Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Cost of government bailouts "shrinking to just a fraction of previous estimates"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:33 AM
Original message
Cost of government bailouts "shrinking to just a fraction of previous estimates"
April 12, 2010

A (WSJ) piece reports that the projected cost of the government bailouts "is shrinking to just a fraction of previous estimates." Maybe the government is being overoptimistic but the Treasury Department now expects the final tab for its sundry bailouts to come in at around $89 billion. That's hardly chump change, but as the Journal notes, that would still be less as a percentage of GDP than the cost of the savings-and-loan rescue in the 1990s.

"Just a year ago, the Congressional Budget Office and Office of Management and Budget estimated that the overall bailout would cost more than $250 billion. Last month, though, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the rescues will amount to "less than 1%" of gross domestic product." Not that many critics are paying much attention. For months, Geithner has been a whipping boy for opponents of the White House's rescue plans.

The wildcard here is the health of a rebounding economy. If growth stalls and the housing market again declines, all bets are off. (That's a scenario where Republicans likely win big at the polls during the midterm elections.) But if the financial landscape continues to brighten and the costs of the bailout turn out to be manageable, the White House will earn credit for its management of the crisis. The bailouts fed populist rage and spurred the rise of the tea parties. Still, the Journal recounts that of the $245 billion that Uncle Sam invested in various U.S. banks, the Treasury has already received $169 billion back and now estimates making a profit of $8 billion. By year end, Citigroup and General Motors may also be off the government lifeline.

Even AIG, the mother of all financial basket cases, is looking less like an endless financial sinkhole. The New York Fed, which is about to get repaid $51 billion, also expects to pick up another $32 billion from AIG securities. A year ago, that scenario would have sounded like a pipe dream.


read: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504365_162-20002226-504365.html

WSJ article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304846504575177950029886696.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTWhatsNews
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. balderdash
just a bit of cover for the 'crew'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. would love to provide one, but the US Treasury, the same folks who say things are great now
stopped publishing the M3 several years back, and despite "change" continue not to publish this. Hence their is no way of proving or disproving government issued talking points.

That is, we have NO WAY of knowing what the money supply is doing, because the government won't tell us.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. So you formed your opinion with out any facts
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 10:32 AM by NJmaverick
and worse you refuted facts with out any proof that they were wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. And you blindly take the word from an agency known for obfuscation
and that is better how? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. It's better because I deal in the world of facts and proof
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. ...
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. I didn't think you would like the idea of dealing with facts and proof
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. You wouldn't know the difference between fact and spin
if it bit you on the a**.

This is why I laugh. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. sounds like one of the opposition's rebuttals
. . . full up with indignation and scorn without any relevant facts at all to refute the administration's figures.

Maybe you have an argument that goes beyond the rhetoric . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
2. That's great news! We'll need that money when we have to bail them out again in a few years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
3. I wish the Administration would push this story
much of the anger is over the misconception of how much money the government "gave" banks and Wall Street
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. You put gave in quotes as if we didn't give them anything.
Why?

They not only got bailed out but they are borrowing money from the FED at 0% interest rate. You give me a few billion in 0% interest and I'll make enough to live off for the rest of my life in a matter of months. Then I'll pay you back your original billion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Most of the money was loaned to institutions rather than given
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Did you not read my post?
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 09:49 AM by no limit
If you give me a billion dollars at 0% interest I could make millions of dollars within a few months. I would come out a millionaire, but just because I paid you back that original money you didn't give me anything?

Your definition of give is very odd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Making money on a loan does not mean the money was given
given means there is no expectation of the item being returned. You seem to be playing a bit of a game with the facts, to suit your needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. A 0% interest loan. A loan that is insanely risky. That's a give out
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 10:05 AM by no limit
They gave billions of dollars at 0% interest on an extremely high risk loan. I am not the one playing a game with the facts. Those are the facts. You pretending this wasn't a hand out doesn't change those facts.

Those banks then took that money they got at 0% interests and sold it back to consumers at rates as high as 30% and made record profits from it right after they collapsed our economy. That is ok with you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. You talk about the risk when we are now after the fact and know that the risks
never materialized
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
28. I would love to tell a banker that working on my loan
don't worry mr. banker, the risks of this loan will never materialize. So give me free money. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beardown Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. The US 'gave' the banks loans with no interest.
You are probably technically correct in that the US did not give the banks the money, but in one way or another they gave them access to free money that the banks then used to make more money. On top of that, a stated reason for the free money was so that banks could push more money into the economy and that didn't happen much. I don't think that you two are even talking about some of the massive giveaways that essentially gave banks funding or took over their bank investments so the banks could stay in business.

Call it whatever you like, but if I get an interest free loan of a billion dollars and a promise to buy some of my bad investments from me at market cost, somewhere in there someone 'gave' me something of great value.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. The correct term is LOANED not "gave"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. lol. You simply can't understand very simple concepts.
So if I loan a US senator millions of dollars at 0% interest I don't give him anything? So by your logic that should be legal, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. You didn't give him a million dollars, which is the point you don't seem to understand
you gave him a few percentage points in interest payments, that is all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. So that should be legal? We should be allowed to give our senators 0% loans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. You are getting way off topic, we are talking about what the government "gave" the banks and Wall St
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no limit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. No, I'm not. You think giving someone billions of dollars in 0% interest isn't a gift
that means we can give senators millions of dollars in 0% loans and that would be perfectly legal according to your own logic. Tell me how Im wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
22. Seems the cost is still higher for us, the lender, than for the banks
the borrowers, no matter how you slice it. Just $89 Billion! And the banks got huge interest free loans, scalped the citizens, and it just cost us only 89 Billion to do this for them, and to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. to conclude that
Edited on Mon Apr-12-10 11:28 AM by bigtree
. . . you'd have to accept that the cost (to the economy, borrowers) of not loaning them the money would have been negligible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-12-10 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
29. What about opportunity cost? I'm sure business folks are more than familiar with that term.
The cost of bailing out the banks as opposed to ordinary Americans?

We are in an employement crisis and there still seems to be no help for main street.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 01st 2024, 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC