Cost of US bank bailout less than 50 billion

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Cost of US bank bailout less than 50 billion: White House
By Agence France-Presse
Friday, October 1st, 2010 -- 8:51 am

The White House said Thursday the cost of the 700-billion-dollar bank bailout launched at the height of the financial crisis was much lower than expected, at under 50 billion dollars.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner informed President Barack Obama of the revised figure during his daily economic briefing, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was introduced by the former Bush administration in 2008 and continued by the Obama administration, amid dire warnings the financial system was on the verge of collapse.

The program is intensely unpopular in America, and many conservative candidates running in November's mid-term elections have a "no more bailouts" platform, despite the program's apparent success and lower than expected cost.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had previously estimated in its latest accounting of the program that it would cost 66 billion dollars.

"I think right now, the briefing that the President got had that number at under 50 billion dollars," said Gibbs, adding that the figure would improve as the rescued auto sector pays back its loans under the program.

The scheme was introduced to buy up toxic assets from banks and other financial institutions at a time when the financial system was on the verge of collapse.

But the funds made available to the Treasury Department turned out to be used, especially in repeated bailouts of banks and carmakers.

Banks that benefited from TARP funds were required to pay back the taxpayer investment in order to write off the stake the government took in their stock.

In addition, they had to regularly pay high dividends to the Treasury for as long as they owed funds to the government.
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
Chad... I'm not buying it.

We're to believe the Treasury's recouped the $180 Billion given to AIG? I haven't run the numbers but if the Treasury's recovered most of the TARP funds, then wouldn't it have been reflected in lower federal budget deficits for 2009 & 2010? Something's not adding up... :shrug:
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Chad... I'm not buying it.

We're to believe the Treasury's recouped the $180 Billion given to AIG? I haven't run the numbers but if the Treasury's recovered most of the TARP funds, then wouldn't it have been reflected in lower federal budget deficits for 2009 & 2010? Something's not adding up... :shrug:

I think the $50 billion is projected as opposed to present status. AIG has not repaid yet, but plans to repay all $182 billion plus interest. Citi, BOA, Wells Fargo and Goldman have, or are about to, pay all they owe.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AIG-Plans-TARP-zacks-4264522411.html?x=0&.v=1
 

rusty

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 24, 2006
4,627
11
0
Under a mask.
I think the $50 billion is projected as opposed to present status. AIG has not repaid yet, but plans to repay all $182 billion plus interest. Citi, BOA, Wells Fargo and Goldman have, or are about to, pay all they owe.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AIG-Plans-TARP-zacks-4264522411.html?x=0&.v=1

And the Patriots D is projected to grow-up eventually.Come on Duff,Im not saying they won't pay it back(or the Patriots D won't grow up)but why wouldn't the media wait until it was already paid before reporting??

Must be that left wing media ,you know the guy at the Tea Party Rally's.:cool:
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,602
1,575
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
as I posted before, if we hadda bailout the banks we should have done it the way Sweden did several years ago. Link here to the famous article on it from NY Times, written over 2 years ago. An excerpt:

Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.

That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.


Remember this for the next financial "crisis".
 

Trench

Turn it up
Forum Member
Mar 8, 2008
3,974
18
0
Mad City, WI
as I posted before, if we hadda bailout the banks we should have done it the way Sweden did several years ago. Link here to the famous article on it from NY Times, written over 2 years ago. An excerpt:

Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.

That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.


Remember this for the next financial "crisis".
Be careful Terryray... you're getting dangerously close to endorsing the kind of "European socialism" that Doggie and his fellow teabaggers so despise. ;)
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
And the Patriots D is projected to grow-up eventually.Come on Duff,Im not saying they won't pay it back(or the Patriots D won't grow up)but why wouldn't the media wait until it was already paid before reporting??

Must be that left wing media ,you know the guy at the Tea Party Rally's.:cool:


Don't ask me. I guess they have to put something on the news 24/7.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
My only point in posting this, was to try to gain some perspective on this issue. We keep hearing about this socialism BULLSHIT, and how the administration is trying to take over everything, but then we find out the true story and how the numbers - and the involvement of our government in them - did little but keep things going at a time when most feared a complete collapse.

It's all a matter of perspective. The talking points - on both sides - are just that - talking points. The bailouts are railed on by conservatives at this point - after being started by the conservative administration, and when you look at what actually transpired, we see pretty much positive results, as far as I can see. For the companies, the government, and for the taxpayer.

We could have done nothing, of course, and we have no idea what could have happened. What DID happen, was companies kept in business, the economic system did not collapse, and companies are paying back the money we (as taxpayers) loaned them, in most cases. Seems to me that a $50 billion number is not too much to pay to keep the economy contained and above water, especially since the taxpayer stands to actually make money on much of the investments.

At least that's how I see it, as a novice, uninformed dude. :SIB
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top