Skip to main content

If this prediction comes true, there should be a ticker tape parade for President Obama, Hank Paulson, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke and the rest of the Obama Treasury team for not only saving the world economy from a global Depression and run on the banks but accomplishing that feat while earning a profit for the taxpayers!!!!!

http://finance.yahoo.com/...

But will anyone ever give them credit for their brilliance and for that matter their bravery to put the federal government funds to good use temporarily and then receiving every penny back and even making a profit???

**********Update #1************
Boy I stuck a chord with this diary, 150 comments in less than 30 minutes!!!  Well I just want to comment that nobody on the "We Had To" team was or is happy with financial firm executive compensation including Obama, Geithner or Paulson...so to say that we are supporting that is just plain wrong...

********Final Update****************
I have to go.  But I will say I am very proud of my Kossack brothers and sisters who have proved me wrong on a almost 2:1 ratio more Kossacks support our POTUS and the decisions he made for our country than do not.  You are all great.../peace and happiness to all!!!


It was in fact Obama and Geithner who reigned in executive compensation for the TARP executives...

My guess is not a chance...there will still be people who will criticize the bailouts even if it ends up returning a net profit to taxpayers...

Paulson is boldly predicting with Buffett not arguing the point that...

Henry Paulson, the former Treasury chief, and billionaire Warren Buffett said taxpayers will recover every cent paid out to banks during the economic meltdown and may even turn a profit.

And Paulson continued...

"As bad as this is...its not as bad as it could have been,...the United States is better off today than most countries...."Every other major economy has many more significant challenges than we do,"

Buffett (a long-time Democrat)...

...praised the actions of Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Paulson's successor, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

All these people worked tirelessly on a government salary to save our country from disaster and what do they get, countless criticism from people on the left and right...So my question is when it is discovered that the money is all returned to the treasury with a profit...will we all admit we are better off than doing nothing???

Remember the last S&L crisis of the 1980's we ended up losing over $100 Billion dollars which is probably equivalent to around $500 Billion in today's dollars...So you can say well we still have unemployment, but I say unemployment would be much worse if the bailout had not occurred...

I think we should...

Originally posted to dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 02:57 PM PST.

Poll

History will record the bailout by the GWB & Obama Administration as

26%44 votes
32%55 votes
27%46 votes
12%21 votes
0%1 votes

| 167 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for celebrating the successes of the... (8+ / 0-)

    brilliant Obama Administration!!!

    Obama - Change I still believe in

    by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 02:58:49 PM PST

  •  Let's first see if any significant regulation is (13+ / 0-)

    enacted. Since there were so few strings attached to the bailout money, unless we get much stronger regulation, this may happen all over again in a decade or two.

  •  Another Poll Choice: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indycam, pantherq

    George who?
    Obama = Socialist

    Show me on the doll where Rahm touched you

    by mydailydrunk on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:04:06 PM PST

  •  Lumping in Dems (16+ / 0-)

    that hold a different opinion to you with teabaggers. Sleazy.

    Harry Reid's lack of backbone is an act, his obstructionism isn't.

    by stevej on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:04:41 PM PST

  •  What a poor diary in (11+ / 0-)
    whihc you demean Barack Obama by using his name to justify your personal political views and dislike of some Democrats.  

    Disgusting.

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

    by TomP on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:06:42 PM PST

  •  Speaking only from a personal (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dvogel001, Niniane, vc2

    POV, I think the biggest problem is that people don't have a good understanding of what these policies mean and how they affect the economy, so when good things are revealed, they don't get reported the way they should because you get a Balloon Boy incident that the media focuses on to boost its ratings.  Stuff like this gets ignored.

  •  This will not end well. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, Snud, Situational Lefty

    We need Meta Police™.

  •  I'm guessing no. They won't give him credit. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dvogel001, pollbuster, nickrud

    Because whatever he's doing isn't good enough, smart enough, panicked enough, calm enough, obsessive enough, shows enough fight, shows enough flight and isn't done with enough empathy/courage/tutu wearing polar bears.  And that's just the dems!

  •  Credit? Credit? you want credit? (0+ / 0-)

    for saving our financial system and sparing us a redo of the 1930s?

    Most Americans don't understand our financial system, and the few that do tend to be Republicans.

    If you want credit for incredible insignificant contributions to society go into professional sports.
    (With the exception of Jackie Robinson and few others who used sports to advance civil rights)

    If you want credit for contributions to our society in the area of governing you only get them if your accomplishments can be understood and appreciated by the majority of Americans. If we take Martin Luther King Jr. as our example, good luck with that.

    One can only hope that this scripture will be found true.

    Matthew 6 NIV

    1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

    2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

    We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:11:09 PM PST

  •  If the bailouts are seen as a huge success (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dvogel001, Niniane, Losty, TheLizardKing

    then Bush will get all the credit, but if the bailouts are hated, then it will all be Obama's doing. I hope that clears things up a bit.

    With Obama's Presidency, I feel the enduring pain of every teabagger, and believe me, I completely enjoy it.

    by pollbuster on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:11:27 PM PST

    •  Well I agree with that... (0+ / 0-)

      and would add...that most of the blame will be from the LW and RW...

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:19:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't Think Anyone Views Bailouts as Huge Success (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dvogel001

      in terms of popularity with the public, or in terms of transparency, or in terms of TARP terms, especially as originally promulgated under Bush.

      However, the Bush TARP died when the Obama Administration came into office.  What's in place now as TARP isn't Bush's baby, it's Obama's.  And he plans to get every penny back.

      In January of last year Geithner and Bernanke along with Sheila Bair and John Dugan went to work to overhaul the Bush bailout.

