Social Question

tedd's avatar

So TARP may turn a profit, does this change how you think of it?

Asked by tedd (14053points) October 20th, 2010

The Troubled Assets Relief Program, otherwise known as the bank bailout, passed late in the Bush presidency with near unanimous cooperation from both Democrats and Republicans became a rallying point of throwing out incumbents who were lost to the real world. The 700 billion dollars they spent was largely believed and considered a waste, and Democrats are taking a huge hit in many elections for having supported it (ironically many Republicans who voted for it are not).

Well two years after its passing, its looking like TARP is actually going to turn a profit. The latest estimates by Bloomberg say that the TARP program will net the Federal Government 25 BILLION dollars. In other words they made back the entire 700 billion, and then an additional 25 billion.

Now personally I don’t think TARP should’ve been passed how it was. There was no regulation on, no oversight, and the banks that had already been “raping” the general public continued to do so after we saved them from bankruptcy. BUT, I have to admit, now that it looks like its actually going to MAKE us a lot of money… I’m somewhat less upset about it.

Discuss?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

3 Answers

cockswain's avatar

This was the plan from the beginning. Glad to see it’s working. I never had a problem with the concept of the bailout. My understanding of economics (which is limited) led me to believe it was necessary to keep credit markets from freezing, which would have plunged us into a depression. Although it can’t be proven, most economists agree TARP was necessary to avoid a lost decade of growth like Japan suffered.

I hate the conditions that led to the necessity of the bailout, and I’m unimpressed by the fact the banks weren’t forced to loan the money out in a timely fashion.

I’m also extremely unimpressed by how politicized an economic issue most people don’t appear to understand has been so misconstrued by Fox News and the Tea Party.

WestRiverrat's avatar

No. It may have saved the banks, but it didn’t do anything for the bank customers.

augustlan's avatar

I wasn’t thrilled that we had to do it, but I figured we did have to. At least that’s what most of the economists were (and are, I think) saying. Since I don’t have a good grasp on the subject, I kind of held my nose and took the medicine. I wish the profit (if it actually does profit) would have appeared sooner, long enough before the upcoming elections to nip that complaint in the bud.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther