Getting harder to spin TARP as a failure...

so instead of companies who followed piss poor business practices and deserved to fail for their lack of business sense, american taxpayers just have to stomach the loss of 42 BILLION dollars of their hard earned money, all so that CEOs and high valued shareholders can stay wealthy.

hooray for TARP.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so instead of companies who followed piss poor business practices and deserved to fail for their lack of business sense, american taxpayers just have to stomach the loss of 42 BILLION dollars of their hard earned money, all so that CEOs and high valued shareholders can stay wealthy.

hooray for TARP.
Click to expand...

And....CEO's & high-valued shareholders are the only ones who benefited from those companies not failing?

Right. Good call.
 
Onceler said:
And....CEO's & high-valued shareholders are the only ones who benefited from those companies not failing?

Right. Good call.
Click to expand...

yeah, they are the only ones who benefitted from those companies not failing. people still got laid off, people are still losing their homes, people are still not finding jobs, and people are still having to deal with idiot lawmakers who want to bail out MORE 2BIG2FAIL companies.

good call on that TARP Bush. :321:
 
thanks for thinking of me ahead of time onceler....i'm truly and deeply honored....

that said, just because we recoup the money doesn't mean it is a success...those companies should have failed so that newer and stronger (or existing and stronger) companies can take their place....

not saying you, but it boggles the mind how many dems bemoan corporate welfare, but as soon as a dem pres gets into office and pushes it, they change their tune....the financial companies should have been allowed to fail, file bankruptcy or whatever, just as the rest of us have to do if we were to fail in our business endeavors....
 
My main objection to TARP (other than government intervention as a practice itself) was the precedent of allowing "too big to fail" to not mean "too big to exist, especially if you are going to receive government help".

Instead it was a government feed to allow "too big to exist" to buy at less than wholesale prices "too little to fight corruption" and make themselves into "even more too big to fail" all without changing any of the practices that made them "too stupid to survive in this environment" in the first place.
 
Yurt said:
thanks for thinking of me ahead of time onceler....i'm truly and deeply honored....

that said, just because we recoup the money doesn't mean it is a success...those companies should have failed so that newer and stronger (or existing and stronger) companies can take their place....

not saying you, but it boggles the mind how many dems bemoan corporate welfare, but as soon as a dem pres gets into office and pushes it, they change their tune....the financial companies should have been allowed to fail, file bankruptcy or whatever, just as the rest of us have to do if we were to fail in our business endeavors....
Click to expand...

We have disagreed about this. Yes, it is corporate welfare, but the pain that would have been felt by some of these companies failing, at that time, would have been staggering, imo. It was already a brutal year that touched just about everyone in some way. I think most would have seen deeper & more prolonged pain without TARP.

There is no way to prove that, but when I agree with Bush, and many economists on both sides agree, there must be something to it. At $42 billion, we got off cheap...
 
Onceler said:
We have disagreed about this. Yes, it is corporate welfare, but the pain that would have been felt by some of these companies failing, at that time, would have been staggering, imo. It was already a brutal year that touched just about everyone in some way. I think most would have seen deeper & more prolonged pain without TARP.

There is no way to prove that, but when I agree with Bush, and many economists on both sides agree, there must be something to it. At $42 billion, we got off cheap...
Click to expand...

translation: TARP was necessary to keep the company you work for in business so that you and your 49 union buddies wouldn't lose a paycheck.

Yeah, I can see where you have no problem taking a 42 billion dollar loss, just so long as you didn't get laid off.
 
Yurt said:
thanks for thinking of me ahead of time onceler....i'm truly and deeply honored....

that said, just because we recoup the money doesn't mean it is a success...those companies should have failed so that newer and stronger (or existing and stronger) companies can take their place....

not saying you, but it boggles the mind how many dems bemoan corporate welfare, but as soon as a dem pres gets into office and pushes it, they change their tune....the financial companies should have been allowed to fail, file bankruptcy or whatever, just as the rest of us have to do if we were to fail in our business endeavors....
Click to expand...

