Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: The Washington PostThe Troubled Assets Relief Program, which was widely reviled as a $700 billion bailout for Wall Street titans, is now expected to cost the federal government a mere $25 billion - the equivalent of less than six months of emergency jobless benefits.
A new report released Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the cost of TARP has plummeted since its passage in October 2008, when policymakers thought that the world stood on the brink of an economic meltdown.
Oh, dear. The rallying cry for the GOP of how 'Obama increased the deficit' (cue hysterical, high-pitched tone of voice) might not suffice for tearing him down prior to the 2012 election. They are gonna have to dig up some dirt on him, like maybe a photo-shopped picture of him arriving in Mecca with a Koran under his arm.
Would it do any good to point out to the GOP lemmings that Obama's plans to reduce the deficit may clear up what his administration added to the existing mess but won't touch the tip of the GWB ice burg? Would they care anyway?
#1 - Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:47 PM ESTNo, because if they actually confronted the truth, it would destroy their weak minds!
Hetep and Respect tennismom, better late then never, I missed this important seed. Clipped.
This is bad news for the baggers.
and what happened to the paid back money? was it applied to the deficit as was written in the law or was it used for more stimulus as Obama had metioned?
#2 - Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:37 PM ESTSo we go from Obama saying TARP will make a profit to, it will only add 25 billion to the deficit. Wake up Libs, a deficit of 25 billion is still a loss.
The Post makes it sound like, it's okay we only lost 25 billion. What a joke.
#3 - Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 PM ESTAs opposed to the untold countless billions we would have paid out in social benefits from the domino-effect collapse of the economy? Your shortsightedness is troubling.
In any event TARP with Bush's program, passed while he was still President. Obama did make use of the second tranche, but Bush passed it and distributed the first.
That was part of the 780 billion stimulus plan. That plan contained the increase in social handouts.
Once again, wrong. The stimulus, or ARRA (American Reinvestment & Recovery Act) has nothing to do with TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program).
Perhaps you should do some homework before proving yourself wrong in public.
Next, what does "an increase in social handouts" have to do with anything, or are you simply throwing more chum in the water because you have nothing else to say?
Finally, you're wrong again. ARRA did not increase "social handouts"; it included a huge tax cut and billions of dollars of spending in America's crumbling infrastructure. Less than a third of the ARRA went to education, health care and entitlements program, and also unemployment benefits extensions.
So we go from Obama saying TARP will make a profit to, it will only add 25 billion to the deficit. Wake up Libs, a deficit of 25 billion is still a loss.
Apparently, you didn't read the NY Times article about this in October, Was a Democrat-651386...
At the White House on Thursday, the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, briefed President Obama about A.I.G. and about the broader outlook for the expiring rescue program, putting the projected losses at less than $50 billion, at most. Yet neither the White House nor Congressional Democrats are likely to boast much in the month remaining before midterm elections. For most voters, TARP remains a four-letter word.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/business/01tarp.html
So, the losses is less than what was orginially stated...
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
