U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 04-11-2011, 08:09 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,253 posts, read 3,421,392 times
Reputation: 4483

Advertisements

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...XvGJqt_3rfdWlQ

Even the government employees working within TARP are now admitting that TARP was a fiasco that enrichened wealthy bankers at the expense of taxpayers.
We have truly become a country of third world government ethics. But then again, people get the government they deserve.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-11-2011, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Fishers, IN
5,705 posts, read 6,379,813 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://w...XvGJqt_3rfdWlQ

Even the government employees working within TARP are now admitting that TARP was a fiasco that enrichened wealthy bankers at the expense of taxpayers.
We have truly become a country of third world government ethics. But then again, people get the government they deserve.
I think to say it came "at the expense of taxpayers" is a bit much. Every assessment of TARP I've seen indicates that banks are repaying their TARP monies and that any losses from the program will come from the auto bailouts, not the capital injections into the banking system.

That said, I never understood the need for TARP the way it was constructed. If the problem was "toxic assets" on bank balance sheets for which markets had become illiquid, it seems to me that a better plan would've been for the government to set up a public-private insurance fund to stimulate a private market for those assets so banks could sell them and take the short-term hit. True, that wouldn't have stimulated lending, but as we saw, neither did TARP. And besides, banks shouldn't make bad loans just because they have extra capital to lend.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 09:02 AM
 
4,525 posts, read 6,359,407 times
Reputation: 3082
Quote:
Originally Posted by grmasterb View Post
I think to say it came "at the expense of taxpayers" is a bit much. Every assessment of TARP I've seen indicates that banks are repaying their TARP monies and that any losses from the program will come from the auto bailouts, not the capital injections into the banking system.
It seems a bit dubious on exactly what and where money was taken, what has been "repaid" where and when, but I follow there is great pride and pretense that "TARP" is doing its job.

Ok. I recognize this. Bs on bs.

So if the folks that want and somehow need to show via mathemagics that they have put this $10 into that account and some $2.50 in another . . . whatever.

In full truth, trillions were ran out the side of the Treasury and Fed, totally beyond TARP. TARP never even followed its own construct, and the entire mess was cooked up after a CLOSED session of Congress where the banks and Paulson came in and threatened to destroy the US economy. Basically a huge extortion scam, that even the Soviet Union's worse corruption could not rival.

Quote:


That said, I never understood the need for TARP the way it was constructed. If the problem was "toxic assets" on bank balance sheets for which markets had become illiquid, it seems to me that a better plan would've been for the government to set up a public-private insurance fund to stimulate a private market for those assets so banks could sell them and take the short-term hit. True, that wouldn't have stimulated lending, but as we saw, neither did TARP. And besides, banks shouldn't make bad loans just because they have extra capital to lend.
It is far beyond an illiquid issue. If you recall from Econ 101, among the first things a functional economy sets up is who is going to produce what. This can be top down (command economy), bottom up (market), or some mix in between. In this case, what was produced is/was a whole lot of bad, inflated, and surplus real estate "improvements."

If you look at China's empty new cities, they may be heading this way, as well, unless they are planning on moving everyone in from the countryside.

But back to US, unless folks have some need to own empty and surplus houses, why would they even seek the loan or buy those "assets?" We simply have built more houses, condos, and apartments than there are people. Same thing coming in commercial real estate from the reports.

The greedy bankers who help fund and create that -- all wanted a slice of it -- they sure got their slice of it and then vomited it on all the rest of US.

But yes, rather than TARP and consolidation of the mega-banks, and propping them up -- we should have taken them down, broke them up into smaller Not-Bigger-Than $_____ Banks (some threshold, where a failure would not harm US), and re-instated Glass-Stegall (again, as after the Great Depression) to prevent further and future bleeding.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,090 posts, read 7,244,247 times
Reputation: 4031
From the link.

Quote:
Though there is no question that the country benefited by avoiding a meltdown of the financial system, this cannot be the only yardstick by which TARP’s legacy is measured.
It's not that it was a complete failure. Due to people screaming "socialists!" every time those were putting incentives in the bill to affect behavior, the legislation was watered down and it didn't help keep people in houses as well as it should. Big freaking surprise. So many people, like Jon Stewart, pointed this out long ago.

Quote:
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has acknowledged that the program “won’t come close” to fulfilling its original expectations, that its incentives are not “powerful enough” and that the mortgage servicers are “still doing a terribly inadequate job.”
Same with forcing to get banks to buy each other and their troubled assets, then sending them a blank check. As people seethed at the "Socialists!" to stop the government purchasing entities to stop failures.

Quote:
The biggest banks are 20 percent larger than they were before the crisis and control a larger part of our economy than ever.
We served up public money to people serving their own interests. Many people screamed buzzwords instead of learning why those chanting it were so interested in manipulating the programs to their advantage. Hell, if I had the money and ability to get the word out there to manipulate idiots to champion my benefits...I would do it to.

