What TARP money for jobs???

This is an excerpt from the Fraud-in-Chief's Brookings speech. I didn't post the whole thing, because the bastard is so long-winded, and I wanted to get to the root of his point... I will interject my commentary as we go...

And given the challenges of accelerating the pace of hiring in the private sector, these targeted initiatives are right and they are needed. But with a fiscal crisis to match our economic crisis, we also must be prudent about how we fund it. So to help support these efforts, we are going to wind down the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- or TARP -- the fund created to stabilize the financial system so banks would lend again.

This is just after he tells us of yet another socialist utopian dream he has for 'changing' America. He lays out this long list of sectors the government is going to supposedly create new jobs, and now he is about to explain how this will be funded... with the TARP money!

I don't think I have to tell you there has rarely been a less loved or more necessary emergency program than TARP, which -- as galling as the assistance to banks may have been -- indisputably helped prevent a collapse of the entire financial system.

Oh yes, it was clearly going to be a total collapse of our economy if we didn't do this... we were told Marital Law may have to be declared, if it didn't pass! Every one of you socialist nitwits, swore to us that we needed a $785 billion TARP bill, and anything less would cause economic disaster! That is what you told us last year!

Launched hastily -- understandably, but hastily -- under the last administration, the TARP program was flawed,

Really? You voted for it! How was it "flawed?" Oh... I get it, because it was done hastily under the last administration? But you just said it indisputably helped avoid a collapse, so how was it really flawed?

and we have worked hard to correct those flaws and manage it properly. And today, TARP has served its original purpose and at much lower cost than we expected.

Oh really? What have you done exactly, to 'work hard to correct flaws' in TARP? Please elaborate on this, O' Great One! And how has it served its original purpose already, when the bulk of hasn't even been spent? Where are these cost savings found? Notice he doesn't give us any details on this, but let me ask you... when is the last time Congress appropriated funding for something, and came back a year later to report they didn't need all that money after all? You see, the bill has all kinds of funding initiatives built in, for all kinds of things in all kinds of places... it would be nice to know what parts of this have been deemed unnecessary now, because the program has 'served its original purpose'? Our congress deliberated and debated on this, and cast their votes to approve it, but now the Executive branch can arbitrarily come in and alter the legislation to fund a policy initiative?

In fact, because of our stewardship of this program, and the transparency and accountability we put in place, TARP is expected to cost the taxpayers at least $200 billion less than what was anticipated just this past summer.

Ohhww... It was a totally fucked up mess, and he can't tell us what he did to correct it, but now that he is in charge of it, the mess has been fixed, and the TARP program was a resounding success! But what "transparency and accountability" is this fool talking about? This is the most secretive and unaccountable administration in the history of America! Nothing has been transparent here! He won't tell us what was flawed or how he fixed it, he won't tell us what part of the TARP money won't be needed or why we were lied to when we were told they needed all $785 billion... we get NO answers on any of that... just know that Obama is in charge, and all is well!

And the assistance to banks, once thought to cost taxpayers untold billions, is on track to actually reap billions in profits for the taxpaying public. So this gives us a chance to pay down the deficit faster than we thought possible and to shift funds that would have gone to help the banks on Wall Street to help create jobs on Main Street.

Now wait just a goddamn minute, Mr. President! First of all... WHAT funds are you talking about, we are BROKE? The $785 billion was BORROWED money, or money you PRINTED! We The Taxpayers, are on the hook for it, we are the ones who have to repay the debt... and we were told that if there was any money left over or any residual profits, it would be returned to the TAXPAYER! Not shifted and diverted to fund your political ambitions!
 
Why would democrats care when they are for trillions for healthcare. Republicans got what they deserved when they clapped as bush wrecked the car. The you serve up the fossil, child please.
 
Why are you against new jobs?

Is this the new GOP platform...anti-employment?

I'm all for new jobs, and if Congress had passed a $785 billion jobs bill, it might be different! Congress passed TARP, not the Obama Jobs Initiative! Uhm excuse me, but I don't think the Executive Branch has this authority!

Imagine if you will, it's 2012, and President Sarah Palin announces that the $800 billion health care reform bill passed in 2010 has "served its original purpose" and the money was now going to be diverted to the Sarah Palin Moose Hunters Initiative! Would that be alright with you? It's not what Congress appropriated the money for, but so what, right?

The $785 billion TARP money was sold to us as an emergency relief effort, and we were told if it didn't pass, the economy would collapse. We were also told that our money would be returned, if these institutions recovered and we turned the corner... but now, we're told the money (which never existed) is going to be used to fund Obama's jobs initiative!
 
If THIS is an example of how our government works, I don't understand the need for a Congress! Why can't they just appropriate $785 billion for the president to spend at his discretion, and not worry about actual 'legislation' spelling out how it will be spent? I mean, that is exactly what they have done here... No one deliberated on any ideas to create new jobs, it wasn't even discussed as part of TARP, and none of the Congressmen who voted for TARP, thought they were voting to approve a jobs program. I am sure our representatives would have had some ideas as to how we should spend our tax dollars to create jobs, but apparently, we live by rule of King Obama, and we no longer need to worry ourselves with such trivial detail.
 
The US is currently monetizing its debt, but it's not really a "print money to spend it!" deal. It's the only way to bring effective interest rates below zero, and all indicators say interest rates need to be below zero right now.
 
The US is currently monetizing its debt, but it's not really a "print money to spend it!" deal. It's the only way to bring effective interest rates below zero, and all indicators say interest rates need to be below zero right now.

The problem, of course, is that you can’t cut interest rates below zero, if you try, lenders will just hoard cash.
 
The US is currently monetizing its debt, but it's not really a "print money to spend it!" deal. It's the only way to bring effective interest rates below zero, and all indicators say interest rates need to be below zero right now.

You dumbass. :palm:

If the interest rate was BELOW ZERO, then the bank would owe the borrower interest on the money the person was loaned.

:facepalm:
 
The problem, of course, is that you can’t cut interest rates below zero, if you try, lenders will just hoard cash.

Yes. That's why I said "effective rate".

The fed is printing money right now and using it to buy US debt, which puts more money directly into the market. They've pretty much never done anything like that before, but it does effectively reduce interest rates below 0% without causing lenders to hoard.
 
Yes. That's why I said "effective rate".

The fed is printing money right now and using it to buy US debt, which puts more money directly into the market. They've pretty much never done anything like that before, but it does effectively reduce interest rates below 0% without causing lenders to hoard.

i didn't put the link, it was krugman who said that
 
krugman was talking about the effective interest rate....he doesn't believe it is good policy

so are you simply saying he was right for that time? because he sure hasn't changed his mind....

OH OH OH GOTCHA LOLOLOLOL ANOTHER YURT MOMENT?!/1

If the bank lowers its interest rates below 0 it causes hoarding. Quantitative easing is not lowering interest rates though. It has much the same economic effect but obviously there's nothing there to cause banks to hoard.

Krugman was talking about actual interest rates when he said "effective" interest rates. He was meaning something different than I was.
 
OH OH OH GOTCHA LOLOLOLOL ANOTHER YURT MOMENT?!/1

If the bank lowers its interest rates below 0 it causes hoarding. Quantitative easing is not lowering interest rates though. It has much the same economic effect but obviously there's nothing there to cause banks to hoard.

Krugman was talking about actual interest rates when he said "effective" interest rates. He was meaning something different than I was.

no gotcha moment...or else i wouldn't have said it was krugman....i merely point out that krugman disagrees with you

and moron....effective and actual interest rate are the same thing....you expressly said "effective" and took the time to point this out....
 
no gotcha moment...or else i wouldn't have said it was krugman....i merely point out that krugman disagrees with you

and moron....effective and actual interest rate are the same thing....you expressly said "effective" and took the time to point this out....

Krugman was meaning actually reducing interest rates, I meant quantitative easing had an economic effect "like" reducing interest rates without causing hoarding. I used bad terminology to express the concept.
 
no gotcha moment...or else i wouldn't have said it was krugman....i merely point out that krugman disagrees with you

and moron....effective and actual interest rate are the same thing....you expressly said "effective" and took the time to point this out....

I would ordinarily say that an anal cunt was a contradiction in terms but you may have just achieved a first.
 
Krugman was meaning actually reducing interest rates, I meant quantitative easing had an economic effect "like" reducing interest rates without causing hoarding. I used bad terminology to express the concept.

you have no clue what you're talking about....lmao
 
I would ordinarily say that an anal cunt was a contradiction in terms but you may have just achieved a first.

you really are a creepy stalker....your obsession with me and cunt is disturbing....i told you in pm yesterday that i am not gay, so stop hitting on me and stop sending me pm's asking if i swing for your team....or begging me to reconsider your disgusting sexual advances....stop sending the pm's....

thanks!
 
Back
Top