When you've got $10 trillion in debt -- and the bailouts and stimulus cost you a combined $1 trillion-plus -- getting back $14 billion is like finding two quarters buried between the couch cushions.
@MrInBetween: Well, the idea is that this might happen more and more as debts are repaid. If we make enough in interest and fees from those who repay, that will help to defray the losses from those who end up not being able to, or possibly (in some magical Americaland where even horrible shit always has a silver lining) turn a profit.
I'm thinking that the end result will be something more in line with the former rather than the latter. In which case, many of the individual loans we gave out will end up having been subsidized by those who took loans to begin with. Not such a horrible outcome, all told.
@skt.smth: I'll be stunned if the US Government makes enough in interest and fees to make up for the losses of those who can't repay. Has there been a single government bailout in US history that ended up benefitting taxpayers?
@MrInBetween: Well, any returns in the form of interest and fees necessarily defrays those losses, at least to some extent. It may not be much, but it's better than nothing.
It's kind of cocky to boast about "returns" on our tax dollars this early on in the process. By definition, the people who pay up earliest on loans are those who can best afford to do so. Let's wait to see which of the 600 some odd TARP beneficiaries who still owe us can afford to do so when all is said and done.
A little bleary brained this morning, but some enterprising fellow looked a little beyond the numbers we were hearing regarding hidden american money in UBS accounts. IIRC it's something close to $1 Trillion just at UBS. Remember.. there are plenty of other swiss banks. And then there's Panama, Antilles, Jersey, and a few hundred other tax havens. Haha.. they took our money. Haha. Fooled us. (And wouldn't you know it, we hide money for people from other countries too, right here in the land of the free). Ha ha.
Whose money is it? It sure as hell isn't "ours." Pointing at those offshore accounts dreaming of all the bridges Congress could build is a pretty sick mentality, but then I guess I don't take perverse pride in being a net negative contributor to the tax base.
I'm sure there's a T account out there for this, but the risk-weighted return on this is dogshit. Of course that's not how a regulator thinks or should think, so this whole meaningless accounting effort on the part of the media really needs to end.
@flossy: Ask the people who don't have to live under Saddam anymore how disastrous it was. And the 'healthcare' proposal will be disastrously costly forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever, as opposed to Iraq, which will not. So apples/oranges there.
@momof3wildkids: Okay, I'll give that source the benefit of the doubt and assume those numbers are correct. What did that money buy us?
--4,000+ American casualties
--Tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties
--A fractured Iraq that is more of a threat to regional stability than was Saddam's regime in 2003
--A huge black mark on our international reputation
And I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that "investment" to turn a profit.
@momof3wildkids: Well, while you were apparently not paying attention, this summer G.M. and Chrysler made it through the process of bankruptcy restructuring in record time. But don't let that get in the way of complaining!
@flossy: HAHAHAHAAAAAAAA... Anyone who thinks that our auto industry will EVER be able to function as normal, profitable companies so long as the unions are allowed to continue to operate unchecked has got their head, neck and shoulders buried in some pretty dense sand. That 'bailout' money will never be seen again. Believe that.
@flossy: I said RETURN. Getting through the process of bankruptcy does not mean that we will see one dime back from the money we gave them.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have bailed them out. I don't think we will see our money again. I also find it amusing that the good numbers are leaked without mention of the numbers that suck.
@daveyjonesisdead: Why do you find that amusing? A fair number of Fairfield County's residents are employed by Wall Street type firms or real estate which obviously have been hard hit by the economic downturn.
Additionally, residents of Norwalk and Bridgeport (especially) are also taking it on the chin because many of their residents are employed by manufacturing and other industrial businesses which are closing rapidly.
Fairfield County doesn't merely comprise of Greenwich, Darien, New Caanan and Westport.
@Thomas Paladino: Oh yes, because the real problem is that stupid people think they should be getting paid "fairly". Silly assholes. How dare they assume that they are worth treating humanely. Why should we care to pay and support our workers, when we could just pay them all in table scraps and nickels?
Everytime one of you retarded trolls mentions the bailout as "our" money I throw up a little bit. Yes, like no amount of government money has ever been spent on you, directly or indirectly. Like you've never ever taken a single cent of government money. You fuckers act as if the money used for the bailouts were your own personal savings account. Give it up....you aren't going to make it long enough to cash in your SS policy, what with all the right wing/Faux noize/Glenn Beck semen you swallow every night forming a cancer in your gut.
