Obama’s $108 billion IMF bailout scheme

By Michelle Malkin  •  May 13, 2009 02:38 PM

I love how this works: Barack Obama pledged $100 billion in foreign aid to help bail out the ailing International Monetary Fund in April. Only after he announced it did he go to Congress and make his case for the money. And yesterday, Obama water-carriers on the Hill cooked up a fuzzy math scheme to make it all work. Voila! $108 billion = 0:

Congressional leaders agreed Tuesday to calculate the cost of a new U.S. contribution to the International Monetary Fund in a relatively inexpensive way, paving the way for possible Congressional approval within weeks.

The Obama administration has pledged a $108 billion contribution to the IMF, as part of a $500 billion global boost to IMF resources. The White House has argued that this is a necessary contribution to global financial stability and would send a signal that there is enough money to help prevent struggling countries from becoming further enmeshed in economic crises. Congressional approval would put pressure on European nations, China, Brazil and others to increase their lending to the IMF.

But the U.S. contribution became entangled in arcane — though politically important — budget math. The White House had argued that the action shouldn’t be characterized as a $108 billion expenditure, which would make it difficult to sell at a time when Congress has recently passed a series of multibillion-dollar spending bills.

The U.S. wouldn’t provide a lump sum, but would essentially make a line of credit available to the IMF, which the fund could draw on when it needed to make loans to other countries. In theory, the U.S. would hope to get the money back. So the White House argued that the budgetary impact should be calculated at zero.

“Would hope to get the money back.” Owww. Getting stomach cramps from laughing so hard.

The WSJ has more on the conjuring here.

***

In a noteworthy development, at least one potential IMF bailout recipient is having second thoughts about going on global welfare. Check out the debate in Ghana:

President John Evans Atta Mills has proudly told the world that his government is about to receive funds totaling $3.2 billion over the next three years from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The President says there are no conditionalities attached to the expected funds but the Danquah Institute (DI) says he is not telling the truth because the IMF is demanding a cap on salaries and higher electricity bills, effectively.

DI has also condemned the Finance Minister, who “unlike Hannah Tetteh and President Mills”, delivered a very negative report on the Ghanaian economy at the Commonwealth Investment Seminar at the Lancaster Gate, London, last week, reminding Ghanaians, “We have a Finance Minister who, from his record at the Central Bank in 2000, knows how to destroy more than how to build.

The future of our nation’s economy is too important to be left with a man who’s too busy today trying to justify his abysmal record 9 years ago by lambasting that of his successor,” says the boss of DI.

Speaking to DAILY GUIDE yesterday, Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko of DI asked, “Are we back to the days when we all saw was our salvation in IMF and World Bank? Are we back in the days when the only meaningful place to invest in Ghana was not in business but in Treasury Bills?

Go to the banks today and see how they are running after customers not to come for loans like last year but to come and buy T-bills. We are certainly back in the years when men like Dr. Duffuor and Prof. Mills were in charge of the economy.”

Speaking to the BBC Focus on Africa programme last week, President Mills said Ghana, which had weaned itself from the IMF under President Kufuor, had to go back to them begging because “our coffers were empty,” and that terms of the loans will not worry ordinary Ghanaians.

However, the centre-right think tank does not support this optimism from the Head of State. Gabby Asare Otchere-Darko warns that if we are not careful, the NDC’s revived flirtation with the IMF could leave the “pockets of Ghanaians empty.”

Posted in: Politics
Printer Friendly
comments (48)   trackbacks (17)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. $108 Billion to the IMF - more great tax payer money usages | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
  2. Obama’s Supplemental Bill Passes, Gives Billions to Enemies? « Creeping Sharia
  3. Michelle Malkin » Fighting foreign bailouts
  4. Republicans: Look To The British Conservatives… | NEOAVATARA
  5. Obama Wants to Give $108 Billion to IMF? | Obama Exposure
  6. Stimulus Money Mistakes from Government AGAIN? Clown College Recruits May Be Wiser Choice to Be Trusted with Taxpayers’ Money « Frugal Café Blog Zone
  7. Obama saving Chinese Jobs - INGunOwners
  8. Suitably Flip
  9. Random-American » New record deficits, compliments of the Democrats
  10. Michelle Malkin » Washington can’t meet the Cheerios Standard
  11. Truth In Labeling For The Stimulus, Please « Jane Q. Republican
  12. Further Evidence of Obama Throwing Israel Under the Bus « Stop Socialism Now
  13. Obama le da billiones de dolares, al enemigo « NUEVA EUROPA- Nueva Eurabia
  14. Billions To Countries That Don’t Like America? Obama’s Billions For Jihad « Romanticpoet’s Weblog
  15. Michelle Malkin » The $108 billion IMF bailout moves forward
  16. Michelle Malkin » House approves $108 billion foreign bailout
  17. The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room » DAY’S END ROUNDUP

Trackback URL

Comments


  1. #699970
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pm, flmom said:

    The future of our nation’s economy is too important to be left with a man who’s too busy today trying to justify his abysmal record 9 years ago by lambasting that of his successor,” says the boss of DI.

    Hands up those who thought he was talking about Obama.

  2. #699971
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:45 pm, letget said:

    Gads, I am so sick of bailing out every country in the world. We can not afford our mess bho has gotten us in and he wants to give gosh horrible countries our money. I think they are bringing up numerous crisis a day to make us numb.
    L

  3. #699975
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:46 pm, cpodug said:

    If this government were not the government, the entire bunch of them would be indicted on so many charges of running a confidence game, illegal Ponzi scheme, etc, they’d be behind bars for the next million years. As it is, they can bend the rules to make them say whatever they want them to. Remember the golden rule: “He who has the gold, makes the rules.” And we’re certainly seeing proof of that, aren’t we?

  4. #699976
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm, flmom said:

    The U.S. wouldn’t provide a lump sum, but would essentially make a line of credit available to the IMF, which the fund could draw on when it needed to make loans to other countries. In theory, the U.S. would hope to get the money back. So the White House argued that the budgetary impact should be calculated at zero.

    In the meantime, who is going to extend the US a line of credit to pay for this foolishness. Obama is like the guy at the bar, standing everyone a drink, whilst the missus is at home clipping coupons.

  5. #699977
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    They don’t teach Econ at Harvard Law?

    /sarc

  6. #699979
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:49 pm, J S Ragman said:

    In theory, the U.S. would hope to get the money back.

    Yeah, right. Let me try that with my bank.

  7. #699980
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:50 pm, DBNinKY said:

    “Would hope to get the money back.”

    Ohhh, so that’s the hope he was talking about during the campaign. I was beginning to wonder when that was going to come into play.

  8. #699985
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:54 pm, Ragspierre said:

    So the White House argued that the budgetary impact should be calculated at zero.

    Just another example of BIG BRO newspeak.

    $108 BILLION = zero

  9. #699986
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:55 pm, babiesgrandma said:

    Ohhh, so that’s the hope he was talking about during the campaign.

    And what would be paid back? The change. About 25 cents, maybe.

  10. #699987
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

    At least the rest of the world will love the U.S. and Islamists will start showering us with rose petals. Who says money can’t buy you love?

  11. #699990
    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    We haven’t even gotten to

    Obama’s Communist Global Poverty Act

  12. #699994
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    Spending is supposed to originate in the other House.

  13. #699995
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:05 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:58 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    We haven’t even gotten to

    Obama’s Communist Global Poverty Act

    The title of your post “Obama vs. Jesus” sums it up very well.

  14. #699998
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:07 pm, txvet2 said:

    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:48 pm, flmom said:

    In the meantime, who is going to extend the US a line of credit to pay for this foolishness. Obama is like the guy at the bar, standing everyone a drink, whilst the missus is at home clipping coupons.

    More like the guy who’s buying drinks while his wife is in line at the welfare office.

  15. #699999
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:08 pm, Ragspierre said:

    We haven’t even gotten to

    Obama’s Communist Global Poverty Act

    Yeah, but Pill, you don’t see how that will zero out…

    when we can stop spending all that money on defense.

    We’ll all be one world, see….???

  16. #700005
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:14 pm, Truesoldier said:

    The White House had argued that the action shouldn’t be characterized as a $108 billion expenditure, which would make it difficult

    The U.S. wouldn’t provide a lump sum, but would essentially make a line of credit available to the IMF, which the fund could draw on when it needed to make loans to other countries. In theory, the U.S. would hope to get the money back. So the White House argued that the budgetary impact should be calculated at zero.

    Yet Here is what Obama said about his budget:

    For too long, our budget process in Washington has been an exercise in deception — a series of accounting tricks to hide the extent of our spending and the shortfalls in our revenue and hope that the American people won’t notice: budgeting certain expenditures for just one year, when we know we’ll incur them every year for five or 10; budgeting zero dollars for the Iraq war — zero — for future years, even when we knew the war would continue; budgeting no money for natural disasters, as if we would ever go 12 months without a single flood, fire, hurricane or earthquake.

    We do ourselves no favors by hiding the truth about what we spend. In order to address our fiscal crisis, we’re going to have to be candid about its scope. And that’s why the budget I will introduce later this week will look ahead 10 years, and will include a full and honest accounting of the money we plan to spend and the deficits we will likely incur.

  17. #700008
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:18 pm, vinny said:

    fltmom, Obama is not the guy who is buying everyone drinks. He is the guy promising everyone drinks while pick-pocketing the crowd. At what point can one make a citizen’s arrest?

  18. #700019
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:23 pm, tonyr951 said:

    “Would hope to get the money back.”

    That’s how Fannie and Freddie roll

  19. #700021
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:23 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    Congressional approval would put pressure on European nations, China, Brazil and others to increase their lending to the IMF.

    Oh no, not the pressure! And if you still don’t comply, we’ll torture you with the comfy chair!

  20. #700027
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:29 pm, bjc said:

    *”In theory”, boy ya gotta love that one; In reality, Socialism knows no God but Government, and P-Bo and his Clown Cluster are taking us all too far, too fast down that road; The GOP could pounce on so many issues to get the people on their side, but instead they will declare at their upcoming meeting to call the D’s Democrat Socialists; Name calling is in vogue, I guess, and problem solving is passe.

  21. #700029
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:31 pm, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    Well, at least the IMF can’t turn around and declare bankruptcy after they are ‘fixed’ by these funds the same direction General Motors is headed after it was ‘fixed’ by Obama …can they?

  22. #700037
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:35 pm, Ragspierre said:

    Well, at least the IMF can’t turn around and declare bankruptcy after they are ‘fixed’ by these funds the same direction General Motors is headed after it was ‘fixed’ by Obama …can they?

    Nope. Too BiG To Fail…

    Can’t have any of that failing goin on…

  23. #700039
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:36 pm, karnold said:

    Dumb question here – but if Ghana were to accept bailout funds from the IMF, would the Prezznit later be able to fire the ruler of Ghana? I mean… it works that way for automakers, doesn’t it work that way for sovereign nations too?

    By the way, why would we want to “put pressure on European nations, China, Brazil and others to increase their lending to the IMF”? I though we were trying to put pressure on them to increase lending to us.

  24. #700044
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:42 pm, 24Klady said:

    Now then, all the people that voted this clown into office are going to be soooo miffed when he can’t deliver his promises to them. Our treasury is empty, he’s still pretending there is something left. Those that backed this latest boondoggle should be held to redicule. At some point, I’m guessing all bank accounts will be frozen or confiscated – ala Chavez.

  25. #700052
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:49 pm, Jeff said:

    In theory, the U.S. would hope to get the money back. So the White House argued that the budgetary impact should be calculated at zero.

    In theory…TARP is making us big money too so, bail-outs cost us nothing…
    How Bizarre…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfJe8hQ8ha0

  26. #700054
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:50 pm, Jeff said:

    How bizarre
    How bizarre, how bizarre

    Ooh, baby (Ooh, baby)
    It’s making me crazy (It’s making me crazy)
    Everytime I look around
    Everytime I look around (Everytime I look around)
    Everytime I look around
    It’s in my face

  27. #700072
    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:59 pm, Khyris said:

    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pm, flmom said:

    The future of our nation’s economy is too important to be left with a man who’s too busy today trying to justify his abysmal record 9 years ago by lambasting that of his successor,” says the boss of DI.

    Hands up those who thought he was talking about Obama.

    I’d put up both hands, but ACORN might try to recruit me if I vote twice.

  28. #700076
    On May 13th, 2009 at 4:02 pm, Jeff said:

    a man who’s too busy today trying to justify his abysmal record

    He will never be called on it since, the MSM has crawled up his orifice.

  29. #700084
    On May 13th, 2009 at 4:07 pm, tre said:

    Lending money to INDIVIDUALS with bad credit ratings and

    hope to get the money back

    got us into the financial mess we’re in now.

    Now, Duh One wants to lend money to COUNTRIES bad credit ratings and

    hope to get the money back

    .

    What’s that definition of insanity, again?

  30. #700087
    On May 13th, 2009 at 4:11 pm, ThatSamIAm said:

    It’s criminal what is going on in Washington, D.C. These officials and those that voted them into office should be beaten and kicked out of the country.

  31. #700094
    On May 13th, 2009 at 4:16 pm, Jeff said:

    What’s that definition of insanity, again?

    The problem is, your dealing with the reality that is…
    Obama is dealing with the reality he prefers…Yes, it is delusional.

  32. #700095
    On May 13th, 2009 at 4:17 pm, Jeff said:

    These officials and those that voted them into office should be beaten and kicked out of the country.

    Unfortunately, the beatings will continue until, our morale improves.

  33. #700105
    On May 13th, 2009 at 4:33 pm, Auggie Dog said:

    Baracko’nomics are just so confusing to a lower middle class caveman.

  34. #700115
    On May 13th, 2009 at 4:42 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

    Jeez, I hope we don’t run out of ink and paper at the rate they are printing money.

    How long before it’s worthless?

  35. #700123
    On May 13th, 2009 at 4:49 pm, vsatt said:

    Does this mean the IRS will only hope I pay my taxes?

  36. #700127
    On May 13th, 2009 at 4:52 pm, Hangfire said:

    How long until the U.S. is able to apply for aid from the IMF?

  37. #700137
    On May 13th, 2009 at 4:59 pm, Speakup said:

    The math has to be fuzzy.

    Obama’s $108 billion IMF bailout scheme=paybacks a b*tch.

  38. #700148
    On May 13th, 2009 at 5:21 pm, Papa Louie said:

    It sounds like a great scheme. We give the IMF a line of credit; then they give us a line of credit. If they’re lucky they can keep this sham going until after The One gets reelected. By then the bills will be past due for all the “change” that’s been charged on the country’s credit card. We’ll have so many crises on our hands that even Obama will have to let some of them go to waste.

  39. #700162
    On May 13th, 2009 at 5:49 pm, docflash said:

    I always smell a rat with these people.I think it is just more money for them to steal.

  40. #700168
    On May 13th, 2009 at 6:03 pm, xler8bmw said:

    Beware of Obamanomics White Paper

    http://tinyurl.com/onmadk

  41. #700171
    On May 13th, 2009 at 6:08 pm, Member-VRWC said:

    So using White House logic, if I loan my brother $1,000 and in theory hope to get the money back, I can also use the same $1,000 to pay my taxes.

    That sounds almost too good to be true. Maybe I better check with my bank — or Timmy, he knows all about (not paying) taxes — just to be sure.

  42. #700172
    On May 13th, 2009 at 6:12 pm, rightisright said:

    On May 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pm, flmom said:

    The future of our nation’s economy is too important to be left with a man who’s too busy today trying to justify his abysmal record 9 years ago by lambasting that of his successor,” says the boss of DI.

    Hands up those who thought he was talking about Obama.

    Odopey shows one does not need real business experience to be a politician, just spend a few years as a community crook organizer and your on way to the presidency of the U.S. a once great and honored country, till the libs took over.

  43. #700268
    On May 13th, 2009 at 9:30 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    We haven’t even gotten to
    Obama’s Communist Global Poverty Act

    On May 13th, 2009 at 3:05 pm, Jet Jaguar said:

    The title of your post “Obama vs. Jesus” sums it up very well.

    Thanks, Jet Jaguar. It is so clear to me that Obama is not a follower of Jesus Christ. Rather, he is a disciple of The Socialist Gospel.

  44. #700269
    On May 13th, 2009 at 9:34 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    “Would hope to get the money back.”
    Owww. Getting stomach cramps from laughing so hard.

    I am more concerned about the return OF my money
    than the return ON my money.

    –Mark Twain

  45. #700387
    On May 14th, 2009 at 9:00 am, John Deaux said:

    In theory, the U.S. would hope to get the money back. So the White House argued that the budgetary impact should be calculated at zero.

    That’s what the Nigerian prince told me when he asked for all my money so he could get his oil revenue out of the country.

  46. #700408
    On May 14th, 2009 at 9:29 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    Every conservative Republican should be holding a press conference about this BS and every other asinine expenditure Obama tries to make.

    Why the hell isn’t the GOP SCREAMING about the fact that we are blowing away deficit records like NFL players beating up on girl scouts….and despite that, Obama wants to give away over $100 BILLION dollars so it could squandered by a bunch of 3rd World dicators? Where are our representatives?????

  47. #700514
    On May 14th, 2009 at 10:49 am, Storm Chaser said:

    I don’t see the problem. We already own banks and auto companies. Why not a third world country? This line of credit is not unlike what a bank gives farmers and other businesses. If we default, the bank forecloses.

    The President could fire Ghana’s government and give ACORN its own country with secret re- education camps.

  48. #701117
    On May 15th, 2009 at 9:06 am, NC BLUE said:

    Hey-Didn’t you all hear–we are not supposed to criticize Odumbo by name. We should criticize the dumbocrat congress. So says Frank Putz (aka Luntz). Article is on Drudge. Putz tells GOP and Business leaders they shouldn’t mention Odumbo’s name because the sheeple don’t like it–including Republicans. Who the hell does this idiot talk to. Barack is spewing all the hate towards business, capitalism, et al and Republicans don’t like it when The O is criticized. I call BS on this one.

You must be logged in to post a comment.



AmSpecBlog

» The 39 Democrats Who Voted "No"

Right Pundits

» Joe Lieberman: Fort Hood Shooter Is ‘Home-Grown Terrorist’

Legal Insurrection

» Bruni de la Motte for Health Care Czar

Legal Insurrection

» In The End: No Public Option, No Abortions, No Pelosi, No Reid

The Powers That Be

» Obama: ‘Don’t Jump to Conclusions’ About Ft. Hood; Immediately Jumps to Conclusions

Legal Insurrection

» NY Times Names Names

The Powers That Be

» A Picture is Worth a Trillion Dollars and Lots of Lost Freedom

American Thinker

» The true cost of ObamaCare

Fox Business Feeds
HotAir GreenRoom