      Yes, the public absolutely has the right to be angry.  Nobody loves TARP, but we can't hate it as much as we would have hated Bush's TARPbaby.

      Let's remember that financial reform proposals are working their way through the Senate and House Finance committees.  "Clearing up" regulatory reform is coming down the pike that will address the underlying issue that led to Bubblenomics -- risk management.

      "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Stewart (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

      by Limelite on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:38:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kossacks yes, TeaParty Republicans, no (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pollbuster, Niniane
    •  I'm not sure about the Kossack part either. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Niniane

      The senate debated DADT for the FIRST TIME in 17 years.  That is HUGE.  And I heard was BITCHING about how it didn't happen fast enough.  I hate democrats right now.  And not because of Obama OR the idiots in Congress.  It's because the electorate are like a bunch of entitled assholes that are thankful for nothing, respectful of nothing and impatient as fuck.  I get it, I guess.  That people aren't going to feel grateful for someone for doing something they consider to be a moral imperative.  But it's totally unmindful of the fact that even though we view it as a moral imperative that MUST happen, it is easier blogged about than done.  

  •  Har! (20+ / 0-)
    "All these people worked tirelessly on a government salary to save our ountry from disaster...." I just Googled "Paulson earnings" and found out that he only made 3.7 billion dollars last year. Poor guy. We should take up a collection.

    A Republican is someone who can't enjoy his privileged position unless he is certain that somewhere, someone is in excruciating agony. I Love OCD

    by nippersdad on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:16:52 PM PST

  •  Of course I'll give credit... when it's due. (6+ / 0-)

    But citing an article that cites Hank Paulson in defense of Hank Paulson is a bit silly, don't you think?  

    Point of fact: we have not recovered all of the bailout money to date, nor have we turned a proft.  It's not surprising to me that Hank Paulson says we're going to do those things.  What is surprising is that you take his word on the matter without even a grain of salt.

    Further, I credit the (woefully too small) recovery act with stemming the unemployment tsunami.  The banks were bailed out and are still not lending to small businesses in the way that TARP was supposed to encourage.

    Until we get meaningful banking regulations back on the books all of this TARP razzle-dazzle merely ensures that the events that led to the current crisis will be repeated... and repeated... and repeated.

    "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

    by The Rational Hatter on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:19:05 PM PST

    •  I said if it is in fact proved to be true... (0+ / 0-)

      which it looks like it is on track to be...we have already cut the final anticipated cost by over 60% of its original cost...

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:22:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I suppose the major difference between us then (3+ / 0-)

        is our relative trust in this administration's finance team.  And hey!  Obama has done nothing but surprise me since I saw him give the keynote address at the DNC in 2004. What you are saying is totally possible.  

        I just don't think we should extend the level of trust that you seem to be to anyone who works near Wall Street.

        "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

        by The Rational Hatter on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:39:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  In fairness (5+ / 0-)

      The bank bailout was not meant to stimulate the economy.

      It was meant to keep us from going into a worldwide depression, with millions dying of starvation, economies faltering completely, etc.

      Now - that was all theoretical. And some folks will never believe that this would have happened without the bailouts. Other folks will say that the bailouts should have had strings attached. That's fine.

      But many of us strongly believe that the bailouts saved the economy. Even if we lost nearly every penny, it would just about be worth it, if you believe that millions would have died after a precipitous world economic collapse. Yet, it looks like we're getting the money back.

      LOOK IT! I WROTE A COMMENT ON BIG ORANGE SEXY TIME!!!!

      by Mark Warner is God on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:23:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Be that as it very well may be... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MadRuth, slatsg, PsychoSavannah

        it distresses me as a citizen that there exists a sector of the economy that has gotten so big, and plays with so little regulation that if the people in charge screw up, it can result in a global depression.  I work in finance and logistics for a living.  If I had pulled the same stuff that Wall Street did I'd be in jail.  For a very long time.  But that's because I play by a very different set of rules than Wall Street does.

        Even if we get every penny back it scares me that there is the likelihood that regulations will not be put into place to prevent a similar scenario from happening in the future.  In short, even if TARP is repaid with interest it doesn't really mean much if we don't reestablish sanity in how the capital markets work.  And, frankly, I don't trust former/future bankers to write the rules. As far as I am concerned they shouldn't even have a seat at the table.  

        "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people." -Tony Benn (-6.38,-6.36)

        by The Rational Hatter on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:36:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  In fairness about the bailouts (0+ / 0-)

        they did save the economy but only in a temporal sense. We are not in a good spot right now. The impending state and local government budget Armageddons are coming. We have the European debt crisis on the horizon. The list goes on. The problem is the bailouts were given away, and nothing was done to correct the problem or to address the underlying failures of the economic system.

        No one has been punished. The best they can come up with is a $5,000 tax credit which is going to be misused by companies that hire seasonal work forces if its passed.

        We haven't seen the end of this.

  •  Capitalism is the best system in the world, (4+ / 0-)

    and it does very well between bailouts.

    With Obama's Presidency, I feel the enduring pain of every teabagger, and believe me, I completely enjoy it.

    by pollbuster on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:20:22 PM PST

    •  Snark Alert (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gooserock, Losty, Johnny Q

      Snarking the idea that anyone would believe a word out of the mouth of one Hank Paulson.

    •  Why the HR, diarist? (0+ / 0-)

      Uprated.

      "Remember the days of Woodward and Bernstein? The Post doesn't." - DemFromCT, 11/09/09

      by Beardface on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:28:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Looks like threadjack to me. (0+ / 0-)

        What Dick Cheney & torture have to do with TARP:

        1. Isn't clear
        1. Isn't connected by Jobu's post

        It may be true, well-sourced, etc. But it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, even tangentially. The HR is sound; you should reconsider the uprate. IMO, Jobu's redirect into Paulson's cred is insufficient to excuse the threadjack.