@momof3wildkids: I jut thought a real estate bailout to protect your husband's rental properties might be foremost on your mind. Or did the pre-nup only give you just enough of a share of his wealth to stay home and neglect your kids?
@theMoJo: You really don't look at it as our money? Really?
While the money didn't come directly out of my personal savings account, I won't be able to add as much to my savings account in the future because of the increased taxes I am going to have to pay.
I'm not saying the bailouts shouldn't have happened. I frankly don't know if they should or shouldn't have occurred. But to say that it isn't going to personally cost me, and all Americans who pay taxes, is the height of ignorance.
@momof3wildkids: Paul Krugman, of all people, thinks that we should be running an even higher budget deficit right now. Yes, we are massively in debt--by around 70% of our GDP--but historically speaking, this is not unusual, and there are countries that have run much steeper budget deficits (in terms of % GDP) and managed just fine.
@daveyjonesisdead: No bailout or prenup here. Your concern is overwhelming. {Sniff} I think I'm getting verklempt, if that is possible for an Irish Catholic girl.
@skt.smth: Why is it telling that Krugman thinks we should have a higher budget deficit?
I'd love to see the list of countries thriving with higher deficits. I think our definition of managing just fine may be different. Regardless, I'd love to see the list.
@momof3wildkids: Okay, well one way to assure we'd never see a return on any of that money was to follow Bush's example of throwing bailouts at the big three and just hoping they'd take it as a sign to straighten up and fly right. Obama did (by necessity--letting them fail would have kneecapped our already struggling economy) throw good money after bad in a bid to save the industry, but he did the right thing by stepping in to take over and guide those broken companies through a swift and tidy bankruptcy. That is the first step back toward profitability. These things don't happen overnight.
@Thomas Paladino: The unions took it on the chin right along with other investors when G.M. and Chrysler went into bankruptcy. If that's the best straw man you can find, you might just want to give up on the trolling this morning.
@momof3wildkids: Umm, it's telling because Krugman is an economist of some note, who routinely says pretty brilliant things about economics, and his message is that we should be running a higher deficit. I'd not be too surprised if an Obama surrogate came out and said the same thing, but I wouldn't be nearly as convinced it was a good idea in that case. Krugman, in other words, is trustworthy, and he says that, historically speaking, we're not as deep in doggy doo-doo as those who focus only on the raw number (rather than the % GDP) would have us believe.
@Thomas Paladino: the housing bubble and financial crisis existed because Greenspan used rising housing values to replace rising salaries (because salaries weren't rising any more, despite record productivity) in an effort to keep the consumer-driven economy alive. And so here we are.
Fordism worked and will work again, and unions will be a part of ensuring that.
@skt.smth: Thanks for the link to the article. It was an interesting read.
Belgium and Italy are your examples of countries that are managing well? I suppose they are if you are into chocolate and shoes; but they don't jump to mind when I think of countries with great financial power or acumen.
Keep in mind that valuing bailouts is not a matter of credits and debits. You're also accounting for potential lost GDP when industries collapse etc., to say nothing of tax revenues and the like that would have been lost. Then you've got hidden costs like the lack of bond market function thanks to how the administration handled the owners of GM's obligations, the general mispricing of risk, and the fact that now we've invited American agency debt into investor analysis of basic corporate operations.
In other words, hey morons, the money and "my taaaaaxes!" are the least important aspect of any of this.
@momof3wildkids: I'm saying quit sitting up by the door waiting for some sort of check to return to you within a year. All kinds of money gets pissed away by government, and I'm sorry to bring up this old horse, but I'd rather it go into American businesses and keeping many many Americans employed than watch it go into useless Military Technology and cameras for Gitmo guards to take photos of naked prisoners.
@momof3wildkids: Exactly, and those countries were in debt by over 100% of their GDPs. America--a country with great financial power--is only in debt at about 70% of its GDP. I think if Belgium and Italy can deal with being completely underwater, we can wade through a pool that only goes up to our chests.
And the leak of this "calculation, which has neither been audited, published nor risk-adjusted" has absolutely nothing to do with his upcoming confirmation hearings. No. No, not in the least...
The problem here is that this windfall is going to be used as part of the argument to bolster support for any future bailouts. Please, keep in mind that they don't always work out this way, President Obama. Why does Bernanke get all of the credit here? Wasn't this the brainchild of Henry Paulson? Oh, that's right, he worked for GS so we all have to hate him.
Am I supposed to stress the "who some say saved our country from absolute economic ruin" in a sarcastic tone or what?
I'm not saying I had or even have, at this point, a better plan, I'm just, you know, sayin'.
