While the bailouts, as flawed as they were, have appeared to stop an economy from sliding off into the abyss, GOP senators who voted for some or all of the financial rescue packages don't seem to be so keen on taking any of the credit.
Some of the senators, included Utah Sen. Bob Bennett who was recently beaten in a GOP primary by Tea Party favorites, say that it's unfortunate that the positive aspects of the bailouts have been ignored. Bennett says he'd do it all over again, even if he knew it would cost him his career.
"There was a widespread misinterpretation, because I voted for the first tranche of TARP, the assumption was that I voted for the second tranche of TARP and the stimulus package and the auto bailout and the omnibus bill, none of which was true," Bennett told TPM. "They put it all together with a lot of help and encouragement from the Club for Growth."
New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, who's retiring at the end of the year, said it was effective.
"Not only was it effective and stabilized the financial industry," according to Gregg, "It also returned to the taxpayers almost $20 billion in interest and dividends that they would have otherwise not have."
Regrettable as the circumstances were, bailing out the financial sector was ineluctable--"a necessary evil," according to NRSC Chairman John Cornyn.
"We were all told by Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson that the financial system would collapse," Cornyn said. "What I'm so upset about is that the previous administration and this administration have used the TARP for purposes never contemplated by Congress."
Of course, the "new" John McCain will have nothing to do with that kind of nuance.
"It's not been effective because they deceived the American people," McCain said. "They said it would go to address the housing issue instead they gave it to the financial institutions. It's been well documented that it was sold to the American people as going to address what caused the crisis--that was the housing market--we gave $10 billion to Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs doesn't have anything to do with the housing market.... They lied to the American people."
Whatever.....The Republicans who are getting shamelessly shafted by their own people, they are just falling victims to the machine the Republicans built to place blame on the Democrats. Serves them right because; if you ride for em you hang for em.
Just wait until Sen Sanders from Vermont starts his bail out audit of the fed, (2007-2010) when we are able to see just where the money went, the end product will be a few Republicans heading off to jail in handcuffs. ( W ) ( Cheney ).
I can only wait to see just how the right is really going to spin that one.
get educated! They were not "bailouts"! They all had strings attached to them, such as paying back the loans with interest, or sharing in the profits. I think all of the big banks and institutions have paid them back by now. If that help had not been given, many more would have lost their jobs and we would have gone into a depression! Obama knew what he was doing and now the economy is starting to recover. It is too bad that he cannot make jobs, except in his own office; that is up to the businesses around the country.
Yes, any Republican who voted for these bailouts should be ousted.
I am,----------------or was a Republican. Now I'm simply an independant conservative. Any one who voted for the bailouts and the healthscam or is even thinking about amnesty for illegals should be dropped like a bad habit.
wrong definition. Trying to be funny or sarcastic is not your strong suit I see. Conservation VERSUS conservatism are two different things. Get with the program. This is the kind of mentality or lack of knowledge that voted the current embarrassment into office.
con·serv·a·tive /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
Republicans should reach down deep inside their hearts and minds and go back to the basics. They should try to see reality for what it really is, instead of engaging in constant denial.
They need to stop acting like spoiled children who didn't get their way, and work toward picking our nation up out of the muck left to us by all those years of Right Wing malfeasance.
Its time to REFORM GOVERNMENT! As are Declaration of Independence states and backed by our Bill of Rights and Constitution: if ever "any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute New Government." This means that if a government starts doing things that destroy people's rights, rather than protecting their rights, it is their right to change or destroy that form of government, and to institute a new one that will protect their rights.
Seriously regroup, they are doing a great job at hurting themselves. People like Sarah Palin, Mr. Steel, FOX News and Rush Limbaugh certainly do not make them look good, and nor does Cheney help with his input. They're talking at each other and not to each other, they need to get on the same page, and search within the party and pull out they're most qualified people to step up to the plate for them, like Colin Powell, someone of his calibre.
