Skip to main content

I wake up this morning and as uaual I go to my favorite community blog first. But WTF, I have just been called a liar and a propagandist, and I don't take that accusation very lightly. Fuck, at least one thing for real is that I don't walk the walk of the Teabaggers.

The always negative energy from one of the know it all kossak has been to always debunking any positive/good news about what this administration has been doing.  As we speak, the rec listed diary, Is This Community Promoting Wall St. Lies And Propaganda? tries to paint this community as lying asshats for believing what has been a factual element of the TRAP and supporting our President.

Here is the deal...

According to Rachel Maddow (start at 1:30), on Jan 10, 2010, she reports TARP making $52.1 Billion in profit. How do you respond to such a great news? OUTRAGED? Blame the Obama Administration for a socialistic intervention, call it a blatant lie and a piece of bullshit Wall Street propaganda? Yes, that is what is being said by some in this community. A straight up Right Wing talking point.

If you are so fucking out of touch with the truth, why the fuck are you here to push crap on our face? The fucking truth is this initially unpopular program is working, has been able slow down the bleeding of losing 400,000 jobs a month (you can look at the bikini curve graph in the video to see the truth and it is not a fucking lie as you would like it to be).

It was the BBC that reported that "the US Tax payers have so far gained money from the Feds action in propping up the system."

Well, you want the truth?  I have plenty of truth you can't handle:
U.S. Turning Profit on TARP, but Big Loans Remain in Banks' Hands -- 9/1/2009

The government netted roughly $4 billion – the equivalent of a 15% annual return – from  eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, according to calculations by The New York Times.

Those financial institutions consist of:

   * Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS) – $1.4 billion in profit.
   * Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) – $1.3 billion in profit.
   * American Express Co. (NYSE: AXP) – $414 million in profit.
   * Northern Trust Corp. (NYSE: NTRS), The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (NYSE: BK),    State Street Corp. (NYSE: STT), U.S. Bancorp (NYSE: USB) and BB&T Corp. (NYSE: BBT) – $100 million to $334 million in profit.
   * Fourteen smaller banks that have repaid their debt – $35 million in profit.

TARP to earn healthy profit for U.S -- 12/2009

Plans from Wells Fargo & Co and Citigroup to repay taxpayer funds will put the U.S. government on track to reduce its bailout investments in banks by more than 75 percent, while earning a healthy profit for the U.S.

Read more: Treasury Reaps 8.5% Return From Companies Exiting TARP - 24/7 Wall St. -- April 5, 2010

To calculate the Treasury’s return, SNL compiled the institutions’ dividend payments and proceeds from warrant sales and calculated each as a percent of the amount of preferred stock invested. The dividend and warrant percentages were annualized and then added together to create an estimated return for each company. To approximate aggregate profitability, the returns for each company were weighted by the amount each company received under TARP. These weighted returns were then added together to estimate aggregate return.

There is more and all of these sources are fucking liars and propagandists to some. That is just fucking bullshit!

It is so fucking hilarious how easy it is to forget losing 3.6 million jobs in 13 months prior to the Obama Administarion took office. Some still don't have jobs but a whole lot us would probably won't have a job if that trend was to continue let alone have internet access to post utter bullshit like so many unfounded, irrational off the wall analysis being posted as if we are a Republican't RED STATE site around here. WTF, are we campaigning for Republican'ts or are we trying to fire up the base to electing more and better democrats in this blog?

Here it the truth, since this Administration took over the numbers are better than when we walked in the office. We have been able to save many jobs from disappearing. The stock market is higher than what it was because there is a sense of confidence every where except may be in your pessimistic world. We are achieving many things either via legislatively or via executive order as I had diaries about them here.

So, let me make it abundantly clear to you and you and you that you are not going to demoralized me, make me Angry or Fed Up about the direction about how this Administration is doing its job regardless of your Right Wing coded manipulations, lies and deceits to trying to sensationalize the utter bullshit day in and day out to make Obama the enemy.

Again. What does that diary currently on the DKos Rec List say about this "reality-based" community?

IMHO, all those that defend or endorse the posting of that blatant misinformation about how this community promoting Wall St. lies And propaganda might as well sponsor this AD: can go to RED STATE as there are many who will embrace you. A reminder: This is a democratic blog dedicated to electing Democrats.

NOTE: I will be back in a couple of hours to take on your challenge if you have one but I am not in a mode to hear a Right Wing talking point this morning so if that is your challenge, as I suggest RED STATE dot com is easy to type for you to visit. Peace!

Originally posted to ThisIsMyTime on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:34 AM PDT.

