You should be thanking Bush for it. So long as you think it is the "best decision of all time"...
Getting harder to spin TARP as a failure...
- Thread starter Onceler
- Start date
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Yes, I am glad Bush got on board, and was rather surprised that he could be brought to his senses on the issue. Obviously if we had waited for Obama to get in office there'd be no point in even passing it.
He said best investment decision. Interesting paraphrase.
It was some pretty amazing ROI in retrospect, and it's one of about 3 things that I support & applaud Bush for over the course of 8 years.
42 Billion down is not a return. Again, it simply buttressed the ability of "too big to fail" to buy out "too small to fight corruption" and set us up for an even larger price tag the next time. That we are only 42 Billion down after so short of a period suggests that the panic was largely created by the government reaction not in response to it. Obama's control of CEO paychecks was definitely good incentive for those companies who didn't really need the cash to pay it back as quickly as possible. But if the reality matched the panic they wouldn't have had the cash to pay it back...
What a dishonest way to put it.
If you don't agree that the country would have lost trillions otherwise, that's one thing. A lot of people do. Among that crowd, yeah - if you can invest $42 billion to save a few trillion, I'd call that good ROI....
It is dishonest to call any loss a "return on investment". Or at the very least it is a poor understanding of business.
42 Billion down is not a return. Again, it simply buttressed the ability of "too big to fail" to buy out "too small to fight corruption" and set us up for an even larger price tag the next time. That we are only 42 Billion down after so short of a period suggests that the panic was largely created by the government reaction rather than the government reaction being in response to the panic. Obama's control of CEO paychecks was definitely good incentive for those companies who didn't really need the cash to pay it back as quickly as possible. But if the reality matched the panic they wouldn't have had the cash to pay it back...
Too big to fail got larger, the paychecks got fatter, and they paid it back because they didn't really need it and if they didn't they'd have had to give up the big payday...
The rich got richer, with the support of our tax dollars. Corporate welfare gone insane.
Well, if that's true it is a remarkably cheap price tag. I think the government actually made money bailing out the S&Ls 15 years ago.
One shudders to think what would have happened if we had followed the advice of message board rightwingers: let the banks fail, continued worshipping corporate deregulation, and slashed government spending and outlays.
That said, this corporate welfare crap has to stop. Dodging bullets and putting band aids on problems that could have, should have, been easily prevented in the first place is the most prudent move. I think Bernie Sanders introduced a too big to fail piece of legislation that enables the government to break up entities that threaten the economic security of the United States, due to their sheer size. I seriously doubt any republicans, and probably a ton of democrats won't sign onto Sander's proposal.
But the fact is, these cluster fucks are a result of unrestrained, under regulated, and gi-normous corporate entities.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you can call a loss a return on investiment, it is not solely a gain that is considered a return.....
fact is, we lost 42 BILLION dollars on our return.....
Well, I did say that $42 billion figure would make it harder to spin.
I didn't say it would make it impossible to spin. Nice job.
It would be listed as a negative return on investment. If you drop the whole of the statement and list it only partially and out of context you can call a loss a "return".... In reality it is a "negative return", at least that is how I learned it. They are different animals.
I take a bow...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you're frickin hilarious....you bash so called rightwingers for the their non support of TARP, then in your next breath say TARP is bad, it has to stop....
lmao
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
exactly...it is still a return though, you said a loss is not a return, it is and as you now clarified, it is a negative return....i don't think onceler ever claimed otherwise....if he did, i missed it
I said it was good ROI. In the strictest accounting terms, it isn't, because it's still a loss.
But, in broader terms, I think the cost is negligible considering what we might have lost, and - in those terms - to me, it's a good return on investment.
The reality, so far, is we paid 42 Billion dollars in order to get "even larger than 'too big to fail'" and the continued policies, the same leadership, and the same failure rate in the same as before. The negative ROI is a false indicator, corporate welfare simply bought us even larger "too big to fail" companies and very little change to forestall another crisis in the future.
Topspin
Verified User
this is hillarious please don't stop. I love cypress, but did he even take a breath before switching from talp was great to corp welfare has to stop. LOFL sorry cypress/er Joe Dirt
Also, for you anti-business liberals. The countries productive capacity was not going to vanish overnight cause a couple fat cats didn't make good on derivative bets. NY would have taken it a little harder but without the future price tag.
And if you believe half of the ferrytale your spinning you should get full force behind regs that break up banks into a bunch of smaller not to big to fail.
Guess what, these crooks didn't all of the sudden get religeon over night.
Also, for you anti-business liberals. The countries productive capacity was not going to vanish overnight cause a couple fat cats didn't make good on derivative bets. NY would have taken it a little harder but without the future price tag.
And if you believe half of the ferrytale your spinning you should get full force behind regs that break up banks into a bunch of smaller not to big to fail.
Guess what, these crooks didn't all of the sudden get religeon over night.
Epicurus
Reasonable
Cypress is more comfortable with the standard "Democrats are bad Republicans are good" arguments. Nuanced issues that split the partisans along ideological lines confuse him and make his little head spin.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
ok...but i think it would still be called a better than expected loss....stocks have risen higher on such data....
but yeah, if you are calling it a positive return, in that, it returned trillions, eg., we did not realize trillions in loss, then that is wrong....
and really, nobody knows if we would have lost that or not
That's one way of putting it.
Another would be that it cost $42 billion to avoid "The Grapes of Wrath II: the internet years"....