I have to agree.They are all scared. So is the left side of the gang known as the 2 party(1 party) system. This video is very interesting... this mentions where Limbaugh gets his talking points,and that those political talk shows did not exist till St.Reagan was canonized as a great President.This video will curl your toes. http://www.dailymotion.com/vi... It tells you who is pushing yer buttons. Stay away from the synthetic bi polar mental illness that is the left right debate. Iceland arrested the bankers and are suing them.Thats just commonsense. When someone commits crimes they get arrested and you get the money back. Without the left right mania thats the answer. Huffington by the way is a Greek woman London trained and got that name from marrying a gay man running for office to make him look like he was something he was not.A married man.After he lost they split and she keeps the name for pseudo credibility.Research her...she is not American. The whole left right debate is fake. Demand the bankers be arrested and sued to get the money back like Iceland or those who will NOT do that ...are complicit and need to step down.(and be investigated) till we get someone who will prosecute them. It's simple. That can't happen as long as people play left right footsie games.Let's make a ...
I have to agree.They are all scared. So is the left side of the gang known as the 2 party(1 party) system. This video is very interesting... this mentions where Limbaugh gets his talking points,and that those political talk shows did not exist till St.Reagan was canonized as a great President.This video will curl your toes. http://www.dailymotion.com/vi... It tells you who is pushing yer buttons. Stay away from the synthetic bi polar mental illness that is the left right debate. Iceland arrested the bankers and are suing them.Thats just commonsense. When someone commits crimes they get arrested and you get the money back. Without the left right mania thats the answer. Huffington by the way is a Greek woman London trained and got that name from marrying a gay man running for office to make him look like he was something he was not.A married man.After he lost they split and she keeps the name for pseudo credibility.Research her...she is not American. The whole left right debate is fake. Demand the bankers be arrested and sued to get the money back like Iceland or those who will NOT do that ...are complicit and need to step down.(and be investigated) till we get someone who will prosecute them. It's simple. That can't happen as long as people play left right footsie games.Let's make a pledge to cut the crap in 2010. Starting with left right crazy talk ! =-)
Hm, it was a terrible situation, but not as bad as some people think it was, and I mean that as in it was a "bad" that people simply don't understand.
It's also a shame that there are always so many changes to bills to further certain politicians personal agenda, however, this bill was hard pressed, and something needed to be done quickly.
They should try being at least somewhat honest for a change. Look at you and all these people here spouting off ignorantly about that which you have such an obvious inability to understand. This is evidence of brainwashing, proof of how easy it is to cow the unintelligent and uneducated with lies and frightful pronouncements.
Now, you people are all puking Fox News lies back up, what you say has nothing to do with reality and the people who you are intending to mess with are...
THE EXACT PEOPLE WHO BRAINWASHED YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE.
...do people here know what the word "irony" means?
The reality is that the banks were going to shut down the economy if they didn't get a bailout. It was blackmail and given the US is in the hands of the banks, the government had no other choice but to pay the ransom.
The other solution was to create a national bank by the people but that would be "Socialism". Of course the Republicans with the Democrats chose to pay the bank robbers instead of creating a bank of the people.
They weren't "Bailouts"; they were loans, and most were paid back (perhaps "al"l since I last checked).
Creating a national bank is not "Socialism". Socialism is an economic system whereby the government owns and controls the major means of production and distribution. Banks are not in the business of production and distribution, but in the business of storing and safeguarding our money and making loans. And it was G.W. Bush who first thought of taking over the banks.
The second round was left up to the states, in large part, to decide how the stimulus would be spent because even many of the Dems believe that the States can do a better and quicker job of distributing stimulus funds.
However, like any entity that is cash strapped at record levels and yet tasked with distributing tens if not hundreds of billions, that entity will find ways to ensure it keeps as much of those as possible.