        "Faith means not wanting to know what is true."-Friedrich Nietzsche

        by SilentBrook on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:34:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah

          I didn't read it as "Let's talk about Cheney" at all.  It was a valid analogy.  Refutable, perhaps, but troll-rating it isn't refuting it.

        •  It's a direct analogy (4+ / 0-)

          dvogel cites Paulson in support of Paulson's policy.
          jobu cites Cheney in support of Cheney's policy.

          Two former Bush Administration officials arguing that their policies saved the world from utter chaos and destruction.

          •  Analogy? Perhaps. Direct??? (0+ / 0-)

            Maybe to you, the redirect brings it around, but I still have to disagree. If Jobu wanted to argue dvogel001's sourcing, then that should be the parent of the thread, not some random factoid we find agreeable to our collective loathing for all things Cheney.

            BTW, using Paulson as a source is questionable & an entirely fair debate to raise. This thread was started under clumsy circumstances, at best. We still aren't discussing the matter at hand. If Jobu had made a more direct explication of how Cheney & Paulson were doing the same thing, we'd be talking about that & the usefulness of Paulson's self opinion here. He didn't, so we aren't; that fact is entirely rooted in Jobu's use of either a threadjack post or an overly quick post-trigger finger (probably more of the latter, which is why I held my donut).

            "Faith means not wanting to know what is true."-Friedrich Nietzsche

            by SilentBrook on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:53:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  This is a bad HR, dvogel. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg, Magnifico

      The analogy isn't bad.  You quoted Paulson on Paulson's policy.

      Why not just defend your choices.  I don't think jobu HR'd your opinion.

      Offset rec.

    •  dvogel you need to justify that HR (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slatsg

      That is a perfectly reasonable analogy, and nowhere near HR-able. Uprated.

      •  Comparing Torture to this... (0+ / 0-)

        is HR IMHO...uprate if you want...

        Obama - Change I still believe in

        by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:42:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  For those of us not near the river of money (0+ / 0-)

          flowing down Wall Street, our circumstances can be compared to torture.

          •  That is a disgusting comment... (0+ / 0-)

            but I cannot HR because I am having a disagreement with you...

            Obama - Change I still believe in

            by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:47:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you really need to re-read the FAQ on (0+ / 0-)

              HR's. That's nowhere near HR-able. It's just an opinion.

              •  I believe comparing support... (0+ / 0-)

                of torture to support of a bailout policy...meets this definition...

                To Troll Rate something has exactly one meaning. When you Troll Rate something, as a trusted user, you are stating that the comment should be made invisible to all site users. You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie. Remember that, because that is the only use of the troll rating.

                It is my opinion that was the intent of the comment...

                Obama - Change I still believe in

                by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:13:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's your opinion that they're not comparable (0+ / 0-)

                  but they are simply two policies of the Bush Administration that some of us fervently disagree with. I'm not saying that you are torturer if you support bailouts.

                  It's not off-topic, it's about the bailouts and whether they were good policy. It's not a lie, it's an opinion. It's definitely debatable, the merits of either policy. As far as being "simply inflammatory" I guess we all have our opinions, but I don't see it that way. It's not the purpose.

          •  I think anyone who has been subjected... (0+ / 0-)

            to actual torture would be equally disgusted...

            Obama - Change I still believe in

            by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:48:08 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  People commit suicide rather than be tortured (0+ / 0-)

              and people commit suicide because of the destruction of their economic circumstances. I'm not one to try to "compare suffering" each of which is horrific in its own light, and I've fortunately not experienced either total financial destitution or torture, but based on the similar reactions of those who have, it would seem that they can have an equally severe impact on someone's psyche.

              •  The bailout... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Limelite

                saved financial ruin of millions of people...it did not cause more death and destruction like torture...keep digging...

                Obama - Change I still believe in

                by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:27:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's your opinion, bro (0+ / 0-)

                  I think it caused much more ruin than it saved. Much.

                  •  And that is JYHO... (0+ / 0-)

                    Even the most negative anti-Obama economists acknowledge that those actions saved the economy from disaster...(like Krugman)...

                    Obama - Change I still believe in

                    by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:31:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But most acknowledge (0+ / 0-)

                      the economy could have been saved by means much more favorable to Main Street instead of Wall Street.

                      Like here:

                      Too Big Has Failed

                      •  That is fine.... (0+ / 0-)

                        but to compare that disagreement with supporting torture is not worth a debate....

                        All that is interesting theory but in practice would have taken too long while people and companies emptied out their bank accounts and our financial system collapsed...speed and decisiveness was most importance not accuracy...

                        And what works in a small country like Sweeden would not have been practical here...

                        Obama - Change I still believe in

                        by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:51:39 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Once Again (0+ / 0-)

                          but to compare that disagreement with supporting torture is not worth a debate....

                          Once again, the comparison was regarding credibility.    

                          Moreover, it goes to the very heart of your thesis, i.e. a prediction by Hank Paulson, a man which I have since shown has little to no credibility.  Not unlike another equally untrustworthy character, one Dick Cheney.  Would you believe Dick Cheney if he predicted (as he in fact has done) that torture would make America safer?

                          You may H/R at your pleasure, but I stand by my comment.

                          •  I have only HRed... (0+ / 0-)

                            one comment, your original one...and I tipped your analysis (which I disagreed with) that was politely explaining your position without comparing it to supporting torture...

                            Obama - Change I still believe in

                            by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:01:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again (0+ / 0-)

                            Credibility.  Not torture.