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

  •  Are People Confusing TARP With The Surplus? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    TARP was under Bush, and the Surplus was under President Obama which has created or saved over 2 million jobs in 18 months.  I don't consider TARP to be President Obama's problem whether the money helped or hurt, and it is good that the money is being repaid by the banks.  I myself think that TARP did save the US economy, but I still believe that some banks are too big and continue to still be too big, and I wish the government would put a halt on banks becoming too big.

  •  BWD got the day off? n/t (0+ / 0-)

    The Teabaggers are the GOP base

    by stevej on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:44:46 AM PDT

  •  economics 101... (8+ / 0-)

    there is no "profit" until ALL the money given out has been paid back and expenses have been recouped.

    That's ALL the money given out down to the last penny - principle and expenses.

    There is no profit yet.


    •  Exactly - You can't cherry pick the data (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      enhydra lutris, Joieau

      There may be a good case to be made, even at this point, that both Bush's initial TARP $$ and Obama's bailout/stimulus $$ have averted a worse situation, and that they will end up being money well spent.

      But you cannot cherry pick and say that it's actually been profitable by looking at just the successful components of the program. In the end, the Obama administration itself would never try to make the claim that we will turn an actual profit on it.  

      It is wrong for Repubs to suggest that the program is a failure.  It is just as wrong for Obama supporters to cherry pick and lie and say that it is actually profitable.

      Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear. ~William E. Gladstone, 1866

      by absdoggy on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 09:12:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why Are you adding Stimulus? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That was never the points being made in ANY diary or ANY Studay as were the TARP funds:

        Problem: Cook's article doesn't actually say that.  The headline kinda does, but not the body of the article itself.

        Cook's actual article grants far more caveats.  The first is that it only pertains to one piece of TARP, the Capital Purchase Program:

        A new study reported on by Reuters today says the largest component of the TARP fund has netted the U.S. more than $10 billion in profit so far.

        The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was originally intended to purchase, as the name implied, troubled assets. But it rapidly transformed itself into an all-purpose emergency fund. The largest component, the $205 billion Capital Purchase Program, used government money to shore up overleveraged banks.

        The second is that it only pertains to the 2/3 of the Capital Purchase Program that's been paid back so far:

        So far, 61 banks have completely repaid their debt under the program, and the U.S. earned a 10 percent return on those investments, totaling $13 billion. There's still $65 billion in debt outstanding, but Treasury has only taken a $2 billion loss on the program thus far, and a KBW analyst told Reuters that "unless the economy just craters, the bank portion of TARP will be profitable."

        On both points Cook was quoting, almost directly, from the Reuters story citing the Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Inc. report:

        The Capital Purchase Program, part of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, has generated an average return of 10 percent on the initial investment in 61 banks that have fully repaid the aid, said the report, issued on Wednesday.

        There's much more in this dairy:

        Refuting the attack on BWD

        Please vote Democratic in November. If the GOP wins we will all be forced backward another decade, who wants that?

        by Wary on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 11:06:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Parts have been profitable... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Escamillo, IL JimP, Joieau

      Other parts are expected to turn a profit.

      Is it OK to say that Google is running a profitable business?  After all we haven't reached the end of their run.  They might end up loosing money....

      Enough of this reality crap. I voted for MAGIC!!!

      by BobTrips on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 09:24:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The fucking definition can be applied for "loss" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThisIsMyTime, Escamillo, FiredUpInCA

      too, which the dkos 'progressives' crowd seems to relish so much.

      BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
      A Presidency Among the Vuvuzelas.

      by amk for obama on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 09:49:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah. That would sorta be like (0+ / 0-)

      figuring the profitability of some mortgage-backed derivatives (the mortgages paid faithfully with compound interest) as the sole 'value' of bundled derivative packages, while ignoring the defaults - voila! AAA investment vehicles!!!

      Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

      by Joieau on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:10:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThisIsMyTime, Escamillo, SoCalSal

      Companies, the government, virtually every business entity ever created report profits on a both on a gross, consolidated basis, AS WELL AS by business unit, line of service/product, geography, etc. Economics 101 says NOTHING of what you are saying here.

      Need proof? Read any financial statement, CBO report, audit statement, or IRS rules on consolidated reporting. Or simply refer to an economics textbook.

      The authors and diarist are referring only to repaid loans, on which there very much WAS a profit.

    •  Our accounting system is not cash based. Do you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      know about accrual based accounting? That is why we have accounts receivable, payable, pre-paids, unearned interest, unearned revenue, etc., line items in our balance sheet and income statements.

      ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

      by ThisIsMyTime on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:26:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  i'm so glad (7+ / 0-)

    i haven't read (or intended to read) the diary that got you so splenetic, timt;

    i'm not going to waste any more of my life listening to catastrophists

  •  I wonder if Bob Swern tries to push bad news and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wary, ThisIsMyTime, FiredUpInCA

    trade on them.