Here in Washington State, the Governor told the state dept. of commerce to distribute the funds with no more than 3% in overhead costs. So far so good, right? We can all agree that capping administration costs is an applaudable effort. Problem is that the bureaucrats were not rewarded by economic results, but by administrative results.
They created qualifications for stimulus funding that were unrealistic for almost any entrepreneur including (originally) a minimum request (with documented need analysis) for $500K. But the catch was that an applicant must also have 100% matching funding, in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Lol finding that funding huh.
On the other hand, for state agencies and other monopoly entities such as utilities and airports, matching funding is merely an accounting exercise. In other words, much of the ...
&L;
The second round was left up to the states, in large part, to decide how the stimulus would be spent because even many of the Dems believe that the States can do a better and quicker job of distributing stimulus funds.
However, like any entity that is cash strapped at record levels and yet tasked with distributing tens if not hundreds of billions, that entity will find ways to ensure it keeps as much of those as possible.
Here in Washington State, the Governor told the state dept. of commerce to distribute the funds with no more than 3% in overhead costs. So far so good, right? We can all agree that capping administration costs is an applaudable effort. Problem is that the bureaucrats were not rewarded by economic results, but by administrative results.
They created qualifications for stimulus funding that were unrealistic for almost any entrepreneur including (originally) a minimum request (with documented need analysis) for $500K. But the catch was that an applicant must also have 100% matching funding, in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Lol finding that funding huh.
On the other hand, for state agencies and other monopoly entities such as utilities and airports, matching funding is merely an accounting exercise. In other words, much of the funds went to state agencies whose budgets were cut by the state or other semi-public entities, instead of to the small businesses who are the engines of job growth. But, who is to blame? Obama, for letting the state's make their own choices? State Governors, for trying to disburse the funds with as little admin costs as humanly possible? Or, the bureaucrats who are incentivized by administrative results instead of macro-economic results?
BTW, now that Congress has bipartisanly decided to audit the Fed Reserve, I think we are going to be shocked at how much of our money the Fed Reserve has used to bail out domestic and foreign banks thanks to the Bush admin's demand that the Fed Reserve alone be in charge of distributing bail out funds with zero accountability or oversight. I hope this is the beginning of the end of the banking industry's reign of terror over our govt. After the S&L crisis and now this, I think we've all had enough of grand-theft banking.
Lurch....You are talking about 2 entirely different programs...TARP, which was initiated by Bush, is the Troubled Asset Relief Program...(bailout to banks...) Bush only gave 1/2 of it out...and that amount has already been PAID BACK WITH INTEREST. We actually made money on it!
Bush left the other 1/2 to Obama to disburse ONLY if necessary...The 1/2 Obama gave out has been rife with controversy....bonuses to execs.etc....and has only been paid back in part....(frankly, as long as they pay it back with interest, I couldn't care less about the bonus fiasco...)
You can't very well blame Bush for what Obama gave out..Can You?
As far as Bush demanding the Fed Reserve alone be in charge of distributing tarp funds..Was that a new law enacted by congress, AKA our Lawmakers? or is/was that something that was already in place? I ask, because if so, I would like to see it...(seriously, I'm not just trying to provoke you..)
Also, I noticed you discussed the Stimulus funding being wrongly handled by the States...that may very well be...You do realize Bush had nothing to do with the Stimulus package, right? I will assume you know this already...
I know we have received some money back, from some banks, but I have not seen anything that claims we made money on half the original stimulus already. If that is the case, by all means, please forward me any links you might have. I would like to share that with my network.
As I remember it, it was the Bush admin that fought against any regulations or exec bonus limits in the stimulus funding, and I am certain that if bonus execs were taken out of the half that Obama spent, bonus execs were taken out of the half that Bush spent. Bush was the one who fought against those rules, the oversight, transparency, and accountability in the stimulus funding.
