TARP...........betcha didn't know...........

[OSBF]

Originally expected to cost the U.S. Government $356 billion, the most recent estimates of the cost, as of April 12, 2010, is down to $89 billion, which is 42% less than the taxpayers' cost of the Savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s.[1] The cost of that crisis amounted to 3.2% of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the current crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1%

[native]

Originally expected to cost the U.S. Government $356 billion, the most recent estimates of the cost, as of April 12, 2010, is down to $89 billion, ...

So, you are saying that GW did a great job with TARP?

[GannonFan]

Agreed - TARP was a great success and easily one of the best, if the only good bits of legislation that came out in response to the Recession. Despite the continual nagging on the Financial Insitutions, they actually paid back the money loaned out in the TARP fund, and they paid with interest. Really, if we didn't expand TARP and use it to buy out GM and Chrysler, we would be looking at very little losses as of today.

[CitadelGrad]

TARP is essentially an asset swap. The administration is valuing the assets it expects to receive in repayment at present value. There is no guarantee that the assets will actually be worth that much.

[native]

Agreed - TARP was a great success and easily one of the best, if the only good bits of legislation that came out in response to the Recession. Despite the continual nagging on the Financial Insitutions, they actually paid back the money loaned out in the TARP fund, and they paid with interest. Really, if we didn't expand TARP and use it to buy out GM and Chrysler, we would be looking at very little losses as of today.

Couldn't agree more!

The original TARP was a necessary evil. Add-ons to TARP were expensive, counter-productive boondoggles. Ironic that Obama's spending spree, which he promised would keep unemplyment below 8%, is exactly what caused unemployment to jump so high and remain so high. Had we simnple stayed the course we would be recovered by now, with unemployment 8% or below.

[GannonFan]

TARP is essentially an asset swap. The administration is valuing the assets it expects to receive in repayment at present value. There is no guarantee that the assets will actually be worth that much.

But isn't that only in regards to the outstanding shares the government has in relation to it's bailout of the auto companies (and specifically GM, where they at least think they could float their shares in an IPO-type deal to shed their interest)? From the standpoint of what TARP was initially for, i.e. bailing out the banks, that part of TARP is pretty much settled, again, with interest, as that money has been paid back or is pretty secure to be paid back. The questionable parts are the interests the government has in GM, Chrysler, and AIG, in descending order of likliehood to ever get that money back.

[OSBF]

Originally expected to cost the U.S. Government $356 billion, the most recent estimates of the cost, as of April 12, 2010, is down to $89 billion, ...

So, you are saying that GW did a great job with TARP?

i just find it more or less humerous that tarp is made out to be so big and so evil when it isn't even as big as a pimple on a mosquitoes ass when compared to the S&L bailout. time does funny things to perspective

[GannonFan]

Agreed - TARP was a great success and easily one of the best, if the only good bits of legislation that came out in response to the Recession. Despite the continual nagging on the Financial Insitutions, they actually paid back the money loaned out in the TARP fund, and they paid with interest. Really, if we didn't expand TARP and use it to buy out GM and Chrysler, we would be looking at very little losses as of today.

Couldn't agree more!

The original TARP was a necessary evil. Add-ons to TARP were expensive, counter-productive boondoggles. Ironic that Obama's spending spree, which he promised would keep unemplyment below 8%, is exactly what caused unemployment to jump so high and remain so high. Had we simnple stayed the course we would be recovered by now, with unemployment 8% or below.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. The add ons to the TARP, while not great, weren't so bad that by themselves they would be pulling down the economy. And I was in favor of a stimulus package, if for nothing else than just the psychological impact of it. I think there's one area where they really messed up though, allowing the stimulus to look like a ragged run for pork and just unfocused spending. The psychological benefit of the stimulus on the economy was certainly blunted by the way that the package was developed. I do agree that the spending spree (the health care reform especially) just wasn't well timed at all - it took too much focus away from nursing (pun intended) the economy back to life and it sapped most if not all of the political capital Obama came into his term with, not to mention that it threw a whole new level of uncertainty over what it all would mean.

[GannonFan]

So, you are saying that GW did a great job with TARP?

i just find it more or less humerous that tarp is made out to be so big and so evil when it isn't even as big as a pimple on a mosquitoes ass when compared to the S&L bailout. time does funny things to perspective

It's what came after TARP, coupled with people's limited understanding of what the TARP was, that is the problem. And I certainly think even the current administration is guilty of blurring the pereption of what TARP was because they decided that people blaming and hating Wall Street was good for politics. So they kept talking about the bailout of Wall Street and people who just don't know any better then get to thinking that TARP cost taxpayers because that's what they're being told. Unfortunately, I think it's backfiring against this administration because it's just added one more layer of doubt about the strength of the recoverty and sometimes perception can become reality.

