Cost for government's $700 billion financial bailout less than the $25 billion

[rdean]

Geithner Says Bailout Will Cost Less Than $25B

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The eventual cost to taxpayers for the government's $700 billion financial bailout will be less than the $25 billion price tag put on it in the latest estimate, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Thursday.

The Congressional Budget Office's most recent estimate is that taxpayers will lose $25 billion on the rescue of automakers, banks and other financial institutions undertaken at the peak of the crisis in the fall of 2008.

But Geithner told a hearing called by a congressionally appointed panel overseeing the rescue program that he thinks it will cost less than that.

"Those estimates are now around $25 billion," Geithner said. "They are too high, in my judgment. Ultimately, they'll be lower."

Measured by its final cost, he said, the bailout "will rank as one of the most effective crisis-reponse programs ever implemented."

If we had listened to Republicans, we would be in a very deep and long depression.

 

[Trajan]

Passed by 74-25 and 263-171, the exec. signed it; enacting it into law, oct 3, 2008.

I really really try hard not to do this, seriously, but you have exhausted my patience (and thats on me), you sir are a Bozo Troll, nothing more...and not a very good one at that.

 

[rdean]

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents - FoxNews.com

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.

Now what is really hilarious is that the first 8 months of any president's term is actually based on the budget of the "previous" president. Get it? The next president doesn't get to put in a new budget right away. He is stuck with the budget of the previous president for 8 months into his first year. I think that for right wingers to bash Obama based on Bush's budget is absolutely "hilarious".

 

[rdean]

Right wingers hate these posts. It makes all their "hate Obama" rhetoric go up in smoke.

 

[loosecannon]

 

[Trajan]

Obama Shatters Spending Record for First-Year Presidents - FoxNews.com

In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.

Now what is really hilarious is that the first 8 months of any president's term is actually based on the budget of the "previous" president. Get it? The next president doesn't get to put in a new budget right away. He is stuck with the budget of the previous president for 8 months into his first year. I think that for right wingers to bash Obama based on Bush's budget is absolutely "hilarious".

…the 09 truncated budget was written in year 08, however, there was no 2009 budget per se, they ran it on Continuous Resolutions, they had 51 in the senate and a maj. in the house so they could keep running it sans cloture and any way they liked, thats WHY the March 2009 Omni Bus spending bill of 410 BILLION was required ( that 8000 earmark laden pos it was to keep the gov going to the end of the fiscal year in October.

Therefore the congress who wrote that 09 budget was…..the 2007 congress. The 2006 mid terms created the 07- 2008 year congress, and he, obama and that congress added- the stimulus and the Omni bus as mentioned, cash for clunkers, and god knows what else…nice try but that is an epic fail, as usual.

 

[Revere]

Which administration is responsible for TARP?

 

[uscitizen]

McCain supported TARP, So did McConnel, Bush, etc.

they did not support it after McCain lost in 2008 though. hmmm

 

[rdean]

The bottom line is that no program supported by this administration has been supported by Republicans, the "filibuster" party.

 

[Revere]

All of Democrats' ideas are bad.

 

[william the wie]

All of Democrats' ideas are bad.

Not so much the ideas as the actual bills passed and their implementation. The Democrats have ineptitude down to a science. I think it is mostly that the various elements of their factional coalition have so little in common with each other.

 

[rdean]

All of Democrats' ideas are bad.

Not so much the ideas as the actual bills passed and their implementation. The Democrats have ineptitude down to a science. I think it is mostly that the various elements of their factional coalition have so little in common with each other.

That's because they represent "everyone else". The Republicans are 90% white and mostly Christian. Yet, look at their accomplishments. In fact, it's the Republican's "accomplishments" that have brought this country to it's knees and put us on the brink of a "Great Depression". No one can seriously argue against that.