I agree that economic sense is economic sense. If the govt treats the stimulus as an investment and gets paid back with interest including all economic externalities, then that's a darn good thing. Same goes for mortgage bailouts, unemployment, healthcare and so on. If it saves us money after all costs considered, then it's a good thing.
------
He promised to write, in a detailed manner, a letter explaining how his Administration would dole out the funds once he is sworn in on Jan. 20. "The conditions have to do with tracking the money, how the money can and can't be used, accountability for the money, what dividends cannot be spent wit...
I know we have received some money back, from some banks, but I have not seen anything that claims we made money on half the original stimulus already. If that is the case, by all means, please forward me any links you might have. I would like to share that with my network.
As I remember it, it was the Bush admin that fought against any regulations or exec bonus limits in the stimulus funding, and I am certain that if bonus execs were taken out of the half that Obama spent, bonus execs were taken out of the half that Bush spent. Bush was the one who fought against those rules, the oversight, transparency, and accountability in the stimulus funding.
I agree that economic sense is economic sense. If the govt treats the stimulus as an investment and gets paid back with interest including all economic externalities, then that's a darn good thing. Same goes for mortgage bailouts, unemployment, healthcare and so on. If it saves us money after all costs considered, then it's a good thing.
------
He promised to write, in a detailed manner, a letter explaining how his Administration would dole out the funds once he is sworn in on Jan. 20. "The conditions have to do with tracking the money, how the money can and can't be used, accountability for the money, what dividends cannot be spent with it, the executive pay issues," said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, emerging from the meeting. "In other words, there's a whole host of misuses of the first half which have to be avoided the second time around."
Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who chaired a House hearing about stimulus transparency this month, hailed Obama for seeking more openness than the Bush administration. But he added that the Obama team, tech-savvy as it is, has promised more than it can deliver. "It's proven to be much more difficult than anyone imagined going in," he said. "They may not achieve the transparency they set out to."
Rep. Paul Broun (Ga.), the top Republican on the House science panel's investigations subcommittee, was harsher. "This is another broken promise by the Obama administration," he said. "We don't have the transparency and the accountability we were promised."
Senate votes 96-0 to audit Fed, reveal who got bailout funds
Under his plan, Congress' Government Accountability Office would conduct "a top to bottom audit of all the Federal Reserve's emergency activities" since the economic crisis began in December 2007. The Fed also would have to post on its website all recipients of money from the more than $2 trillion in emergency aid will that's been disbursed since then.
The GAO also would look into whether the financial deals involved conflicts of interest. It's common for members of the board of directors of the powerful Federal Reserve Bank of New York, for example, also to be executives or directors at banks that got government bailout money.
Lurch...You're still talking about the Stimulus...which was done ONLY by Obama...TARP was started by Bush, but he only gave out 1/2 of the funds..Actually, it wasn't quite 1/2...the total came to 293 billion, and yes, the banks that received TARP funds in the first round (under Bush) have been repaid and the U.S. actually made money on it...
"In the first round of repayments" from financial institutions that received TARP money, "the government has actually turned a profit."
Statement from Barack Obama on Tuesday, June 9th, 2009 in a statement at the White House. Obama says government has so far turned a profit on money used to stabilize banks.
Now then....TARP funds have always been controlled by the U.S. Treasury...and the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel. http://cop.senate.gov/
The original Bill was called H. R. 1424 " (a) SHORT TITLE.—This division may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.g...
If you look under Division A, Tltle 1, Section 104, it say's that a Financial Stability Oversight Board was created. This is at the U.S. Treasury Department. http://www.financialstability...
In Sec. 116. Oversight and audits."The U.S. Comptroller General was to commence ongoing oversight of the activities and performance of the TARP and of any agents and representatives" His name is Gene Dodaro. http://www.gao.gov/
So, as you can see...the TARP or "bailout" was controlled by different division in our government...
It was when Obama started giving the TARP Funds to the Automakers that started most of the problems....
