Did TARP save America???

[loosecannon]

The TARP program did what it was supposed to do. The problem is Obama added the bloated STIMULUS program on top of it and shoved the wildly unpopular ObamaCare down our throats. Democrats will be severely punished.

Most of the Obamabots fail to realize that if indeed the TARP has been completely repaid then the deficit Obama inherited from Bush is only about $600 billion, which Obama added another $1.1 trillion to since taking office.

 

[loosecannon]

Of course we can know. We can use the lessons of history - and look at what happened around the world back over centuries of financial failures. And when you look at what happens when one bank, with no international reach, collapses.... and then factor in the links from bank to bank, from bank to business, from bank to ordinary people..... you can see what would have happened. It would have been far, far, far worse than it is. Ask any economist - anywhere in the world.

that is all conjecture, and the status of our financial system in 2007 really is remarkably different from any other example in history.

You simply have no real idea, just a guess.

It's a guess well based in reality. Maybe at the last minute it would have all worked out...

But smart money would be that without the bail out from TARP, the banks would have failed. First the small ones, then a large bank like Citi, then the whole ball of wax. Once that happened the FDIC is on the hook for an enormous amount of money and business credit lines just evaporate.

Once that had happened you'd have seen a total collapse.

The banking system is vital to the economic engine. Tarp saved that.

and yet we have pretty much been surviving without a banking system ever since. At least without a functioning commercial banking system.

Smart money failed to see the disaster looming, go figure.

 

[Sallow]

The TARP program did what it was supposed to do. The problem is Obama added the bloated STIMULUS program on top of it and shoved the wildly unpopular ObamaCare down our throats. Democrats will be severely punished.

Most of the Obamabots fail to realize that if indeed the TARP has been completely repaid then the deficit Obama inherited from Bush is only about $600 billion, which Obama added another $1.1 trillion to since taking office.

Maybe..

Or maybe the Obama administration started factoring in the costs of two wars into the budget instead of having it as "Supplemental spending".

Those were inherited too..along with Medicare part D and the Homeland Security Department.

 

[rightwinger]

IMO, it saved us from a world wide depression.

One thing Bush got right...

When historians write the history of this era, the Bush generated TARP bailouts may be the one thing that saves him from being considered the worst President in history.

Well that..and aid to Africa..and the whole declaration of protected seas near hawaii. Also, as far as we know, he didn't show up to the job ranting about Jews and drunk like Grant did..

History will still have to weigh in on the Bush presidency. So far it has him number 5 from the bottom (39th)

He still has to answer for Afghanistan and Iraq and how he executed them. History will not look approvingly at his decision to attack Iraq. His brave decision to surge troop strength saved his butt in terms of a collapsed Iraq. Wars that go on for over ten years do not help you though.

In the economy, Bush will take the role of Nero (or Hoover)fiddling while the economy collapsed around him. TARP may have salvaged his presidency

 

[loosecannon]

The TARP program did what it was supposed to do. The problem is Obama added the bloated STIMULUS program on top of it and shoved the wildly unpopular ObamaCare down our throats. Democrats will be severely punished.

Most of the Obamabots fail to realize that if indeed the TARP has been completely repaid then the deficit Obama inherited from Bush is only about $600 billion, which Obama added another $1.1 trillion to since taking office.

Maybe..

Or maybe the Obama administration started factoring in the costs of two wars into the budget instead of having it as "Supplemental spending".

Those were inherited too..along with Medicare part D and the Homeland Security Department.

except, no, the $1.1 trillion is known to have come from the stimulus and the monies set aside in advance for the new health care bill.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course we can know. We can use the lessons of history - and look at what happened around the world back over centuries of financial failures. And when you look at what happens when one bank, with no international reach, collapses.... and then factor in the links from bank to bank, from bank to business, from bank to ordinary people..... you can see what would have happened. It would have been far, far, far worse than it is. Ask any economist - anywhere in the world.

that is all conjecture, and the status of our financial system in 2007 really is remarkably different from any other example in history.

You simply have no real idea, just a guess.