KUDO's I agree 110%
 
SmarterThanYou said:
translation: TARP was necessary to keep the company you work for in business so that you and your 49 union buddies wouldn't lose a paycheck.

Yeah, I can see where you have no problem taking a 42 billion dollar loss, just so long as you didn't get laid off.
Click to expand...

Wow; that's a bad translation.

I don't belong to any unions. I do, however, understand what the term "ripple effect" means in terms of the economy. You should bone up on that one...
 
Onceler said:
Wow; that's a bad translation.

I don't belong to any unions. I do, however, understand what the term "ripple effect" means in terms of the economy. You should bone up on that one...
Click to expand...
The "ripple effect" of TARP was in allowing "too big to fail" to overtake "too small to fight corruption" without any basic changes to their practices that were "too stupid to survive in this environment"... Now they are "waaaay to big to fail" and we already know they are successful only at taking government loans when the times get bad...
 
If we had let the dominoes roll without government interference we would have lost Bear, Lehman, AIG, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. What would have been the state of our financial markets at that point and would other company failures have continued?

This is not to argue that TARP was the right thing to do I'm just asking how it would have played out without government involvement.
 
Onceler said:
Wow; that's a bad translation.

I don't belong to any unions. I do, however, understand what the term "ripple effect" means in terms of the economy. You should bone up on that one...
Click to expand...

I know full well what 'ripple effect' means and the only ripples from TARP show that these companies don't need to worry about bad business practices or failing because of them. If it comes close, all they have to do is tell the gov so they can be bailed out again, by taxpayer money.

but that sits well with you, right?
 
cawacko said:
If we had let the dominoes roll without government interference we would have lost Bear, Lehman, AIG, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. What would have been the state of our financial markets at that point and would other company failures have continued?

This is not to argue that TARP was the right thing to do I'm just asking how it would have played out without government involvement.
Click to expand...
If I had written the legislation any company of a certain size getting any of the TARP funds would have to submit a plan to divest themselves of their status as "too big to fail" and they would not be allowed to purchase any smaller companies...

Too big to fail is a recipe for future disaster, even bigger doesn't make it better.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
I know full well what 'ripple effect' means and the only ripples from TARP show that these companies don't need to worry about bad business practices or failing because of them. If it comes close, all they have to do is tell the gov so they can be bailed out again, by taxpayer money.

but that sits well with you, right?
Click to expand...

Not really, but it sits a hell of a lot better with me than the economy losing another $2-3 trillion, and what that would have meant to just about every American worker. The fact that they are recouping $650 billion certainly makes the argument that it wasn't "worth it" kinda tough.

I always use the phrase pennywise pound foolish, but I'll say it again, and also say again that TARP was cheap.
 
The problem was the wave of panic and lack of trading regulation that put unsinkable banks into sinkable waters. In that case it was the right thing to do.. fundamentaly sound institutions in most cases who were caught in a wave of panic.

Id say a much better 'welfare' investment to support then the welfare to people who will never give back to society.. the perpetual bottom feeders of the country.
 
I think I would have preferred it had they used the money to keep the banking system up but hadn't treated the CEO's with kiddy gloves. It creates just as much moral hazard to prop the banking system up and put all the CEO's in the unemployment line as it does to let the CEO's fall because the banks and the whole economy failed.
 
Onceler said:
Not really, but it sits a hell of a lot better with me than the economy losing another $2-3 trillion, and what that would have meant to just about every American worker. The fact that they are recouping $650 billion certainly makes the argument that it wasn't "worth it" kinda tough.

I always use the phrase pennywise pound foolish, but I'll say it again, and also say again that TARP was cheap.
Click to expand...

and i'll say it again, TARP was not cheap, it was foolish, it was expensive, it was wasted, and it has absolutely no redeeming value to it at all. It just made America weaker.
 
Onceler said:
Not really, but it sits a hell of a lot better with me than the economy losing another $2-3 trillion, and what that would have meant to just about every American worker. The fact that they are recouping $650 billion certainly makes the argument that it wasn't "worth it" kinda tough.

I always use the phrase pennywise pound foolish, but I'll say it again, and also say again that TARP was cheap.
Click to expand...

pure speculation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top