Other than global warming, there isn't a better example of how the facts on the ground don't match the political discourse than the continued debate over the bailouts, specially the TARP money paid to banks in 2008. It shows that most people aren't interested in the facts, and only cares about who has the best one liners and screams the loudest. Here are some facts, first from 2010 data,

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_41/b4198029649845.htm

Quote :

"As Treasury gets ready to shut down the spending phase of the TARP program on Oct. 3, it now expects to turn a $16 billion profit on the $250 billion it plowed into banks in 2008 and 2009. And TARP's final price tag is expected to be about $50 billion, according to an Obama Administration official. The Congressional Budget Office in August had estimated a $66 billion loss. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is expected to brief President Barack Obama on Sept. 30 on the brighter outlook."

and more recent data from this past summer,

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1232.aspx

Quote :

"With today’s proceeds, taxpayers have now recovered approximately $255 billion from TARP’s bank programs through repayments, dividends, interest, and other income. That exceeds the original financial support Treasury made through those programs ($245 billion) by approximately $10 billion. Treasury currently estimates that bank programs within TARP will ultimately provide a lifetime positive return of approximately $20 billion to taxpayers."

The next time you hear someone talk about how bad the bailouts were, remind them of these facts.

10/5/2011 5:36:59 PM

there are three kinds of lies:
1) lies
2) damned lies
3) statistics.

guess which one you just used?

10/5/2011 5:43:12 PM

Fannie, Freddie Narrow Losses, But Want More Government Aid

Quote :

"The firms, which own or guarantee more than half of all U.S. residential mortgages, could end up requesting as much as $363 billion through 2013, according to an October report by their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Excluding dividend payments to the Treasury, they could cost taxpayers as much as $259 billion, the report noted."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/25/fannie-freddie-losses_n_828090.html

10/5/2011 5:43:19 PM

Quote :

"there are three kinds of lies: 1) lies 2) damned lies 3) statistics. guess which one you just used?"

Quote :

"It shows that most people aren't interested in the facts, and only cares about who has the best one liners and screams the loudest."

aaronburro = most people

10/5/2011 5:46:29 PM

bullshit. you are using narrow statistics in area to completely ignore the entire effect of the bailouts. If the only argument against the bailouts ever made were "we will lose money", then you'd be right. but that WASN'T the only argument ever made. thus the reason you are lying through statistics


and then, you can't help but forgive me for pointing this out: the article claims that TARP offered 250billion in expenses? Too bad Wikipedia lists about 300billion plus in expenses. It seems even your own proffered source can't even get the god damned numbers straight.

[Edited on October 5, 2011 at 6:05 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2011 6:01:26 PM

It is also ignoring all the interest payments and penalties paid by healthy banks that didn't want the tarp money. The former CEO of BB&T spoke on campus on Tuesday and said that TARP cost his bank almost a billion dollars.

It is akin to proclaiming that Social Security is profitable for the Government because of all the payroll tax it brings it.

10/5/2011 6:06:51 PM

Guys really, please stop. I'm about to go the gym, laughing this hard is bad for me right now. If the best you've got is "bu bu but Wikipedia says.......!!!!!" and "we didn't mean what we actually said when we said it" (2008 wasn't that long ago guys, my memory isn't that bad) then I've already won. Hell, even Herman Cain agrees with me!!!!

Quote :

"Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem. But the mainstream media and the free market purists want you to believe that this is the end of capitalism as we know it. It is not for several reasons that they have conveniently not explained. "

[Edited on October 5, 2011 at 6:14 PM. Reason : :]

10/5/2011 6:12:49 PM

looks like we're not the ones ignoring facts in this thread. do you have anything to counter the Wikipedia number? or is wiki just lying?

do you have anything to counter LS's point that some of the "claimed gains" are due to banks that didn't need the money in the first place and didn't want it?

[Edited on October 5, 2011 at 6:26 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2011 6:26:03 PM

Quote :

""As Treasury gets ready to shut down the spending phase of the TARP program on Oct. 3, it now expects to turn a $16 billion profit on the $250 billion it plowed into banks in 2008 and 2009. And TARP's final price tag is expected to be about $50 billion, according to an Obama Administration official."

