RIP Logic and Intelligence

TCB wrote:

Ok I'll give you a tiny number of examples of programs that have cost more than TARP:

F-22 Raptor- $65 billion bailout to Lockheed Martin

V-22 Osprey- $27 billion bailout to Bell/Boeing

Farm bill- $20 billion/year bailout to Monsanto et al.

Medicare Part D- $50 billion/year bailout to Pfitzer et al.

The government hands out money to companies that don't deserve it all the time, but this is one case where it actually did more good than harm and can actually be considered a program that succeeded in its goals.

Regardless of the relative merits of TARP it is very, very poor logic to say that TARP was okay just because these other programs were worse and cost more. I agree, these are some awful examples of corporate welfare.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Regardless of the relative merits of TARP it is very, very poor logic to say that TARP was okay just because these other programs were worse and cost more. I agree, these are some awful examples of corporate welfare.

That wasn't my point. My point is that there is way too much demonizing of a good program by the right because it either 1) cost too much or 2) it interferes in the free market too much, while there are other obvious examples of conservative administrations supporting programs that do that on a much wider scale but don't get criticized for it. If right wingers are going to complain about the government interfering in the market or running up deficits, then they need to stop supporting tax deductions and subsidies that distort the market and add to the debt.

Fishing Instructor wrote:

I'm not sure what your point is. Current estimate is that the net cost of TARP is $25B versus an August estimate of $66B loss.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1647

Even that is ridiculous. The Banks will have paid back all of the money plus a profit to the treasury. The bad mortgages, that were forced on Fanni/Freddie by Democratic Senators, is what will result in a net los to the TARP funds.

TCB wrote:

That wasn't my point. My point is that there is way too much demonizing of a good program by the right because it either 1) cost too much or 2) it interferes in the free market too much, while there are other obvious examples of conservative administrations supporting programs that do that on a much wider scale but don't get criticized for it. If right wingers are going to complain about the government interfering in the market or running up deficits, then they need to stop supporting tax deductions and subsidies that distort the market and add to the debt.

So, is it okay to criticize the TARP program if I also oppose the other forms of corporate welfare that you posted about?

I would agree that at this point I would rather have a tax-and-spend administration rather than a borrow-and-spend administration but the spending needs to come under control by eliminating a huge amount of programs.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

The latest estimate is that TARP will lose $25 billion before all is said and done. In other words, when the government says it will make money on TARP it IS lying.

Put up wrote:

Could you please provide a link to an unbiased report to back up your claim? Thanks!

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

I don't have to, it's in the OP's link. The number comes from the Congressional Budget Office.

Put up wrote:

I didn't see anything in there about the gov't saying it will make money on TARP.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Direct quote from the article:

"The latest estimate from the Congressional Budget Office in late November was that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would end up costing the government $25 billion, down from an August CBO estimate of $66 billion."

I told you I read it. You don't need to quote it. All I'm say is that you're the one who's lying when you say, "when the government says it will make money on TARP it IS lying." So since you did not put up, you must now shut up.

if you're opposed to all forms of government spending, then you should be opposed to the TARP bailouts. if you are someone who thinks we should have 25% unemployment because you refuse to allow the government give even a single dollar to a private entity out of principle, then you better be prepared to criticize TARP to your grave. however, if you enjoy living in a vibrant capitalist system at any point for the next 5 years, then you should know that that is only possible because the government took drastic, even contradictory actions to save it. the price of having debt is high, but the price of not having it at all is many magnitudes higher.

oh no you dint wrote:

It's got nothing to do with liberal dogma. It was a Republican that set the tax rates for 2011. Because of this agreement, the tax rate effective 1/1/11 will now be LOWER than it would have been otherwise. That's a cut any way you spin it.

Actually many republicans wanted taxes to be even lower still. But because of this agreement, they will not be lower. Therefore, by your reasoning, since taxes higher than they would have been with the further cuts that did not happen, I guess that means they get to call it a tax INCREASE.

Boy these semantic games sure are fun

Every time one of the large banks has repaid TARP funds a government spokesman has crowed about the profit. As an example here's a quote as reported by MSNBC when Citigroup repaid:

"By selling all the remaining Citigroup shares today, we had an opportunity to lock in substantial profits for the taxpayer and avoid future risk," said Tim Massad, the Treasury official who heads up the bailout program.

oh no you dint wrote:

It's got nothing to do with liberal dogma. It was a Republican that set the tax rates for 2011. Because of this agreement, the tax rate effective 1/1/11 will now be LOWER than it would have been otherwise. That's a cut any way you spin it.

So let me make sure I've got this right

- if taxes rates stay the same then they have been cut

- if tax rates go up then they are staying the same

Did I get that right?

And I guess if tax rates go down then they've gone up (since that's the only choice left).

Thank God the rates weren't lowered since we can't afford a tax hike during a recession.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Every time one of the large banks has repaid TARP funds a government spokesman has crowed about the profit. As an example here's a quote as reported by MSNBC when Citigroup repaid:

"By selling all the remaining Citigroup shares today, we had an opportunity to lock in substantial profits for the taxpayer and avoid future risk," said Tim Massad, the Treasury official who heads up the bailout program.

You STILL didn't come up with evidence that big bad evil "government" has been LYING (gasp!) that they will make a profit overall on Tarp. Your quote says they will profit on the Citigroup part of that "bailout", right? And did they? yes. So your outrage seems misplaced at this time.

And as you'd demonstrated, a program that initially cost $700 billion, was then estimated to eventually cost the government $60-something billion, and now we are down to about $20 billion. Hmmm....I see a trend here. Might there be a chance that when all is said and done it will cost us even less than that ? Yes, it sure seems that way now. So possibly a 10-20 Billion price tag for what many economists think was a necessary program to save the economy from collapse, or at best, serious, serious negative consequences, worse than what we experienced. For instance:

"As Blinder and Zandi say, the government’s policy response “probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0.” They estimate that without TARP and the Recovery Act, GDP would have been nearly $1.5 trillion (in 2005 dollars) lower in the third quarter of 2010 than it actually was.

Do they know this for sure? No, but they didn't pull this out of thin air.

So, for a price tag that is, in the big scheme of things, paltry, we possibly averted another Great Depression. And yet you are up in arms about ideology behind it?? Because it didn't meet your free-market zealotry ? Wow, get over it.

The Iraq War will cost, when all is said and done, almost $3 trillion. But yet something convinces me you supported it, at least initially, right? So we could "fight them there instead of on our streets," or because of some other nonsense line you might have bought into ?

Comparison time: $3 trillion and 1000's of american lives in order to help Iran become more powerful and take our eyes off of Afghanistan, vs $20 billion to save the economy from collapse. Yes, I can see why you are much angrier over TARP vs Iraq War, yes, it is all very clear.

Wait, I apologize, I DID find where Obama was touting TARP as making an overall profit for the gov't. Right here in this article, where they clearly state that they initially estimated a price tag of $341 billion, and then lowered that to $141 billion. Yes, Obama has been saying TARP would bring a profit for quite awhile now, huh? What a goddamned socialist, Kenyan-born, racist, muslim, affirmative action case, liar he is.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/obama-says-tarp-funds-can-go-toward-cutting-deficit-creating-jobs.html

"The Obama administration anticipates that the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will cost taxpayers $200 billion less than the $341 billion estimate that it projected in August."

It makes sense, even with a non-partisan analysis. But along the same spirit of non-partisanship, I don't get the logic behind W. Bush and Obama spending U.S. taxpayer money on Nazi Israel and the US Nazi Zionist Occupation of Islamic lands. I realize it was Truman who began the genocides against the Muslims. But that was 70 years ago when Jim Crow, Japanese Internment Camps, Lynchings, etc. was wildly supported in America.

Makes Sense wrote:

It makes sense, even with a non-partisan analysis. But along the same spirit of non-partisanship, I don't get the logic behind W. Bush and Obama spending U.S. taxpayer money on Nazi Israel and the US Nazi Zionist Occupation of Islamic lands. I realize it was Truman who began the genocides against the Muslims. But that was 70 years ago when Jim Crow, Japanese Internment Camps, Lynchings, etc. was wildly supported in America.

Hijack much, bro?

Why does it make sense to prop up companies that are only going to fail again, bigger, once the supports are removed, or shortly after the supports are removed?

Far more intelligent to let them die, let them liquidate their assets, be bought/reorganized and reopen in some other fashion.

The transfer of massive private debt to a gov't drowning in debt is insane. There is nobody to prop up the U.S. gov't when it fails due to the debt, both public and private, it has incurred.

But I guess "believers" in The African King and The Wizard of Fed will have to learn this the hard way.

If governments bail banks with taxpayers money then they should be prepared to put conditions on banks to safeguard

taxpayers in the future.

We saw it coming and put those conditions in place in 1998 in Australia.

That's what good government does.

In case you never saw it.

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=49595&t=1&c=36&cg=4&mset=1041

They realize it was done by Bush, they simply want to be critical of Obama.

We are on the road to recovery. It took Bush 8 years to mess us up, give the new government a chance.

Blowing.Rock Master wrote:

Every time one of the large banks has repaid TARP funds a government spokesman has crowed about the profit. As an example here's a quote as reported by MSNBC when Citigroup repaid:

"By selling all the remaining Citigroup shares today, we had an opportunity to lock in substantial profits for the taxpayer and avoid future risk," said Tim Massad, the Treasury official who heads up the bailout program.

But the Citigroup situation WAS a profit maker for the government. Did you not read the link you cited earlier?

Now if you can find some examples of the government talking up a profit where none exists, then maybe we can take your musings seriously. Until then, the only thing I think your blowing is hot air.