They made a big announcement that they were paying back some of the TARP funds they received....but it turned out they were using MORE bailout money to pay the original bailout money...not from actual profits on vehicle sales...
Bush never argued for or a...
Now then....TARP funds have always been controlled by the U.S. Treasury...and the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel. http://cop.senate.gov/
The original Bill was called H. R. 1424 " (a) SHORT TITLE.—This division may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.g...
If you look under Division A, Tltle 1, Section 104, it say's that a Financial Stability Oversight Board was created. This is at the U.S. Treasury Department. http://www.financialstability...
In Sec. 116. Oversight and audits."The U.S. Comptroller General was to commence ongoing oversight of the activities and performance of the TARP and of any agents and representatives" His name is Gene Dodaro. http://www.gao.gov/
So, as you can see...the TARP or "bailout" was controlled by different division in our government...
It was when Obama started giving the TARP Funds to the Automakers that started most of the problems....
They made a big announcement that they were paying back some of the TARP funds they received....but it turned out they were using MORE bailout money to pay the original bailout money...not from actual profits on vehicle sales...
Bush never argued for or against bonus limits, regulations, etc....You must be thinking of Chris Dodd (Dem)
I think it isn't a Republican issue. it was bipartisan for President Bush who started it and President Obama who continued. I don't think it was a question of "They lied to the American people." (It would help if Sen. McCain would say exactly who "They" is.) rather, both Administrations were naive to believe the financial sector would do what was good for the nation. Instead, they used the money to shore up their own books and denied credit to everyone who was less than perfect. In other words, if you didn't need it, you could get credit. They proceeded to jack up rates wherever they could to continue to gouge the consumer. Hopefully, Americans will continue to pay down debt, increase savings and live within their means. What all of this handing over billions to the corporate sector showed is that if you're going to go that route, then give it to the sector that the economy truly depends upon: consumers; consumer spending is two-thirds of the GDP and even now is what everyone keeps watching. If consumers had been allowed to clear up THEIR books, then the financial sector would have benefited from a flood up; as mortgages would have been kept current, credit cards paid down and consumers would be able to negotiate from a position of strength. With the money actually circulating...
I think it isn't a Republican issue. it was bipartisan for President Bush who started it and President Obama who continued. I don't think it was a question of "They lied to the American people." (It would help if Sen. McCain would say exactly who "They" is.) rather, both Administrations were naive to believe the financial sector would do what was good for the nation. Instead, they used the money to shore up their own books and denied credit to everyone who was less than perfect. In other words, if you didn't need it, you could get credit. They proceeded to jack up rates wherever they could to continue to gouge the consumer. Hopefully, Americans will continue to pay down debt, increase savings and live within their means. What all of this handing over billions to the corporate sector showed is that if you're going to go that route, then give it to the sector that the economy truly depends upon: consumers; consumer spending is two-thirds of the GDP and even now is what everyone keeps watching. If consumers had been allowed to clear up THEIR books, then the financial sector would have benefited from a flood up; as mortgages would have been kept current, credit cards paid down and consumers would be able to negotiate from a position of strength. With the money actually circulating throughout the economy, there probably wouldn't have been the wholesale cut in jobs. . . . But in any case, part of the problem is that we are in an age where we lack statesmen in government and captains in industry We have politicians in the former and managers in the latter, both only concerned with holding onto their jobs and getting their bonuses. Until we can get bold leaders who can think and act for the long-term, we are going to continue to lurch back and forth.
Stick to what they say. They need to be a part of the solution. Not point fingers and then re-attempt to point again when they realize they contradict themselves. When will we stop being such a divided country and become Americans again? I don't see it happening anytime soon!
If the Republicans under the Bush Administration were paying attention, we would not be in the mess we are today regarding both the Recession and the Illegal immigrant situation. They had eight years under Bush to get it under control. They didn't!
con·serv·a·tive /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
They need to stop acting like spoiled children who didn't get their way, and work toward picking our nation up out of the muck left to us by all those years of Right Wing malfeasance.