                            To repeat:

                            The point of my comment, which hit directly at the central point in you diary, i.e.  Hank Paulson's 'prediction', was to point out the weakness in your argument.  In my world, that is debate.

                            Comparing Paulson to Dick Cheney defending his use of waterboarding by saying that it has kept us safe is spot on.  He has no credibility, Paulson has no credibility.  Therefore, your argument falls.

                            Using an H/R instead of challenging my assertion regarding credibility is not debate.  

                  •  You Know Nothing (0+ / 0-)

                    Hence you have an uninformed opinion.  You're entitled to it, but it's still crappy.  It's also the Teabagger meme du jour.

                    "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Stewart (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

                    by Limelite on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:54:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You have no idea what I know (0+ / 0-)

                      I've served as bond counsel for hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions, with Goldman Sachs, Morgan Chase, etc., all sitting around the table. I know how this stuff works. People just didn't want to take their hits, and they had the political juice to avoid doing so. It's as simple as that. If Madoff's investors were better organized, they'd be getting paid off by the federal government too.

                      •  But nobody was given anything... (0+ / 0-)

                        it was all loans, investments and garauntees which are for the most part being paid back with interest and profit for the taxpayer...while saving 15 million from becoming unemployed...

                        Obama - Change I still believe in

                        by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:26:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I Have a Good Idea That You're Uninformed (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        dvogel001

                        because you fail to substantiate any of your assertions with facts, data, or citations to support them.

                        Opinions are fine, but informed opinions are the only ones that carry water in a reality based community.  Without credible sources to back up your claims of what's "true," they're not valuable.

                        Like your last sentence in your post above.  Silly.

                        "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Stewart (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

                        by Limelite on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:43:15 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  About Crediblility, not torture (0+ / 0-)

          Paulson has the same level of credibility as Dick Cheney, IMHO.

          Furthermore, I'm comparing Cheney's defense of waterboarding to Paulson's defense of TARP.  I'm in no way comparing TARP to actual torture.  

  •  I think that early next year, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, dvogel001, chuckvw, J M F

    when the next round of ARMs come up for adjustment and the banks face another round of foreclosures, they should have to eat those losses.  There can not be any more bailouts.  The precedent that was set was atrocious and can not be allowed to happen again.

    The fact that barely a year after the great meltdown of 2008 the banks are showing profits and paying outrageous bonuses leads me to believe that things weren't quite so dire as we were led to believe.  So, this time they can eat it.

  •  A profit for whom? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, 0wn, J M F

    The same government that owes our grandchildren's salaries to China?

    Maybe the path taken was the lessor of many evils, but when I read about the salaries and bonuses that the people who caused this mess are receiving, it's hard to get excited.

    Now if Obama upped the tax rate on the very wealthiest to pre-Reagan levels, I'd be with ya.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:26:26 PM PST

  •  The more "successful" the bailout is (9+ / 0-)

    the more evidence that the world would actually not have fallen apart without it.

    From my perspective, the horrors of the bailout go far beyond whether or not we get the money back.

    First, there is moral hazard. Once banks have established that they are "too big too fail" they have a perverse incentive to take ill-advised gambles, which will mean more short-term profits for them, at the expense of other smaller banks that have no such guarantees. We'll be dealing with the fallout from that for a generation at least, depending on any changes in the regulatory structure (unlikely).

    Second, by keeping these "zombie banks" afloat, even though they have had to hoard cash the last year and half as much as possible even with the bailouts, we have starved the "real economy" of much needed loans and investments. The government's demand for money to pay for these bailouts has also exacerbated the lack of money on Main Street.

    Third, you gotta keep track of the "backdoor bailouts". Goldman Sachs got I think $10 billion in the TARP. Then got another $10 billion through AIG, and paid back the TARP. It's a shell game, and some have put the total in the backdoor bailouts at $12+ trillion. AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Fed Reserve.

    Fourth, the collapse of the TGTF banks was an opportunity as much as it was a challenge, an opportunity to get rid of the big banks and financial that are parasites on the real economy, and maybe more importantly, on our democratic process. The bailout prevented that from happening.

    I could go on. Suffice it to say that whether the TARP itself actually gets made whole is a pretty insignificant part of the whole picture, IMHO.

    •  There were Main Street Alternatives (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MadRuth

      Alternatives were proposed in real time that provided for a Main Street oriented solution.

      This from within the Temple itself:

      Too Big has Failed

      Thomas Hoenig, President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City

    •  You had to treat all the contracts... (0+ / 0-)

      equally and at par, there was no time to negotiate anything less...

      CIT tried to negotiate with their creditors...that worked out well...riiiight.../snark

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:45:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, you just let the chips fall where they may (0+ / 0-)

        People took risks that took into account the creditworthiness of AIG. Sometimes you take risks and they go south. It's the nature of a properly functioning capitalist system.

        •  And that would have caused... (0+ / 0-)

          millions of people to needlessly suffer and the depression to be much worse than it was (or is depending on your POV)....

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:54:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not true (0+ / 0-)

            People who were owed money by AIG would've lost a lot of it, but none of them would have "suffered" in any real sense. The rest of us would've continue on, probably better off because the ground would've been cleared for the economy to start growing again.

            I'll give you a good analogy for what I'm trying to get at that responds to your "burning house" analogy. Out here in the West, the ecology has always depended on wildfires. There are certain essential plants in the forest and grasslands that only sprout after a fire. Their seeds just lie dorman otherwise. If there's a fire, the best thing to do is to let it burn. All wildlands management people accept this. Sometimes they even set fires. The only problem is that we've built our own houses in some of the wrong places, so there's a limit to how much we can let them burn. But no one disputes that letting it burn is beneficial to everything in the ecosystem other than the particular plants and animals that die in the fire.

