According to this guy...

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/herbert-m-allison/the-untold-story-of-tarp_b_748465.html

 

He is correct that all we here is that TARP "cost" $700B without anyone pointing out that the taxpayers are being paid back.

You are an intelligent person, Clyde.

 

Go to any small town newspaper or courthouse in the country and read about the foreclosures and credit card judgments, or examine the Chapter 13 small business bankruptcy dockets. In particular, pay attention to the lien and request for relief filings from the banks, and look at the box checked to see whether new loan was offered. Compare them with, say, 5 years ago. Then go tell me "TARP worked."

 

Its election season, the economy is still reeling, and the Huffing and Puffington Post wants to proclaim TARP success? You know better than that.

I am still waiting for the first truly honest Republican campaign ad, "Vote for me because they haven't cleaned up the mess I made fast enough". TARP kept the finacial system from imploding, at what will be a low cost to the taxpayer. Did it fix everything? No, but it did keep us from going over the cliff. How many of those foreclosures would have been prevented by NOT passing TARP. The fact is that people and businesses got overextended and when business contracted they couldn't weather it. What TARP did was to make sure that when business picks up enough to allow for business expansion again there will be a bank there to make loans. Without TARP I'm not sure there would have been.

You are an intelligent person, Clyde.

 

Go to any small town newspaper or courthouse in the country and read about the foreclosures and credit card judgments, or examine the Chapter 13 small business bankruptcy dockets. In particular, pay attention to the lien and request for relief filings from the banks, and look at the box checked to see whether new loan was offered. Compare them with, say, 5 years ago. Then go tell me "TARP worked."

 

Its election season, the economy is still reeling, and the Huffing and Puffington Post wants to proclaim TARP success? You know better than that.

 

As you know, "worked" is a relative term. I didn't read the article and believe the writer said it was a panacea. As he stated , in his view UE would be much higher right now without the success at the car companies. Agree or disagree?

 

To your point we're early STILL on people losing homes. More and more bank-owned homes will come onto the market IMO. The economy is reeling. That doesn't mean that TARP didn't have a positive effect.

TBTF generated the need for TARP. TBTF was strategy to let large banks and financial institutions to play casino-like games in the stock market and make scads of money during the housing bubble - all to pump their stock. Republicans allowed TBTF to become policy. TARP was the resolution when the policy failed. Large financial institutions have hooks into both major parties and control a lot of the policy. Republicans get to have their massively large companies and Democrats get to have their quasi-government institutions that do the same thing. Everybody wins, except the average homeowner and bank customer.

I am still waiting for the first truly honest Republican campaign ad, "Vote for me because they haven't cleaned up the mess I made fast enough". TARP kept the finacial system from imploding, at what will be a low cost to the taxpayer. Did it fix everything? No, but it did keep us from going over the cliff. How many of those foreclosures would have been prevented by NOT passing TARP. The fact is that people and businesses got overextended and when business contracted they couldn't weather it. What TARP did was to make sure that when business picks up enough to allow for business expansion again there will be a bank there to make loans. Without TARP I'm not sure there would have been.

 

You're waiting because that wouldn't be an honest ad. Of course keep looking thru your partisan glasses to blame one side in a crises that was 20 years developing. That's exactly how we never get out of messes.

 

It is still up for debate as to whether or not TARP worked and if it was the best solution.

I think the best solution would have been to not "prop" up any financial institution or any organization for that matter. Allow the market to correct all the sins of the past. We would have felt deeper pain in our economy, but the pain would have been shorter lived. Based on the current "fixes" used, our pain will be longer, just not as deep.

 

When I was growing up, I always found to have my punishment meted out by spanking rather than a long grounding. I learned the lesson the same way, the spanking hurt alot worse than the grounding, but I was back playing with my friends the same day. Just my 2 cents!

 

It is still up for debate as to whether or not TARP worked and if it was the best solution.

 

Now we're onto some points we can debate.

 

Let's assume the numbers he cites about automotive jobs are true. Do you consider that a check mark for the TARP program?

 

Let's assume the point he cites about the Treasury saying the lifetime net cost to TARP will be $50B? If so, is that a check mark for TARP?

 

I realize some of the points are intangibles (ie mental state of the public regarding safety of their money in banks , for example).

 

I'm simply asking (and hoping that we can get past the website that it was on) if a)people agree with his points and b)does that cause one to look at TARP differently than it's often presented?

Didn't work here.. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Racial-predatory-loans-fueled-rb-1069330785.html?x=0

Now we're onto some points we can debate.

 

Let's assume the numbers he cites about automotive jobs are true. Do you consider that a check mark for the TARP program?

 

Let's assume the point he cites about the Treasury saying the lifetime net cost to TARP will be $50B? If so, is that a check mark for TARP?

 

I realize some of the points are intangibles (ie mental state of the public regarding safety of their money in banks , for example).

 

I'm simply asking (and hoping that we can get past the website that it was on) if a)people agree with his points and b)does that cause one to look at TARP differently than it's often presented?

 

If he is correct correct on his points I think TARP would get check marks in those two areas. However I don't think he is correct on the automotive jobs. If GM and Chrysler failed another company would have filled that void and would have added jobs.

If he is correct correct on his points I think TARP would get check marks in those two areas. However I don't think he is correct on the automotive jobs. If GM and Chrysler failed another company would have filled that void and would have added jobs.

 

Which automotive company do you feel would have filled the void and added jobs?

Now we're onto some points we can debate.

 

Let's assume the numbers he cites about automotive jobs are true. Do you consider that a check mark for the TARP program?

 

Let's assume the point he cites about the Treasury saying the lifetime net cost to TARP will be $50B? If so, is that a check mark for TARP?

 

I realize some of the points are intangibles (ie mental state of the public regarding safety of their money in banks , for example).

 

I'm simply asking (and hoping that we can get past the website that it was on) if a)people agree with his points and b)does that cause one to look at TARP differently than it's often presented?

 

You're asking us to assume his points are true. That's a big leap. Even though the cost MAY end up only 50B, what if it wasn't ultimately neccessary? That's a lot of money to be wrong.

 

This guy doesn't seem to agree. http://blogs.forbes.com/billisaac/2010/10/01/was-tarp-worth-it/

If he is correct correct on his points I think TARP would get check marks in those two areas. However I don't think he is correct on the automotive jobs. If GM and Chrysler failed another company would have filled that void and would have added jobs.

 

I just don't think it's that easy. In the long run, maybe. I just can't imagine Toyota or Nissan suddenly hiring people and putting them in jobs that weren't planned.

You're asking us to assume his points are true. That's a big leap. Even though the cost MAY end up only 50B, what if it wasn't ultimately neccessary? That's a lot of money to be wrong.

 

This guy doesn't seem to agree. http://blogs.forbes.com/billisaac/2010/10/01/was-tarp-worth-it/

 

I grant you the point about the assumption.

You're asking us to assume his points are true. That's a big leap. Even though the cost MAY end up only 50B, what if it wasn't ultimately neccessary? That's a lot of money to be wrong.

 

This guy doesn't seem to agree. http://blogs.forbes.com/billisaac/2010/10/01/was-tarp-worth-it/

 

So who do we believe and why?