So in your mind TARP is either a complete win or complete loss?

Nope, depends on how it plays out.

 

You disagree with the Treasury Department saying that TARP will "cost" $50B?

Yes. The article shows no proof that the taxpayers will be paid back, just that the Treasury is confident we will be. Show me hard facts, 3/4 of banks is not a hard fact because it really depends on which banks paid the money back. AIG's projected exit strategy is not action. This is still all speculation

 

You place no value in the thousands of automotive jobs that still exist?

I devalue no job. Mine was one of them. That still doesn't indicate that TARP has worked in the long run. GM and Chrysler are not done restructuring their workforce and manufacturing facilities. See what Delphi Automotive did to save their company, then you'll see why I'm not brimming with confidence.

 

One of the points of the thread is that if you ask the vast majority of people what the true cost of TARP is they would respond $700B. That's not true because it ignores the paybacks of the funds that have already taken place.

See above about the paybacks, but I will add that GM only paid off the initial loan. The US still owns more than half of the company, so we are still in a wait and see mode on that one.

 

You disagree with economists who say TARP kept this terrible financial situation from being many times worse?

It was never presented as a panacea. It was a drastic step taking in extraordinary times. The "returns" have come faster than expected and many still have paychecks coming in. Some have said that without TARP UE would be 15%. 10% is terrible. 15% is unimaginable. There are intangibles that can't be ignored and 15% vs 10% is one of those.

Yes I disagree and I have never seen TARP as a panacea.

 

Believe what you want, but quoting a bunch of economists is not giving hard facts, either. There is no proof that the UE would have been 15%, just speculation that it could have been (more "IF"s); therefore, it is not an intangible.

 

The mistake would be to let TARP run it's course and not have any policy changes. That would be a huge failure.

TARP has run its course already.

 

"Two years later, with TARP officially set to expire today, it's an appropriate time to look back and evaluate that program's effectiveness."

 

Espouse success based on rhetoric, if you feel it makes your point. Politicians live off that. However, there is not enough data to determine what the final results will be at this time. The program just now ended. The facts indicate that the economy is still failing, not healing as the article boasts. The process is not complete. It's just too soon for praise or condemnation. That is my point.

Nope, depends on how it plays out.

 

Yes. The article shows no proof that the taxpayers will be paid back, just that the Treasury is confident we will be. Show me hard facts, 3/4 of banks is not a hard fact because it really depends on which banks paid the money back. AIG's projected exit strategy is not action. This is still all speculation

 

I devalue no job. Mine was one of them. That still doesn't indicate that TARP has worked in the long run. GM and Chrysler are not done restructuring their workforce and manufacturing facilities. See what Delphi Automotive did to save their company, then you'll see why I'm not brimming with confidence.

 

See above about the paybacks, but I will add that GM only paid off the initial loan. The US still owns more than half of the company, so we are still in a wait and see mode on that one.

 

 

Yes I disagree and I have never seen TARP as a panacea.

 

Believe what you want, but quoting a bunch of economists is not giving hard facts, either. There is no proof that the UE would have been 15%, just speculation that it could have been (more "IF"s); therefore, it is not an intangible.

 

TARP has run its course already.

 

"Two years later, with TARP officially set to expire today, it's an appropriate time to look back and evaluate that program's effectiveness."

 

Espouse success based on rhetoric, if you feel it makes your point. Politicians live off that. However, there is not enough data to determine what the final results will be at this time. The program just now ended. The facts indicate that the economy is still failing, not healing as the article boasts. The process is not complete. It's just too soon for praise or condemnation. That is my point.

 

You seem to be ignoring the fact the the banking system was stabilized which was one of the key goals and needs. This alone allowed the ugly financial condition to "only" be ugly vs being depression-like.

 

A valid anti-TARP argument would be that not enough lending has been going on although it seems to be getting a bit better.

N

 

I devalue no job. Mine was one of them. That still doesn't indicate that TARP has worked in the long run. GM and Chrysler are not done restructuring their workforce and manufacturing facilities. See what Delphi Automotive did to save their company, then you'll see why I'm not brimming with confidence.

 

.

 

When President Bush's administration first came up with the idea to help the automotive industry they said failure to do so could result in 1.1M jobs being lost across the country. Since their investment and then the investment made by the Obama administration/Congress the industry has added about 60k jobs. Your example of Delphi is irrelevant to the point. The big picture is that the potential massive job losses did not happen AND jobs have been added. In the short-term that's a huge win. GM is going to an IPO soon to help pay back much of the loan. Might not be all of the loan but the short-term gains IMO outweigh the long-term shortfall in the payback.

When President Bush's administration first came up with the idea to help the automotive industry they said failure to do so could result in 1.1M jobs being lost across the country. Since their investment and then the investment made by the Obama administration/Congress the industry has added about 60k jobs. Your example of Delphi is irrelevant to the point. The big picture is that the potential massive job losses did not happen AND jobs have been added. In the short-term that's a huge win. GM is going to an IPO soon to help pay back much of the loan. Might not be all of the loan but the short-term gains IMO outweigh the long-term shortfall in the payback.

Until the IPO is complete and successful, it's still conjecture (another "IF"), and still no proof that TARP has worked. Therefore, way to early to tell if TARP is a success. When it happens, I'll be a believer, not before.

You seem to be ignoring the fact the the banking system was stabilized which was one of the key goals and needs. This alone allowed the ugly financial condition to "only" be ugly vs being depression-like.

 

A valid anti-TARP argument would be that not enough lending has been going on although it seems to be getting a bit better.

I'm not ignoring anything. Believe who you want, but the banking system is NOT stable. Bankruptcies, foreclosures, and defaults are still unreasonably high. The economy is still declining. We have been teetering on the brink of a depression for quite a while, now. It could still break either way.

 

As far as a valid anti-TARP argument, I'm not interested in arguing the validity of TARP. That horse has been dragged out of the barn and been beaten to death. Big Macs have been sold containing the meat. :puke:

 

I would love for TARP to be proven a success. Nothing would make me happier, but from my point of view, there is no hard data to back up the claim, just conjecture and speculation. That's a whole bunch of "IF"s, plans, and opinions.

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.

Saw an editiorial cartoon that I thought was right on.

 

Had a donkey drivng a car that was labeled American economy and it had been crashed.

Had a elephant returning from overspending rehab telling the American people that they have just returned from rehab and reading to drive the car again.

 

One side hasn't been able to be trusted for awhile on overspending and the other lost all trust on overspending by the way they acted when they were in power.