2012 and the TARP Bailout

So it looks like the passionately-reviled $700 billion TARP bailout–maybe not quite a Big Bang for the Tea Party movement, but certainly a huge event in its history–will wind up costing the federral government relatively little. Indeed, it seems taxpayers may even turn a profit on the fall 2008 bank bailout. As former Utah Senator Bob Bennett, whom local Tea Partiers deposed this spring in part thanks to his TARP vote, puts it:

“My career is over,” he added. “But I do hope that we can get the word out that TARP, number one, did save the world from a financial meltdown and, number two, did so in a manner that, I believe, won’t cost the taxpayer anything. And even if it did not all get paid back, it was still the thing to do.”

Were that message to penetrate, it could have an important effect on national politics. For instance, Dave Wiegel recently made a persuasive argument that John Thune doesn’t stand a chance as a GOP candidate in large part because he voted for TARP. “How does he dig out of that?” Weigel asks. But what if Thune can now tell Iowans, “Hey, taxpayers, that TARP thing I supported made you some money!”?

I’ll grant that it still won’t be easy. First of all, TARP hasn’t yet turned a profit. Second, it’s not exactly easy to disabuse voters of information they are convinced is true; I bet plenty of hard-core conservative activists simply won’t believe it. Finally, principled conservatives can still make the argument that the government had no business bailing out bankers from their own stupid risky bets–although it’s a lot easier to say that today, when the risk of total economic Armageddon isn’t looming as it was back then.

P.S. If TARP does earn a political rehabilitation, it will be interesting to see whether Sarah Palin–who was for the bailout before she was against it–changes her tack again.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    There were commentators in the morning reads section trying to figure out how the stock figures actually turned this the way it did, when technically until the stock is sold we haven’t earned anything. We were paid back in more stock? Right, ie more ownership?
    ·
    Anyway, even if we do have to worry about AIG stock, it did cost significantly less than we expected it too. Which is good news. I wonder how that republican plan of “Repealing” TARP (which just ended) is going to fair… :/

  • destor23

    First, the TARP “only lost $50 billion or might make a profit calculation” has a ton to do with how the exits from AIG, GM and Ally Financial play out. There’s a lot of variables there. At the moment, TARP is deeply in the red and anyone on either side of the debate should feel free to say so.

    Second, TARP is just part of the Great Financial Sector Bailout. There is no way that, 10 years from now, we won’t look back and realize we blew a lot of money, even if everything goes wonderfully and TARP somehow finishes in the black.

    These are just facts, it’s not about people willingly disbelieving the truth. I’d also point out that before these bailouts were told “The government made money bailing out the S&Ls.” This was not entirely true. The governments Resolution Trust Corporation (the TARP of its time) made money, but it was only part of the overall bailout. The overall rescue of the S&L sector cost us more than $120 billion.

    I think you should give people more credit than you do in this piece. People on both the left and the right opposed the bailouts and if they are skeptical about claims of the government’s effectiveness and economy in this regard it’s because there are substantive factual objections to the rosy picture painted by the Treasury today.

  • destor23

    I’m also confused about what number they’re using for AIG. The total cost of the AIG bailout, which was not all under TARP was $180 billion. How do you pay that off owning 92% of a company that’s valued at $30 billion?

  • newfreedomblog

    I’ll grant that it still won’t be easy. First of all, TARP hasn’t yet turned a profit. Second, it’s not exactly easy to disabuse voters of information they are convinced is true; I bet plenty of hard-core conservative activists simply won’t believe it.

    .
    Despite statements like the above, our liberal shills in the media still attempt to put a spin on all of this to make it sound nothing short of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.
    .
    Clicking her heels, our “Dorothy” in the swamp, Michael Crowley dutifully chirps out the talking points to those who favored and indeed voted for TARP. How surprising.
    .
    First of all our government had no business what-so-ever in using tax payers’ money to bailout anyone. This is a fact.
    .
    Second of all in a free market society, there will be winners, and their will be losers. This is what our economy is based upon. The losers can pick up what is left of their failed businesses, and they can hopefully recover someday. I know I have, but we cannot and should not bailout each and every company when we merely THINK they are ready to collapse.
    .
    If you want a big government to be there to bail everyone out, then merely turn it into a socialist state. But, Mr Crowley, this is the reason people, average folks are so upset with TARP and all of the troubles it has brought down upon us all. We saved Wall Street this time and all the big Banks. Hopefully this is the lesson we have learned, and it never, ever happens again.