I'm a bit confused be this statement, TARP is going to generate $16B in profit, but still have a "final price" (that would be a cost) of $50B? So when they say $16B in profit, they really mean, lose $16B less than we estimated?

Also, when do I get my share of the profits back?

10/5/2011 7:09:53 PM

It doesn't matter what the short term economics of it are...unless of course all you care about it winning the next election and kicking the can down the road.

It's called moral hazard, and it's what has allowed failed banks/car companies/you-name-it to continue with stupid behavior that would otherwise land them in bankruptcy. Nothing was made better just because a few people got to keep their jobs for the time being.

10/5/2011 7:34:18 PM

^ gets it

10/5/2011 9:12:45 PM

^^^Some of the TARP was used to prop up the auto industry, and Chrysler ended up being a major money-loser.

10/5/2011 9:23:34 PM

Public tax money should never be used to bail out, prop up, subsidize, or help private industry. Period. Both sides should never have done this crap. If a company is run well, it should succeed, if its run poorly and is corrupt then it should fail. If the management is doing anything illegal, then they should be held accountable. Thats how the system should work.

10/5/2011 10:09:10 PM

Shrike argues like the students who debate one another in the quiet study area outside of my office during lunch.

I have to stop what I'm doing to go out there and tell them they can't bring their Subway in there.

Then I end up having some of them in my class and they make a B.

10/6/2011 12:59:33 AM

What's all this then? The real trash is on the fed balance sheet, transferred from the banks to the fed for face value. Anyone want to guess if these assets are worth par? It's trillions and it's not worth face. Are the bailouts still net positive?

10/6/2011 8:28:35 AM

We don't talk about the Federal Reserve, bro. The Federal Reserve has nothing to do with it, the banks just get the money from...uhh...

...anyway, we just need more regulations on the banks. Having an unaccountable private central bank is perfectly fine and sustainable.

10/6/2011 10:11:43 AM

Quote :

"looks like we're not the ones ignoring facts in this thread. do you have anything to counter the Wikipedia number? or is wiki just lying?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Quote :

"Of the $245 billion invested in U.S. banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010."

Still can't read I see. Ah well, I can't fix what your parents and years of education couldn't. I'm hoping the US education can be fixed before the end of my lifetime, but it's obviously too late for you.

Also, listening to Conservatives talk about "moral hazards" is really just music to my years. I mean, really? 40 million without health insurance isn't a moral hazard, but this is? Denying rights to an entire group of people due to their sexual preference isn't a moral hazard, but this is? Celebrating the death penalty isn't a moral hazard, but this is? Advocating teaching myths and fairly tales in the classroom, instead of science, isn't a moral hazard, but this is? The only moral hazard here is one the committed by the people who were running these banks, who were allowed to collect unprecedented profits at the expense of the health of the rest of the economy, while engaging in untold corruption and illegal activities. The bailouts were the result of a moral hazard, not the other way around. Let me quote the leading nominee for the GOP Presidential nomination again, maybe you'll listen to him,

Quote :

"Wake up people! Owning a part of the major banks in America is not a bad thing. We could make a profit while solving a problem. But the mainstream media and the free market purists want you to believe that this is the end of capitalism as we know it. It is not for several reasons that they have conveniently not explained."

Quote :

"Public tax money should never be used to bail out, prop up, subsidize, or help private industry. Period. "

You mean like private defense contractors in Iraq? Or aerospace? Or fossil fuels? Seems like that viewpoint only applies when it supports your views. More hypocrisy from the right.