We can learn from history. That's why we study history - those who do not are doomed to repeat past mistakes. I work with some incredibly smart economists, independent - with no political agenda. It is unusual for academics to agree but every single one that I've talked to about the global meltdown has said the same thing. If we had not bailed out the banks, then not just the majority of Americans, but the majority of ordinary citizens across the western world, would be on the brink of ruin.... and many of us would be ruined. And, after we'd collapsed, the poor countries would have collapsed behind us. You think things are bad now.... You should be thanking the US Government for TARP. It saved most of us from far, far worse. Personally, I think the medicine may be distasteful, but it is better than the disease.

The very fact that economic advisors for Bush and Obama came to the same conclusions indicates how necessary TARP was. The banks and auto industry cannot be allowed to fail. No matter which side of the political spectrum you were on, you drew the same conclusion.

This was not about politics, it was about preventing an economic catastrophe

 

[Avorysuds]

that is all conjecture, and the status of our financial system in 2007 really is remarkably different from any other example in history.

You simply have no real idea, just a guess.

It's a guess well based in reality. Maybe at the last minute it would have all worked out...

But smart money would be that without the bail out from TARP, the banks would have failed. First the small ones, then a large bank like Citi, then the whole ball of wax. Once that happened the FDIC is on the hook for an enormous amount of money and business credit lines just evaporate.

Once that had happened you'd have seen a total collapse.

The banking system is vital to the economic engine. Tarp saved that.

Like a line of dominos, once the major banks collapsed they would have brought the entire financial sector and our economy down with it. Same goes for the auto indistry

By passing TARP, Bush and Obama prevented a financial collapse on the global market. If you think 9.5% unemployment is bad....we would have seen 25%

UE is around 18% or more now... Instead of a collapse and a healing process we just have a slow decay that shows 9.7% UE because of the retarded way the Government goes about measuring UE rates.

The idea is simple, Bush and Obama want to float the economy into the next bubble as a way to bring us out of the recession. Problem is the US has more debt and less saving than ever before, can we even do another bubble with no savings? Why do you think they give banks money and then try and force them to lend? Who can barrow when they don’t have a job or their job might not be here in a few months or hours get cut?

Think about it, if UE% stays the same every month that can only mean the overall UE rate is going up being people have to be becoming un-employed as fast as people are dropping of the measurement system used to find UE.
.

 

[Sallow]

Most of the Obamabots fail to realize that if indeed the TARP has been completely repaid then the deficit Obama inherited from Bush is only about $600 billion, which Obama added another $1.1 trillion to since taking office.

Maybe..

Or maybe the Obama administration started factoring in the costs of two wars into the budget instead of having it as "Supplemental spending".

Those were inherited too..along with Medicare part D and the Homeland Security Department.

except, no, the $1.1 trillion is known to have come from the stimulus and the monies set aside in advance for the new health care bill.

Except the stimulus package came in at about 750 billion dollars and was mostly tax breaks for business. And over the long term..the health care package will save money for the country.

Sooo..we are back to the two wars, medicare part D and Homeland Security.

Gifts that will keep on giving.

 

[loosecannon]

The very fact that economic advisors for Bush and Obama came to the same conclusions indicates how necessary TARP was

huh? I would think just the opposite! After all the dems and repubs caused this recession!

 

[loosecannon]

Maybe..

Or maybe the Obama administration started factoring in the costs of two wars into the budget instead of having it as "Supplemental spending".

Those were inherited too..along with Medicare part D and the Homeland Security Department.

except, no, the $1.1 trillion is known to have come from the stimulus and the monies set aside in advance for the new health care bill.

Except the stimulus package came in at about 750 billion dollars and was mostly tax breaks for business. And over the long term..the health care package will save money for the country.

Sooo..we are back to the two wars, medicare part D and Homeland Security.

Gifts that will keep on giving.

you don't get it, the costs for the war in Iraq still contributed to the deficit under Bush, just not to the published budget, and those costs can't be responsible for increasing the deficit unless OBAMA increased spending in Iraqistan.

And Obama's first budget did indeed feature a $350 billion downpayment on the looming health care plan.

And don't make me laugh by saying it will save money, seriously, save that for people who will believe anything.