  • destor23

    Hey, liberals opposed the bailouts too, don’t pin this one on us.

    It was the mainstream representatives of both parties (the people who hang out with banks and count on their for campaign financing) that decided to give them our money and now want us to think we didn’t lose anything in the bargain.

  • newfreedomblog

    “How do you pay that off owning 92% of a company that’s valued at $30 billion?.”

    .
    Easy answer. You don’t. You as a tax payer along with the rest of us own a share in a company, which we bought at the high for 180 BILLION dollars. We have LOST 150 Billion dollars. Our paper is now worth as you said $30 billion.
    .
    Isn’t that a great deal??? Crowley seems to think so.

  • newfreedomblog

    Not all liberals, at least not all sane liberals it is true destor. However, most liberals will also agree that the current stimulus is also a great thing as well. They even want to spend more.
    .
    The problem is there isn’t any “more” to spend.
    .
    The average person, liberal or conservative if they look at this with common sense know we were screwed. Who won you ask? I am glad you did.
    .
    Big Banks
    .
    Big Business
    .
    Big Labor
    .
    Big Government

  • ohiolibb

    First of all our government had no business what-so-ever in using tax payers’ money to bailout anyone. This is a fact.
    -
    Funny, isn’t it? Whenever rusty declares something a “fact” it’s a good sign it’s not. Or is preventing a total economic meltdown not the gov’t's interest?

  • newfreedomblog

    “Or is preventing a total economic meltdown not the gov’t's interest?”

    .
    It is when your name is Chris Dodd (D) Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and ALL of your friends are big bankers.
    .
    Also to a lesser degree, our dear little friend from Massachusetts, Barney Frank. He has some of the blame to share in too.
    .
    The real problem still lies in front of us, and media types like TIME.com haven’t even touched it yet. They are called Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
    .
    What do you say now, little libtardo, ohiolibby?

  • danielatlanta

    You wrote: “Second, it’s not exactly easy to disabuse voters of information they are convinced is true”
    -
    And exactly how did they get misinformed in the first place? Could it be that our media pundits and columnists are more concerned with being entertaining (covering the process) than in being informative (supplying the facts)?

  • acameronw

    This story isn’t going to change the attitudes of the Tea Partiers one iota. The bailouts may have been a galvanizing force in its creation, but the primary organizing principle behind the Tea Party is anger at government and at an America that’s undergoing demographic changes of which they don’t approve. Besides, I doubt that they are even going to hear about it. It’s unlikely Fox News is going to report it. (And if they do, it’ll probably be only to debunk it.) And they’ve still got the lower middle class to blame for buying houses they couldn’t afford. And if the HCR debate proved anything it’s that those folks simply don’t want to confused by pesky little facts.

    (Speaking of facts – or lack of them – did Congressman Joe Wilson ever tracke down that part of the reform bill that prompted him to call the President a liar in front of the whole country?)

  • afguy

    Ya think, daniel? ;-)

  • http://gum0nshoe.wordpress.com gumOnShoe

    Its hard to say that the only goal Fox News has is to entertain. Sure, they do that. But there’s that pesky political agenda as well, that they back up by financially endorsing Republican candidates.

  • grape_crush

    First of all our government had no business what-so-ever in using tax payers’ money to bailout anyone.
    .
    Well, there goes the police and fire departments, along with disaster recovery funds for damages from hurricanes, floods, tornados, etc.
    .
    Oh…remember this?
    .
    “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
    .
    NewFreeDumbLog, why do you hate America and its Constitution?
    .
    This is a fact.
    .
    Nope. That is an opinion.

