Since this is coming back up: I absolutely defend the bailout

[Recursion]

And you're an idiot if you don't.

It cost the taxpayers precisely zero (actually it made us money).

It saved the finance, insurance, and banking sectors, as well as the auto industry.

TARP was one of the best Federal programs of the last generation, and I'm sick of alleged "progressives" shitting on it.

[Live and Learn]

1. It kept those responsible for decimating the economy from facing consequences.

At the same time she voted for the bankruptcy bill that hurt women and children.

[Recursion]

3. No it didn't.

Nothing in TARP limited criminal or civil liability. What are you talking about?

(Pre-emptive: the US has given more man-years in jail than Iceland over 2008.)

[Live and Learn]

9. Financial repercussions. Businesses that should have been allowed to fail.

And how many actually went to jail?

[Recursion]

11. 17 last I saw, and literally hundreds of companies failed

This is Orwellian, really.

Banks failed. Bankers went to jail. Dodd-Frank broke up multiple banks. You don't care. You never even bothered to learn the too big to fail banks that Dodd Frank broke up, did you?

Not surprised.

[el_bryanto]

4. Pretty much this. We held the victims of the 2008 meltdown responsible, while letting the perps

go free. Even if you believe that they were guilty of stupidity more than malice (and I'd be willing to go along with this to a certain extent), we still should have taken steps to regulate wall street further to ensure this kind of disaster does't happen again.

Bryant

[livetohike]

2. It's the outrage today that makes me laugh. Where was the outrage back then?

It wasn't a joke. The economy needed the boost the bail outs provided. It saved jobs and helped propel the economy to the road to recovery.

[Live and Learn]

8. There was plenty of outrage even on DU about it then.

A simple site search will show you what you want to know.

[livetohike]

15. I don't need a site search. I've been here since 2004.

[el_bryanto]

17. Than you know that plenty of DUers were outraged by it, right? Why did you imply otherwise? nt

[ljm2002]

44. WTF are you talking about?

Most of us remember quite well the level of outrage at the TARP bailout, as it was being argued in Congress.

Many of our representatives on both sides of the aisle acknowledged they were receiving messages from their constituents that were running 100-to-1 AGAINST the bailout. People all over the country could see what a boondoggle it was, addressing the needs of the oligarchs while ignoring those of the rest of us.

Please try to refrain from attempting to rewrite history.

[DCBob]

5. I agree with that..

but I do think there should have been more investigation and penalties for those who caused the financial collapse.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Agreed...And yet you're for Sanders

He clearly isn't up to cleaning up a big American mess like Obama was handed in Jan. 2009. What makes you think he'd be the right guy in the next crisis?

[Recursion]

10. Only tactically.

I think he's a hot mess on actual substance.

[BeyondGeography]

13. I understand

Might vote for him myself on 4/19 for the same reason.

[sufrommich]

7. Yeah,I don't get the outrage about the bailout,

it most likely saved us from a deep depression.

[DCBob]

16. That's stale information... once the books were closed in 2014 TARP ended with $15.3 billion profit.

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

[DCBob]

19. But TARP overall was a profit.

Most would agree saving the auto industry was worth that loss.

[Recursion]

20. Good point: the auto portion took a loss, but it was well worth it

TARP as a whole made taxpayers money, though.

[NCTraveler]

26. And that is the one aspect..

Progressives weren't as concerned about making it back on.

"Overall, the auto bailout was the one big money loser for TARP. Even with the Ally sale, taxpayers lost about $9.2 billion."

Great point.

[kentuck]

14. And how much were their overseas profits as we were "bailing them out"?

I suppose we shouldn't consider their foreign subsidiaries part of their company?

[Recursion]

21. Are you saying the US Gevernment didn't make enough money from it?

I'm open to that complaint, but it seems like a damn good program overall.

[BernieforPres2016]

36. You don't seem open to anything

when you start a thread by saying that everybody who doesn't agree with you is an idiot.

If you want to withdraw that comment and have an honest discussion, let me know.

[kentuck]

37. No. I'm saying they separated their overseas profits from US profits...

and they were not in bad financial straits, but were looking for more reasons to take jobs off shore.

[JRLeft]

22. Bernie was for it, but he wanted conditions placed on it.

That was our chance to fix the problem and we didn't.

[Recursion]

24. Agreed: I think Clinton's attack on Sanders here is rather simplistic

That said he is actually on record for the ultimate vote.

[JRLeft]

25. She will Michigan by 30-40 points.

[Recursion]

27. I disagree

I think it will be very close. That said I also thought O'Malley would break double digits in Iowa, so take that as you will.

If Sanders cannot at least convincingly place in MI, I can't see a rationale for him to continue.

[JRLeft]

28. Have you seen the latest polls he's getting trounced in Michigan.

Hillary will have a South Carolina like victory.

[Recursion]

29. And if so he needs to drop out

If Clinton wins convincingly in MI then Sanders can only stay on as a vanity candidate.

[JRLeft]

30. His goal is to force her to progressive, but she's a true corporacrat.

[choie]

32. A vanity candidate??

How about representing those of us who do not support the corporate candidate? Shouldn't we have a vote? Also, I believe Clinton didn't drop out until June. Stop with the bullshit

[Recursion]

34. If his message can't carry MI it's kind of absurd to keep going. (nt)

[choie]

35. You mean like Clinton did in 2008?

N:t

[Recursion]

45. Yeah, I criticized her pretty strongly back then for that (nt)

[mcar]

23. K&R

Sad that people don't seem to realize we made money on the deal.

[BernieforPres2016]

38. No, the appropriate benchmark would be the risk free rate plus a significant premium

for taking on the enormous risk.

That's what Warren Buffett demanded when he invested in too big to fail institutions, not the risk free rate. Why shouldn't taxpayers have done the same?

[BernieforPres2016]

41. I am talking about what rate you charge the companies

You don't lend money for risky investments at the risk free rate or anything close to it. You demand a potential return to justify the risk of taking a loss if it doesn't work out.

And no, the government can't borrow below the risk free rate. What the U.S. government pays is considered the risk free rate for any given maturity across the yield curve. See any finance textbook.

[JonLeibowitz]

42. Yeah I see what you're saying.

Not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that....

[Cheese Sandwich]

33. It rescued the banks but didn't change any of the underlying structure to prevent future crises

[ljm2002]

43. Wow, where to start...

...well let's just start at the beginning.

"I absolutely defend the bailout" "And you're an idiot if you don't."

Gee, that's a swell opening for a dialogue. But of course you are not really interested in dialogue.

"It cost the taxpayers precisely zero (actually it made us money)."

Maybe technically it made "us" money. I guess it depends on who "us" is. There were an awful lot of "us" who lost big $$$ in the housing debacle, and that bill did not help us. It allowed the financial institutions to maintain their housing inventory on the books at 100cents to the dollar, even though everyone knew that was simply not an accurate representation of reality. It allowed them to retain their inflated salaries. They gave themselves huge, sometimes record-breaking bonuses -- AFTER they had almost ruined the global economy and AFTER they received bailout funds.

Had it not passed, Congress would have come up with another bill toot suite, and it likely would have been more equitable.

[Agony]

46. Exactly, Thank You.

This was an extremely important lost opportunity. Perfect example of where shock doctrine could have been used to effect positive change if only the plutocrats were not in charge and regulatory capture the order of the day. If a plurality had acted like Sanders we would have a much more stable and robust economy and a FIRE sector that was not a liability like it is now. Now, we are just getting set up for the next thrashing by the financial wizards and masters of the universe.

Cheers

[sadoldgirl]

47. Politically speaking: I caused the start of the tea bagger movement.