Tarp - not as expensive as projected

Tarp - not as expensive as projected (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/7/2009 8:42:39 PM)
Estimated TARP Cost Is Cut by $200 Billion DECEMBER 7, 2009 WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration, buoyed by a resurgent Wall Street, plans to cut the projected long-term cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program by more than $200 billion, in a move that could smooth the way for the introduction of a new jobs program. The White House and leaders in Congress are debating whether to use any of the remaining TARP funds for other domestic efforts, such as a jobs bill. Congress authorized $700 billion for the program during the height of the financial crisis. The Treasury now estimates that over the next 10 years TARP will cost $141 billion at most, down from the $341 billion the White House projected in August. The reduction stems in large part from faster-than-expected repayments by some of the nation's largest banks, as well as less spending on programs to help shore up the financial sector. The government's efforts appear to have helped stabilize the financial sector, and banks have already repaid the Treasury about $70 billion. Bank of America Corp. has said it will return its $45 billion investment as early as this week, and the government now expects total repayments to reach as much as $175 billion by the end of next year. Altogether, it invested $204 billion in 690 firms. The Treasury has also collected more than $10 billion in interest and dividend payments from firms in which it has invested. ............... and true to partisan form President Barack Obama is expected to raise the idea of using repaid TARP funds for a jobs bill in a speech he plans to give on Tuesday. On Friday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged that repaid bailout money is "certainly being looked at" for a jobs bill. Many Republicans are opposed to recycling TARP funds for a jobs bill, calling instead for the money to go toward reducing the deficit. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R., Ohio), on Bloomberg television Friday, called it "the worst idea" he had ever heard.

DarkSteven -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/7/2009 9:31:19 PM)
This pisses me off. Congress voted for TARP (over taxpayers' strident objections) for $700 bil for TARP. Now they are claiming that it's free money. Bullshit! It was taken unwillingly from the taxpayers. It's taxation without representation OR justification! Deficit reduction isn't as good as not taking the money in the first place. But it's the next most appropriate use of it.

tazzygirl -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/7/2009 9:40:48 PM)
So we take the 200 billion and apply it to the deficit of... 11 trillion. Or we take the money and attempt to stimulate job growth. Any other options?

AnimusRex -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/7/2009 9:50:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So we take the 200 billion and apply it to the deficit of... 11 trillion. Or we take the money and attempt to stimulate job growth. Any other options? My checking account could use a lift.

tazzygirl -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/7/2009 9:52:59 PM)
With that kind of lift, you will be beating the girls off! ~grins

spragueA -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/7/2009 9:53:58 PM)
Do you have a URL link available so I can read more on this subject, please?

tazzygirl -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/7/2009 9:55:18 PM)
The link is on the first post... click on the heading of the article.

popeye1250 -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/7/2009 10:00:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl So we take the 200 billion and apply it to the deficit of... 11 trillion. Or we take the money and attempt to stimulate job growth. Any other options? My checking account could use a lift. Yeah, how's about a "TARP" for the Taxpayers? That would help out the economy greatly!

spragueA -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/7/2009 10:01:43 PM)
Thank you, tazzy!

Silence8 -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/7/2009 10:02:00 PM)
I'm a little unclear on how the 700 billion was originally going to be allocated, spent. Anyone care to explain? So the banks basically ask for some amount of money, and it's lent to them at, what, no interest?

Fellow -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/8/2009 1:00:41 AM)
The major banks are still zombies. They are allowed to use accounting tricks to hide non-performing assets (derivatives). The big hurry to pay back bailout money is for removing the restrictions from the size of year-end bonuses (not sure but I guess so). US goes down if nothing will be done soon to get rid of this parasitism.

UncleNasty -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/8/2009 7:32:02 PM)
This is akin to Blondie telling Dagwood she saved money because Tudbury's was having a sale. Another indication of the quality folks we have taking care of us. Uncle