[native]

Couldn't agree more!

The original TARP was a necessary evil. Add-ons to TARP were expensive, counter-productive boondoggles. Ironic that Obama's spending spree, which he promised would keep unemplyment below 8%, is exactly what caused unemployment to jump so high and remain so high. Had we simnple stayed the course we would be recovered by now, with unemployment 8% or below.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. The add ons to the TARP, while not great, weren't so bad that by themselves they would be pulling down the economy. And I was in favor of a stimulus package, if for nothing else than just the psychological impact of it. I think there's one area where they really messed up though, allowing the stimulus to look like a ragged run for pork and just unfocused spending. The psychological benefit of the stimulus on the economy was certainly blunted by the way that the package was developed. I do agree that the spending spree (the health care reform especially) just wasn't well timed at all - it took too much focus away from nursing (pun intended) the economy back to life and it sapped most if not all of the political capital Obama came into his term with, not to mention that it threw a whole new level of uncertainty over what it all would mean.

I take your point, GF, but by using the words "add ons to the TARP," I meant all the spending after the original TARP.

The "stimulus," for example, as distinguished from the TARP, was about 90% boondoggle, as was the healthcare bill, as you rightly point out.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. My bad.

[JohnStOnge]

You are correct. If that is true I didn't know that. My general perception is that most of the time estimates of what government programs and initiatives are going to cost are way low.

[AZGrizFan]

And yet, despite the fact that every dime lent to financial institutions was paid back, and NONE of the money lent to GM or AIG has been paid back, it's the FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS that get a great big "fuck you very much" through the latest idiotic piece of legislation to come out of Washington.

The "financial reform act" will do NOTHING to reform the financial services department because democrats carved out Fannie and Freddie from being touched by this new law.

Stand by for countless bank and credit union failures in the next 18 months.

[OSBF]

and NONE of the money lent to GM has been paid back

better double check that one homer

[kalm]

And yet, despite the fact that every dime lent to financial institutions was paid back, and NONE of the money lent to GM or AIG has been paid back, it's the FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS that get a great big "**** you very much" through the latest idiotic piece of legislation to come out of Washington.

The "financial reform act" will do NOTHING to reform the financial services department because democrats carved out Fannie and Freddie from being touched by this new law.

Stand by for countless bank and credit union failures in the next 18 months.

AIG might not technically be a financial institution, but financial activities are what got it in trouble. Did it surprise you that a decent chunk of AIG's bailout went to Geithner and Summer's old company?

I hardly think that TARP being paid back means the Big Banks deserve a pass. And isn't one of their primary functions to the country lending? How are they doing at that?

There are some potentially good things in the financial reform bill, but I agree about Fannie and Freddie.

[BDKJMU]

TARP is essentially an asset swap. The administration is valuing the assets it expects to receive in repayment at present value. There is no guarantee that the assets will actually be worth that much.

But isn't that only in regards to the outstanding shares the government has in relation to it's bailout of the auto companies (and specifically GM, where they at least think they could float their shares in an IPO-type deal to shed their interest)? From the standpoint of what TARP was initially for, i.e. bailing out the banks, that part of TARP is pretty much settled, again, with interest, as that money has been paid back or is pretty secure to be paid back. The questionable parts are the interests the government has in GM, Chrysler, and AIG, in descending order of likliehood to ever get that money back.

GF, You left off the most questionable, Fannie and Freddie, who were given more than AIG, GM, and Chrysler combined
"The total amount invested in Fannie and Freddie so far is $145 billion. They have returned none of the money invested so far—and might never do so.

The Treasury has been earning a return on its investments. So far Fannie and Freddie have paid $10 billion in dividends to the Treasury."

On the daily scorecard, as of July 21:
Outflows 538 billion, inflows 232 billion. The taxpayers are still 316 billion in the hole.
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also as of today. Of the largest recipients:
1. Fannie Mae: received 84 billin, paid back 4 billion.
2. AIG: received 48 billion (70 billion committed), paid back $0.
3. Freddie MAC: received 61 billion, paid back 6 billion.
4. GM: received 51 billion, 7 billion paid back + 553 million revenue to govt.
5. Bank of America: received 45 billion. Paid back in full + 5 billion profit to govt.
6. Citigroup: received 45 billion, 31 billion paid back + 3 billion revenue to govt.
7. JP Morgan Chase: received 25 billion. Paid back in full + 2 billion profit to govt.
8. Wells Fargo: received 25 billion. Paid back in full + 2 billion profit to govt.
9. GMAC: received 16 billion, 1 billion returned.
10.Chrysler: received 11 billion (13 billion committed). paid back 2 billion + 86 million revenue to govt.

