Didn’t we have to borrow the money to invest in TARP? Does that 8% return take the interest on our increased debt during that time into account?

Also, wasn’t the original cost of TARP $700 billion? What happened to the other nearly $400 billion? Personally, I don’t trust any of these numbers.

So should I be seeing a check in the mail?

So W’s TARP has actually brought back a return. How about 0bama’s bailout of the UAW?

http://www.financialstability.gov/latest/pr_10052010.html

“Treasury now estimates that the total cost of TARP will be about $50 billion. In addition, using the same assumptions, Treasury estimates that the combined cost of TARP programs and other Treasury interests in AIG will be about $30 billion.”

So which is it? Did TARP earn $25.2 as Bloomberg states or did it cost $50 billion as the Treasury Department’s own report says?

It’s all funny money people.

Are you telling me that 99% of those crying about TARP didn’t actually understand it and were simply crying b/c right-wingers are mad at a Democratic doing it

This much is clear. If you agreed that TARP was necessary to stop the economy from falling over the precipice into a severe depression of credit shortage and hostile lending environment, then it was a huge success. If you believe that TARP was an necessary government foray into the private sector to save failing business models, then TARP was a massive failure. Either way, what’s most important is that TARP’s long term impact match your preconceived conclusion.

DrFunke said:
Are you telling me that 99% of those crying about TARP didn’t actually understand it and were simply crying b/c right-wingers are mad at a Democratic doing it

DrFunke, NOBODY truly understand TARP, what it has cost and what it’s true effect has been. For pete’s sake, there’s a $75 billion dollar difference between what Treasury and Bloomberg say the bill has cost. As for “right-wingers are mad at a Democratic doing it”, I’m not really sure what that even means but the TARP bill was proposed by a Republican President and passed by a Democratic Congress so this is not a partisan thing.

Let me add some clarity. First, when the savings and loans crisis happened, many people forget that at the end of the day, the government did make a profit. It took a long time to get to that point. TARP has so many parts to it, but the true picture is only known over time.

The bank bailout portion of TARP, such as Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, will likely result in a profit to the government over time. Much already paid back, more to come. This results for a number of reasons, but a simplified reason is that banks profit when the interest rate is near zero. That’s a cash cow for them. Also, their money crisis was as much because the system went a bit nutty and intense fear froze up everything. Essentially, mostly the US bank and insurance bailouts ‘loaned’ to decently-run insurance and banks that were in very rough waters.

When you get to the mortgage part, you have to wait and see. We’ve also infused billions into Freddie Mae et all to ‘prop up’ the housing mortgage rates and loans. If people pay off their loans, then the money is returned ‘evenutally’ and we might even make a profit. Time will tell. Most people pay their mortgages, and housing prices eventually stabilize.

Now, another bailout was to AIG. AIG had provided a type of ‘insurance’ for many companies, so the risk was that if AIG went down, then so fear and panic would run amok again. AIG should cause some losses, but gains elsewhere may

The bottom is that, so far, TARP itself, especially the ‘bailing out the banks’ has been very successful. If you were lucky enough to watch Siedman and Cashin on CNBC, they spoke of this at the time that the bailout to bank

Does that include Two Years of 0% Treasury borrowing for Big Bank – who then invests that money elsewhere for billions in profits and “compensation” bonuses?

Does that include the US taxpayer “backstopping” the sub-prime derivatives or the trillions in bad bank mortgages guaranteed by Fannie & Freddie?

I DIDN’T THINK SO! – So stopping spreading the mis-information!!!

Read the linked Bloomberg article. Hillary says she’s too dumb to get it, but you’re not.

Here’s one of the less rosy facts from it:

“One of those subsidies is the $350 billion that savers forgo each year because the Fed keeps interest rates near zero, according to Petzel’s calculations. While banks can borrow at close to zero from the Fed, they lend to consumers and corporations at almost 5 percent, or to the Treasury at 2.5 percent, and they get to keep the difference.

“The huge wealth transfer from fixed-income pensioners to the banks has helped the banks repay TARP,” Petzel said. ”

In other words, savers (you and me or anyone else who save their money in a bank) have been losing $350 Billion in each of the last 2 years since TARP passed – money transfered directly to the bank and on to the government.

So, you and I paid the TARP money back, not the banks.

so, uh, where’s my check?????

justanotherconservative said:
so, uh, where’s my check?????

what check?

justanotherconservative said:
so, uh, where’s my check?????

So, uh, what are ya talkin’ about????

