Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Do they think we're fools ? Using TARP to bailout themselves ?
Does that even count ? Seems to me it's just a paper shuffle of numbers from one set of books to another and calling it "cooked".
If anything..maybe the pay czar will stand up and dictate salaries..I vote Pelosi gets $0.
snippet:
"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341 billion estimated in August."
Kinda makes sense to me..... We "borrowed" billions of dollars and would be using the unused portion of that money to pay back some of the nation's debt...
Kinda makes sense to me..... We "borrowed" billions of dollars and would be using the unused portion of that money to pay back some of the nation's debt...
What else do you think we should do with it?
If that money is not used to pay off the Tarp loan itself but other debt then it's a wash and we've "lost" that money but not the debt.
They didn't say they are "retiring" that Tarp money to credit back the loan..they are giving themselves a loan to lower the deficit.
That depends, was the borrowed funds on, or off the budget. If the borrowed funds were off the budget, they need to be paid where they came from. If they were on the budget, then I'm not sure it matters where it gets paid back..
My assumption is that it was off budget from the story due to talks about the debt ceiling and that..
Tarp wasnt' a bank loan. It was money raised the same way as the "Stimulus package" etc... It was a loan to the banks it was given to. Some of that money has been paid back by the banks, etc...
So there's money left over that is either money that hasn't been allocated to bailout banks, OR money paid BACk by banks. Either way, it's money that can be used to pay off debt...
Tarp wasnt' a bank loan. It was money raised the same way as the "Stimulus package" etc... It was a loan to the banks it was given to. Some of that money has been paid back by the banks, etc...
So there's money left over that is either money that hasn't been allocated to bailout banks, OR money paid BACk by banks. Either way, it's money that can be used to pay off debt...
I agree if they use it that way. I don't know enough about how they run their books. (Like when they borrowed from SS to put in the General Fund and now SS has no money).
They can also give back all that stimulus money sitting on the shelf for 2011 to reduce the debt. In 2 years time ask for it again.
Tarp wasnt' a bank loan. It was money raised the same way as the "Stimulus package" etc... It was a loan to the banks it was given to. Some of that money has been paid back by the banks, etc...
So there's money left over that is either money that hasn't been allocated to bailout banks, OR money paid BACk by banks. Either way, it's money that can be used to pay off debt...
But the issue is, if they use the money borrowed from an off budget expense, and move it to the on budget debt, then it appears that the deficit isnt as high as it is, because it ignores the off budget items.
Its like having two checking accounts
1 Personal
1 Business
Borrow money personally and paying down business debt, making the business appear profitable doesnt mean that it is, it just hides the fact the debt was moved.
Do they think we're fools ? Using TARP to bailout themselves ?
Does that even count ? Seems to me it's just a paper shuffle of numbers from one set of books to another and calling it "cooked".
If anything..maybe the pay czar will stand up and dictate salaries..I vote Pelosi gets $0.
snippet:
"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341 billion estimated in August."
Actually that's a good article -- showing many ways they're trying to lower the budget deficit.
Kinda makes sense to me..... We "borrowed" billions of dollars and would be using the unused portion of that money to pay back some of the nation's debt...
What else do you think we should do with it?
Makes sense to spend billions of dollars of useless needs and want to repay their screw ups with heavy tax to be repay the debt.
What a F$%^ joke!
Just wait until Cap & Trade passes...
Watch the market drop back to the 6k level soon!
Baffles me since they are having interim treasury auctions whenever they can.
This whole thing is beyond sense these days. China is buying our worthless paper so we can buy their worthless crap at Wal-Mart.
At one point, I thought anything was better than Bush. But Obama's the same. The home bailout program was just an excuse to get money to bail out the banks-they didn't have to lend it. But they needed a spin on it-couldn't just hand over a check to the banks or we would have been upset. Same with the cash to clunkers. The year prior-both banks and car makers in detroit received huge government bail out money. And then, coincidentally, we're supposed to believe a year later that these fantastic programs have been put into place to help "american consumers" but look at them and the money is going to the same two industries we bailed out the year before.
Obama is just like Bush (and a cousin of Dick Cheney I might add). They white house just puts a different kind of white wash on the palm greasing with every administration.
"The steep rise in defaults and nonperforming loans suggests that the economy will make it hard for banks to simultaneously set aside reserves and lend more money out. Small businesses will lay off workers before they start missing loan payments, and the unemployed can't pay off their credit cards and car loan payments.
***
"Credit cycles, by definition, are periods where banks overextend credit and then pull back to correct the imbalance. If the government forces banks to lend to at-risk borrowers, we're going to aggravate an already dire credit picture and require more government intervention."
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