[Edited on October 6, 2011 at 12:13 PM. Reason : :]

10/6/2011 11:56:01 AM

Quote :

"Also, listening to Conservatives talk about "moral hazards" is really just music to my years. I mean, really? 40 million without health insurance isn't a moral hazard, but this is? Denying rights to an entire group of people due to their sexual preference isn't a moral hazard, but this is? Celebrating the death penalty isn't a moral hazard, but this is? Advocating teaching myths and fairly tales in the classroom, instead of science, isn't a moral hazard, but this is? The only moral hazard here is one the committed by the people who were running these banks, who were allowed to collect unprecedented profits at the expense of the health of the rest of the economy, while engaging in untold corruption and illegal activities. The bailouts were the result of a moral hazard, not the other way around. Let me quote the leading nominee for the GOP Presidential nomination again, maybe you'll listen to him,"

Yeah...you don't know what moral hazard is. It's genuinely hilarious to see you go on this rant without realizing that, though.

Quote :

"In economic theory, moral hazard is a situation in which a party insulated from risk behaves differently from how it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk."

Quote :

"Moral hazard arises because an individual or institution does not take the full consequences and responsibilities of its actions, and therefore has a tendency to act less carefully than it otherwise would, leaving another party to hold some responsibility for the consequences of those actions. For example, a person with insurance against automobile theft may be less cautious about locking his or her car, because the negative consequences of vehicle theft are (partially) the responsibility of the insurance company."

So, when a bank isn't really "on the hook" for losses (they aren't), they tend to give out riskier loans. If one phrase describes our system, it's that the financial system is saturated with moral hazard.

Also, when your views line up with Herman Cain, it's probably time to re-evaluate your position. The dude worked for the Federal Reserve.

[Edited on October 6, 2011 at 12:11 PM. Reason : ]

10/6/2011 12:08:54 PM

Nothing on the 3 trillion + assets on the Fed balance sheet? Seems like these assets move 10% from par and the loss is equal to the the entire stated 250b#? I'd look in to it. I'm sure these assets were put on at reasonable prices, if they were why was the fed needed? So to sum it up. Take stuff worth .30 to .60 cents on the dollar, trade it to the fed for 1.00 worth of freshly minted tbills. Now on your balance sheet you don't have toxic debt you have squeaky clean t bills. Get Timmy G to tell the dumb as a bag of hammers American people everything is fine. Repeat as desired

10/6/2011 12:16:30 PM

Quote :

"Yeah...you don't know what moral hazard is. It's genuinely hilarious to see you go on this rant without realizing that, though. "

Really, you're arguing semantics now? I don't care how economists interpret the term. Morality is whether or not certain behaviors are considered good or bad for humanity. A hazard is something bad or risky. A moral hazard is a behavior that is bad for humanity. Get the fuck out of here with this if that's all you have to say.

10/6/2011 12:25:43 PM

It's not semantics, you just don't know what you're talking about.

10/6/2011 12:39:11 PM

^^ No, a moral hazard is something that seems good for humanity but runs the risk of being immoral in the future. If a behavior is bad for humanity it is not a moral hazard, it is immoral, as in no realm (short term or long term) could it seem to have been good for humanity.

10/6/2011 12:57:28 PM

You don't think even the economists rather strict definition of "moral hazard" can be applied to all those things I mentioned? Healthy or uninsured individuals who ignore the consequences of having 40 million uninsured (like, i dunno, overuse of the ER and exploding health care costs for example) isn't a moral hazard? Pushing for the death penalty, even in cases where the accused may be innocent, because every single person involved in our legal system is removed from the actual consequences of their actions isn't a moral hazard? Bankers who engage in illegal or corrupt activities, because the possible gains far outweigh the personal consequences, isn't a moral hazard? Denying gays the right to marriage or teaching creationism in schools don't carry long term human consequences that are ignored by the politicians pushing for those things? This isn't hard.

10/6/2011 1:01:02 PM

So instead of recognizing your gross mistake over taxpayer losses bailing out the private sector, you want to argue semantics? Yes, some of those things you listed do involve moral hazard and some of them are down-right evil by themselves regardless of any perverse incentives they create.

10/6/2011 2:56:02 PM

Im generally a small govt, free market kind of guy, let them fail, etc. And I have disagreed with pretty much anything Shrike has said. However, as someone who worked(s) in investment banking, specifically with banks, TARP was a necessary evil. Yes it sucked and its bullshit we had to do it, but the overall effect on the economy of having numerous "too big to fail" banks actually failing might have caused a depression. Shit, look at the after effects of Lehman failing, and that was just one IB. History will look back upon TARP as an overwhelming success.