  •  Fuck yeah. Right on TIMT. (5+ / 0-)

    Gloomers and doomers seem to be out in full force today.

    BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
    A Presidency Among the Vuvuzelas.

    by amk for obama on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 09:50:39 AM PDT

  •  thanks for a vigorous response (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe, ThisIsMyTime

    to the suggestion this community promotes propaganda.

    btw, for those who need a transcript, this is from TRMS January 12, 2010:

    Over the course of the next week, we‘ll be able to judge exactly how good Republicans are now at framing things for the mainstream press.  We‘ll be able to judge by what the president does and doesn‘t get credit for and look back at his first year.

    Take, for example, one of the more significant news stories of today, the U.S. Federal Reserve announcing that it made a $52 billion profit—profit—in 2009.

    Now, there‘s a number of ways to respond to a strange headline like this—one is to be outraged about it.  To blame the Obama administration for the Fed‘s socialistic intervention in the banking system.

    Another way to look at it is to say, well, this big, confusing, politically unpopular thing that the government did with lots of taxpayer money worked out OK in some ways.  We didn‘t have a second Great Depression.  We still have a banking system, which wasn‘t a given a year or so ago, and, by the way, we, taxpayers, just made $52 billion in profit for the Federal Reserve‘s part in this.

    It may be hard to accept when you‘re here, but financial observers overseas are certainly taking note.  The BBC reporting today, quote, "The figures suggest that U.S. taxpayers have so far gained money from the U.S.  government‘s action in propping up the system."

    The news out of the Fed today is sort of a microcosm of what‘s happened with the economy during President Obama‘s first year.

    •  Thank you for the transcript and comment. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

      by ThisIsMyTime on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:11:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That excerpt addresses Federal Reserve, not (0+ / 0-)

      TARP. Two different things.

      The headlines about TARP in the diary's links are misleading. REading only headlines would lead one to believe that TARP will end up with a surplus -- all funds repaid with interest. That's not the case. Some banks have repaid with interest and some can't even make payments.

      The articles might not intentionally mislead, but I understand why those who are angry about TARP consider the articles misleading.

      btw, I'm not one of those who are angry about TARP.

      Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

      by SoCalSal on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:21:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  TARP is a US Treasury program (0+ / 0-)

        BWD linked to a story on TARP. Yes, this diary incorrectly says TARP when linking to TRMS that's discussing The Fed. Both are showing profit (btw, profit from The Fed goes to the Treasury from my understanding).

        December 10, 2009 press release from the Treasury says:

        Treasury's investments to stabilize the system are delivering higher returns than anticipated and that Treasury does not anticipate having to draw upon the full $700 billion in TARP authority

        •  True, Tarp has not drawn on the full amount (0+ / 0-)

          but doubtful that Tarp will recover all the funds. Those who hate that banks were given a bailout get irate over  the misconception that Tarp will make a profit.

          Somewhere (possibly NYT), I read a forecast that Tarp will ultimately cost taxpayers less than $100 billion instead of the originally expected $350 billion. Personally, I consider that something of a bargain for what Tarp did for the economy by stabilizing the credit system, even if the big banks didn't seem to deserve it.

          Here's an article dated 6/23/10, and Geithner quote:

          The Treasury Secretary said that more than half of the funds lent through the program have been paid back along with $24 billion in additional revenue.

          Under the Capital Purchase Program, which provided most of the money to banks, 75% of the money has been returned along with $21 billion for dividends and warrants.

          So at the same time some headlines claim Tarp is making a profit, only 75% of the money has been returned and 75 banks are unable to make even interest payments.

          You and I are probably on the same page about Tarp's benefit; I just don't want to feed the anti-Obama, anti-Tarp group's ire by accepting some misleading reports about Tarp profits. Tarp can stand on its merits without that (or not, depending on POV).

          Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person. -Jan Edwards

          by SoCalSal on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 08:44:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  So if I make $100,000 in loans, and one guy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    pays off a $4 loan + $1 in interest, I have made a 20% profit? That kind of horseshit by a private company is called fraudulent reporting.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

    by enhydra lutris on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:32:47 AM PDT

    •  Uh, yes... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sberel, ThisIsMyTime, Escamillo, SoCalSal

      Because your actual interest earned would be classified as income, while your outstanding interest would be an accrual on the balance sheet, as would the loans which are receivables, offset by an outflow of cash.

      Hate to go all accounting on you, but you asked.

      Yes, in this case, for the year where repayment is made, there would be a profit of $1. No losses are realized until/unless a loan is written off as uncollectable.

