Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
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%
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.
The very fact that economic advisors for Bush and Obama came to the same conclusions indicates how necessary TARP was
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
$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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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."