[Edited on October 6, 2011 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

10/6/2011 4:12:28 PM

The former CEO of BB&T spoke here on campus on Tuesday and according to him his bank saw the crash coming and built up a huge war-chest of capital to quickly replace their bankrupt competitors, only to be slapped down when those competitors were bailed out and then themselves slapped with TARP money they had to deal with.

Quote :

"Shit, look at the after effects of Lehman failing, and that was just one IB."

He blamed that not on Lehman failing, but Lehman failing after the government had already assured the market that everyone would be prevented from failing. He also said major damage occurred when the government violated FDIC rules to make uninsured depositors (>$100k) whole by dumping the losses upon bond holders, which caused bond markets to freeze up.

According to him, it is quite common for numerous financial firms to go belly up, but it only ever leads to a great depression or great recession dragging on for a decade when the government tries to bail out the bad actors, as occurred in the 1930s, 2000s, and 1990s Japan. When the government does not do this, financial crashes tend to be very deep (more firms go under than otherwise would have) but the recovery arrives within a year or two.

The explanation goes something like this. If we assume 20% of the finance industry is insolvent (or will be made so by bank runs), if we bail out no-one then those firms fail, the freed up deposits/loans get diverted/sold to the sound banks, which quickly grow in size to fill the market share of the vanquished banks. Within a few months, we would go from an 80% solvent industry with whole bond holders to a 100% solvent industry with 20% of bond holders holding losses, but the other 80% of bond holders absolutely certain their bonds are good.

What we did instead was force every bank to take TARP money, which meant 100% of bond holders knew 20% of their bonds were losses, just no way to know which ones. As such, instead of discovering information and making it public, the government instead attempted to obscure as much information as possible, making rational investments impossible.

10/6/2011 4:43:08 PM

Quote :

"The former CEO of BB&T spoke here on campus on Tuesday and according to him his bank saw the crash coming and built up a huge war-chest of capital to quickly replace their bankrupt competitors"

I stopped reading there. So BB&T was going to come up with enough capital to replace Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and AIG's entire book of credit swap defaults? K.

[Edited on October 6, 2011 at 4:53 PM. Reason : :]

10/6/2011 4:52:13 PM

For fucks sake shrike, stop making an ass out of yourself.

10/6/2011 4:52:39 PM

Ah, another enlightening post brought to you by Chance. When was the last time you posted anything of any substance in any thread on this forum?

10/6/2011 4:54:17 PM

Holy shit...you didn't know the definition of moral hazard, so you just made up your own so you could bitch about things you found to be immoral?

The whole fucking financial industry took ridiculous risks because the GOVERNMENT ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED IT. It's been doing it for the last 70+ years, but it started getting bad under Clinton. If it weren't for government intervention, these banks would have found these loans to be far too risky to risk their own capital, and we simply would have had less people owning homes with a relatively stable economy.

10/6/2011 6:13:53 PM

10/6/2011 6:27:21 PM

Quote :

"You mean like private defense contractors in Iraq? Or aerospace? Or fossil fuels? Seems like that viewpoint only applies when it supports your views. More hypocrisy from the right. "

I think that's exactly what he means. jesus.

Quote :

"Really, you're arguing semantics now? I don't care how economists interpret the term."

REALLY? it's a term specific to fucking economics and gov't policy, lol. This shit needs to go in the Soap Box Quotes 2011 thread, lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard
jesus christ, dude. you literally lost all TSB credibility there.

Quote :

"Holy shit...you didn't know the definition of moral hazard, so you just made up your own so you could bitch about things you found to be immoral?"

not only that, he then bitched and moaned about someone supposedly using semantics. it aint semantics when you are appealing to the actual definition of a term.

10/7/2011 8:01:02 PM

Yeah the guy who can't read is saying I "lost my credibility" because people would rather change the subject than debate the actual points in the OP. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a $20B profit was a waste of tax payer money.

