Wait, what? We're getting almost 90% of the bailout back?Follow

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/business/07tarp.html?_r=2&hp



TARP was a Bush administration program, and I'll give him credit: It seems to have worked. We did not enter Great Depression II. And if the banks are going to pay most of it back, then all the better. (The $42 billion they're not getting back was from banks that actually did roll under.)

Obama will announce, however, that he'd like $200 billion of the paid back TARP funds to be rolled over into a jobs creation program, separate from the economic stimulus and from TARP. The meta economy may have recovered, but individuals in America are still suffering.

Elaborate, please. And include citations.

This is why I'm so glad Canada kept the Conservatives in power. Harper's too fucking cheap to spend the money again if he ever got any of it back.

Doublewin!

If that $200 billion gets me a job worth doing, I'll gladly pay back my share in taxes.

The world needs more editors!

You threw out the $1.2 trillion dollar figure without specifying that it was the economic stimulus package, which is why I asked for elaborations and citations. The actual figure spent by the Feds and Congress on bailoutey stuff has been $2.2 trillion, while the amount allocated is closer to $11 trillion.

(I admit, I had to look up what Commercial Paper Funding Facility was. $1.4 trillion just for that! It's money allocated to back up, FDIC style, mortgage backed securities and other toxic assets. In other words, it's a $1.4 trillion dollar gift basket to Wall Street. And that came from Bush's Feds, not the legislature.)

Was anyone actually questioning the existence of a couple of ~800B bills sold to the public specifically to address the financial crisis, and in which the bailout funds mentioned in the OP were included? I mean, how can you bother to post in this thread if you're that unaware of the history of the issue at hand?


And yes. I'm aware that there have been other expenditures buried in other bills along the way. I was limiting my number to just those dollars that can absolutely be identified as "stimulus" spending, and nothing else.

I think it was more your claim that the other 1.2 trillion was all democrat spending.