Database of all 836 recipients:
http://bailout.propublica.org/list" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have a probalem with a bailout to the banks, as its mostly been paid back back in full (3 of the 4 largest banks) with profit on top of that for the taxpayers.

I do have a problem with the Fannie and Freddie bailouts (wouldn't have IF they were accompanied by SERIOUS reform). Have a problem with the AIG, GM, and Chrysler bailouts, as much of that is $ the taxpayers will never get back, and with GM and Chrysler, bankruptcy precedent was ignored and the unsecured creditors (including the unions) were given precedent over the secured creditors.

[HI54UNI]

and NONE of the money lent to GM has been paid back

better double check that one homer

GM's loan "repayment" is questionable.



A top Senate Republican on Thursday accused the Obama administration of misleading taxpayers about General Motors' loan repayment, saying the struggling auto giant was only able to repay its bailout money by dipping into a separate pot of bailout money.

Sen. Chuck Grassley's charge was backed up by the inspector general for the bailout -- also known as the Trouble Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Watchdog Neil Barofsky told Fox News, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, that General Motors used bailout money to pay back the federal government.

"It appears to be nothing more than an elaborate TARP money shuffle," Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said in a letter Thursday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

GM announced Wednesday that it had paid back the $8.1 billion in loans it received from the U.S. and Canadian governments. Of that, $6.7 billion went to the U.S. treasury.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04 ... out-money/

[travelinman67]

And yet, despite the fact that every dime lent to financial institutions was paid back, and NONE of the money lent to GM or AIG has been paid back, it's the FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS that get a great big "fuck you very much" through the latest idiotic piece of legislation to come out of Washington.

It really isn't the FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS that the people hate, but rather the people who run them. It's tough to reconcile while American's all over are struggling, that there's a group of people who take your money, fuck you over with fees and absorbitant rates, throw people out of their homes after decades of prompt mortgage payment history, then pay themselves millions...

...and complain about how they're not getting a fair break from government.


BTW, Bitch...you're buying next time I'm in town.

[houndawg]

And yet, despite the fact that every dime lent to financial institutions was paid back, and NONE of the money lent to GM or AIG has been paid back, it's the FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS that get a great big "**** you very much" through the latest idiotic piece of legislation to come out of Washington.

It really isn't the FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS that the people hate, but rather the people who run them. It's tough to reconcile while American's all over are struggling, that there's a group of people who take your money, **** you over with fees and absorbitant rates, throw people out of their homes after decades of prompt mortgage payment history, then pay themselves millions...

...and complain about how they're not getting a fair break from government.

Exactly.






It's "exorbitant", numbnuts.

[GannonFan]

But isn't that only in regards to the outstanding shares the government has in relation to it's bailout of the auto companies (and specifically GM, where they at least think they could float their shares in an IPO-type deal to shed their interest)? From the standpoint of what TARP was initially for, i.e. bailing out the banks, that part of TARP is pretty much settled, again, with interest, as that money has been paid back or is pretty secure to be paid back. The questionable parts are the interests the government has in GM, Chrysler, and AIG, in descending order of likliehood to ever get that money back.

GF, You left off the most questionable, Fannie and Freddie, who were given more than AIG, GM, and Chrysler combined
"The total amount invested in Fannie and Freddie so far is $145 billion. They have returned none of the money invested so far—and might never do so.

The Treasury has been earning a return on its investments. So far Fannie and Freddie have paid $10 billion in dividends to the Treasury."

On the daily scorecard, as of July 21:
Outflows 538 billion, inflows 232 billion. The taxpayers are still 316 billion in the hole.
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also as of today. Of the largest recipients:
1. Fannie Mae: received 84 billin, paid back 4 billion.
2. AIG: received 48 billion (70 billion committed), paid back $0.
3. Freddie MAC: received 61 billion, paid back 6 billion.
4. GM: received 51 billion, 7 billion paid back + 553 million revenue to govt.
5. Bank of America: received 45 billion. Paid back in full + 5 billion profit to govt.
6. Citigroup: received 45 billion, 31 billion paid back + 3 billion revenue to govt.
7. JP Morgan Chase: received 25 billion. Paid back in full + 2 billion profit to govt.
8. Wells Fargo: received 25 billion. Paid back in full + 2 billion profit to govt.
9. GMAC: received 16 billion, 1 billion returned.
10.Chrysler: received 11 billion (13 billion committed). paid back 2 billion + 86 million revenue to govt.

Database of all 836 recipients:
http://bailout.propublica.org/list" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have a probalem with a bailout to the banks, as its mostly been paid back back in full (3 of the 4 largest banks) with profit on top of that for the taxpayers.

