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.
Five years later, taxpayers still haven't broken even on the $698.2 billion in government bailouts issued during the financial crisis.
But we're getting close. The bailouts, which include money disbursed through TARP as well as other funds used to shore up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG, may even show a profit by the time the sixth anniversary arrives.
So far, Treasury and the Federal Reserve have recouped $670 billion of those funds. That's far more than could have been imagined in the dark days of 2008.
Five years later, taxpayers still haven't broken even on the $698.2 billion in government bailouts issued during the financial crisis.
But we're getting close. The bailouts, which include money disbursed through TARP as well as other funds used to shore up Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG, may even show a profit by the time the sixth anniversary arrives.
So far, Treasury and the Federal Reserve have recouped $670 billion of those funds. That's far more than could have been imagined in the dark days of 2008.
So, you support "crony capitalism" and "corporate welfare"?
So, you support "crony capitalism" and "corporate welfare"?
No, sometimes in order to save the economy, which we all live in, the government needs to intervene. That doesn't mean that other steps don't need to be taken, like assuring that banks aren't too big to fail, shouldn't be passed. But to get stuck on an ideological principle that the government should never intervene, even if means bringing on a depression, is foolish.
No, sometimes in order to save the economy, which we all live in, the government needs to intervene. That doesn't mean that other steps don't need to be taken, like assuring that banks aren't too big to fail, shouldn't be passed. But to get stuck on an ideological principle that the government should never intervene, even if means bringing on a depression, is foolish.
So, since Bush was president when the bailouts happened, I'm sure that you're going around saying what a great man he was by saving the economy, huh?
No, sometimes in order to save the economy, which we all live in, the government needs to intervene. That doesn't mean that other steps don't need to be taken, like assuring that banks aren't too big to fail, shouldn't be passed. But to get stuck on an ideological principle that the government should never intervene, even if means bringing on a depression, is foolish.
So, since Bush was president when the bailouts happened, I'm sure that you're going around saying what a great man he was by saving the economy, huh?
The Bush and Obama Administrations both provided bailouts. I would have liked more strings attached to the bank bailout but the general idea is worthy.
So, your argument isn't just that the bailouts were a bad idea, they were unconstitutional too. Where does the Constitution give Congress the right? The Elastic Clause.
The ones paying back are Banks and AIG.... hmmm.... provided by Bush... the money losers, provided by Obama... hmmm...
Yeah, because saving the American auto industry wasn't important. That was millions of jobs plus the supply chain. And even today, the govt's ahead.
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.