But you have not presented any evidence that it has become destructive of those ends; therefore, your premiss is rejected.
This video is very interesting...
this mentions where Limbaugh gets his talking points,and that those political talk shows did not exist till St.Reagan was canonized as a great President.This video will curl your toes.
http://www.dailymotion.com/vi...
It tells you who is pushing yer buttons.
Stay away from the synthetic bi polar mental illness that is the left right debate.
Iceland arrested the bankers and are suing them.Thats just commonsense.
When someone commits crimes they get arrested and you get the money back.
Without the left right mania thats the answer.
Huffington by the way is a Greek woman London trained and got that name from marrying a gay man running for office to make him look like he was something he was not.A married man.After he lost they split and she keeps the name for pseudo credibility.Research her...she is not American.
The whole left right debate is fake.
Demand the bankers be arrested and sued to get the money back like Iceland or those who will NOT do that ...are complicit and need to step down.(and be investigated) till we get someone who will prosecute them.
It's simple.
That can't happen as long as people play left right footsie games.Let's make a ...
This video is very interesting...
this mentions where Limbaugh gets his talking points,and that those political talk shows did not exist till St.Reagan was canonized as a great President.This video will curl your toes.
http://www.dailymotion.com/vi...
It tells you who is pushing yer buttons.
Stay away from the synthetic bi polar mental illness that is the left right debate.
Iceland arrested the bankers and are suing them.Thats just commonsense.
When someone commits crimes they get arrested and you get the money back.
Without the left right mania thats the answer.
Huffington by the way is a Greek woman London trained and got that name from marrying a gay man running for office to make him look like he was something he was not.A married man.After he lost they split and she keeps the name for pseudo credibility.Research her...she is not American.
The whole left right debate is fake.
Demand the bankers be arrested and sued to get the money back like Iceland or those who will NOT do that ...are complicit and need to step down.(and be investigated) till we get someone who will prosecute them.
It's simple.
That can't happen as long as people play left right footsie games.Let's make a pledge to cut the crap in 2010. Starting with left right crazy talk ! =-)
...it's like the intelligent people see the GOP for what it has become on one hand, and on the other... there are the people here, spouting nonsense.
It's also a shame that there are always so many changes to bills to further certain politicians personal agenda, however, this bill was hard pressed, and something needed to be done quickly.
Now, you people are all puking Fox News lies back up, what you say has nothing to do with reality and the people who you are intending to mess with are...
THE EXACT PEOPLE WHO BRAINWASHED YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE.
...do people here know what the word "irony" means?
LOL OH MOST DO NOT EVEN KNOW THE HALF OF IT.
They go on slogans and fear mongoring.
http://www.dailymotion.com/vi...
Do you by any chance work at Goldman Sachs??
The other solution was to create a national bank by the people but that would be "Socialism". Of course the Republicans with the Democrats chose to pay the bank robbers instead of creating a bank of the people.
Creating a national bank is not "Socialism". Socialism is an economic system whereby the government owns and controls the major means of production and distribution. Banks are not in the business of production and distribution, but in the business of storing and safeguarding our money and making loans. And it was G.W. Bush who first thought of taking over the banks.
The first round of TARP has already been paid back WITH INTEREST. The second round...not so much....
The Un-Stimulus plan is, so far, a dismal failure saturated with pork...
However, like any entity that is cash strapped at record levels and yet tasked with distributing tens if not hundreds of billions, that entity will find ways to ensure it keeps as much of those as possible.
Here in Washington State, the Governor told the state dept. of commerce to distribute the funds with no more than 3% in overhead costs. So far so good, right? We can all agree that capping administration costs is an applaudable effort. Problem is that the bureaucrats were not rewarded by economic results, but by administrative results.
