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.
TARP was signed into law by Bush in October of 2008. When being debated, it was believed it would cost taxpayers $356 billion dollars. We now know it will only cost somewhere between 25 and 30 billion.
The success of TARP is due to both the Bush and Obama administrations.
Now that it seems to have been a success, liberals are falling over backwards to give Obama credit, but just a year ago, you guys were rolling over backwards to say Obama had nothing to do with it and it was all Bushs fault...
Obama's 'principles' ...let Goldman Sachs rake in Billion$$$$, while leaving U.S. taxpayers on the hook.
How is it that you're so misinformed on this topic?
Yes, I did read it.
It doesn't matter what CANDIDATE Obama said when he was running for office and trying to seem "presidential," he didn't have any power, as he wasn't even the president elect yet. Do you really think that president Bush and Secretary Paulson were letting a candidate dictate the terms of the bill? Don't think so.
For the record, I was always in favor of TARP, I still think it was a good idea, and I don't care who voted it in.
It doesn't matter what CANDIDATE Obama said when he was running for office and trying to seem "presidential," he didn't have any power, as he wasn't even the president elect yet.
Are you seriously trying to claim that SENATOR Obama (at the time) had no power to negotiate and vote on bills? Really?
Do you have any idea how bills are processed through Congress?
Are you seriously trying to claim that SENATOR Obama (at the time) had no power to negotiate and vote on bills? Really?
Do you have any idea how bills are processed through Congress?
Good grief. Dumbed down America... great.
Thats a pretty sad admission on the left who tried to say that Obamas years in Congress qualified him to be President. Now they are claiming that he sat in Congress and did nothing (what we all knew anyways)..
That may be the fiscal cost, but the moral hazard cost in the long run will be much higher and much more consequential.
Basically, a sufficiently large corporation ("too big to fail", a moniker everyone will now pursue) in the US is now guaranteed a bailout check.
Basically, this signals we are not a free market economy anymore where enterprises rise and fall if they are not successful. Not that we were much of free market before, but this just takes us over that edge... where there is no going back.
Back to inflating our bubbles... got a credit card to charge.
They pay $0 now, and in some cases also get money FROM the U.S. Government. They should be paying federal income tax. Even seniors have to pay for their Medicare. No more free rides.
Are you seriously trying to claim that SENATOR Obama (at the time) had no power to negotiate and vote on bills? Really?
Do you have any idea how bills are processed through Congress?
Good grief. Dumbed down America... great.
The post placed all "blame" for Goldman Sachs making money (I'm not sure why GS making profits is bad but that's another argument, I'm sure) on Obama. He was one of 74 senators who voted for TARP. As he was in the middle of the homestretch of a presidential campaign, the idea that he was somehow heavily involved in the making of or negotiations for the bill is laughable. Do you have any idea how bills become law? Do you honestly think that each and every Senator has their hand in each and every bill coming through the Senate? Besides, the whole idea and proposal came from the Treasury department.
Why are you even bringing this up? Not only did McCain vote for TARP as well, but it was an unmitigated success. The biggest problem some of you seem to be able to find with it is that *gasp* Goldman Sachs made money from it! Who's the socialist now?
I don't have a problem with Goldman Sachs making money, that's what they're in business for. The best way to bring the banking system back to health, and make the TARP money back, btw, it to have a profitable banking sector.
Some of you people are just grasping at straws. First, you didn't like TARP because you thought we'd all lose money and it wouldn't work. Then, it worked to stem the crisis. Now, we're well on our way to getting all the money back.. It really pisses you off doesn't it? You actually wish it had been a disaster. Sad.
No one has problems with Goldman Sachs making money, but without any hand holding from the taxpayers, whether it 'worked out' or not. They screwed up and should have gone down like any other private enterprise. Not given welfare.
Since that did not happen TARP was not a success. Look for these "too big to fail" get even more brazen in their risk taking and failures, because now there is precedent of them being held afloat no matter what by the Fed Government.
That may be the fiscal cost, but the moral hazard cost in the long run will be much higher and much more consequential.
Basically, a sufficiently large corporation ("too big to fail", a moniker everyone will now pursue) in the US is now guaranteed a bailout check.
Basically, this signals we are not a free market economy anymore where enterprises rise and fall if they are not successful. Not that we were much of free market before, but this just takes us over that edge... where there is no going back.
Back to inflating our bubbles... got a credit card to charge.
I agree that it shouldn't have ever come to this. The fact is, the first time a big bank ever failed and all creditors were covered by the FDIC , not just the depositors like before, was in 1984, when Continental Illinois went down. Conti went down for familiar reasons, they got too leveraged and dependent on trading and short term funding. Ronald Reagan was president, and his administration made the decision for a full bailout of the bank. His comptroller of the currency declared before Congress that "none of the ten largest banks in the United States will be allowed to fail."
This was unprecedented, but it happened, and it set the stage for the next 25 years of banks and Wall street doing their dance of more more more now now now. Within ten years of that event most big banks were making 50% of their profits from securities trading and origination. The stand alone investment banks had to come up with ever more exotic stuff to keep up, as they didn't have the capital of the commercial banks.
By that time, the banks had gotten so big and involved in so many things that they really had become out of control monsters. Before you know it, all the politicians were on board. Democrats and Republicans, they all sucked up to the finance companies and let them do whatever they wanted.
So yes, the Feds should never have given an implicit guarantee to the big banks, but they did. Can you construct a system based on that guarantee and not guarantee it when the time comes? Not without dire consequences.
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.
...let Goldman Sachs rake in Billion$$$$, while leaving U.S. taxpayers on the hook. 