  • shepherdwong

    Finally, principled conservatives can still make the argument that the government had no business bailing out bankers from their own stupid risky bets–…
    .
    No, not really. Even if such a creature actually existed, he would be stuck with the base that believes the right-wing canard that the goddam govimint, i.e., Freddie and Fannie, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc., etc., was responsible, not the insane speculation and double-dealing of AIG and Goldman Sachs. You’re actually reciting the liberal argument because they’re the ones who actually know what happened and what should have been done about it. Go figure.

  • apr2563

    Who gives a sh*t what Sarah Palin thinks? Maybe her cult followers, the enthralled media, and her hair dresser.

  • fhmadvocat

    Rusty,

    I understand your distaste for TARP. It does leave a nasty taste in your mouth. Problem is that it was necessary medicine.

    Believe it or not, as a Liberal, I do believe in the free market and that there are winners and losers. The problem is when you start betting with someone else’s money.

    Unfortunately, we have changed the banking regulations over the last 30 years to create institutions which were too big to fail. Personally, I couldn’t care less if AIG went down. The problem is AIG would have taken down everyone else, including those who had no idea the banks were gambling with their money.

    And sad, but true, Goldman Sachs has a hold on both major parties. Remember TARP came under George Bush’s watch, not Obama.

  • ohiolibb

    Problem is, when said cult followers resort to domestic terrorism, it quickly becomes a big problem.

  • danielatlanta

    gumOnShoe, I was referring to legitimate media. I would not place Fox News in that category, although it is getting harder to tell the difference since much of the “legitimate” media seems to be trying to join Fox as the darling of the dumbed-down.

  • destor23

    To be fair, I think the media has probably presented a rosier version of the bailout story than the balance sheet does.

  • ohiolibb

    Can I post now?

  • ohiolibb

    All right, someone out that want to liberate my posts, which seem have been moderated due to links??

  • perrywhite1

    I heard someone just today trot out the Freddy-and-Fannie thing on the Dylan Ratigan Show. It was on radio, so I don’t know which Republican it was, but it doesn’t matter — they all march in lock-step and they’re all on TV to say “We’ve always been at war with Oceania.” I really don’t see the purpose in having a “discussion” with talking heads that simply repeat talking points that have been debunked for months. I’d kill for a news show that had news, and not the same sad puppets saying the same, sad things over and over. How about an actual economist instead of a congressman giving an expert opinion on the economy?

    I know, I know, I’m a dreamer.

  • charlieromeobravo

    “I bet plenty of hard-core conservative activists simply won’t believe it.”
    .
    We’re talking about many of the same people that believe things like Obama is a Muslim, Obama wasn’t born in the US, cutting taxes raises revenue in all cases, there are piles of headless bodies amassing on the US/Mexico border, etc… Given that the tea baggers don’t believe anything that doesn’t fit their Fox News constructed world view, this doesn’t even seem worth betting on. Facts simply don’t matter to the tea baggers on the ground.

  • spob

    Mr. Crowley, TARP wasn’t only used to bail out the banks.
    Which means that Sarah Palin has an out. Given Obama’s changes in positions on so many things, Palin’s pivot wouldn’t be so horrible. Moreover, TARP isn’t the only bailout, and I doubt that when all of the bailouts are added up, the government is turning a profit.
    .
    By the way, when is the Swamp going to detail the problems with Alexi Giannoulias (labeled, by the way, by WaPo as a “wunderkind”).

  • Ivy_B

    I had a comment the other day about the Whitman story with one link to an LA Times blog post and it was disappeared. Thought maybe I posted wrong and tried again. Same thing. Commented about the problem and it went through, but my one with substance was never liberated.

  • herby002

    Sarah said the bailouts were necessary, when she was running for VP; then she said they were terrible as she attempts to build he base for 2012. No “out” there.

    Sarah said the “Bridge to Nowhere” was necessary when she was mayor; then she said she was against it when she was running for VP. She “forgot” to say that the evil earmarked federal money was not sent back to the US treasury – it was diverted to other projects in Alaska. No “out” there”.

    Curious: What are the “problems with Alexi iannoulias (labeled, by the way, by WaPo as a “wunderkind”)?”

    I see this reference:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexi_Giannoulias

    Please specify, and explain how it connects to Tea Party – TARP – Palin. Thanks.

blog comments powered by Disqus