 

[California Girl]

that is all conjecture, and the status of our financial system in 2007 really is remarkably different from any other example in history.

You simply have no real idea, just a guess.

We can learn from history. That's why we study history - those who do not are doomed to repeat past mistakes. I work with some incredibly smart economists, independent - with no political agenda. It is unusual for academics to agree but every single one that I've talked to about the global meltdown has said the same thing. If we had not bailed out the banks, then not just the majority of Americans, but the majority of ordinary citizens across the western world, would be on the brink of ruin.... and many of us would be ruined. And, after we'd collapsed, the poor countries would have collapsed behind us. You think things are bad now.... You should be thanking the US Government for TARP. It saved most of us from far, far worse. Personally, I think the medicine may be distasteful, but it is better than the disease.

the banks just love to see you carrying their water.

The fact is, we simply can not know. Today's example is not comparable to anything else in history.

In fact it was a misdiagnoses of the Great Depression that resulted in our failed stimulus today.

You carry on pretending, if it makes you feel better. I'm not 'carrying the water' for the banks. I work every day with economists - that's what I do for a living. These guys are incredibly knowledgeable about their subject.... banking. That's what they do every day, they study it, they discuss it, they throw theories around and play scenarios. Unless you do likewise, I am inclined to accept their view over yours. We don't need a like for like example.... we just need to look at the impacts of smaller, more localized collapses.... and then upscale it. It would have been literally the end of the world as we know it, and our great, great grandchildren would look back at us with contempt. I suspect they will look back at us with contempt anyway - because of the rest of the ******* stupid decisions made by this Administration but at least we didn't saddle them with that.

 

[California Girl]

The very fact that economic advisors for Bush and Obama came to the same conclusions indicates how necessary TARP was

huh? I would think just the opposite! After all the dems and repubs caused this recession!

Actually, while I agree that both parties carry a huge chunk of blame, let's be real about the whole thing. It was not just politicians, it was the banks, business, and 'we, the people'. Everyone who borrowed more than they could afford, the Unions and groups like Acorn for forcing banks to lend to people who could not afford to borrow, and those to took those loans, and those of us who overspent on credit. There's plenty of blame to go around. We can't go on pretending it was 'the other guy'. We all did it.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

and yet we have pretty much been surviving without a banking system ever since. At least without a functioning commercial banking system.

Smart money failed to see the disaster looming, go figure.

What world are you living in? The banks still work, credit is still available. It's tighter than before, but it's still there. And TARP helped make that happen.

Part of what made the Great Depression, well, Great, is that the Feds let the banks collapse. A large number of folks lost their entire life savings and businesses were suddenly cut off from money they need to stay open.

Once banking collapses, that's just about it. Investment money stops flowing, personal wealth dissapears and the whole system shuts down.

 

[Avorysuds]

Maybe..

Or maybe the Obama administration started factoring in the costs of two wars into the budget instead of having it as "Supplemental spending".

Those were inherited too..along with Medicare part D and the Homeland Security Department.

except, no, the $1.1 trillion is known to have come from the stimulus and the monies set aside in advance for the new health care bill.

Except the stimulus package came in at about 750 billion dollars and was mostly tax breaks for business. And over the long term..the health care package will save money for the country.

Sooo..we are back to the two wars, medicare part D and Homeland Security.

Gifts that will keep on giving.

Define "tax breaks".... because "tax credits" are deficit building, not to mention unfair and near pure evil. I can buy a wood burning stove here in Eugene Oregon at around 2,500$... Oh did I mention the 1,500$ tax credit on a federal level and I THINK it was 300$ tax credit on a State level? Gee, I wonder how fair that is to other small business's out there that didn't get a 1,500 tax credit.

Wood Stove Pellet Stove $1,500 Tax Credit Info Federal tax credit

Tax Credit for Wood Stove Buyers in Oregon :  | Wise Heat Up to 300$ on Oregon state tax credit!!

Man it would be sweet to do work for someone and be able to tell them 2/3erds of their bill was covered by the Government! To bad only a few business get them, I wonder how that happened????