      •  oh my. Since we're all accounting, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ThisIsMyTime, enhydra lutris

        it's a little more complicated than that. You've got to evaluate them for impairment, and if they're impaired you need to recognize that at the time you know the impairment exists and it can be measured. That may or may not coincide with the actual write-off for any specific loan. But the point is you do have to accrue losses into the period in which they occurred.

        Depending on the industry, the portfolio may need to be valued at fair market value - or the company may choose that as well - in which case, they'd just be carried at market at each balance sheet date.  

        What is the most loving thing I can do, right now? Rev Dr Mary Harrington

        by sberel on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 11:59:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ...and the future market value of the portfolio (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          enhydra lutris

          can only be promising if the trend is as it has been for the last 18 months.

          ...We have many more issues that bind us together than separate us!

          by ThisIsMyTime on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:10:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I recognize that... (0+ / 0-)

          ...but was not trying to drive down into the myriad of complex details involved.

          One needs to go even further, as I'm sure you know, into what types of instruments they are, what type of "market" trading and valuation is applied, etc.

          The primary point still stands though -- that is, to go "Economics 101" on the bit, and claim it must be aggregated in full before any profit or loss is measured and recorded, is simply nonsense.

      •  As a retired CPA, I find your accounting to be a (0+ / 0-)

        bit bizarre. First, my interest rate wouldn't be 20%, it would be more like .001%. Secondly, those stale loans, simply sitting there, are bloody unlikely to all be good, so I would need to charge off some fraction of them as uncollectible and set up a reserve for uncollectible accounts. If that profit rexceeded $1, there would be a loss, not net income.

        Part of what is happening with all the gibberish from the Fed and the press is mixing government reporting, which is not on the same basis as regular financial reporting with normal terminology. If a small segment of my business makes a profit, is it inappropriate to declare that I made a profit unless we examine the entire business on a full accrual basis. If we do that, we accrue interest on all the loans, and then accrue bad debts for a bunch of the loans and also of the accrued interest. Without any effort being made to do that, any reporting of income or gain is deceptive.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

        by enhydra lutris on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 01:16:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  bobswern? (0+ / 0-)

    I am looking for a response here.

    Hopefully, he will come on and give us thoughts.

  •  I understand the sentiments (4+ / 0-)

    Don't know that it needed quite such an effing rant, but tipped anwyay.

    "I want to apologize for that misconstrued misconstruction." Rep Joe Barton

    by Catte Nappe on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:03:10 PM PDT

  •  From evey Friday night through Monday morning, (4+ / 0-)

    this site turns into shit.  It's essentially just a playground for anti-Obama circle-jerk fests during those times.

  •  I think I may know what the diarist meant (0+ / 0-)

    [pulls on teflon and asbestos]
    The actual outright loans for the TARP are seperate from the "loan guarantees" that the government [us] also tossed to the banks. The guarantees number is pretty large compared to the cash injection - multiple trillions are mentioned as the amounts of these guarantees. This allows us [whee] to provide the banks with the leverage they need to continue to bet the farm on shady or not so shady deals without having to pony up their own cash reserves. That may be one of the reasons that the cash on hand in so many businesses and banks is larger than normal. The loan guarantees let the banks bet with our money instead of theirs.

    Industry has a different reason for hanging onto cash of course, as a hedge against recession. Why pay $100 for a widget when it could be on sale for $80 in 6 months? And when the 6 months term and price drop comes to pass, why buy it THEN either, when if they can wait a bit longer, it might be even cheaper? Now imagine yourself as the widget-maker who needs money from sales to pay your employees... Selling out to China and retiring sounds better and better.

    The loan guarantees are the real money bomb that could go off and if it does, the threat of the first bank crisis will seem like a match to a napalm drop. We also know that many of our fellow Americans who have stuff to do insted of obsessing about accounting procedures etc, depend on the media to give a true depiction of their world. And the "low information" voters usually don't read beyond the headline if they read that far.

    Trumpeting the minor success of the "profit" [so far] of the TARP loan program as the totality of the news about this topic is one reason that the voters don't care about yelling at their congresscritters to get REAL banking reform legislation and why it is still OK for the same banks who broke the system [and us] to continue on about their business in almost the same way they used to create the crisis. Because there was no outcry from constituents to counterbalance the bales of campaign bribes donations that were made by the banks to get legislation that they liked, WE didn't get effective legislation that addresses the root causes and methods that crumbled the world economy.

    [put's helmet on]

    My two cents on what the reason behind the anger in the post is about.


    "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul" -G.B. Shaw

    by daddybunny on Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 01:32:08 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site