Quote Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
I don't disagree. What I will posit, even though I'm not a proponent of TARP, is that the stakes were much higher on a scale. I don't see this as a mutually exclusive discussion. How we address our safety net and care for our disadvantaged is directly dependent upon the health of our economy. One does not come at the expense of the other IMO.

I think I pointed out, if my research on the topic is accurate, that the TARP monies have been recovered to the treasury. "TARP recovered funds totaling $441.7 billion from $426.4 billion invested."

So you know where I'm coming from. I have fewer issues with our social safety net in the discretionary budget, I think we can all agree it is small potatoes, and it should be managed to ensure it takes care of our most needy and not be abused. My major concern right now is for our entitlement programs; SS and medicare. They are currently unsustainable and need to be addressed.

Note: I view TARP as a bandaid fix to the fundamental problems I explained earlier.


I have no fault with your historical accuracy.

But I think we can practically-- not absolutely-- point to the bogusness of TARP by the simple fact that they did not distribute the money to the distressed homeowners who were under water-- who would have simply used it to then turn over to the bank, which would have helped out TWO constituencies for the same dollar. And in fact, one could quite comfortably (and righteously) argue BETTER DESERVED that dollar since they were the ones ultimately having to dig deep to scrape it up to hand over to the banks. The *CONSUMERS* saved the banks and basically got shit on for doing it.

I view TARP as a money grab by people who already had plenty at the expense of people who were desperate and in line to lose their homes.

I don't mind helping out those in need, but not at the expense of those who *really* need it.