            Another analogy. Lots of ecologies can't survive without a hard winter freeze. The old growth needs to die for the new to thrive.

            Our free market has always worked the same way. Old businesses and business models need to be allowed to die in order for the new to thrive. The fact that we allowed this to happen frequently, as opposed to Old Europe and Asia, where there was much more state intervention to save things, was one of the factors that allowed us to prosper, while they stagnated. Now the tables are being reversed, as they learn from us, and we adopt their old ways . . .  

            •  What you don't get... (0+ / 0-)

              is that the whole financial system would have collapsed and the run on the banks would have led to another great depression...you just think it would have been no big deal...

              Obama - Change I still believe in

              by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:18:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I just don't think that's true (0+ / 0-)

                My bank went bankrupt in the collapse. There was no run on it, and I barely even knew the difference until months later, when the new banks started implementing corporate changes.

                If you want totally secure money in our system you get an FDIC account and buy Treasury notes. Nobody has ever lost one single penny on either of those, and I would support any government policy that makes sure that no one ever does.

                Outside of that, however, risk is priced. The market is extremely efficient at pricing risk, down to the smallest decimal points. I have no sympathy for people who lose money on anything other than FDIC insured accounts and Treasury bonds.

                There would not have been a "run on the banks". that happened in the Great Depression when there was no FDIC insurance. The FDIC has problems with a couple of small institutions at the beginning of the crisis in terms of getting people their money in a timely fashion, but once the crisis got going, as noted, there was never any question about FDIC insured accounts or Treasury Bonds.

                Citibank may have fallen. Wells Fargo would not have. Other smaller banks would've risen up to take the place of some of the ones that fell. Again, that's the nature of capitalism. The recovery would likely have been roaring by now, with the "deadwood" cleared out of the way.

                •  Right... (0+ / 0-)

                  but that is different than 10 of the most interconnected global financial institutions being run on and collapsing at the depth of the recession when the assets were artificially depressed...

                  Your one bank is quite different indeed...

                  The banks were already withholding overnight loans, nobody was safe...the whole system was days from collapse...

                  Obama - Change I still believe in

                  by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:33:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  The stimulus package was almost a year ago. (0+ / 0-)

    Since then what has been accomplished?  Why did it take another year to start thinking about doing more to create jobs?  

    •  We would be talking about 11 - 15... (2+ / 0-)

      million jobs lost instead of 8 - 10....

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:46:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not saying the stimulus package was bad. I (0+ / 0-)

        am saying that after the stimulus package nothing else has been done but failure to get anything passed.  You can't keep talking only about the stimulus.  You have to do something else.  A jobs bill now is mandatory but why did it take so damn long to get to if they ever have the will to go reconciliation and actually get it or something else done.

    •  This Has Nothing to Do with the Stimulus (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dvogel001
      package.  Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner were the right people on the job for putting TALF in place, which is the bailout for financial institutions that prevented the financial collapse of this country.

      Geithner and Obama were the ones who were responsible for getting increased accountability into TALF as it was originally conceived under the Bush Administration just before the '08 elections.

      "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Stewart (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

      by Limelite on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:09:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Correction : Should Have Typed TARP. TALF (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dvogel001

        is the credit guarantee program that unfroze lending and guaranteed inter-institutional lending when no private financial firms would lend because no one knew what anything was worth, or trusted the credit worthiness of any financial institution.  In short, TALF (the consumer bailout) re-liquified financial operations by providing a credit program to buyers and sellers of asset backed securities.

        TARP (the bank bailout) is commonly referred to as the bank bailout program.

        TALF is expected to end March 31.  This will be a real test of the health of the economy in terms of unabsorbed and unaccounted for bad debt floating around out there.

        I expect interest rates on auto loans and the like will jump if it's lifted.  I have no wild eyed speculation as to what impact will be caused to the residential mortgage market.

        "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Stewart (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

        by Limelite on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:43:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Now if small businesses can just be given credit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Snud

    by big banks then ... well, then this would still be a bad pun, but at least we'd have a good economy.

    Energy, Tax cut, Lift American Spirits, gin, vermouth, olives

    by samantha in oregon on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:35:16 PM PST

    •  Small Business Lending is Down Mainly Due (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dvogel001

      to lack of demand.

      Yes, lending policies have become more stringent since the Financial Crisis.  Many, even most, small business loans are secured by personal assets, such as the applicant's home.  Values in real estate have plummeted, making them a poorer source of collateral.

      It should be noted that small business lending has been on the rise since September of '09, compared to the previous 12 months.

      However, none of us want banks to make loans to irresponsible clients, or to folks who don't have significant capital to secure their loans, or who are not credit worthy.  Those three factors combine to account for the lower loan issuance rates now than during bubblenomics.

      The last thing any of us should want is for the kind of business as usual of '07 to re-emerge as the way things are done again.  Haven't we learned anything from this recession?  

      "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Stewart (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

      by Limelite on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:23:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  They'll never admit it... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dvogel001

    Will Teabagger, Republicans and anti-Bailout Kossacks ever give Obama Credit???

    Sure, they will grudgingly acknowledge it to themselves but they will never admit it out loud. It'll be a secret until death do us apart, if you get my drift.

    Rush Limbaugh might respond with another (God forbid) anxiety attack while Palin getting a pair of Dolly Parton silicon breasts over which she'll pin the biggest rhinestone American Flag pin ever found in Neiman Marcus to see if she can divert all the goodwill-attention (slurrpp, drool)- back to herself.

    Teabaggers will claim that Obama's big ears are actually communist/faschist muslim spy radar dishes that help him to secretly communicate with the foreigners while the anti-Bailout Kossacks complain about the deficit hasn't been turned into a surplus yet even though Obama has been a president for a year, now...

    Anything else?

    •  Anything else? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MadRuth, Gooserock, Johnny Q
      1. The Bush administration passed the bailout.
      1. Bernake, Geithner and their ilk were part of the problem.
      1. I'm not going to be grateful to a bunch of thieves who created the worst economic crisis since the depression and ruined the lives of millions of people.
      1. Whether or not the money is repayed, Wall Street and the banks got a sweet deal. When the ordinary folks who lost there homes get the same sweet deal, then perhaps there will be a small amount of fairness.
      1. Little has been done to prevent the same from happening again. We are still playing by the same neo-liberal rules.

      Excess ain't rebellion. You're drinking what they're selling. - Cake

      by slatsg on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:24:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  May Wall St. continue to do God's Work! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, slatsg

    Game Over. The corporations win. And they will take us all down with their greed.

    by The Dead Man on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:46:30 PM PST

  •  It Was Always Going To Be Ugly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, PsychoSavannah

    The issue with Obama isn't the bailouts, but rather that no price was extracted in return. These looters were never hauled in front of the public to be shamed, nor was anyone other than Bernie Madoff ever prosecuted.

  •  They will only get credit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth

    when the unemployment rate goes down to the levels it was at during the Clinton presidency.  If your unemployeed the fact that the government made money off of bailing out the fat cats on Wall Street doesn't mean anything other than you were left out.

    I do think the patriotic thing to do is to critique my country. How else do you make a country better but by pointing out its flaws? Bill Maher

    by gtghawaii on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 03:59:18 PM PST

  •  Depends... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dvogel001, andrewj54, OHknighty
    ...has it actually happened or are people saying it may happen?

    Call me when it happens. and I'll give my little "huzzah"

    Get us belog 7% unemployment and HCR by this time next year and THEN I'll hold a ticker tape parade.

    I am way too young to be this cynical.

    by DawnG on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:10:28 PM PST

  •  Privatize Gains, Socialize Losses (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, Johnny Q, OHknighty

    I was never anti-bailout because I worry that it would cost tax-payers money.

    I opposed it because it sets a precedent that the government is there to serve as a buffer for the intrinsically cyclical nature of capitalism.

    I really don't think much of the idea that the people's money is there to loan to the oligarchy when it is needed.

    It doesn't make me like it better that the oligarchy pays us back.

    "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

    by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:25:02 PM PST

    •  But if that is the case... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      efraker

      then we did not really give the banksters anything but some emergency help to keep the whole economy from collapsing...

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:35:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it didn't feel like 'giving' (0+ / 0-)

        1.) No-one knows what would have happened had things not gone as they did; claims otherwise are de facto counter-factual, the claims of experts are not proof because a.) argument from authority is a fallacy, b.) most of the experts didn't see the problem coming, and c.) many of the experts worked for institutions which received funding from the industry, especially those who work in rating.

        2.) You say we didn't really 'give' the banksters anything - that is absolutely true. Give implies consent. The bail-out was done over the screaming objection of the vast majority of the people from whom it was given.

        "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

        by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:17:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  All we gave them were loans... (0+ / 0-)

          investments and garauntees...most of which is being paid back with interest and profit for the taxpayers...nothing wrong with that...and saved 15 million jobs in the process...

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:25:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  to repeat: unwillingly, and speculation (nt) (0+ / 0-)

            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

            by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:29:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It is a fact... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              efraker

              that most has been paid back with profits and the losses have been small...

              Obama - Change I still believe in

              by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:31:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  er, I must have been unclear (0+ / 0-)

                I never denied that it wasn't paid back or that losses weren't small. I couldn't care less about that.

                I object that the people's money was used to bail out the oligarchy against the people's strident protest. The loans weren't 'given', they were 'taken'.

                "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:38:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So you wanted 25 million unemployed... (0+ / 0-)

                  instead of 10...???

                  OK I understand now...

                  Obama - Change I still believe in

                  by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:55:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  apologies for repeating myself (0+ / 0-)

                    1.) No-one knows what would have happened had things not gone as they did; claims otherwise are de facto counter-factual, the claims of experts are not proof because a.) argument from authority is a fallacy, b.) most of the experts didn't see the problem coming, and c.) many of the experts worked for institutions which received funding from the industry, especially those who work in rating.

                    "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                    by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:04:59 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  The losses were mostly given... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      efraker

      to the shareholders of the banks who were dilluted in their holdings to repay the TARP funds with fresh capital...that is punishing the risk takers not the taxpayers....

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:15:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  what is the monetary value of certainty? (0+ / 0-)

        What is the monetary value of knowing that when your risks pay-off, you make huge profits, and when they don't, you get bailed out because of the systemic risk you might pose?

        I can't think of a bigger moral hazard than a government guarantee.

        "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

        by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:19:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And we do need preventions put in place... (0+ / 0-)

          to stop that moral hazard in the future...but the cost was too great not to bail them out in the past...

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:23:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the calculus will always return the same result (0+ / 0-)

            I can't think of any precaution that prevents us from deciding "the cost was too great not to bail them out" short of a Constitutional amendment precluding government bail-outs of private corporations.

            The idea that we can fix this by limiting their size to below too-big-to-fail that I hear the administration talking about makes no sense to me - if you have 10,000 tiny companies making the same bad decision, the "cost was too great" utilitarian calculus will dictate you bail some great portion of them out, just as if it were 10 enormous companies making the same bad decision.

            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

            by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:37:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure we can do those reforms... (0+ / 0-)

              in the future...but it was not practical in the past without great harm to the country...

