Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I guess it was a good idea after all. It kept the banking system from collapsing and then the government earns a profit.
This is so wrong it is difficult to read.
the treasury only made a "Profit" on Citi because the Federal Reserve pumped trillions of new dollars into the banking system, and swapped out trillions of toxic mortgage assets for safe treasury debt. So right, thanks to the Fed guaranteeing profits for the TBTF banks, the TBTF banks were able to pay back the TARP. What a splendid outcome.
by your logic, if this was a "good idea", therefore the U.S. Government should double the size of its national debt. That would increase the so-called "profit" going toward the Treasury.
If you let big financial institutions go bankrupt, as a moral gesture, you will bring on a depression that would take a decade to repair
-- bringing on much harsher upheaval on investors and taxpayers than one can imagine.
History says that financial players will overreach even if they don’t expect a bailout.
It’s really hard to envision a financial system in which we can blithely let major institutions fail knowing the dire consequences.
I completely disagree. We do NOT know what would've happened if we hadn't bailed out the banks, and it is B.S. for you to pretend that you do. In the modern banking system, all any institution needs in order to exist is the support of the Fed; the banks themselves are fungible and largely interchangable. They serve no special purpose. If they go bankrupt their assets will be split and sold off; the ATM machines will not explode, lending will not shut down, mortgages will still be issued.
Because banks are replacable, and because paper "wealth" is stored in digital form in computers and not in cold hard cash sitting in vaults, You CAN liquidate the equity of people who made bad bets.
the treasury only made a "Profit" on Citi because the Federal Reserve pumped trillions of new dollars into the banking system, and swapped out trillions of toxic mortgage assets for safe treasury debt. So right, thanks to the Fed guaranteeing profits for the TBTF banks, the TBTF banks were able to pay back the TARP. What a splendid outcome.
by your logic, if this was a "good idea", therefore the U.S. Government should double the size of its national debt. That would increase the so-called "profit" going toward the Treasury.
The government took a risk, so they (we) should benefit when the deal goes right. The bailout of Chrysler in 1981 made a profit for the taxpayers too. There is nothing improper about taxpayers being on the winning side.
Pay for my losses when I go to Vegas and eventually I'll be on the winning side.
Right now we are in the process of largest military boondoggle of all time with a F-35 aircraft.
Govt has been investing in the private sector and R&D since the world wars. Where do you think aviation and telecommunications came from? Focusing on the losers only shows your bias.
Well, I guess it was a good idea after all. It kept the banking system from collapsing and then the government earns a profit.
Actually, had the 45 billion the government used to bail out Citibank in 2007/2008, been used to pay down the government debt, how much money would have been saved in interest?
Actually, had the 45 billion the government used to bail out Citibank in 2007/2008, been used to pay down the government debt, how much money would have been saved in interest?
The government was paying close to 0% on new debt. So, the answer is hardly anything. But what you inadvertently brought up is how much we got distracted from the real problem. The problem in 2008/2009 wasn't too much government debt. It was high unemployment and a stagnant economy.
Right now we are in the process of largest military boondoggle of all time with a F-35 aircraft.
Govt has been investing in the private sector and R&D since the world wars. Where do you think aviation and telecommunications came from? Focusing on the losers only shows your bias.
Start a thread on military waste and fraud and you will see many of the same people complaining. Many of the same complaining about things like Solyndra are also complaining that the president wants to waste billions more on military actions in Syria.
You can pull a different topic out of the air and claim that people are not complaining about that when it's not the topic.
Start a thread about cutting the military, I'd be happy to pile on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