I do have a problem with the Fannie and Freddie bailouts (wouldn't have IF they were accompanied by SERIOUS reform). Have a problem with the AIG, GM, and Chrysler bailouts, as much of that is $ the taxpayers will never get back, and with GM and Chrysler, bankruptcy precedent was ignored and the unsecured creditors (including the unions) were given precedent over the secured creditors.

I actually wasn't aware that TARP money was used in the bailout of Fannie and Freddie so I didn't include it. Yes, Fannie and Freddie are and will be huge albatrosses around this economy for sometime to come as they were ground zero of the housing mess that helped usher in this whole recession (others were involved, of course, but this played a big part).

[dbackjon]

And TARP is the oft quoted reason for the Tea Party...

[GannonFan]

And TARP is the oft quoted reason for the Tea Party...

Well, to be fair, it's not like this administration is going out of their way to trumpet the success of the TARP program - more often than not you hear them talk about the Wall Street Bailout and how much it hurt taxpayers without mentioning that the Wall Street part of it was basically paid back in full with interest. The administration is basically a victim of their own descent to populist rancor when they do stuff like that and then find themselves under assault from movements like the Tea Party for that and continual spending sprees (and remember, the Tea Party stuff really got momentum during the Health Care debate/debacle of last year - again, something the current administration initiated and by their floundering lasted much longer than it ever should've).

[CitadelGrad]

GF, You left off the most questionable, Fannie and Freddie, who were given more than AIG, GM, and Chrysler combined
"The total amount invested in Fannie and Freddie so far is $145 billion. They have returned none of the money invested so far—and might never do so.

The Treasury has been earning a return on its investments. So far Fannie and Freddie have paid $10 billion in dividends to the Treasury."

On the daily scorecard, as of July 21:
Outflows 538 billion, inflows 232 billion. The taxpayers are still 316 billion in the hole.
http://bailout.propublica.org/main/summary" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also as of today. Of the largest recipients:
1. Fannie Mae: received 84 billin, paid back 4 billion.
2. AIG: received 48 billion (70 billion committed), paid back $0.
3. Freddie MAC: received 61 billion, paid back 6 billion.
4. GM: received 51 billion, 7 billion paid back + 553 million revenue to govt.
5. Bank of America: received 45 billion. Paid back in full + 5 billion profit to govt.
6. Citigroup: received 45 billion, 31 billion paid back + 3 billion revenue to govt.
7. JP Morgan Chase: received 25 billion. Paid back in full + 2 billion profit to govt.
8. Wells Fargo: received 25 billion. Paid back in full + 2 billion profit to govt.
9. GMAC: received 16 billion, 1 billion returned.
10.Chrysler: received 11 billion (13 billion committed). paid back 2 billion + 86 million revenue to govt.

Database of all 836 recipients:
http://bailout.propublica.org/list" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't have a probalem with a bailout to the banks, as its mostly been paid back back in full (3 of the 4 largest banks) with profit on top of that for the taxpayers.

I do have a problem with the Fannie and Freddie bailouts (wouldn't have IF they were accompanied by SERIOUS reform). Have a problem with the AIG, GM, and Chrysler bailouts, as much of that is $ the taxpayers will never get back, and with GM and Chrysler, bankruptcy precedent was ignored and the unsecured creditors (including the unions) were given precedent over the secured creditors.

I actually wasn't aware that TARP money was used in the bailout of Fannie and Freddie so I didn't include it. Yes, Fannie and Freddie are and will be huge albatrosses around this economy for sometime to come as they were ground zero of the housing mess that helped usher in this whole recession (others were involved, of course, but this played a big part).

Let's not forget that Dodd and Frank were the ones who killed any increased regulation for Fannie and Freddie, as well as quashed attempts to investigate them when it became clear that they were using "creative" accounting practices. You know, the Dodd and Frank of the recent finance bill that just happens to be named the Dodd-Frank bill.

[OSBF]

And TARP is the oft quoted reason for the Tea Party...

That's the funniest part, and what I was thinking when I started the thread. I promise you that your average tea bagger wouldn't know that TARP is microscopic in scale as compared to the S&L bailout of the 80's.

[YoUDeeMan]

And TARP is the oft quoted reason for the Tea Party...

That's the funniest part, and what I was thinking when I started the thread. I promise you that your average tea bagger wouldn't know that TARP is microscopic in scale as compared to the S&L bailout of the 80's.

And why would that matter?

You are ignoring the fact that some people don't want a bloated government that spends money by the bucketfull while bailing out their political friends.

Instead of begining with a base line of zero and building an argument of how government should spend our money, you are essentailly having that familiar hissy fit that some 5 year-old children employ when they know they are wrong..."Well, it was worse when Tony started it."

Congrats on your level of thinking.

[kalm]

BTW, since everything is now swell on Wall Street, does this mean there are no longer any toxic assets? All the bets have been paid off?