A 200 billion dollar savings

[IM2]

• Tweet

TARP is expected to cost 200 bilion dollars less than anticipated.

This means a 200 billion dollar jobs program may be on the horizon.

So much for the huge debt Obama is creating, its now 200 billion dollars less.

[Mornac]

TARP is expected to cost 200 bilion dollars less than anticipated.

This means a 200 billion dollar jobs program may be on the horizon.

So much for the huge debt Obama is creating, its now 200 billion dollars less.

--Well done IM2!

[lucy]

So, the debt will only be around 11.8 trillion?

What about the derivatives situation and the banks, etc.?

And, what about the added taxes on individuals, self-employed, and small businesses?

It isn't enough to take a couple of billion away from a multi-trillion dollar liability, imo. How are we going to pay down the multi-trilliondollar debt to begin with and who will be taxed more heavily for this? Along comes a cap/trade added tax, VAT, etc., and we're talking even more money OUT of each person's pocket, regardless of what jobs are created....

And if employers are expected to pay far more for employees per taxes, then where would be the incentive to hire more with benefits? Just hire a couple more without any real benefits...etc.

I don't see this as being all that beneficial in the long run unless we rein in those who are robbing the treasury for their own benefit--namely, the big banks and some corporate entities.

[Pepsi]

A Treasury official said the administration now believed the cost of the financial-rescue program would be about $42 billion, or nearly $200 billion below the $341 billion estimate it made in August.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the administration's new projection has not been released, said the new, lower estimate reflected faster repayments by big banks and less spending on some of the rescue programs as the financial sector recovered from its free fall more quickly than the administration originally expected.

About half of the $42 billion in losses is expected to occur from the support provided to troubled automakers General Motors Corp. and Chrysler L.L.C.; the other half will come from the rescue package put together for insurance giant American International Group.

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/78748967.html

the mis-information out there was that the TARP money was being given away.. it wasn't, it was a loan which is most cases is being paid back.   

[makesenseplease]

A Treasury official said the administration now believed the cost of the financial-rescue program would be about $42 billion, or nearly $200 billion below the $341 billion estimate it made in August.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the administration's new projection has not been released, said the new, lower estimate reflected faster repayments by big banks and less spending on some of the rescue programs as the financial sector recovered from its free fall more quickly than the administration originally expected.

About half of the $42 billion in losses is expected to occur from the support provided to troubled automakers General Motors Corp. and Chrysler L.L.C.; the other half will come from the rescue package put together for insurance giant American International Group.

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/78748967.html

the mis-information out there was that the TARP money was being given away.. it wasn't, it was a loan which is most cases is being paid back.  

Of course it's being paid back.  Guess who is paying it back.  

You don't have to guess do you  You stated quite plainly who is paying it back in the thread touting the speed of the pay-back.

The banks actually have American's paying themselves back through higher fees, penalties,, and interest.  You made that observation yourself even though Ronnie Milsap could have "seen" it coming.

Bend over America.

How many jobs were created?  What is America producing?   

Why was Obama's first comment, "Where are the jobs."

[Pepsi]

Of course it's being paid back.  Guess who is paying it back.  

You don't have to guess do you  You stated quite plainly who is paying it back in the thread touting the speed of the pay-back.

The banks actually have American's paying themselves back through higher fees, penalties,, and interest.  You made that observation yourself even though Ronnie Milsap could have "seen" it coming.

Bend over America.

How many jobs were created?  What is America producing?   

Why was Obama's first comment, "Where are the jobs."

Naturally the bank makes a profit from the services it provides to customers but BofA actually is raising cash by issuing more stock.

The TARP money was designed to prevent a collapse of the financial system.   It succeeded.   

Do you think we'd be better off today if these banks were not supported by the government when they were facing collapse?

[makesenseplease]

Naturally the bank makes a profit from the services it provides to customers but BofA actually is raising cash by issuing more stock.

The TARP money was designed to prevent a collapse of the financial system.   It succeeded.   

Do you think we'd be better off today if these banks were not supported by the government when they were facing collapse?

Do I think we are better off now that we have propped up these banks?  No I think we are chasing our tails.

Are these banks going to help the Americans that lost their jobs so these banks could tell us to bend over a little further?  No.

Did we produce any jobs to replace the jobs that were lost so these banks could survive?   Perhaps we did but where are the jobs.

Exactly what did we accomplish that benefits the working Americans?  Absolutely nothing.

To hell with the banks. 

Perhaps next time we will have enough sense to invest in something that will benefit the American worker.

[Pepsi]

Do I think we are better off now that we have propped up these banks?  No I think we are chasing our tails.

Are these banks going to help the Americans that lost their jobs so these banks could tell us to bend over a little further?  No.

Did we produce any jobs to replace the jobs that were lost so these banks could survive?   Perhaps we did but where are the jobs.

Exactly what did we accomplish that benefits the working Americans?  Absolutely nothing.

To hell with the banks. 

Perhaps next time we will have enough sense to invest in something that will benefit the American worker.

Banks lend money.. without the credit that banks provide to individuals and small and large businesses there would be no capitalism as we know it.    This was an important goal of propping up the banks, so they can continue to provide credit.    The current unemployment situation is nothing compared to what it would be if the credit markets stopped functioning.

[lucy]

What happens if there is no or little job recovery....

"Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes today:

    The basic assumption that jobs will eventually return when the economy recovers is probably wrong. Some jobs will come back, of course. But the reality that no one wants to talk about is a structural change in the economy that's been going on for years but which the Great Recession has dramatically accelerated.

    Under the pressure of this awful recession, many companies have found ways to cut their payrolls for good. They've discovered that new software and computer technologies have made workers in Asia and Latin America just about as productive as Americans, and that the Internet allows far more work to be efficiently outsourced abroad.

    This means many Americans won't be rehired unless they're willing to settle for much lower wages and benefits. Today's official unemployment numbers hide the extent to which Americans are already on this path. Among those with jobs, a large and growing number have had to accept lower pay as a condition for keeping them. Or they've lost higher-paying jobs and are now in a new ones that pays less.

    Yet reducing unemployment by cutting wages merely exchanges one problem for another. We'll get jobs back but have more people working for pay they consider inadequate, more working families at or near poverty, and widening inequality. The nation will also have a harder time restarting the economy because so many more Americans lack the money they need to buy all the goods and services the economy can produce.

Reich is only confirming what many others have said:

    * JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Economist Bruce Kasman told Bloomberg:

        [We've had a] permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs in industries from housing to finance."

....

link 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/robert-reich-confirms-permanent.html

[makesenseplease]

Banks lend money.. without the credit that banks provide to individuals and small and large businesses there would be no capitalism as we know it.    This was an important goal of propping up the banks, so they can continue to provide credit.    The current unemployment situation is nothing compared to what it would be if the credit markets stopped functioning.

It will be interesting to see how many of these banks are willing to lend money to the very people who lost their jobs so these banks can survive.

Capitalism is not about lending money.  

[makesenseplease]

What happens if there is no or little job recovery....

"Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich writes today:

    The basic assumption that jobs will eventually return when the economy recovers is probably wrong. Some jobs will come back, of course. But the reality that no one wants to talk about is a structural change in the economy that's been going on for years but which the Great Recession has dramatically accelerated.

    Under the pressure of this awful recession, many companies have found ways to cut their payrolls for good. They've discovered that new software and computer technologies have made workers in Asia and Latin America just about as productive as Americans, and that the Internet allows far more work to be efficiently outsourced abroad.

    This means many Americans won't be rehired unless they're willing to settle for much lower wages and benefits. Today's official unemployment numbers hide the extent to which Americans are already on this path. Among those with jobs, a large and growing number have had to accept lower pay as a condition for keeping them. Or they've lost higher-paying jobs and are now in a new ones that pays less.

    Yet reducing unemployment by cutting wages merely exchanges one problem for another. We'll get jobs back but have more people working for pay they consider inadequate, more working families at or near poverty, and widening inequality. The nation will also have a harder time restarting the economy because so many more Americans lack the money they need to buy all the goods and services the economy can produce.

Reich is only confirming what many others have said:

    * JPMorgan Chase’s Chief Economist Bruce Kasman told Bloomberg:

        [We've had a] permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs in industries from housing to finance."

....

link 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/12/robert-reich-confirms-permanent.html

This will not be a problem, Lucy.

As Pepsi says, the banks are now in a position to lend money to all the people without jobs.  Pepsi says the current job situation is nothing.

No person will go hungry in America because the banks are now in a position to feed all the hungry people in America.

No person will freeze this winter because the banks are now in a position to lend money for heating fuel.

Are Americans really this gullible?

Please try not to post the truth so often.

[Pepsi]

Banks won't lend money to people who don't have an income.

I agree with Reich's assessment.  I spent a couple days with some high level guys from a US financial institution.  They have a big operation in India, 800 people.  All those jobs used to be in the usa.  The people working their are highly educated and motivated and are quite happy to make $8000/year.  Saved the bank many millions.  If you were a shareholder that would be good news.   This trend will continue unabated.  Welcome to global capitalism.

[makesenseplease]

Banks won't lend money to people who don't have an income.

I agree with Reich's assessment.  I spent a couple days with some high level guys from a US financial institution.  They have a big operation in India, 800 people.  All those jobs used to be in the usa.  The people working their are highly educated and motivated and are quite happy to make $8000/year.  Saved the bank many millions.  If you were a shareholder that would be good news.   This trend will continue unabated.  Welcome to global capitalism.

"Banks won't lend money to people who don't have an income"?

I could have sworn you just said America is better off now the the banks have money to lend.  My mistake.  I didn't think you were talking about the India.

Why did not these banks ask India to bail them out. 

[Velleity]

Banks won't lend money to people who don't have an income.

I agree with Reich's assessment.  I spent a couple days with some high level guys from a US financial institution.  They have a big operation in India, 800 people.  All those jobs used to be in the usa.  The people working their are highly educated and motivated and are quite happy to make $8000/year.  Saved the bank many millions.  If you were a shareholder that would be good news.   This trend will continue unabated.  Welcome to global capitalism.

If you believe in classical economic theory, no trend continues unabated. Part of the solution here lies in equalization of the standard of living. Part of the solution also lies in devaluation of our currency. Finally we need to work hard and be creative.

[makesenseplease]

 Part of the solution here lies in equalization of the standard of living. Part of the solution also lies in devaluation of our currency. Finally we need to work hard and be creative.

The real Velleity finally decides to speak.

Thanks.