10/8/2011 9:01:30 AM

who the fuck changed the topic? YOU DID. not to mention changing the very definition of the phrase "moral hazard" to suit your own ends and then complaining that other people were "arguing semantics". Do you know what moral hazard is yet? Of course not.

Quote :

"I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a $20B profit was a waste of tax payer money."

I'm still waiting for you to explain how it will have a 20B profit AND a final price tag of 50billion. I'm also waiting for you to admit that banks that had no need of TARP money were forced to take it, which ended up making the numbers rosier.

and, as for "can't read," what part of "As of February 9, 2009, $388 billion had been allotted, and $296 billion spent, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Among the money committed, includes" doesn't make sense to you? Looking at that, I see, alone 285B to banks, and that's if we don't include the car makers, who are, essentially, banks, themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Expenditures_and_commitments

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 12:23:29 PM

You apparently skipped the post where I showed how all those things I mentioned were moral hazards, by any definition, but that's besides the point.

You're still retarded, can't read, and can't tell the difference between "committed" and "spent", a distinction your Wikipedia article (best source evaaaaaaar) clearly makes. We actually spent $245B on the banks, have already received $255B back, and the Treasury estimates that number will increase to $265B. Those numbers come straight from the Treasury and are indisputable facts. However, I already know you have a problem with facts when they don't fit your world view (global warming), so I'm sure you'll just respond with something completely stupid like "and that's if we don't include the car makers, who are, essentially, banks, themselves."

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1281.aspx

Hell, even AIG is paying back their TARP money. You have absolutely no ground to stand on whatsoever. You can argue the ethics behind it, you can get pissed that if had to be done in the first place (I certainly am), but you simply can't dispute that the cold hard math of it all worked out strongly in the American tax payer's favor. The more you do, the dumber you look.

10/8/2011 1:04:33 PM

Quote :

"You apparently skipped the post where I showed how all those things I mentioned were moral hazards, by any definition, but that's besides the point. "

hyahahahahahahahahahajksdfjgh7ermnkcmnk. and you still, apparently, missed the god damned definition of the term moral hazard. simply pointing out that something is immoral and you don't like it doesn't make it a moral hazard with respect to the actual meaning of the term.

Quote :

"You're still retarded, can't read, and can't tell the difference between "committed" and "spent", a distinction your Wikipedia article (best source evaaaaaaar) clearly makes. We actually spent $245B on the banks"

Oh really. Check this out, stupid fuck (From Wikipedia):
$205 billion to purchase bank equity shares through the Capital Purchase Program;[37]
$40 billion to purchase preferred shares of American International Group (AIG), then among the top 10 US companies, through the program for Systemically Significant Failing Institutions ($40 billion spent);
$40 billion in stock purchases of Citigroup and Bank of America ($20 billion each) through the Targeted Investment Program ($40 billion spent)

Add up the amount spent. Guess what you get? 285b. LIKE I FUCKING SAID. Can you really not fucking read? Are you that fucking stupid? Now, let's look at what you say next: 255b repaid. Subtract 285b from 255b. What do you get? 30 fucking billion. Now, show me that profit again. Kind of sounds like it's damn close to the 25b price tag as posted above, right? right.



and, AGAIN, answer this fucking point:

Quote :

"I'm still waiting for you to explain how it will have a 20B profit AND a final price tag of 50billion."

the answer is simple: everything you are posting is a mere manipulation of numbers. Only include some categories and ignore others. When everything is included, we get an expected loss of 50b. When you just pick and chose and ignore inconvenient things, like a good little liberal, you get a "profit" of 16b.

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 1:25:04 PM

Ok, so now not only are car companies banks, insurance companies are too? Are colleges and hospitals banks too? Are you a bank? Am I bank? What are we even arguing again? Oh yeah, math, and you keep saying 2+2=5 (or 205+40=285, or about 300, or whatever the next number you come with will be) Also, your fuck:words count ratio keeps going up,

Quote :

"the answer is simple: everything you are posting is a mere manipulation of numbers."