What it shows is that the government does listen to the people better then many think. The unfortunate part is that many people are stupid and easily convinced by emotional ranting, instead of facts or reason. We made this problem ourselves, and attacking the program now will do nothing to solve anything. All it does is keep people busy complaining, instead of doing anything to solve the problem.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 01:19 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,253 posts, read 3,421,392 times
Reputation: 4483
Quote:
Originally Posted by grmasterb View Post
I think to say it came "at the expense of taxpayers" is a bit much. Every assessment of TARP I've seen indicates that banks are repaying their TARP monies and that any losses from the program will come from the auto bailouts, not the capital injections into the banking system.

That said, I never understood the need for TARP the way it was constructed. If the problem was "toxic assets" on bank balance sheets for which markets had become illiquid, it seems to me that a better plan would've been for the government to set up a public-private insurance fund to stimulate a private market for those assets so banks could sell them and take the short-term hit. True, that wouldn't have stimulated lending, but as we saw, neither did TARP. And besides, banks shouldn't make bad loans just because they have extra capital to lend.

Really? Maybe that is because the whole propaganda machine has constructed it to make it look as if the banks paid back the government.
Tell me how much of the toxic assets the government took off the banks hands has been re purchased. Or is that all still on the taxpayers backs?
What about the 70% of TARP funds that went to overseas banks to cover the toxic assets sold to them by US banks? Any of that been repaid?
Just where in the hell do you think all of the trillions and trillions of dollars added to the US debt in the past 3 years came from? It sure was not from saving the homes, or the jobs of the taxpayers
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Fishers, IN
5,705 posts, read 6,379,813 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
Really? Maybe that is because the whole propaganda machine has constructed it to make it look as if the banks paid back the government.
Tell me how much of the toxic assets the government took off the banks hands has been re purchased. Or is that all still on the taxpayers backs?
What about the 70% of TARP funds that went to overseas banks to cover the toxic assets sold to them by US banks? Any of that been repaid?
Just where in the hell do you think all of the trillions and trillions of dollars added to the US debt in the past 3 years came from? It sure was not from saving the homes, or the jobs of the taxpayers
I think you should take a step back and re-read the article you linked:

"Congress was told that TARP would be used to purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, and, to obtain the necessary votes, Treasury promised that it would modify those mortgages to assist struggling homeowners. Indeed, the act expressly directs the department to do just that.

"But it has done little to abide by this legislative bargain. Almost immediately, as permitted by the broad language of the act, Treasury’s plan for TARP shifted from the purchase of mortgages to the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation’s largest financial institutions..."
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 04:18 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,253 posts, read 3,421,392 times
Reputation: 4483
Quote:
Originally Posted by grmasterb View Post
I think you should take a step back and re-read the article you linked:

"Congress was told that TARP would be used to purchase up to $700 billion of mortgages, and, to obtain the necessary votes, Treasury promised that it would modify those mortgages to assist struggling homeowners. Indeed, the act expressly directs the department to do just that.

"But it has done little to abide by this legislative bargain. Almost immediately, as permitted by the broad language of the act, Treasury’s plan for TARP shifted from the purchase of mortgages to the infusion of hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation’s largest financial institutions..."
Yes I read it; I also know what actually happened.
Congress was sold the "relief package" as it was marketed at that time, by telling it's constituents that they would be using some of the money for loan modifications for homeowners, they basically reneged and took advantage of the vague language to give the entire amount to financial institutions, most of them foreign.

They then took over Fannie and Freddy and had them buy all of the junk toxic mortgages from those same financial institutions at face value, and saddled the taxpayers with those trillions in bad debts. They then did everything they could to publicly separate the two actions in everyone’s minds, and put as much emphasis as they could on the US banks repaying some of the money after making a killing on the carry trades in Brazil. Meanwhile those trillions in toxic mortgages and the money they loaned abroad will never be repaid and the taxpayer will be saddled with the bill.

The US banks in the meanwhile unloaded their toxic portfolios for a profit, got hundreds of billions to speculate with at 0% interest, and avoided the law suits that would have resulted from the sale of toxic assets abroad. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me, no wonder the bankers gave themselves all big bonuses for pulling it off!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 04:42 PM
 
52 posts, read 12,446 times
Reputation: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
But back to US, unless folks have some need to own empty and surplus houses, why would they even seek the loan or buy those "assets?" We simply have built more houses, condos, and apartments than there are people. Same thing coming in commercial real estate from the reports.
That's precisely why we won't see immigration reform anytime soon. The banksters NEED the housing demand created by illegal aliens.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,090 posts, read 7,244,247 times
Reputation: 4031
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
Yes I read it; I also know what actually happened.
So you posted an article that you don't agree with, because you know what actually happened?

Isn't that logic sort of, insane?

Sounds like how people know what actually happened on 9/11, the moon landing, and JFK's assassination...it's all some grand conspiracy for those in tin foil headgear.

Man I love getting a laugh out of this crap people waste their days on.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2011, 10:50 PM
 
Location: Heartland Florida
8,522 posts, read 16,527,132 times
Reputation: 4001
We are paying for it today as inflation soars upward. It was a failure for us but a success for the elite who are enjoying the luxuries you and I are suckered into paying for.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top