They created qualifications for stimulus funding that were unrealistic for almost any entrepreneur including (originally) a minimum request (with documented need analysis) for $500K. But the catch was that an applicant must also have 100% matching funding, in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Lol finding that funding huh.
On the other hand, for state agencies and other monopoly entities such as utilities and airports, matching funding is merely an accounting exercise. In other words, much of the ...
&L;
However, like any entity that is cash strapped at record levels and yet tasked with distributing tens if not hundreds of billions, that entity will find ways to ensure it keeps as much of those as possible.
Here in Washington State, the Governor told the state dept. of commerce to distribute the funds with no more than 3% in overhead costs. So far so good, right? We can all agree that capping administration costs is an applaudable effort. Problem is that the bureaucrats were not rewarded by economic results, but by administrative results.
They created qualifications for stimulus funding that were unrealistic for almost any entrepreneur including (originally) a minimum request (with documented need analysis) for $500K. But the catch was that an applicant must also have 100% matching funding, in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Lol finding that funding huh.
On the other hand, for state agencies and other monopoly entities such as utilities and airports, matching funding is merely an accounting exercise. In other words, much of the funds went to state agencies whose budgets were cut by the state or other semi-public entities, instead of to the small businesses who are the engines of job growth. But, who is to blame? Obama, for letting the state's make their own choices? State Governors, for trying to disburse the funds with as little admin costs as humanly possible? Or, the bureaucrats who are incentivized by administrative results instead of macro-economic results?
BTW, now that Congress has bipartisanly decided to audit the Fed Reserve, I think we are going to be shocked at how much of our money the Fed Reserve has used to bail out domestic and foreign banks thanks to the Bush admin's demand that the Fed Reserve alone be in charge of distributing bail out funds with zero accountability or oversight. I hope this is the beginning of the end of the banking industry's reign of terror over our govt. After the S&L crisis and now this, I think we've all had enough of grand-theft banking.
Bush left the other 1/2 to Obama to disburse ONLY if necessary...The 1/2 Obama gave out has been rife with controversy....bonuses to execs.etc....and has only been paid back in part....(frankly, as long as they pay it back with interest, I couldn't care less about the bonus fiasco...)
You can't very well blame Bush for what Obama gave out..Can You?
As far as Bush demanding the Fed Reserve alone be in charge of distributing tarp funds..Was that a new law enacted by congress, AKA our Lawmakers? or is/was that something that was already in place? I ask, because if so, I would like to see it...(seriously, I'm not just trying to provoke you..)
Also, I noticed you discussed the Stimulus funding being wrongly handled by the States...that may very well be...You do realize Bush had nothing to do with the Stimulus package, right? I will assume you know this already...
As I remember it, it was the Bush admin that fought against any regulations or exec bonus limits in the stimulus funding, and I am certain that if bonus execs were taken out of the half that Obama spent, bonus execs were taken out of the half that Bush spent. Bush was the one who fought against those rules, the oversight, transparency, and accountability in the stimulus funding.
I agree that economic sense is economic sense. If the govt treats the stimulus as an investment and gets paid back with interest including all economic externalities, then that's a darn good thing. Same goes for mortgage bailouts, unemployment, healthcare and so on. If it saves us money after all costs considered, then it's a good thing.
------
He promised to write, in a detailed manner, a letter explaining how his Administration would dole out the funds once he is sworn in on Jan. 20. "The conditions have to do with tracking the money, how the money can and can't be used, accountability for the money, what dividends cannot be spent wit...
As I remember it, it was the Bush admin that fought against any regulations or exec bonus limits in the stimulus funding, and I am certain that if bonus execs were taken out of the half that Obama spent, bonus execs were taken out of the half that Bush spent. Bush was the one who fought against those rules, the oversight, transparency, and accountability in the stimulus funding.
I agree that economic sense is economic sense. If the govt treats the stimulus as an investment and gets paid back with interest including all economic externalities, then that's a darn good thing. Same goes for mortgage bailouts, unemployment, healthcare and so on. If it saves us money after all costs considered, then it's a good thing.
