2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSince this is coming back up: I absolutely defend the bailout
And you're an idiot if you don't.
It cost the taxpayers precisely zero (actually it made us money).
It saved the finance, insurance, and banking sectors, as well as the auto industry.
TARP was one of the best Federal programs of the last generation, and I'm sick of alleged "progressives" shitting on it.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)At the same time she voted for the bankruptcy bill that hurt women and children.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Nothing in TARP limited criminal or civil liability. What are you talking about?
(Pre-emptive: the US has given more man-years in jail than Iceland over 2008.)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)And how many actually went to jail?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)This is Orwellian, really.
Banks failed. Bankers went to jail. Dodd-Frank broke up multiple banks. You don't care. You never even bothered to learn the too big to fail banks that Dodd Frank broke up, did you?
Not surprised.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)go free. Even if you believe that they were guilty of stupidity more than malice (and I'd be willing to go along with this to a certain extent), we still should have taken steps to regulate wall street further to ensure this kind of disaster does't happen again.
Bryant
livetohike
(22,163 posts)It wasn't a joke. The economy needed the boost the bail outs provided. It saved jobs and helped propel the economy to the road to recovery.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)A simple site search will show you what you want to know.
livetohike
(22,163 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Most of us remember quite well the level of outrage at the TARP bailout, as it was being argued in Congress.
Many of our representatives on both sides of the aisle acknowledged they were receiving messages from their constituents that were running 100-to-1 AGAINST the bailout. People all over the country could see what a boondoggle it was, addressing the needs of the oligarchs while ignoring those of the rest of us.
Please try to refrain from attempting to rewrite history.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)but I do think there should have been more investigation and penalties for those who caused the financial collapse.
BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)He clearly isn't up to cleaning up a big American mess like Obama was handed in Jan. 2009. What makes you think he'd be the right guy in the next crisis?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think he's a hot mess on actual substance.
BeyondGeography
(39,379 posts)Might vote for him myself on 4/19 for the same reason.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)it most likely saved us from a deep depression.
Response to Recursion (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Response to DCBob (Reply #16)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Most would agree saving the auto industry was worth that loss.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)TARP as a whole made taxpayers money, though.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Progressives weren't as concerned about making it back on.
"Overall, the auto bailout was the one big money loser for TARP. Even with the Ally sale, taxpayers lost about $9.2 billion."
Great point.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)I suppose we shouldn't consider their foreign subsidiaries part of their company?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm open to that complaint, but it seems like a damn good program overall.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)when you start a thread by saying that everybody who doesn't agree with you is an idiot.
If you want to withdraw that comment and have an honest discussion, let me know.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)and they were not in bad financial straits, but were looking for more reasons to take jobs off shore.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)That was our chance to fix the problem and we didn't.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That said he is actually on record for the ultimate vote.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think it will be very close. That said I also thought O'Malley would break double digits in Iowa, so take that as you will.
If Sanders cannot at least convincingly place in MI, I can't see a rationale for him to continue.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Hillary will have a South Carolina like victory.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If Clinton wins convincingly in MI then Sanders can only stay on as a vanity candidate.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)choie
(4,111 posts)How about representing those of us who do not support the corporate candidate? Shouldn't we have a vote? Also, I believe Clinton didn't drop out until June. Stop with the bullshit
Recursion
(56,582 posts)choie
(4,111 posts)N:t
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Sad that people don't seem to realize we made money on the deal.
Response to Recursion (Original post)
JonLeibowitz This message was self-deleted by its author.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)for taking on the enormous risk.
That's what Warren Buffett demanded when he invested in too big to fail institutions, not the risk free rate. Why shouldn't taxpayers have done the same?
Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #38)
JonLeibowitz This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to JonLeibowitz (Reply #39)
BernieforPres2016 This message was self-deleted by its author.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)You don't lend money for risky investments at the risk free rate or anything close to it. You demand a potential return to justify the risk of taking a loss if it doesn't work out.
And no, the government can't borrow below the risk free rate. What the U.S. government pays is considered the risk free rate for any given maturity across the yield curve. See any finance textbook.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that....
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...well let's just start at the beginning.
"I absolutely defend the bailout" "And you're an idiot if you don't."
Gee, that's a swell opening for a dialogue. But of course you are not really interested in dialogue.
"It cost the taxpayers precisely zero (actually it made us money)."
Maybe technically it made "us" money. I guess it depends on who "us" is. There were an awful lot of "us" who lost big $$$ in the housing debacle, and that bill did not help us. It allowed the financial institutions to maintain their housing inventory on the books at 100cents to the dollar, even though everyone knew that was simply not an accurate representation of reality. It allowed them to retain their inflated salaries. They gave themselves huge, sometimes record-breaking bonuses -- AFTER they had almost ruined the global economy and AFTER they received bailout funds.
Had it not passed, Congress would have come up with another bill toot suite, and it likely would have been more equitable.
Agony
(2,605 posts)This was an extremely important lost opportunity. Perfect example of where shock doctrine could have been used to effect positive change if only the plutocrats were not in charge and regulatory capture the order of the day. If a plurality had acted like Sanders we would have a much more stable and robust economy and a FIRE sector that was not a liability like it is now. Now, we are just getting set up for the next thrashing by the financial wizards and masters of the universe.
Cheers