Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Library of Economics & Liberty)   One of the big bailouts from a few years back was TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The final accounting is in and you, the taxpayer, lost $68 billion. Individually, you got screwed out of $227   (econlog.econlib.org ) divider line
    More: Followup, TARP, public laws, Office of Management and Budget  
•       •       •

963 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 7:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



172 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-04-17 07:06:58 AM  
Or...it was a $227 investment so that homes could be saved and people could continue to have stable and productive lives. Seems a small price to pay.
 
2014-04-17 07:09:49 AM  

SurfaceTension: Or...it was a $227 investment so that homes could be saved and people could continue to have stable and productive lives. Seems a small price to pay.


True.. though I'm sure the bankers that got the billions aren't going to complain.
 
2014-04-17 07:11:37 AM  
The TARP provided something far more valuable - a schism in the GOP between the pragmatists and the true free market believers.
 
2014-04-17 07:13:12 AM  
and how much did they lose from the clusterfark that created the need to the bail out?

or the even bigger clusterfark that would have happened had there been no bail out at all?
 
2014-04-17 07:13:53 AM  
Did it work? Then it was worth half my monthly paycheck.
 
2014-04-17 07:19:44 AM  

log_jammin: and how much did they lose from the clusterfark that created the need to the bail out?

or the even bigger clusterfark that would have happened had there been no bail out at all?


Pretty much this.  As much as I hate the idea of bailing out the same people who helped create this mess, the cost of not doing so would have been far greater.  I just wish we would remember this when the economy picks back up, and maybe pass some harsher restrictions.  We won't, because when it comes to Wall Street, both sides really are bad.
 
2014-04-17 07:20:26 AM  

Twist2005: Did it work? Then it was worth half my monthly paycheck.


No one cares if it works. It cost people money, therefore it's evil!

The preceding is the talking point of legislation regarded as Democratic.  The following would be the talking point of legislation regarded as Republican:

Well, if it didn't (and even if it did), that just means we need to spend the other half of your monthly paycheck to fix the problem!
 
2014-04-17 07:23:13 AM  

SurfaceTension: Or...it was a $227 investment so that homes could be saved and people could continue to have stable and productive lives. Seems a small price to pay.


Truth.

Though your very good point is somewhat mitigated by the facts that the folks responsible made out like bandits, will never be brought to account for what they did - and much of the structural/regulatory problems which led to it have not been closed up so it is pretty much just a matter of time before we have trouble again. Wealthy interests still run our government pretty much like a marionette.
 
2014-04-17 07:25:50 AM  
Library of Economics & Liberty sounds fancy....
 
2014-04-17 07:25:55 AM  
Whenever I think of the big banks and the crying they did to the Feds for relief, I think of the movie Primal Fear...

img.fark.net

Yeah, TARP brought us back from the precipice, but it sure feels like the perps won blanket acquittals.
 
2014-04-17 07:31:44 AM  

Tomahawk513: We won't, because when it comes to Wall Street, both sides really are bad.


And we have the attention span of goldfish
 
2014-04-17 07:33:59 AM  

mongbiohazard: SurfaceTension: Or...it was a $227 investment so that homes could be saved and people could continue to have stable and productive lives. Seems a small price to pay.

Truth.

Though your very good point is somewhat mitigated by the facts that the folks responsible made out like bandits, will never be brought to account for what they did - and much of the structural/regulatory problems which led to it have not been closed up so it is pretty much just a matter of time before we have trouble again. Wealthy interests still run our government pretty much like a marionette.


Yeah, I can't say I much disagree with that assessment.
 
2014-04-17 07:34:47 AM  
If your neighbor lit his house on fire because he had a meth lab, and in order to keep the entire neighborhood from burning down you had to loan him thousands of dollars - $227 which he defaulted on, I bet you would be clamoring for some pretty tight restrictions on this guy so he didn't try burning the neighborhood down again. How pissed would you be to find out that only a few years later, he's back to cooking meth in his house?

Same thing, except for his meth lab burns down the entire global economy.
 
2014-04-17 07:34:50 AM  
Well, now we know why it wasn't called the Fantastic Asset Investment Program.
 
2014-04-17 07:35:23 AM  
I've made a lot more than $227 in the market since then . The cost will be when the next bubble is created and then bursts. Now that we have set the precedent that the bankers will be bailed out, they will take huge risks without consequences ... for them.
 