Really? Saying we invested $245B into the banks, have gotten $255B back, and are estimated to get back $265B back is manipulation? If that's the case, take your grievances up the with Treasury because they are the ones saying it, not I.

God, this is too much fun, you can't even read your own posts.

Quote :

"I'm still waiting for you to explain how it will have a 20B profit AND a final price tag of 50billion.""

Quote :

"Kind of sounds like it's damn close to the 25b price tag as posted above, right? right."

I don't even have to try to make you look stupid at this point, you do it to yourself

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM. Reason : :]

10/8/2011 1:35:50 PM

Quote :

"Ok, so now not only are car companies banks, insurance companies are too?"

where did I say anything about a car company in that last post? right, I didn't. And calling AIG solely an insurance company is about as fucking stupid as it gets. yes, they do insurance, but they were as heavily involved in the banking crisis as you could get, so to completely remove them from the situation is as disingenuous as it gets. Again, manipulating the fuck out of numbers. moreover, AIG was most certainly part of the "bailout," wasn't it? oh, fuck, I just blew up your entire point, didn't I?

While I did comment that the car companies are similar to banks, it wasn't in that post you referenced. Of course, it still wouldn't change the massive similarity between the two. So much so that even NPR frequently runs a spot that calls the car companies "banks that also sell cars."

Quote :

"205+40=285"

no, but 205+40+40 most fucking certainly does.

Quote :

"Really? Saying we invested $245B into the banks, have gotten $255B back, and are estimated to get back $265B back is manipulation?"

no, AS I SAID, leaving out others is the manipulation. so, please, fucking respond to this: "I'm still waiting for you to explain how it will have a 20B profit AND a final price tag of 50billion." And, you know what is also a manipulation? Taking the money given to the banks for their POS assets and puttin them on the US books at a 1:1 value. If they were actually a 1:1 value, then there would have been no need to take those assets in in the first place! When we look at the predicted losses for those items alone, guess what we get? 64b. Subtract your bogus "profit" of 16b and guess what we get? roughly 50b. hmmmm... source for that claim? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Expenditures_and_commitments Look towards the end of the section. Again, massively fucking stupid not to claim the expected losses on those assets or to remove those expenditures from the "money pumped into banks" or from the list of "bailouts." THAT, my dear sir, is a "manipulation"

Quote :

"I don't even have to try to make you look stupid at this point, you do it to yourself "

says the person who doesn't know what "moral hazard" is. I mistook something, and yet it still doesn't change my point. You declare that moral hazard is what you say it is and then ignore all statements of fact after that. And, actually, now that I look at it, I see it plain as day on Wikipedia: "by December 16, 2010, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the total cost would be $25 billion" in the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph on TARP. So, who looks stupid, again?

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 1:58 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 8, 2011 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2011 1:48:18 PM

Taking your cues from Palin/Bachman and just doubling down on your stupidity eh? I'm not sure how you can call it "leaving out others" when I only mentioned "banks" in the OP, and both links I posted specifically dealt with the banks, but whatever, I expected this from you. Let's see if I can get you to dig your hole any deeper.

Yeah, AIG was part of the bailouts, but they aren't a bank and their part in the mortgage crisis was specifically "insuring" the bad securities that the banks were buying. They received bailouts from TARP, the Fed, and directly from the Treasury totaling ~$180B. However, just like the banks, that is also turning into a positive investment for the tax payer.

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1281.aspx

Quote :

"After today’s repayment, the U.S. Government’s remaining outstanding investment in AIG through Treasury is $51 billion."

Your Wikipedia article is also about a year old with it's data, I suggest you find a better source (you won't, because you're stupid and lazy) and stop quoting out dated estimates.

As to the securities we bought, no need talk about "expected losses", we already know what happened with those. You would know this if you cared to look anywhere other than an out of date Wikipedia article.