              Obama - Change I still believe in

              by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:56:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  what reforms? (nt) (0+ / 0-)

                "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:04:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The reforms that have been proposed... (0+ / 0-)

                  in congress...

                  Obama - Change I still believe in

                  by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:05:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I can't see how they'd prevent the government (0+ / 0-)

                    from deciding "the risk was too great" and bailing out a corporation in the future.

                    "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                    by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:07:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If the Rep Frank plan is adopted... (0+ / 0-)

                      the institutions will self-insure risky behavior so the government won't have to bail anyone out...

                      Obama - Change I still believe in

                      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:14:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  current financial crisis was caused by insurance (0+ / 0-)

                        Yeah, I don't understand the rationale behind Senator Frank's plan. No provision is made for how the institutions must self-insure, and the current financial crisis was actually created by counter-party risk from self-insurance.

                        Unless Frank intends to require the institutions to keep the money in treasury bonds, what insurance-mechanism can be devoid of risk when it is being used to leverage such titanic sums of money? That much money creates precipitous risk simply by existing in anything other than the treasury of a major nation.

                        "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                        by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:29:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The financial institutions are... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          efraker

                          required to pay the money into an insurance fund...I thought...based on the risk of the counter-party transaction...

                          Obama - Change I still believe in

                          by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:35:02 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  what is the functional difference? (0+ / 0-)

                            What is the functional difference between paying money into a fund and investing in a market?

                            I do not believe there is a provision forbidding the government from bailing out the fund in the case of too many claims, either.

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:44:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The point is the fund... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            efraker

                            is supposed to be sufficient to insure the risk of the transaction...without the taxpayers...if they want to share the risk with their own money...fine with me...

                            Obama - Change I still believe in

                            by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:50:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  do I understand you correctly? (0+ / 0-)

                            Do I understand you correctly?

                            If the fund isn't sufficient, you said "fine with me", yet earlier you said that "the risk was too great" for us to avoid bailing them out this time.

                            So, if the market-created insurance system fails, bail them out because the "risk was too great"

                            But if the government-mandated insurance system fails, "fine by me"

                            So, if they manage to build a bubble big enough to burst the government-mandated insurance system, it'd be fine by you to let them fail, at any systemic cost?

                            Do I understand you correctly? Or am I reading too much into your "fine by me"?

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:57:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is not my understanding... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            efraker

                            that the government would back up the fund...if the fund ran out the institutions would have to take the loss...no more taxpayer funded bailouts...you want to play you gotta pay...

                            Obama - Change I still believe in

                            by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 08:14:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  can't find Sanders suggestion? (0+ / 0-)

                            As long as there is a rigid and explicit guarantee that the U.S. government will never be allowed to bail private corporations out again, under any circumstances, I'll let bygones be bygones and support this or any other measure. Barring that, I just see the implicit assurance that the government will always be there to force a loan from the poor to the rich, if the rich ever have an emergency.

                            Also - I can't find the Sanders suggestion. I know I read about it, but I think it was on DailyKos... I checked sanders.senate.gov, his Wikipedia page, and I searched news.google.com for 'sanders + senator + bail-out + fund'. Any suggestions?

                            "Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange ... including a public option" President Obama, 7.18.09

                            by efraker on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 08:31:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Good god - even the title makes me want to puke (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q

    But the content is even worse.

    No credit and handcuffs and cells would be much more appropriate.  

    They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

    by bdtlaw on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:26:07 PM PST

    •  And breadlines and 15 million more unemployed... (0+ / 0-)

      17% vs 25% in the great depression is 8% x 200 million employable people...

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 04:36:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You say that as if it's been avoided (0+ / 0-)

        The recession's over.  Yay!

        The depression has just begun.

        When the next leg down hits in July I trust you'll be back here apologizing for the lunacy of this diary.  

        They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

        by bdtlaw on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:33:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Never said or even implied the... (0+ / 0-)

          recession is over (although technically it probably is)...but it will be easier to find employment for 8 or 9 million than for 20 or 25 million people...

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:35:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Technically it probably isn't since the decline (0+ / 0-)

            to date has been more than the "recovery," but in any case, look at the two lost decades in Japan.  We've lost one here, number two is just getting under way.  

            I wouldn't rule out lost decade number three.  

            Until the private sector is sufficiently deleveraged, there will be no recovery - i.e. something that could generate 20-25 million jobs like the 1990s.

            I'll be looking for your apology in the Q3 2010.  

            They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.

            by bdtlaw on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:36:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Paulson Credibility, non torture version (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadRuth, dvogel001, OHknighty

    Does Wall Street Now Openly Control U.S. Foreign Policy, Too?

    Paulson coveniently hires Goldman hack Ed Liddy to seal the AIG bailout deal that gave Goldman Sachs 100 cents on the dollar as a counterparty to AIG.

    A few minutes after he spoke with Goldman's CEO, Lloyd Blankfein, on September 16, 2008, and shortly after he first considered a government bailout of AIG, Hank Paulson unilaterally decided that Liddy should immediately become AIG's new CEO. Unlike Liddy, AIG's CEO at the time, Bob Willumstad, had relatively clean hands in the CDO saga. Willumstad had been part of AIG's management for about three months, and had joined the AIG board in April 2006, when most of Goldman's toxic CDOs had already been insured by AIG.

    That same afternoon, Liddy was on a plane to New York, to start at AIG the next day. Liddy was officially made CEO and Chairman of AIG on September 18. And of course, he immediately immersed himself into negotiating the terms of the government bailout facility, which he signed on September 22. Only on the following day, on September 23, 2008, that Liddy chose to make his resignation from Goldman's board effective.