2014-04-17 07:38:14 AM  
Let's not forget that the Library of Economics and Liberty has an agenda to push. You cannot trust their findings. They knew what the findings would be before they did the study. Then they cherry-picked the data to make them fit their view.

It'd be like asking the John Birch Society to do a study of the Obama Administration or having MoveOn.org doing a study of George W. Bush's Administration.
 
2014-04-17 07:38:30 AM  
The interesting part of that article is that the TARP bill said: "In any case where there is a shortfall, the President shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt. (emphasis mine) "

So, legally, Obama has to submit a proposal to tax the financial industry.   Any guesses whether that will happen and if it does, whether congress will actually pass it?
 
2014-04-17 07:38:45 AM  
How much would it have cost if we bailed out the homeowners directly?
 
2014-04-17 07:43:12 AM  

Wendy's Chili: How much would it have cost if we bailed out the homeowners directly?


Less.  But helping poor people is bad for the economy, or so I've been told.

So now that we've stabilized, is it time to break up to big to fail banks?
 
2014-04-17 07:47:46 AM  

SlothB77: I've made a lot more than $227 in the market since then . The cost will be when the next bubble is created and then bursts. Now that we have set the precedent that the bankers will be bailed out, they will take huge risks without consequences ... for them.


That precedent was set decades ago by Reagan/Bush I.

Savings and Loans bailout?

Hell we had bailouts even before then, but those bailouts were for "wildcat" banks which had nothing to do with the FDIC.  The same FDIC which used to have enough regulatory power and teeth to keep this shiat from happening.  Try to remember a burst bubble doesn't hurt a bank unless they were heavily invested in risky shiat.
 
2014-04-17 07:49:59 AM  

log_jammin: Tomahawk513: We won't, because when it comes to Wall Street, both sides really are bad.

And we have the attention span of goldfish


Apparently.

Which party blocked appointing Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB and pretty much all meaningful regulation of the financial system?

I don't disagree that the Democrats could be a lot better and really should have tried to hammer the Republicans on this in the press, but the GOP solution is to remove oversight from a nest of vipers in need of constant management.

BSAB equally... if you aren't paying attention.
 
2014-04-17 07:51:59 AM  

wrs1864: The interesting part of that article is that the TARP bill said: "In any case where there is a shortfall, the President shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt. (emphasis mine) "

So, legally, Obama has to submit a proposal to tax the financial industry.   Any guesses whether that will happen and if it does, whether congress will actually pass it?


Yeah, the TFAuthor really buried the lede with that one.  He was so busy crowing about how AWESOME he was for "winning his bet, look at me I am so smart, smrt just look at me" that he couldn't be bothered to revisit that point.

The fact that we should, BY LAW, be taking back some of the money the financial industry extracted and devoured from the bailout or the stimulus is an interesting fact indeed.
 
2014-04-17 07:54:12 AM  
A small price to pay to ensure JP Morgan and Capital One's executives wouldn't suffer.

Sure, they still laid off thousands of workers, didn't lower or renegotiate mortgages, but at least they were able to give their execs raises and buy out weaker banks with interest-free government money.  Well done! Mission Accomplished!
 
2014-04-17 07:55:27 AM  

SurfaceTension: mongbiohazard: SurfaceTension: Or...it was a $227 investment so that homes could be saved and people could continue to have stable and productive lives. Seems a small price to pay.

Truth.

Though your very good point is somewhat mitigated by the facts that the folks responsible made out like bandits, will never be brought to account for what they did - and much of the structural/regulatory problems which led to it have not been closed up so it is pretty much just a matter of time before we have trouble again. Wealthy interests still run our government pretty much like a marionette.

Yeah, I can't say I much disagree with that assessment.


And a similar crash will happen again in the next decade or so. Nothing was learned from this mess. Nothing.
 
2014-04-17 07:55:30 AM  

Alphax: SurfaceTension: Or...it was a $227 investment so that homes could be saved and people could continue to have stable and productive lives. Seems a small price to pay.

True.. though I'm sure the bankers that got the billions aren't going to complain.


According to the guy I worked with at Wells Fargo when we refi'ed our mortgage, the HARP mortgage refinance program was the result of the law suits following financial meltdown in 2008.  I don't know if it is true or not I am just taking the guys word for it.  If it is true then I saved far more than my $227 in the first month after refinancing under HARP.