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Update-on-Treasurys-MBS-Wind-Down-Taxpayers-Have-Now-Recovered-More-than-Three-quarters-of-Original-Investment.aspx

Quote :

"Through the end of August 2011, taxpayers have received a cumulative total of $172.1 billion in proceeds from this investment through sales by Treasury ($56.0 billion) and principal and interest payments ($116.1 billion)"

Quote :

"Based on current market conditions, Treasury expects to make a profit for taxpayers on this investment."

The Fed also invested ~$1.1 trillion (it's only around $860B today) in those same securities, at around the same time, for the same prices, so there is no reason to think that they won't get a return on that investment.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/

So to recap, you were wrong about the bank bailouts being bad for taxpayers, wrong about AIG, and wrong about the security purchases. Care to make any more claims using Wikipedia that I can easily refute with numbers directly from the source?

10/8/2011 8:15:06 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure how you can call it "leaving out others" when I only mentioned "banks" in the OP"

which would be the specific complaint of "leaving others out." The bailouts were about more than just banks. based on that alone, you HAVE to include AIG, as they most certainly got bailed the fuck out. But you didn't. Because it makes your case look bad.

Quote :

"However, just like the banks, that is also turning into a positive investment for the tax payer. "

Bullshit. Even your quote doesn't say such a thing.

Quote :

"Your Wikipedia article is also about a year old with it's data, I suggest you find a better source (you won't, because you're stupid and lazy) and stop quoting out dated estimates. "

how about you offer your own sources to counteract them? right. you can't.

Quote :

"As to the securities we bought, no need talk about "expected losses", we already know what happened with those."

funny that you only posted the current receipts without posting the actual costs and risks. it doesn't talk about the number of foreclosures that have occurred or anything like that. hmmm... wonder why...

Quote :

"so there is no reason to think that they won't get a return on that investment. "

which, of course, is why the banks had such a good time with them, right? which is it? were they really bad because the banks were evil and greedy and shit, or are they really good, making us lots of money, even though the banks wanted to get rid of them badly?

Quote :

"So to recap, you were wrong about the bank bailouts being bad for taxpayers, wrong about AIG, and wrong about the security purchases. Care to make any more claims using Wikipedia that I can easily refute with numbers directly from the source?"

so, to recap, you intentionally left out important entities from the "bailouts", still can't explain how a 16B profit is being turned with a concurrent price tag of 50B, and still don't know what moral hazard is.

Quote :

"Your Wikipedia article is also about a year old with it's data, I suggest you find a better source (you won't, because you're stupid and lazy) and stop quoting out dated estimates. "

meaning... that the parts where we are in perfect agreement are no longer valid? because, if I am reading it right, you agree with the 245B directly given to what we agree are banks. And you certainly agree with the extra 40B given to AIG. so, what is "old" about the data? While certainly the estimated costs have changed, you have yet to offer any newer source for your claims. It aint my job to go searching for data to support your argument.

10/8/2011 9:24:40 PM

aaronburro's got nothin. I haven't seen him do anything he complains about in the last post. It's called a hypocrite.

Shrike wins.

10/9/2011 1:29:35 PM

man shrike got owned hard in this thread

10/9/2011 5:30:11 PM

aaronburro pwnt, go home.

10/9/2011 9:43:09 PM

This was a cartoon created in 1912, one year before the creation of the Federal Reserve.

One day, you will need to embrace reality: the Federal Reserve is a creation of the private banks, for the benefit of private banks, meant to protect the banking cartel from losses. This is not something that was intended to "curb the effects of the business cycle". The central banking system is an intentional scheme to funnel wealth from the people to the power elite.

[Edited on October 14, 2011 at 7:14 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2011 7:12:25 PM

Quote :

"I did, in that other thread, I'm not rehashing it here. I'm sorry you can't read. I posted several points of data, cited directly from the treasury, refuting literally every single one of your bullet points. Please provide adequate citation, like I did in that thread, or just fucking drop it."