DarkSteven -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/8/2009 7:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow The major banks are still zombies. They are allowed to use accounting tricks to hide non-performing assets (derivatives). The big hurry to pay back bailout money is for removing the restrictions from the size of year-end bonuses (not sure but I guess so). US goes down if nothing will be done soon to get rid of this parasitism. Exactly. Part of the problem is that the basic problem - permitting the banks to create crap derivatives with no real valuations and ignored risk factors - has not been addressed. Part of the problem is that the money was handed to them with no strings attached - so they are still not lending, which was the idea behind the bailout in the first place. My ideas are: 1. Indict the banks' CEOs for fraud if their banks sold derivatives while claiming that they had value. 2. Have local governments seize foreclosed houses that have not sold after six months in the banks' hands and sell them at auction. Subtract the auction costs from the sale price and remit to the banks, and explain that their nonperforming assets just got valued. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have been ridiculously loose with taxpayer money to bail out crooks...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/8/2009 7:41:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow The major banks are still zombies. They are allowed to use accounting tricks to hide non-performing assets (derivatives). The big hurry to pay back bailout money is for removing the restrictions from the size of year-end bonuses (not sure but I guess so). US goes down if nothing will be done soon to get rid of this parasitism. Exactly. Part of the problem is that the basic problem - permitting the banks to create crap derivatives with no real valuations and ignored risk factors - has not been addressed. Part of the problem is that the money was handed to them with no strings attached - so they are still not lending, which was the idea behind the bailout in the first place. My ideas are: 1. Indict the banks' CEOs for fraud if their banks sold derivatives while claiming that they had value. 2. Have local governments seize foreclosed houses that have not sold after six months in the banks' hands and sell them at auction. Subtract the auction costs from the sale price and remit to the banks, and explain that their nonperforming assets just got valued. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have been ridiculously loose with taxpayer money to bail out crooks... I asked Tazzy and she couldnt respond, maybe you can. Why arent they lending?

slvemike4u -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/8/2009 7:58:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl With that kind of lift, you will be beating the girls off! ~grins Bullshit...with that kind of money ,the least the girls can do is beat me off !

pahunkboy -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/8/2009 8:22:49 PM)
The fed wants to pull 1.5 tril out of the economy as early as 1-1-10. New bank rules go into effect. 125% collateral. The FDIC will be disbanded by end 2010. A currency devaluation is set for 2010- probably 3 $ for a new one. Buy GOLD/Silver. My source is Bob Chapman.

tazzygirl -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/8/2009 8:27:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow The major banks are still zombies. They are allowed to use accounting tricks to hide non-performing assets (derivatives). The big hurry to pay back bailout money is for removing the restrictions from the size of year-end bonuses (not sure but I guess so). US goes down if nothing will be done soon to get rid of this parasitism. Exactly. Part of the problem is that the basic problem - permitting the banks to create crap derivatives with no real valuations and ignored risk factors - has not been addressed. Part of the problem is that the money was handed to them with no strings attached - so they are still not lending, which was the idea behind the bailout in the first place. My ideas are: 1. Indict the banks' CEOs for fraud if their banks sold derivatives while claiming that they had value. 2. Have local governments seize foreclosed houses that have not sold after six months in the banks' hands and sell them at auction. Subtract the auction costs from the sale price and remit to the banks, and explain that their nonperforming assets just got valued. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have been ridiculously loose with taxpayer money to bail out crooks... I asked Tazzy and she couldnt respond, maybe you can. Why arent they lending? I did respond. Go look again. Not my fault you didnt like the answer.

DarkSteven -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/8/2009 8:37:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I asked Tazzy and she couldnt respond, maybe you can. Why arent they lending? Why should they? Speculative investments pay much better if the downside to them is a bailout. Heads the banks win, tails the taxpayers lose. Lending pays only the spread between the cost of money and the prevailing loan rates. The core problem is that lending is not that profitable. Chicanery such as subprime loans while ignoring risk are much more profitable. We actually have a free market problem in that the best use of the money for the bank is NOT the one that benefits society (lending), The lending function is vital to the economy, but speculation is more profitable.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/9/2009 11:48:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy The fed wants to pull 1.5 tril out of the economy as early as 1-1-10. New bank rules go into effect. 125% collateral. The FDIC will be disbanded by end 2010. A currency devaluation is set for 2010- probably 3 $ for a new one. Buy GOLD/Silver. My source is Bob Chapman. Is he a comedian?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Tarp - not as expensive as projected (12/9/2009 11:52:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I asked Tazzy and she couldnt respond, maybe you can. Why arent they lending? Why should they? Speculative investments pay much better if the downside to them is a bailout. Heads the banks win, tails the taxpayers lose. Lending pays only the spread between the cost of money and the prevailing loan rates. The core problem is that lending is not that profitable. Chicanery such as subprime loans while ignoring risk are much more profitable. We actually have a free market problem in that the best use of the money for the bank is NOT the one that benefits society (lending), The lending function is vital to the economy, but speculation is more profitable. Gosh where did they ever get the idea that they could be bailed out if speculative investments fail?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875