 

[Dr.Traveler]

History will still have to weigh in on the Bush presidency. So far it has him number 5 from the bottom (39th)

He still has to answer for Afghanistan and Iraq and how he executed them. History will not look approvingly at his decision to attack Iraq. His brave decision to surge troop strength saved his butt in terms of a collapsed Iraq. Wars that go on for over ten years do not help you though.

In the economy, Bush will take the role of Nero (or Hoover)fiddling while the economy collapsed around him. TARP may have salvaged his presidency

He'll finish up better than that if Iraq really does hold together. If it collapses, he could end up staying there in the bottom 10.

 

[Dick Tuck]

The TARP program did what it was supposed to do. The problem is Obama added the bloated STIMULUS program on top of it and shoved the wildly unpopular ObamaCare down our throats. Democrats will be severely punished.

I love this level of cognitive dissonance. On one hand it's bloated, and on the other hand it didn't do enough to keep unemployment below 8%. It can't be both. Was the tax cut to the middle and lower income brackets bloat? Was the money spent to help people refinance their predatory loans into fixed 30 year mortgages bloat? Would not doing that, and allowing the foreclosure rates to continue to rise be preferable? I've just read a story about how banks are getting a second hit by paying the additional overhead associated from foreclosure.

You must be confused.

TARP was originally passed about two years ago with Bi-partisan support as a $700 Billion program - of which only about $387 billion was actually invested. It is a completely different program than the Obama Stimulus. It was a successful program.

I'm not the one who's confused, since I was responding directly to the cognitive dissonant quip you made about the "bloated stimulus."

The Stimulus ( The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) was an $800 Billion slush fund that passed the House without one Republican vote and with only 3 RINO votes in the Senate (Collins, Snow and Specter) long after we had already stabilized the system. It was unnecessary and wasteful spending -- and that is what is pissing people off.

Be sure to launch a nice campaign to toss Collins and Snow[sic] overboard. The system was not stabilized in Feb 2009, when the Stimulus passed. And also, what good is being stable at the bottom of an economic trough? The idea was to regrow the economy to pre-recession levels.

$6.1 trillion, that's how much money the federal government has spent in just the first 18 months of the Obama presidency. Washington is spending $7 million every minute of every hour of every day.

You know that's bullshit. The federal goverment didn't spend $6.1 trillion in Obama's first 18 months. Do you not know the difference between spend and obligate over 10 years? Do you not understand that those obligations have offsetting revenue associated with them?

There's only one way to feed that kind of destructive spending - more of your tax dollars. And that's exactly what Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House are talking about. That is why we are going to bounce them on their asses in 28 days.

Yep, a few Democrats are going to be tossed out on their asses because the public buys the blatant exaggerations, outright lies, and lies of omission like you just tried to peddle. It would be great if the public weren't as clueless as they seem to be, but as they say, "Democracy sucks, but everything else sucks worse."

 

[Dick Tuck]

It was bad for America... Someone would have come in behind and bought up the banks. I believe it might have been possible to avoid the entire housing bubble bust if there were no bail outs.

The problem is every time something like this happens Government comes in and gives rich money and liberal that hate rich people cheer.

Here is a question, what WOULD have happened if banks failed? Go ahead, tell us and try not to leave it at one word "depression" mainly because we might hit one anyways. What would have happened to someone with 1 mil in debt to a bank that just folded?

Considering that the right was screeching "socialism" when Obama converted the preferred shares to voting common shares, the tea baggers would have started an armed insurrection if he took over the banks.

 

[Avorysuds]

It was bad for America... Someone would have come in behind and bought up the banks. I believe it might have been possible to avoid the entire housing bubble bust if there were no bail outs.

The problem is every time something like this happens Government comes in and gives rich money and liberal that hate rich people cheer.

Here is a question, what WOULD have happened if banks failed? Go ahead, tell us and try not to leave it at one word "depression" mainly because we might hit one anyways. What would have happened to someone with 1 mil in debt to a bank that just folded?

Considering that the right was screeching "socialism" when Obama converted the preferred shares to voting common shares, the tea baggers would have started an armed insurrection if he took over the banks.

I'm sorry, is that your answer to what would have happened if we let the banks fail?

