there and shut all of this down.
In order to accomplish these goals, pursuant to Section 120(b) of EESA, I certify that I am hereby extending the authority provided under the Act to October 3, 2010. This extension is necessary to assist American families and stabilize financial markets because it will, among other things, enable us to continue to implement programs that address housing markets and the needs of small businesses, and to maintain the capacity to respond to unforeseen threats, as described above.
While we are extending the $700 billion program, we do not expect to deploy more than $550 billion. We also expect up to $175 billion in repayments by the end of next year, and substantial additional repayments thereafter. The combination of the reduced scale of TARP commitments and substantial repayments should allow us to commit significant resources to pay down the federal debt over time and slow its growth rate.
Even with this extension, we expect that TARP will cost taxpayers at least $200 billion less than was projected in the August Mid-Session Review of the President's Budget, including $25 billion in potential costs from new TARP commitments in 2010. We expect that the vast majority of these potential costs would come from mitigating foreclosure for responsible American homeowners as we take the steps necessary to stabilize our housing market.
Squint hard and read it x_@ does it make sense now? Yeah me neither. Sneaky fuckers.
Treasury also has the ability to do pretty much whatever it would like with TARP money to accomplish three supposed objectives:
Treasury has articulated three principles guiding its strategy to unwind TARP: maintaining a stable financial system, preserving individual institutions, and maximizing the return on taxpayers' investments. The Panel found that these principles will sometimes be at odds with one another. For example, the most profitable moment to sell a TARP asset may not be the moment that best promotes systemic stability or the moment that best serves a particular institution. Further, these three principles are so broad and subjective Treasury could justify almost any divestment decision using this approach, effectively giving no metric to determine whether its actions met its stated goals. These concerns are compounded because Treasury is a unique market participant: TARP investments are so large that the decision to hold or sell has the potential to impact the financial markets.
Keep in mind the guy running the show at Treasury (if anyone cares what he has to say, that is) is also the same guy who ran the NY Fed when Goldman Sachs got $13 billion of your money and then made sure the details of the deal would be tied up for nearly ever. It's a swap. Or as some people call it, a gaffle. They get the money and we get the junk.
Not to make wild and entirely unfounded assumptions about the behavior of our esteemed Secretary of the Treasury. You should have seen the other picture I was going to go with.