~ Thanks Obama
 
2014-04-17 07:55:46 AM  

rzrwiresunrise: Whenever I think of the big banks and the crying they did to the Feds for relief, I think of the movie Primal Fear...

[img.fark.net image 500x200]

Yeah, TARP brought us back from the precipice, but it sure feels like the perps won blanket acquittals.



Less looting, more shooting!

/Metaphorically speaking. Jail would be okay.
 
2014-04-17 07:57:53 AM  
Subby is unaware that only the 1% paid that.
 
2014-04-17 07:58:24 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: log_jammin: Tomahawk513: We won't, because when it comes to Wall Street, both sides really are bad.

And we have the attention span of goldfish

Apparently.

Which party blocked appointing Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB and pretty much all meaningful regulation of the financial system?


Oh come on, PBS may be powerful, but it's not that powerful.
 
2014-04-17 08:00:32 AM  

Snarfangel: Crotchrocket Slim: log_jammin: Tomahawk513: We won't, because when it comes to Wall Street, both sides really are bad.

And we have the attention span of goldfish

Apparently.

Which party blocked appointing Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB and pretty much all meaningful regulation of the financial system?

Oh come on, PBS may be powerful, but it's not that powerful.


So I haven't had my coffee and I don't get the joke of this post. Need my coffee.
 
2014-04-17 08:01:32 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: log_jammin: Tomahawk513: We won't, because when it comes to Wall Street, both sides really are bad.

And we have the attention span of goldfish

Apparently.

Which party blocked appointing Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB and pretty much all meaningful regulation of the financial system?

I don't disagree that the Democrats could be a lot better and really should have tried to hammer the Republicans on this in the press, but the GOP solution is to remove oversight from a nest of vipers in need of constant management.

BSAB equally... if you aren't paying attention.


Savage behavior on their part.
 
2014-04-17 08:01:44 AM  

TheBigJerk: Yeah, the TFAuthor really buried berried the lede with that one.


sorry, pet peeve
 
2014-04-17 08:02:06 AM  

TheBigJerk: wrs1864: The interesting part of that article is that the TARP bill said: "In any case where there is a shortfall, the President shall submit a legislative proposal that recoups from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall in order to ensure that the Troubled Asset Relief Program does not add to the deficit or national debt. (emphasis mine) "

So, legally, Obama has to submit a proposal to tax the financial industry.   Any guesses whether that will happen and if it does, whether congress will actually pass it?

Yeah, the TFAuthor really buried the lede with that one.  He was so busy crowing about how AWESOME he was for "winning his bet, look at me I am so smart, smrt just look at me" that he couldn't be bothered to revisit that point.

The fact that we should, BY LAW, be taking back some of the money the financial industry extracted and devoured from the bailout or the stimulus is an interesting fact indeed.


Didn't a lot of those institutions that took TARP money and never paid it back basically declare bankruptcy and there's effectively nothing left of them?
 
2014-04-17 08:02:31 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Snarfangel: Crotchrocket Slim: log_jammin: Tomahawk513: We won't, because when it comes to Wall Street, both sides really are bad.

And we have the attention span of goldfish

Apparently.

Which party blocked appointing Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB and pretty much all meaningful regulation of the financial system?

Oh come on, PBS may be powerful, but it's not that powerful.

So I haven't had my coffee and I don't get the joke of this post. Need my coffee.


www.cpb.org
 
2014-04-17 08:03:27 AM  

Snarfangel: Crotchrocket Slim: Snarfangel: Crotchrocket Slim: log_jammin: Tomahawk513: We won't, because when it comes to Wall Street, both sides really are bad.

And we have the attention span of goldfish

Apparently.

Which party blocked appointing Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB and pretty much all meaningful regulation of the financial system?

Oh come on, PBS may be powerful, but it's not that powerful.

So I haven't had my coffee and I don't get the joke of this post. Need my coffee.

[www.cpb.org image 332x415]


lol
 
2014-04-17 08:06:14 AM  
A full blown depression would have sucked more than $227/ea Sucky Subby.
 
2014-04-17 08:08:05 AM  

mythikal03: If your neighbor lit his house on fire because he had a meth lab, and in order to keep the entire neighborhood from burning down you had to loan him thousands of dollars - $227 which he defaulted on, I bet you would be clamoring for some pretty tight restrictions on this guy so he didn't try burning the neighborhood down again. How pissed would you be to find out that only a few years later, he's back to cooking meth in his house?