 

[Dick Tuck]

It was bad for America... Someone would have come in behind and bought up the banks. I believe it might have been possible to avoid the entire housing bubble bust if there were no bail outs.

The problem is every time something like this happens Government comes in and gives rich money and liberal that hate rich people cheer.

Here is a question, what WOULD have happened if banks failed? Go ahead, tell us and try not to leave it at one word "depression" mainly because we might hit one anyways. What would have happened to someone with 1 mil in debt to a bank that just folded?

Considering that the right was screeching "socialism" when Obama converted the preferred shares to voting common shares, the tea baggers would have started an armed insurrection if he took over the banks.

I'm sorry, is that your answer to what would have happened if we let the banks fail?

No, that's my answer to what would have happened if there was a government take-over of the banks. I've already given my position that if we had allowed the banks to fail, we'd by in a full scale major depression.

No one on the face of the earth would have been able to purchase the major banks, except a government, if nothing were done. Where would they get that kind of major financing? From the failing major banks?

 

[Zander]

I love this level of cognitive dissonance. On one hand it's bloated, and on the other hand it didn't do enough to keep unemployment below 8%. It can't be both. Was the tax cut to the middle and lower income brackets bloat? Was the money spent to help people refinance their predatory loans into fixed 30 year mortgages bloat? Would not doing that, and allowing the foreclosure rates to continue to rise be preferable? I've just read a story about how banks are getting a second hit by paying the additional overhead associated from foreclosure.

You must be confused.

TARP was originally passed about two years ago with Bi-partisan support as a $700 Billion program - of which only about $387 billion was actually invested. It is a completely different program than the Obama Stimulus. It was a successful program.

I'm not the one who's confused, since I was responding directly to the cognitive dissonant quip you made about the "bloated stimulus."



Be sure to launch a nice campaign to toss Collins and Snow[sic] overboard. The system was not stabilized in Feb 2009, when the Stimulus passed. And also, what good is being stable at the bottom of an economic trough? The idea was to regrow the economy to pre-recession levels.

$6.1 trillion, that's how much money the federal government has spent in just the first 18 months of the Obama presidency. Washington is spending $7 million every minute of every hour of every day.

You know that's bullshit. The federal goverment didn't spend $6.1 trillion in Obama's first 18 months. Do you not know the difference between spend and obligate over 10 years? Do you not understand that those obligations have offsetting revenue associated with them?

There's only one way to feed that kind of destructive spending - more of your tax dollars. And that's exactly what Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the White House are talking about. That is why we are going to bounce them on their asses in 28 days.

Yep, a few Democrats are going to be tossed out on their asses because the public buys the blatant exaggerations, outright lies, and lies of omission like you just tried to peddle. It would be great if the public weren't as clueless as they seem to be, but as they say, "Democracy sucks, but everything else sucks worse."

You are still confused pal.

There is no cognitive dissonance - except maybe in your own twisted head. The TARP (which passed on October 3, 2008) was a completely separate program. It stabilized the banking system and was passed with bi-partisan support. It was a stand alone program designed to stabilize the banking system. That is what it did.

The Obama"Stimulus" was a separate, $787 billion, bloated, piece of shit, legislation that was passed by Obama and the DEMOCRATS in February of 2009, ostensibly, to "grow the economy" by Keynesian methods. The stimulus was intended to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the recession. It promised all sorts of benefits and delivered very little except for a massive debt that will take a generation to crawl out from under.

The facts are fairly plain here Dicky , Obama spent far too much of our money and now He and his party are going to get slapped down, and slapped down HARD for that recklessness. Reid will be sent home permanently, Pelosi will no longer be the Speaker, and Obama's political capital is spent. A disaster for them, a blessing for the country. Next up - overturning ObamaCare.

Bottom line - We have a spending problem Dick, not an income problem. GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO CUT SPENDING. Leave the country alone. The economy will fix itself, get government the hell out of the way. It is not the governments job to take care of your health, or your job - it is yours. You are responsible for your own life. It is time for Big Government Democrats to put your pants on and grow the **** up.


PS - The Obama/Pelosi/Reid Stimulus did have one positive effect - It will guarantee the Republicans gain control of the House, possibly the Senate, and at least 8 more governorships across the country.