Can someone please explain what the fuck Bald did to save our country from absolute economic ruin? Keep interest rates low? Print more dollars? Prop up failing institutions?
Let's see what got us here:
-keep the cost of lending low
-promote false sense of expanding growth by providing the plebeians ample use of their house/co-op/condo to substitute an ATM
-prop up failing citizens that leveraged their life for a Prius, HDTV, 2nd home in the Berkshires/Poconos, and duplex abode
Outstanding! No similarities.
At least Summers will never take command, I suppose. The Fed would need to subsidize smelling salts to keep his languid person awake for the eventual demise.
@takeouteurotrash: Can someone please explain what the fuck Bald did to save our country from absolute economic ruin?
My take is that he created a false sense of crisis, transferred a lot of wealth to his friends and then got them to dutifully say that the crisis had passed.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
I'm thinking that the end result will be something more in line with the former rather than the latter. In which case, many of the individual loans we gave out will end up having been subsidized by those who took loans to begin with. Not such a horrible outcome, all told.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
Whose money is it? It sure as hell isn't "ours." Pointing at those offshore accounts dreaming of all the bridges Congress could build is a pretty sick mentality, but then I guess I don't take perverse pride in being a net negative contributor to the tax base.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
Good point though.
08/31/09
--4,000+ American casualties
--Tens of thousands of Iraqi casualties
--A fractured Iraq that is more of a threat to regional stability than was Saddam's regime in 2003
--A huge black mark on our international reputation
And I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that "investment" to turn a profit.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
I'm not saying we shouldn't have bailed them out. I don't think we will see our money again. I also find it amusing that the good numbers are leaked without mention of the numbers that suck.
08/31/09
08/31/09
Additionally, residents of Norwalk and Bridgeport (especially) are also taking it on the chin because many of their residents are employed by manufacturing and other industrial businesses which are closing rapidly.
Fairfield County doesn't merely comprise of Greenwich, Darien, New Caanan and Westport.
08/31/09
Everytime one of you retarded trolls mentions the bailout as "our" money I throw up a little bit. Yes, like no amount of government money has ever been spent on you, directly or indirectly. Like you've never ever taken a single cent of government money. You fuckers act as if the money used for the bailouts were your own personal savings account. Give it up....you aren't going to make it long enough to cash in your SS policy, what with all the right wing/Faux noize/Glenn Beck semen you swallow every night forming a cancer in your gut.
08/31/09
08/31/09
While the money didn't come directly out of my personal savings account, I won't be able to add as much to my savings account in the future because of the increased taxes I am going to have to pay.
I'm not saying the bailouts shouldn't have happened. I frankly don't know if they should or shouldn't have occurred. But to say that it isn't going to personally cost me, and all Americans who pay taxes, is the height of ignorance.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
I'd love to see the list of countries thriving with higher deficits. I think our definition of managing just fine may be different. Regardless, I'd love to see the list.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
[www.nytimes.com]
08/31/09
I hope you are correct that the automakers will return to profitability. I would love to be wrong about this.
08/31/09
Fordism worked and will work again, and unions will be a part of ensuring that.
08/31/09
Belgium and Italy are your examples of countries that are managing well? I suppose they are if you are into chocolate and shoes; but they don't jump to mind when I think of countries with great financial power or acumen.
08/31/09
Keep in mind that valuing bailouts is not a matter of credits and debits. You're also accounting for potential lost GDP when industries collapse etc., to say nothing of tax revenues and the like that would have been lost. Then you've got hidden costs like the lack of bond market function thanks to how the administration handled the owners of GM's obligations, the general mispricing of risk, and the fact that now we've invited American agency debt into investor analysis of basic corporate operations.
In other words, hey morons, the money and "my taaaaaxes!" are the least important aspect of any of this.
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
08/25/09
I'm not saying I had or even have, at this point, a better plan, I'm just, you know, sayin'.
08/25/09
Let's see what got us here:
-keep the cost of lending low
-promote false sense of expanding growth by providing the plebeians ample use of their house/co-op/condo to substitute an ATM
-prop up failing citizens that leveraged their life for a Prius, HDTV, 2nd home in the Berkshires/Poconos, and duplex abode
Outstanding! No similarities.
At least Summers will never take command, I suppose. The Fed would need to subsidize smelling salts to keep his languid person awake for the eventual demise.
08/25/09
My take is that he created a false sense of crisis, transferred a lot of wealth to his friends and then got them to dutifully say that the crisis had passed.
08/25/09
"Never let a crisis go to waste" extends to both sides of the aisle.