------
He promised to write, in a detailed manner, a letter explaining how his Administration would dole out the funds once he is sworn in on Jan. 20. "The conditions have to do with tracking the money, how the money can and can't be used, accountability for the money, what dividends cannot be spent with it, the executive pay issues," said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, emerging from the meeting. "In other words, there's a whole host of misuses of the first half which have to be avoided the second time around."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/busi...
------
Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who chaired a House hearing about stimulus transparency this month, hailed Obama for seeking more openness than the Bush administration. But he added that the Obama team, tech-savvy as it is, has promised more than it can deliver. "It's proven to be much more difficult than anyone imagined going in," he said. "They may not achieve the transparency they set out to."
Rep. Paul Broun (Ga.), the top Republican on the House science panel's investigations subcommittee, was harsher. "This is another broken promise by the Obama administration," he said. "We don't have the transparency and the accountability we were promised."
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
-------
Senate votes 96-0 to audit Fed, reveal who got bailout funds
Under his plan, Congress' Government Accountability Office would conduct "a top to bottom audit of all the Federal Reserve's emergency activities" since the economic crisis began in December 2007. The Fed also would have to post on its website all recipients of money from the more than $2 trillion in emergency aid will that's been disbursed since then.
The GAO also would look into whether the financial deals involved conflicts of interest. It's common for members of the board of directors of the powerful Federal Reserve Bank of New York, for example, also to be executives or directors at banks that got government bailout money.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/20...
"In the first round of repayments" from financial institutions that received TARP money, "the government has actually turned a profit."
Statement from Barack Obama on Tuesday, June 9th, 2009 in a statement at the White House.
Obama says government has so far turned a profit on money used to stabilize banks.
http://www.politifact.com/tru...
The original Bill was called H. R. 1424 " (a) SHORT TITLE.—This division may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.g...
If you look under Division A, Tltle 1,
Section 104, it say's that a Financial Stability Oversight Board was created. This is at the U.S. Treasury Department. http://www.financialstability...
In Sec. 116. Oversight and audits."The U.S. Comptroller General was to commence ongoing oversight of the activities and performance of the TARP and of any agents and representatives" His name is Gene Dodaro. http://www.gao.gov/
SEC. 121. SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE TROUBLED ASSET
RELIEF PROGRAM. http://www.sigtarp.gov/report...
So, as you can see...the TARP or "bailout" was controlled by different division in our government...
It was when Obama started giving the TARP Funds to the Automakers that started most of the problems....
They made a big announcement that they were paying back some of the TARP funds they received....but it turned out they were using MORE bailout money to pay the original bailout money...not from actual profits on vehicle sales...
Bush never argued for or a...
The original Bill was called H. R. 1424 " (a) SHORT TITLE.—This division may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008’’.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.g...
If you look under Division A, Tltle 1,
Section 104, it say's that a Financial Stability Oversight Board was created. This is at the U.S. Treasury Department. http://www.financialstability...
In Sec. 116. Oversight and audits."The U.S. Comptroller General was to commence ongoing oversight of the activities and performance of the TARP and of any agents and representatives" His name is Gene Dodaro. http://www.gao.gov/
SEC. 121. SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE TROUBLED ASSET
RELIEF PROGRAM. http://www.sigtarp.gov/report...
So, as you can see...the TARP or "bailout" was controlled by different division in our government...
It was when Obama started giving the TARP Funds to the Automakers that started most of the problems....
They made a big announcement that they were paying back some of the TARP funds they received....but it turned out they were using MORE bailout money to pay the original bailout money...not from actual profits on vehicle sales...
Bush never argued for or against bonus limits, regulations, etc....You must be thinking of Chris Dodd (Dem)
(Remember the auto company bailout? If only that were even close to the worst of the corporate bailouts! But it's not, thanks to the Fed Reserve.)