TARP Costs "Mere" $25 Billion

[Anonymous]

Anyone else see the hypocrisy in finding that Wall Street's Bailout is touted as "mere," while the gov't is asking fed civilian employees to give up about the same in earned wages?
If it's really just chump change for the gov't, why are they sticking it to their own employees?

I swear, if Obama fails to end the Bush-era tax cuts, I am going to be so over him and this administration....

[Anonymous]

The point wasn't to bail out corporations. TARP was intended to prevent the economy from contiuing on its way to collapse. While it was unfortunate, I think it was necessary. I think the "mere" 25 billion is in relation to the initial cash outlay.

[Anonymous]

You do know that TARP was George Bush, right? Not Obama.

[Anonymous]

Well, it was expected to cost 700 Billion. I don't think anyone suggests that the money is meaningleSs, just that most of the support got paid back.

If you want to take issue with anything, the Iraq war cost an estimated 2 trillion. That's a number that changes things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, it was expected to cost 700 Billion. I don't think anyone suggests that the money is meaningleSs, just that most of the support got paid back.

If you want to take issue with anything, the Iraq war cost an estimated 2 trillion. That's a number that changes things.

And this figure has not stopped. Did you Obama-haters send a thank you note to Dubya et al for handily spending the budget surplus that Clinton left at the end of his tenure?

[Anonymous]

Um, OP, the government made money on TARP by putting money into the banks, like Citigroup, and then selling their stake. So, not really sure why you think this has anything to do with fed wages freezing? The vast majority of "wall street" employees, from the receptionist on up, either lost thier job or had a severe pay cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um, OP, the government made money on TARP by putting money into the banks, like Citigroup, and then selling their stake. So, not really sure why you think this has anything to do with fed wages freezing? The vast majority of "wall street" employees, from the receptionist on up, either lost thier job or had a severe pay cut.

Genuinely curious, can you please explain how the federal gov't MADE money? If so, then why does TARP "COST" $25 Billion? How much did the gov't make from its initial investment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Um, OP, the government made money on TARP by putting money into the banks, like Citigroup, and then selling their stake. So, not really sure why you think this has anything to do with fed wages freezing? The vast majority of "wall street" employees, from the receptionist on up, either lost thier job or had a severe pay cut.

Exactly. How refreshing to read a post from someone who knows what they're talking about!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Um, OP, the government made money on TARP by putting money into the banks, like Citigroup, and then selling their stake. So, not really sure why you think this has anything to do with fed wages freezing? The vast majority of "wall street" employees, from the receptionist on up, either lost thier job or had a severe pay cut.

Exactly. How refreshing to read a post from someone who knows what they're talking about!

OK, then explain, please how the gov't seems to have made a profit from this outlay of money? How much money was spent on bailouts, and how much money was earned (what was the return on the investment)?

[Anonymous]

From the WaPo:

All told, $389 billion has been distributed through TARP, which expired in October. The CBO estimates that an additional $44 billion is still waiting to go out the door, primarily to troubled insurance giant American International Group and federal mortgage programs. That would bring total TARP outlays to $433 billion, of which about half - $216 billion - has been repaid.

GM and a few banks (CitiGroup and BofA are two big ones) have yielded profits, but from what I gather, there is still no OVERALL "profit" from TARP.

[Anonymous]

It is true that there is no overall profit yet from TARP. But it is possible that it will turn a profit, since the government earns a return on each investment it makes. If the winners exceed the losses on the bad apples, the government makes a profit. The current estimate of $25 billion is a 3.5% loss so it could swing into positive territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do know that TARP was George Bush, right? Not Obama.

TARP was Bush and Paulson, with the support (and votes) of Obama and McCain. Here is the vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00212

More than half the TARP funds were disbursed under the Obama administration. It was a bi-partisan debacle.

[Anonymous]

If civil servants had effectively regulated the banking industry, TARP would have been unnecessary.