    That was also the week when Paulson spoke to Blankfein 24 times by phone. For further clarification at to why it an innocent explanation of all this is beyond any realm of plausibility, see this earlier piece.

  •  fuck no (0+ / 0-)

    Henry Paulson, the former Treasury chief, and billionaire Warren Buffett said taxpayers will recover every cent paid out to banks during the economic meltdown and may even turn a profit.

    Excuse me, there are sometimes sound reasons to make high-risk investments in apparently failing businesses, but recovering your investment with a chance of making a small profit by turning the business around is not one of them.  The idea is that when the company turns around, YOU OWN IT, to enough of an extent to make your investment back many times over, not by a few percent.  The bailout should not have been viewed as a used car loan at whatever interest rate.  It should have been viewed as a venture capital investment with similar terms to what any other VC investors get.  Those billion dollar bonuses and most of the rest of the firm's profits should be going to the new owners, the US taxpayers, by way of the Treasury.

    •  Several of the TARP recipients... (0+ / 0-)

      we are significant stockholders with a chance to make substantial money...but as with other high risk investments, some go belly up...so on the whole we are making out quite well especially if you consider the opportunity cost of supporting 15 million more unemployed...

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:33:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Paulson in His Interview Today (0+ / 0-)

      expressed your opinion.  Just not as bluntly, but in terms of the need for regulatory reform to be passed SOON by Congress, in which he included compensation reform to be more along the lines of stocks, to be deferred over a long period of time, and to be linked to profitability and the interests of the shareholders.

      "ingratiation and access . . . are not corruption." -- Justice Stewart (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010)

      by Limelite on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:52:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Whatever. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dvogel001

    We need jobs.

    In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few. - Shunryu Suzuki

    by thenekkidtruth on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 05:41:07 PM PST

  •  If the credit is flowing frly (0+ / 0-)

    then I'll believe the TARP/TALK had worked. But until then it's just debatable whether it has worked or not.

    •  Credit is slowly returning to a normal... (0+ / 0-)

      risk taking...you have to remember before the crash, you could walk into a bank with a whim and a dream and walk out with money...it ain't that easy anymore nor should it be...

      So the pendulum swung to far the other way and is gradually working back towards the center...

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:21:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Profit was only possible since the Fed fronted (0+ / 0-)

    all the money for the alleged "payback" of the TARP.

    Meanwhile, the real economy continues to attrit.

    In this age of falseness, only howls of agony ring true.

    by Paul Goodman on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:00:05 PM PST

  •  Please, call any bank branch near you... pick (0+ / 0-)

    a medium to larger bank, and ask how many people lost their jobs. I'll bet it's a good bit higher than they national average. They are human too. One lady started crying while I sat in her office. She is raising two children on her own and she is terrified.

    •  I have news for you... (0+ / 0-)

      bank tellers are going the way of the telephone operators in the 1970's and 1980's...so they should find a new career...who goes into a bank anymore to deal with a teller...??

      The only time I go there is when I travel overseas and need foreign currency...

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 06:59:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bad Math (0+ / 0-)

    Remember the last S&L crisis of the 1980's we ended up losing over $100 Billion dollars which is probably equivalent to around $500 Billion in today's dollars...So you can say well we still have unemployment, but I say unemployment would be much worse if the bailout had not occurred...

    The 1980s S&L Heist cost US taxpayers $1.5 TRILLION. "Over $100 Billion" is a pretty bad way to say "$1.5 TRILLION". And the "so" you put in there implies some logical connection, but it's pure nonsense. There's no logical connection. Either between your lie (by severe understatement) of the S&L Heist cost and unemployment and the bailout, or between your strawman about the benefits of the bailout while ignoring its true cost, and all the alternatives.

    This diary is a load of claptrap. Give me some numbers showing the $TRILLIONS paid out in the bailout and a greater amount of $TRILLIONS repaid. Or quit pumping your heroes as if we're all as brainwashed as you've got yourself.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:02:49 PM PST

    •  I guess you forgot to use google... (0+ / 0-)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly referred to as the S&L crisis) was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls aka thrifts). A Savings and Loan is a financial institution in the United States that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the US government—that is, the US taxpayer, either directly or through charges on their savings and loan accounts

      A quick inflation calculator shows that $1 in 1980 would be about $3 today

      http://data.bls.gov/...

      So take $160B x3 = $480B at the high end and the taxpayers were only responsible for about $375B in current dollars...

      So I would be interested in your links...

      And there is a big linkage...a real estate collapse was the primary cause and speculation...

      Obama - Change I still believe in

      by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:13:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fake Linkage (0+ / 0-)

        By 1993 the S&L cost to taxpayers was already estimated at over $1 TRILLION, regardless of what the notoriously unreliable content of Wikipedia might say.

        Yes, the S&L Heist is logically linked to the CDS collapse, as they both were wild issuance of real estate loans to anyone who asked, and both bailed out by taxpayers, and both carried out under the control of a  Bush in the White House and a Fed run mostly by Greenspan.

        But NO, the fake "logical" linkage you tried to put over does not manage to actually link the S&L Heist to an overpriced and misdirected banker bailout that (probably) protected 3 million jobs at a cost of at least $300,000 each.

        You clearly are unfamiliar with logic. Google won't help you there.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:33:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Another CT theory book... (0+ / 0-)

          actual statistics from the reliable Wiki is more authoritative...what actually happened is that many of the real estate started to recover so the estimated losses actually went down...

          Again, you conflate the budgeted amount of $700 Billion with the actual cost of TARP which is currently estimated at $140 Billion and if the financial system failed as it did in 1929 we would be talking about 15 million additional jobs lost not 3 million...

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 07:38:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site