15 Dec 09
2 edits
http://tinyurl.com/ybx3hb7
As most of the TARP money has already been repaid and most of the rest will be repaid, the cost to the government will be minimal, especially compared to the cost of Stimulus I and the Stimulus II currently in the works.
It is also fairly plain that the TARP bill did preserve confidence in the US banking system and helped in stabilizing the economy.
So, questions:
1) Has it now been established that TARP, despite all the ripping, was a smart thing to do and not just a handout to all of Bush's rich friends done in order to continue to oppress the poor, as we heard last Fall?
2) Can we stop comparing TARP, which cost the government little in the long run, to the stimulus packages, which are creating budget deficits that are triple the worst Bush deficits?
Oh, and whodey, you'll be happy to know that with the repayments, the statists lose their government stakes in these banks.
15 Dec 09
1 edit
more basically.
Can we admit that government managed to cobble something together on very short notice that ACTUALLY WORKED? That the so-called GOP idiots in the Bush administration and the so-called Democrat idiots in Congress might have actually known what they were doing?
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesYeah, basically.
more basically.
Can we admit that government managed to cobble something together on very short notice that ACTUALLY WORKED? That the so-called GOP idiots in the Bush administration and the so-called Democrat idiots in Congress might have actually known what they were doing?
🙂
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76It's not only Bush, but Obama who has widely criticized for the bank bailouts. It's funny how both sides criticize the other for the exact same thing.
http://tinyurl.com/ybx3hb7
As most of the TARP money has already been repaid and most of the rest will be repaid, the cost to the government will be minimal, especially compared to the cost of Stimulus I and the Stimulus II currently in the works.
It is also fairly plain that the TARP bill did preserve confidence in the US banking system and helped in sta ...[text shortened]... py to know that with the repayments, the statists lose their government stakes in these banks.
That being said - the government is actually making profits on the repayments.
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76I take this to mean that the "rich friends" got to keep their banks AND "the poor" got to keep their houses too. If that is so, it's a classic win-win situation, for sure.
Has it now been established that TARP, despite all the ripping, was a smart thing to do and not just a handout to all of Bush's rich friends done in order to continue to oppress the poor, as we heard last Fall?
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by FMFIt seems to me that many of these poor probably shouldn't own a house. A house, while a nice savings instrument, is a pretty expensive asset. Maybe we should focus on programs to improve motivated peoples' earnings prospects so that they can actually afford a house rather than coming up with unstable financing schemes/subsidies as work-arounds.
I take this to mean that the "rich friends" got to keep their banks AND "the poor" got to keep their houses too. If that is so, it's a classic win-win situation, for sure.
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by telerionIs 'everybody owns a house' an objective of the "capitalist" system or not? Or would it play havoc with the the tricky business of "motivation"?
It seems to me that many of these poor probably shouldn't own a house. A house, while a nice savings instrument, is a pretty expensive asset. Maybe we should focus on programs to improve motivated peoples' earnings prospects so that they can actually afford a house rather than coming up with unstable financing schemes/subsidies as work-arounds.
16 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Ok, everyone is agreeing and I simply can't take it anymore!!
http://tinyurl.com/ybx3hb7
As most of the TARP money has already been repaid and most of the rest will be repaid, the cost to the government will be minimal, especially compared to the cost of Stimulus I and the Stimulus II currently in the works.
It is also fairly plain that the TARP bill did preserve confidence in the US banking system and helped in sta py to know that with the repayments, the statists lose their government stakes in these banks.
Of course, considering the outrageous spending the federal government has done over the years I suppose this is one of the, if not the only, spending they can hang their hats on. In fact, I'm sure Obama will do just that come next election. My only question is how he will manage to grab all the glory and leave out "W", whom we know is the source of all evil in the world.
Having said that, as with anything else, there is a dark side to all this. In 2008, Citigroup along with just about every other major bank in the country opposed what is called "cram downs". These "cram downs" would give bankruptcy judges the discretion to midify a borrower's loan. However, on January 7, 2009, news broke that Citigroup changed their minds. Why? I can give you about 40 billion reasons why. So what are the consequences of all this? Now it is estimated that mortgage rates will go up to offset the unknown in terms of people having to pay their original debt agreement. Citigroups suport of this idea means that they are acknowledging that their relationship with politicians is more important than their profits.
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI wonder if it would be a good idea for the government to start burning some of the money coming into it's hands now to keep inflation in check.
It's not only Bush, but Obama who has widely criticized for the bank bailouts. It's funny how both sides criticize the other for the exact same thing.
That being said - the government is actually making profits on the repayments.
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeyWhen they work with the government and profit, it's evidence of corruption.
Citigroups suport of this idea means that they are acknowledging that their relationship with politicians is more important than their profits.
When they work with the government and lose money, it's evidence of corruption.
🙄
16 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhen businesses know they are "too big to fail" and have the tax payers to bail them out we have corruption. In the interim, they have a good enough reason now to even raise our mortgage rates.
When they work with the government and profit, it's evidence of corruption.
When they work with the government and lose money, it's evidence of corruption.
🙄
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by FMFIt would be a goal only in the sense that growth would make the real price of homes inexpensive enough that everyone could afford one. Unfortunately, we're not there yet.
Is 'everybody owns a house' an objective of the "capitalist" system or not? Or would it play havoc with the the tricky business of "motivation"?
16 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFHome ownership is a royal pain in the derriere. It costs a fortune. Real estate taxes, homeowners insurance, repairs, maintenance, utility bills. It's a constant source of worry. Should I put more insulation in the attic? Would it save money in the long run to replace the windows?
Is 'everybody owns a house' an objective of the "capitalist" system or not? Or would it play havoc with the the tricky business of "motivation"?
Yes, it will hopefully be a nice savings vehicle, if housing prices ever go back up (my house is certainly worth less now than I paid for it in 2005). But you could do just as well investing the cash.
Home ownership is so strongly encouraged by US tax policy, that this is the main reason I bought the house. Mortgage interest and property tax payments are income tax deductions. There's no capital gains tax when you sell you personal residence up to $500,000 in profit per couple. Owner occupied residences get about 10% off real estate taxes and I usually get a check for about $500 from the state just for owning the house I live in.
If I would rent my house, I'd pay only a few hundred dollars less per month than I pay for mortgage and real estate taxes and none of it would be tax deductible. The real estate taxes on my landlord would be higher and if my landlord would sell the house, he'd pay capital gains tax from dollar 1 of profit.
As I'm not an economist, I can't explain why it's such important public policy to encourage people to own their own homes. Maybe Telerion can help out on that question. But I do know that someone among the powers that be wants me to own my own home and tax policy strongly reflects that.
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by sh76So you're saying the poor shouldn't be worried about not being able to own a house?
Home ownership is a royal pain in the derriere. It costs a fortune. Real estate taxes, homeowners insurance, repairs, maintenance, utility bills. It's a constant source of worry. Should I put more insulation in the attic? Would it save money in the long run to replace the windows?
Yes, it will hopefully be a nice savings vehicle, if housing prices ever go ba ...[text shortened]... ong the powers that be wants me to own my own home and tax policy strongly reflects that.