The 86 million invisible unemployed

[Onceler]

say whatever you need to avoid addressing the points made. I agreed that your comments were correct, I was trying to discuss the situation further and you want to stick with 'all I was saying was that Treasury said something, I posted that not wanting to actually discuss their comments but just wanted to let you know that they said something'.

Like I said, I don't really care. Even those who doubt the Treasury report put the TARP loss at no more than $60 billion. Again - this is an amount that you marginalized as meaningless when it came to what the Buffett Rule would raise in revenue. You can't have it both ways.

And I agree w/ you on the latter - $60 billion is paltry, especially when you consider the trillions that the economy was losing at that time. I still blame Nancy Pelosi (and always will) for her grandstanding speech that delayed approval of TARP by a week; the amount lost during that week in terms of market & jobs had ramifications that will go on for years. That's how time sensitive this stuff was. And it was cheap, by any comparison you want to make.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Like I said, I don't really care. Even those who doubt the Treasury report put the TARP loss at no more than $60 billion. Again - this is an amount that you marginalized as meaningless when it came to what the Buffett Rule would raise in revenue. You can't have it both ways.

Dear Onceler... stop moving the goal posts. Go back and look at what I stated. I stated it is absurd to proclaim that TARP would be profitable to taxpayers. A loss means it is not profitable. I am not trying to have anything both ways, you simply have no clue.

 

[Onceler]

Dear Onceler... stop moving the goal posts. Go back and look at what I stated. I stated it is absurd to proclaim that TARP would be profitable to taxpayers. A loss means it is not profitable. I am not trying to have anything both ways, you simply have no clue.

It's not "absurd." I didn't say it was a loss, dear Superfreak - some still insist that it is. Some don't, including the Treasury.

What you would like me to do is google & find more sources who back up the Treasury report, so you can proceed to discredit them, as well. I don't care enough to do that. I don't care at all - that's what I'm trying to say. If the taxpayers DO take a loss on TARP, it still came way cheap.

You made the statement that it's "absurd" - why should I have to counter that? The onus is on you. Why do you think the Treasury is making that up? What proof do you have that their claim is "absurd"?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It's not "absurd." I didn't say it was a loss, dear Superfreak - some still insist that it is. Some don't, including the Treasury.

What you would like me to do is google & find more sources who back up the Treasury report, so you can proceed to discredit them, as well. I don't care enough to do that. I don't care at all - that's what I'm trying to say. If the taxpayers DO take a loss on TARP, it still came way cheap.

You made the statement that it's "absurd" - why should I have to counter that? The onus is on you. Why do you think the Treasury is making that up? What proof do you have that their claim is "absurd"?

If $900 or so billion has been repaid, why can they not account for it? Either they spent it on something else or they don't have it. Because the national debt did not decrease. If it is profitable, where is the extra money as well?

http://www.sigtarp.gov/frate2abAt2a/tre9uPrUvAst.pdf

That is the latest report on TARP. As I stated, with over $100b still outstanding, $14b having been written off as losses it is absurd to proclaim it will be profitable.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]