Remember how we wasted hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out Wall Street?  Um, not so much:

The government’s Wall Street bailout has “provided taxpayers with higher returns than they could have made buying 30-year Treasury bonds.” TARP earned “$25.2 billion on its investment of $309 billion in banks and insurance companies, an 8.2 percent return over two years, a rate that “beat U.S. Treasuries, high-yield savings accounts, money-market funds and certificates of deposit.”

Metavirus filed this under: , ,  
  1. Gherald says:

    This is fucking wrongheaded, cherry-picked, narrow-view propaganda from Wall Street types that you're buying.

    Read Misis and DIA

    • Metavirus says:

      i don't get it. it's just a simple calculation. take the money invested and the money returned and figure out the ROI. simple. the government didn't lose money on the deal — it made money. let me know the way in which this is wrong.

      • Gherald says:

        It's much more complicated then that, but here are some important points: The whole of TARP lost money. It subsidized a rich industry that shouldn't have been subsidized. And even if you take the narrow view that only the $309 billion infusion to banks was important, the fact that taking on this risk didn't blow up in taxpayers' face does not mean it was a smart risk to take on. To illustrate, suppose someone offers you $10,000 to play Russian Roulette. You take the bet and earn yourself $10K. Does that mean it was a smart bet ex ante? Hells no.

        There are arguments in favor of TARP, e.g. that it saved the financial system for a cataclysmic disaster of worse proportions. Some people may find it persuasive; I know enough to know that such claims are uncertain.

        But just pointing to the fact that we made an 8.2% ROI on one portion of TARP doesn't come close showing our money wasn't misused.

        • Metavirus says:

          fair points to make, but my point was a narrow one — i.e., that the $308 billion wasn't pissed down a hole, like many teabaggers and republicans suggest. there are all sorts of good points to be made about subsidies, fairness, whether another solution was better, etc. etc. but on a point that teabaggers repeatedly deny -- that the money we spent on tarp was not pissed down a hole, we actually made money on it -- my point is valid.

          • Gherald says:

            Your post suggests money wasn't wasted, implying that the whole of TARP had a net positive ROI, which isn't true.

            But even considering your narrow point, attacking teabaggers and politicians who suggest the money was pissed down a hole is a weak man. The real issues are subsidies to people who didn't deserve them (meaning privatized profits, socialized loss prevention) and unwarranted risk.

            Because hey, I'm sure we'd all like a $309 billion loan as well. I promise I'll pay mine back with greater than 8.2% ROI !! Where can I sign up?

            That's the legitimate core of this populist outrage.

        • Metavirus says:

          p.s., and let us not forget that, as most of the teabaggers believe, obama signed tarp into law. lol

          • Gherald says:

            He supported it as the presidential successor apparent. He VOTED for it as a Senator. And the bill was an overwhelmingly Democratic program from the start, supported by 82% of Democratic congressmen and opposed by 98% of Republicans. And the Obama administration has been responsible for the majority of the programs execution over the last 2 years.

            So yeah. He wasn't president when it was signed into law, but he bears more responsibility for it than any other politician, while almost all Republicans were and continue to be against it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Your Vintners