Welp, went through it again, and sure enough you damn sure did ignore or dance around anything that didn't agree with your position. You stuck your comments to TARP because it is only TARP that the numbers can be twisted enough to look nice and you ignored everything that couldn't. AIG you mentioned once, just to say in effect "sure lots of money was lost, but its turning for the better", all evidence to the contrary. And you didn't mention fannie/freddie once. not one damn time. Although that was the third post in the damn thread complete with citation. So please, stop acting like you answered this shit. Your premise was false, only idiological blindness could have you believing it. But you can't nationalize the nation's mortgage market without losses, and the government has them in spades, they just won't all show up on the books for decades to come.

[Edited on October 15, 2011 at 1:04 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/15/2011 1:00:59 AM

not only that, but he has completely gone full retard saying that "we will make money on the toxic assets we took off the banks' books". you know, the assets that made them insolvent in the first place

10/17/2011 11:22:41 PM

Quote :

"not only that, but the treasury he has completely gone full retard saying that "we will make money on the toxic assets we took off the banks' books"."

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Update-on-Treasurys-MBS-Wind-Down-Taxpayers-Have-Now-Recovered-More-than-Three-quarters-of-Original-Investment.aspx

Quote :

""Based on current market conditions, Treasury expects to make a profit for taxpayers on this investment.""

..

Quote :

"AIG you mentioned once, just to say in effect "sure lots of money was lost, but its turning for the better", all evidence to the contrary."

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1281.aspx

Quote :

"During the financial crisis, the U.S. Government's support for AIG totaled approximately $180 billion. After today’s repayment, the U.S. Government’s remaining outstanding investment in AIG through Treasury is $51 billion."

..

Quote :

"And you didn't mention fannie/freddie once. not one damn time."

And? We can go round, and round, and round on this, but no matter how you slice it, I still win.

http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Documents/Financial%20Stabilization%20Program%20Update%20March%202011%20FINAL.pdf

Quote :

" Based on current market conditions, Treasury estimates that the government’s emergency financial stabilization programs will earn a profit of approximately $24 billion for taxpayers"

..

So would you guys please either come up with your own math and estimates that show me why the treasury is wrong, or just the fuck up and admit you were completely clueless on this issue.

10/18/2011 12:10:01 PM

Yet again you are mixing bailout related losses with revenues that had nothing to do with it. Might as well include the trillion dollars collected by the IRS from income taxes in your win column too. Per your pdf, bailing out fannie and freddie lost the treasury $73 billion, a sum which presumes dividend payments to the treasury through 2021 but ignores all interest paid by the treasury to borrow the money. The same goes for every other category, assuming everyone that has promised to pay the Treasury will pay, ignoring that so far they have not paid and in fact have consumed even more money, as is shown in the FY 2012 table from your own pdf which shows an overall $28 billion loss just for that year.

It also excludes a shit-load of liability upon the government to bail them out next time and in perpetuity after that.

10/18/2011 5:04:55 PM

Why do you keep saying "you"? "I" am not saying anything. I'm simply posting data directly from the treasury that absolutely destroys the argument, from a pure mathematical perspective, that the bailouts were bad. You say they are excluding things. Well I could easily say that you're excluding the fact that had the bailouts not occurred, the overall loss to the American tax payer would have been fair greater than a few billion dollars. And guess what? I have exactly as much evidence to support my view as you have to support yours (actually, I have WAY more evidence supporting my view than you do, but what's the point in arguing with someone who denies fact rooted in basic math).

[Edited on October 18, 2011 at 5:32 PM. Reason : :]

10/18/2011 5:25:36 PM

Quote :

"[quote]not only that, but the treasury he has completely gone full retard saying that "we will make money on the toxic assets we took off the banks' books"."

[/quote]
imagine that. a government agency saying that it really does do a good job. stop the presses!

Quote :

"Why do you keep saying "you"? "I" am not saying anything."

maybe because YOU are the fucktard he is speaking to? damn, that was hard.

Quote :

"I'm simply posting data directly from the treasury that absolutely destroys the argument, from a pure mathematical perspective, that the bailouts were bad."

no, you are NOT, which is his whole point. you are posting rigged numbers that are meant to show things as being rosier. You are posting, essentially, Enron numbers, where bad shit is kept over here and out of sight.

10/18/2011 6:54:54 PM