Skip to main content

View Diary: The politics of Matt Taibbi's big con (105 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why call it the Small Business Lending Fund (0+ / 0-)

    if it's purpose was actually to enable small banks to repay their TARP obligations? When more than half the funds end up being used in this manner, it makes the program appear to be a case of bait and switch. And again, the point of Taibbi's article was that the bank bailout was far more of a giveaway to the banks than has been admitted to the public. Throughout these comments, citizen k has made a big deal about this whopping $1.8 Billion, as though that were some hugely significant figure that shows that Taibbi is wrong and/or lying about the bailout. "Look! There was a kernel of corn in this pile of shit!" Here is what Taibbi wrote:

    Using small-business funds to pay down their own debts, parking huge amounts of cash at the Fed in the midst of a stalled economy – it's all just evidence of what most Americans know instinctively: that the bailouts didn't result in much new business lending. If anything, the bailouts actually hindered lending, as banks became more like house pets that grow fat and lazy on two guaranteed meals a day than wild animals that have to go out into the jungle and hunt for opportunities in order to eat. The Fed's own analysis bears this out: In the first three months of the bailout, as taxpayer billions poured in, TARP recipients slowed down lending at a rate more than double that of banks that didn't receive TARP funds.
    Yes, there was SOME lending, and some of the money in this program did actually go to small businesses. But that doesn't mean that the program wasn't used as a cover to transfer even more money to the banks than what was loaned. You may feel this is appropriate, I do not.

    And yes, I'm reluctant to wade into the government report.  I don't see much point in reading that the administrator of the program thinks that it went just great. So yes, at some point I choose to rely on people who have researched the topic. Taibbi has been following this story for quite some time, and has revealed information that had previously remained hidden. His take on things is also not all that different from others who have looked into Wall Street and the banking industry since 2008. Meanwhile, given his track record, citizen k is among the last people I would choose as an authority on anything. He has posted a long string of diaries over the past few years which could be given the collective title, "Liberals and Progressives Suck". For some reason he seems to have much more of a problem with those on the left than with those on the right.

    Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

    by kbman on Mon Jan 07, 2013 at 08:38:08 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  it did increase small business lending (0+ / 0-)

      which is why they called it the small business lending fund.

      favorite band: twisted gloating

      by citizen k on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 04:50:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  OK (0+ / 0-)

      so,
      1) You find the name misleading. Sure, I'll give you that. They could have called it Small Business Lending Encouragement Fund and saved Taibbi and the rest of us all of this confusion.
      2) Matt Taibbi's article brought up the SBLF. He used it as evidence for his position. He also used the "Fed's own analysis" to bolster his point (apparently Mr. Taibbi has a higher opinion of government reports than you do). It wasn't citizen k who focused on it.
      3) You accuse citizen k of being an "enforcer of orthodoxy," yet when presented with data that contradicts your position, you simply refuse to consider it. You just don't see the point in reading it. I submit you and the rest of the people here that ignore the content of the diary and simply attack citizen k have your own orthodoxy you enforce.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site