The Real Royal Knig said:
Read the linked Bloomberg article. Hillary says she’s too dumb to get it, but you’re not. Here’s one of the less rosy facts from it: “One of those subsidies is the $350 billion that savers forgo each year because the Fed keeps interest rates near zero, according to Petzel’s calculations. While banks can borrow at close to zero from the Fed, they lend to consumers and corporations at almost 5 percent, or to the Treasury at 2.5 percent, and they get to keep the difference. “The huge wealth transfer from fixed-income pensioners to the banks has helped the banks repay TARP,” Petzel said. ” In other words, savers (you and me or anyone else who save their money in a bank) have been losing $350 Billion in each of the last 2 years since TARP passed – money transfered directly to the bank and on to the government. So, you and I paid the TARP money back, not the banks.

Refution anyone?

So Bush was right to sign TARP into law? Can’t have it both ways, lefties. Too funny…

I’m more interested in how this story made it to Mediaite, since I’m missing the “media” angle.

From the headline, it looks more like a political advocacy piece designed to solely to troll commenters and/or drive traffic to Bloomberg.

But at least you shoehorned a Glenn Beck reference in there!

Hey, where’s the report about Maddow’s claim that a republican congressman had prior knowledge to the Oklahoma City bombings and did nothing to stop it?

That was Monday.

“In 1994, in the first mid-term election after the last Democratic president was elected, we got a slate of candidates that included Helen Chenoweth of Idaho and Steve Stockman of Texas. These two were so close to the militia movement in this country that Mr. Stockman actually received advance notice that the Oklahoma City bombing was going to happen.”

This is a false accusation.

Will Mediaite go against their MSNBC boss and report that? Did I miss that?

DrFunke said:
Are you telling me that 99% of those crying about TARP didn’t actually understand it and were simply crying b/c right-wingers are mad at a Democratic doing it

I thought Bush was a Republican when he signed TARP.

So the TARP wasn’t as bad as we thought. Do you mean the bailout that George Bush pushed through? I bet Obama tries to takes credit for the TARP bailout during the 2012 election cycle.

Now let’s see what the results are for the $800 billion stimulus bill that Obama did push through.

I agree with you Royal.

In addition, the TARP saved banks that should have failed. Now the wall street banks are even bigger. Those in the financial industry cannot imagine the economy functioning without the current system of the FED and large wall st banks. If the banks had been allowed to fail, the stock markets and downturn would have seen a much greater crisis, and the market crash would have been worse. It would have been a real panic. But something better would have come out of the ashes. But the only way to truly restructure a rotten system is to let it burn to the ground.

If the large banks had been allowed to go bust, mid-sized and small banks could have picked up their trash loans and assets for pennies on the dollar. They would have been more than happy to reduce mortgage principles and still made a killing. The house prices would have cratered to prices so low, people would actually be able to afford houses and the houses would start selling again. People whose whole lives are embroiled in the financial industry like the FED and Treasury department can only imagine how horrible this would have been, but thats the only way true change can come. All they have done is continue to prop up a house of cards. The longer its propped up, the worse the next crash will be. The next crash, who knows when, 2, 5, 10 years from now, will be really ugly.

kenm said:
Also, wasn’t the original cost of TARP $700 billion? What happened to the other nearly $400 billion? Personally, I don’t trust any of these numbers.

It’s common knowledge that not all of the funds secured for TARP were used/spent. Don’t distrust something just because it doesn’t conform to your views or beliefs. Take some initiative and get informed first, make up your mind second.

“Yet Democrats are struggling to turn those gains into political capital, and the indirect costs of propping up banks could have longer-term consequences for the economy.”

Of course the Dems are having trouble capitalizing on TARP because it was started by the Bush Administration. They followed up with the Stimulus Bill which hasn’t done what was promised.

So, George Bush, the man who personally (without any help from the Democratic House or Democratic Senate, in-place since January, 2007) signed the TARP bill we should be thanking for this abundance of riches, this 8.2% return on PART of the funds?!

Funny, there are a lot of Democrats saying George Bush could do nothing right – maybe we should let them know about this.

But first, shouldn’t we let TARP run it’s course and then trumpet the complete, actual final results – but, don’t forget the $350BN in lost interest that weren’t paid each of the last two years.

I realize you took a flier on on the “gobbled-hook and financial terms”, but I suggest you skip right to the bottom of the bloomberg article you linked to… Go ahead, I’ll wait.

BTW, did then-Senator Obama even vote on TARP? Shame Congress doesn’t have the ability vote “Present”

Oh, it seems then-Senator Obama DID stop by to vote on TARP. He voted “For” the TARP bailout:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00212

IF… we get “our” money back!