Government ends TARP, makes $15.3 billion profit

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/news/companies/government-bailouts-end/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only bad news is that the automotive industry was a money loser within TARP, with a $9.2 billion loss. But banks and other institutions put the government back in the black.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[King]

No ZeroHedge recalculated this and we actually lost 500 trillion dollars.

[Linus Van Pelt]

The profit is kind of an odd thing to focus on. If it was indeed a good public policy goal to prevent the banking system from collapse, then it would have been worth spending some money on, if needed. Conversely, it's not hard for the government to make profitable investments; they could just park our tax money in an index fund instead of spending it on programs. But this wouldn't make for a useful program.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Buy low during a situation where most of the lending has froze up, and then sell it after the economy has started growing and billions have been printed (with the primary beneficiary being Wall Street), it is no surprise that one would make money on those investments.

[Badger]

Buy low during a situation where most of the lending has froze up, and then sell it after the economy has started growing and billions have been printed (with the primary beneficiary being Wall Street), it is no surprise that one would make money on those investments.

The point here being the large majority of taxpayers would be "surprised" TARP didn't lose billions or trillions of government funds, let alone made billions for taxpayers.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Buy low during a situation where most of the lending has froze up, and then sell it after the economy has started growing and billions have been printed (with the primary beneficiary being Wall Street), it is no surprise that one would make money on those investments.

The point here being the large majority of taxpayers would be "surprised" TARP didn't lose billions or trillions of government funds, let alone made billions for taxpayers.

I doubt even many politicians are aware of that. I'm sure that Rand Paul believes that TARP lost money. He is the same guy after all who thinks that government grew under Obama.

[RR1997]

No ZeroHedge recalculated this and we actually lost 500 trillion dollars.

Link?

[Deus Naturae]

He is the same guy after all who thinks that government grew under Obama.

Probably because it did? I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

[Landslide Lyndon]

He is the same guy after all who thinks that government grew under Obama.

Probably because it did? I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Because it didn't?

[Antonio the Sixth]

He is the same guy after all who thinks that government grew under Obama.

Probably because it did? I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Because it didn't?

You expect a libertarian to be fooled by things like facts and figures? Fool!

[Deus Naturae]

He is the same guy after all who thinks that government grew under Obama.

Probably because it did? I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Because it didn't?

It's possible to expand the government while using fewer employees to run it:

[Deus Naturae]

You expect a libertarian to be fooled by things like facts and figures? Fool!

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Oh noez, federal spending increased by $410 billion while GDP increased by $3.5 trillion!


(Nevermind as a percentage of GDP it fell from over 24% to 21% from 2009 to 2014 and despite the fact it has grown very slowly, but I guess only raw numbers matter)

[Deus Naturae]

Oh noez, federal spending increased by $410 billion while GDP increased by $3.5 trillion!


(Nevermind as a percentage of GDP it fell from over 24% to 21% from 2009 to 2014 and despite the fact it has grown very slowly, but I guess only raw numbers matter)

The question wasn't how much it mattered, but simply whether or not the size of the government grew. Whether or not Federal spending is only relevant relative to GDP is another issue.

[King]

Percentage of GDP is the standard for size of government.  If you cut spending but destroy GDP, the size of government increases in real terms as a larger percentage of the tax base is requiredto pay for it. That's all you should care about as a taxpayer.

The Paul Ryan budget relies on GDP growth for much of its debt reduction projections.

[Deus Naturae]

Alright, I get your point. But, it's debatable whether the decline in spending/GDP is a result of Obama's influence. By the same reasoning, you could claim that Obama "slashed Defense spending" because Defense spending/GDP has declined significantly. I remember AG doing exactly that a while ago, but he was rightfully called out on it because the decline is the result of GDP growth, not actual fiscal restraint on the part of Obama.

Plus, my point about regulatory growth still stands.

[King]

Obama didn't slash defense spending per say but effectively did so by restraining growth. With what McCain or Romney wanted, it would certainly not have declined as %GDP.

[Deus Naturae]

Obama didn't slash defense spending per say but effectively did so by restraining growth. With what McCain or Romney wanted, it would certainly not have declined as %GDP.

My point isn't really about the specifics of Defense spending. What I'm trying to say is that if you just look at spending/GDP to judge an executive's actions, it may look like that executive has cut/restrained spending more than they actually have because the decline/leveling out is caused by GDP growth. You're right that spending/GDP is more relevant to the economy, but it isn't the best measure of what the executive has actually done himself in regard to spending (and my disagreement  with Landslide Lyndon related to the actions of Obama specifically).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Measuring government spending in raw numbers makes absolutely no sense.

[bedstuy]

Plus, my point about regulatory growth still stands.

No.  Also, a profoundly misleading statistic and it betrays a lack of understanding of what a regulation is.  There are regulations that impose a new significant burden on industry.  There are new regulations that basically just update old regulations.  And, there are regulations, most of them, that do things like set out a filing deadline or a list of definitions.  So, it's ridiculous to lump them all together or act like these are all laws that restrict freedom.  A regulation on point-source mercury emissions can be a matter of costing or saving billions of dollars and many people's health/lives.  A regulation about how to file something properly is something quite different.

And, on your specific point, you're also lying with a graph.



As you can see, regulations have grown at a linear rate over time.  Is that a function of different policy or the fact that we keep passing more legislation and adapting to new situations over time?

[The_Doctor]

I'm interested in looking at the $15 billion relative to the government budget - in budget terms, it's essentially zero, no? But it's still a good number and I'm glad that we ended out TARP this way.

Props to President Bush and the President for doing this, although I didn't agree with the auto bailout (at the time. But they made it work).

[bedstuy]

I'm interested in looking at the $15 billion relative to the government budget - in budget terms, it's essentially zero, no? But it's still a good number and I'm glad that we ended out TARP this way.

Props to President Bush and the President for doing this, although I didn't agree with the auto bailout (at the time. But they made it work).

Why props to President Bush?

Didn't he appoint a Treasury Secretary who botched the initial steps of the financial crisis, partially out of his conflicts of interest (being a former Goldman chairman)? 

Didn't he exercise no leadership during the crisis and essentially hand everything off to Paulson and Pelosi? 

Didn't he run the SEC which failed over and over again to police Wall Street?

Let's not re-write history.  Pelosi passed TARP with only 19 Republican votes.   10 Democrats voted against vs. 156 Republicans.  Republicans put bumpersticker populism before reality.  They wanted to get the benefit of TARP saving the economy, but campaign against bailouts.  It was a huge indictment of Republicans and how they have a militant dishonesty and disrespect for this country.  And, still to this day, Republicans live in a fantasy land where the financial crisis was caused by cabal of poor people buying houses in Florida. 

When it comes to actually making tough, reality-based choices that benefit this country and having political courage, there's only one party in America right now. 

[The_Doctor]

TARP is a Bush Administration initiative ... I credited President Bush because he signed it into law, and his Treasury Department created the program (and he pushed for it). Paulson was actually instrumental to TARP, Pelosi helped whip votes, but the TARP program was a creation of the Bush Treasury department. Kind of "The Bush Administration was responsible for it" and thus "credit to President Bush."

I'm not addressing the rest of the campaign style rhetoric you're putting in there, but I credited Bush simply because his Treasury Department came up with it, he pushed the bill, and he signed it and gave it his support. I also credited President Obama for sticking with it.

Not only that, in the second House vote, 91 Republicans voted yes for the bill on the second try (where it passed 263-171). I'm sure much of that was because of the Bush Administration whipping the bill, along with Pelosi.

This was not designed to be a partisan shot at either party.

[bedstuy]

TARP is a Bush Administration initiative ... I credited President Bush because he signed it into law, and his Treasury Department created the program (and he pushed for it). Paulson was actually instrumental to TARP, Pelosi helped whip votes, but the TARP program was a creation of the Bush Treasury department. Kind of "The Bush Administration was responsible for it" and thus "credit to President Bush."

I'm not addressing the rest of the campaign style rhetoric you're putting in there, but I credited Bush simply because his Treasury Department came up with it, he pushed the bill, and he signed it and gave it his support. I also credited President Obama for sticking with it.

Not only that, in the second House vote, 91 Republicans voted yes for the bill on the second try (where it passed 263-171). I'm sure much of that was because of the Bush Administration whipping the bill, along with Pelosi.

This was not designed to be a partisan shot at either party.

The actual details of TARP were created by career employees of Treasury.  Those are non-political people, so how do you give politicians credit for their work? 

[The_Doctor]

Uh by that standard a lot of work in Washington is done by career workers in the various agencies (true) and we shouldn't credit political leaders when they pass things (not true). It seems you just want a reason to not credit President Bush for TARP and that's fine bit he and the Treasury Department had involvement. They reviewed the proposal and sent it to Capital Hill.

One career staffer involved in this was Neel Kashkari, who was the Republican nominee for California Governor, by the way