TARP to cost about half of it's estimated costs

**Red_Lizard2** · 11-30-10, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Yeah, my problem with Bush's and Obama's band-aids is that neither of them included enough new regulations to ensure that they aren't required again.

also agree with that, forget where it was, but I remember discussing it with someone and imo they should of done it with one condition: "We aren't bailing you out the next time you do this shit."

Plus the fact they didn't try to channel it more into unfreezing the credit market, which would of helped small businesses more then 20,000 bank mergers.

**~~hawgballs~~** · 11-30-10, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

The funny thing is how did we actually keep banks from failing? Well, in short terms we gave money to big banks, and then told them they needed to take over smaller banks that were failing. Thus TARP has escalated "too big to fail", yet many of those that are happy about TARP are opposed to "too big to fail". Contradiction much?

I call bullshit on this analogy, the government didn't direct the bigger banks to consume the smaller failing ones, and you know it. Although it did happen it wasn't the norm. There should have been some safeguards set in place, but apparently there weren't. Nobody claimed TA. was perfect or the greatest thing since sliced bread, which you seem to insist on it being or think those that aren't opposed feel. In either case, you are wrong.

Tarp Helped banks loan tlo other banks, which prevented a credit freeze, which prevented bank runs, which prevented disaster for dollar valuation.

**Anti-Squeaker** · 11-30-10, 09:05 PM

I never thought I'd say it....but...yay George Bush.
that kinda hurt.

**~~hawgballs~~** · 11-30-10, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Anti-Squeaker

I never thought I'd say it....but...yay George Bush.
that kinda hurt.

I wouldn't say "Yay", as stated, the way it was written allowed more chicanery than should have been allowed, but it was better than pulling a Katrina (doing a flyover but not much else)......

**digital** · 11-30-10, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by DJ Mr. White

Is the cost that low because we're being paid back?

Um yes. With interest. A good chunk of the companies who got bailed out paid the govt back asap so uncle sam wasnt in their grill tellin them how to run their business.

**Glitch** · 12-01-10, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Yeah, my problem with Bush's and Obama's band-aids is that neither of them included enough new regulations to ensure that they aren't required again.

That would be my stance.

I liked what Bush did with Tarp, I would have preferred to see it go further at the time.

That is one of the problems with politics, If there is a law that says it is protects children under 4 from molestation and someone votes against it because they think it should be children under 10 instead of just 4 they get painted as against protecting children not painted as someone who wanted to protect them even more.

**Red_Lizard2** · 12-01-10, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Glitch

That would be my stance.

I liked what Bush did with Tarp, I would have preferred to see it go further at the time.

That is one of the problems with politics, If there is a law that says it is protects children under 4 from molestation and someone votes against it because they think it should be children under 10 instead of just 4 they get painted as against protecting children not painted as someone who wanted to protect them even more.

Well they should compromise, is it better to vote against it and have no children protected? Or establish at least a groundwork for protecting them, then go about trying to get older children added to the law as well?

Sort of like the tax cuts, if one side would compromise the Bush Tax Cuts for the Lower and middle class could already be extended and then they could work on trying to get them extended for the rich. Instead they are painting the democrats as "tax and spend blah blah" because the other side is being too stubborn to make a deal.