Same thing, except for his meth lab burns down the entire global economy.


The Fed did somethings to firm up the financial system.   I was the subby for this article in the Business tab a couple days back.  Farkers didn't think it was a big deal but increasing reserve requirements should increase stability.  I tend to agree with the article that more could/should be done but the move does help.
 
2014-04-17 08:13:55 AM  
It never ceases to baffle me how basic math like this is never performed for expenditures like, say, our multi-trillion-dollar soiree into the middle east, which was more or less equivalent to setting forty piles of TARP money on fire for no return whatsoever.
 
hej
2014-04-17 08:17:49 AM  
That's $227 I  could have used to buy a new iPod.
 
2014-04-17 08:22:12 AM  
The math is wrong.

There are aver 300 million people in the US but not all pay federal income tax as only about 100 million returns are filed. What Subby means is that every man, woman, and child ended up on the hook for about $227, not every taxpayer. Were it only "taxpayers" the number would be about $680.
 
2014-04-17 08:24:07 AM  

Nemo's Brother: A small price to pay to ensure JP Morgan and Capital One's executives wouldn't suffer.

Sure, they still laid off thousands of workers, didn't lower or renegotiate mortgages, but at least they were able to give their execs raises and buy out weaker banks with interest-free government money.  Well done! Mission Accomplished!


So.... working as intended?
 
2014-04-17 08:28:11 AM  
Thanks, Taft.
 
2014-04-17 08:28:22 AM  
Despite recognizing that this cycle will continue, our resident potatologists will continue to vote for candidates that push for greater deregulation so that billionaires and giant corporations have the freedom to continue looting our economy until there's nothing left.
 
2014-04-17 08:28:46 AM  
Hhmmmm . . . Derpy-sounding name with "of" and "and" in John-Hancock-style font.

Something tells me this is a libertarian publication.
 
2014-04-17 08:29:38 AM  

SurfaceTension: Or...it was a $227 investment so that homes could be saved and people could continue to have stable and productive lives. Seems a small price to pay.


Damn straight.  $227 is a small price to pay to prevent the entire nation from slipping into chaos.

Although holding some of those responsible for the mess accountable would have been nice...
 
2014-04-17 08:31:01 AM  

Wendy's Chili: How much would it have cost if we bailed out the homeowners directly?


There was talk about that...

...and some weapons-grade douchenozzle working for CNBC got his jimmies rustled, which led to the Tea Party movement, which a lot of rich assholes dumped funding into, which flooded state legislatures and the House of Representatives with a bumper crop of new, inexperienced lawmakers that were entirely too willing to rubber-stamp ALEC proposals.

There's a number of people in that chain that deserve to be flensed.
 
2014-04-17 08:32:57 AM  

Xhan: It never ceases to baffle me how basic math like this is never performed for expenditures like, say, our multi-trillion-dollar soiree into the middle east, which was more or less equivalent to setting forty piles of TARP money on fire for no return whatsoever.


No return? It got us 180,000 dead Iraqis, only 2/3rds of which were civilians! That's gotta be worth something.
 
2014-04-17 08:36:14 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: The math is wrong.


There are aver 300 million people in the US but not all pay federal income tax as only about 100 million returns are filed. What Subby means is that every man, woman, and child ended up on the hook for about $227, not every taxpayer. Were it only "taxpayers" the number would be about $680.


And the working mans total on the National Debt is around $200,000.00, and he may be buckling again.
 
2014-04-17 08:36:53 AM  
 
2014-04-17 08:42:07 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Which party blocked appointing Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB and pretty much all meaningful regulation of the financial system?


The Republicans?  Which party nominated such a highly polarized hyper-political candidate with a law degree, but who has never done anything but teach in a position she attained by pretending to have been disadvantaged by being a Native American, to such a position?  Surely, there are hundreds of better suited and more level-headed people available that lean sufficiently Democrat, that wouldn't get scalped by Republicans like Chief Blue Eyes.


Wendy's Chili: How much would it have cost if we bailed out the homeowners directly?


Blasphemer!!!!
 
2014-04-17 08:42:36 AM  
What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
 
Displayed 50 of 172 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report