Does it seem like the $700 billion bailout has been spent several times already?

[NNN0LHI]

And they keep talking about spending more of it?

Or am I imagining things here?

Don

[Poll_Blind]

1. YES! This has been freaking me out over the last few weeks...

...but especially this last week. I've been incredibly busy with other things but I keep seeing these goddamned stories which indicate tens or hundreds of billions on multiple occasions since the bailout!

What do you know?!

PB

[Lasher]

2. I know what you mean.

What about the $2 trillion in Fed loan gurantees? That's the ones where they won't say who's getting them. And what about the bailouts before the $700 billon one, which I think ended up being about $850 billion?

[gateley]

3. Sure seems like it to me -- which is why people are clamoring for more $$$ from

the government. They fucked this up, too.

[asjr]

4. I think they all said Show me the money and they

did. I thought it had just been appropriated and we had to know just exactly where it was going before we let it loose. Does AIG want to throw another "going away" party?

[Mike 03]

5. Yes, and look what good it's done. Seriously, the initial $700 B is going to seem

like chump change after what we are going to have to cough up over the next two years or so. And I seriously doubt we'll be able to honestly look back and agree with Paulson and Bernanke that this was an "investment." The banks are not even lending! That was the primary objective of the initial infusion.

This isn't going to work at all.

[kirby]

6. You are imagining...

The FED Reserve has spent/loaned like 2 Trillion. The Treasury is using the $700 billion.

[Greyhound]

7. It's actually different piles of cash. The Fed has been pumping hundreds of billions

into propping up this pretend market for months independent of the official bailout pile 'o cash. I believe we are looking at three of these blackmail funds going to the banksters, the freddie/fannie/AIG payoff, the bailout, and the Fed spending our money without any permission or accountability.

The bad news is that we will pay for it all anyway unless we rise up and force the issue. The odds of that happening are very, very small.

[HamdenRice]

8. People are confusing several different programs

The bailout was primarily for commercial, savings and investment banks. That was $750 billion. Most of that has not yet been used.

The Fed has always made loans to banks. It's the bankers' bank. Banks have to make deposits of billions and billions into the Fed. The Fed in turn lends it out, in what's called a "credit facility." This is similar to the idea that when you get a loan from a bank, it comes from the deposits of other customer. The Fed is now lending its deposits to other banks that need it, as it has always done, but few people paid attention to it or understood the system.

The "news" of these trillions being lent is not that the money is being lent, but that the Fed has decided to take new kinds of collateral (mortgage backed securities and commercial paper) for the credit facility.

AIG was yet a separate bailout again, and was part of neither the $750 b, nor the Fed's credit facility program.

[Mike 03]

10. I thought the Fed was the "lender of last resort," and that banks shied away from

taking loans from the Fed. Also, the Fed is forcing some healthy banks to participate, is that right? I know of instances where well known banks did everything possible to AVOID going to the Fed.

Just curious.

[HamdenRice]

14. I don't know about last resort ...

but even if so, a lot of them are at that point, because there is little interbank lending available.

And yes, Paulson claims to have forced some of the big banks to participate in the equity injection bailout, and supposedly forced healthy banks in order not to disclose to the markets which were unhealthy.

[NNN0LHI]

13. How much of that $750 billion has been spent for the intended purpose?

The purpose of buying up the toxic paper from the institutions who would then begin lending to one another and freeing up credit lines again so companies could meet their payrolls, etc.?

Don

[HamdenRice]

15. Good question

Supposedly $250 billion was used to buy preferred shares in big banks -- not what was intended, but what several progressive economists thought was a better idea.

That would leave $500 billion unused. (Keeping in mind, this was like a revolving facility Treasury could draw down, not like most appropriations.)

But from what I gather from this incoherent press conference some of that $500 billion has been used to buy illiquid "TARP" assets from savings and loans and thrifts (which I would think is a good thing, because those smaller consumer oriented banks is where we need the credit unfreeze), but Fester doesn't think it's working.

It's a confusing press conference.

[dkofos]

9. How could you tell. They certainly aren't telling us where the money is going.

[tekisui]

11. The wording was $700 Billion at any one time.

It's a revolving door, and will end up at probably $2 Trillion, total.

[HamdenRice]

17. The "at one time" was to make it a revolving facility

They start with $700b, and if they reach $700b, they have to stop. But if any gets paid back or the securities were resold, and they get say $200 b back, they could turn that around and buy more.

But the most taxpayer money used would be $700 b.

[tekisui]

20. Oh, that's better than what I thought.

Thanks.

[JohnnyRingo]

12. I think they're freaking out that the $700b has been delivered....

and has had no effect whatsoever.
It's clear these banking institutions put the money away for Christmas parties and end of the year bonuses.

[lligrd]

16. Does 3.5 Trillion Sound About Right?

Bailout Price Tag: $3.5T So Far, But 'Real' Cost May Be Much Higher

While the government is clearly spending a lot of taxpayers' money to bail out financial firms, the tally is even bigger than most Americans (economists and pundits included) are probably aware or willing to admit.

The bailout bonanza has gotten so big and happened so fast it's the true cost often gets lost in the discussion. Maybe Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke prefer it that way because the tally so far is nearly $3.5 trillion, and that's before a likely handout for the auto industry.

Yes, $3.45 trillion has already been spent, as as Bailoutsleuth.com details:

$2T Emergency Fed Loans (the ones the Fed won't discuss, as detailed here)
$700B TARP (designed to buy bad debt, the fund is rapidly transforming as we'll discuss in an upcoming segment)
$300B Hope Now (the government's year-old attempt at mortgage workouts)
$200B Fannie/Freddie
$140B Tax Breaks for Banks (WaPo has the details)
$110B: AIG (with it's new deal this week, the big insurer got $40B of TARP money, plus $110B in other relief)

Tallying up the "true" cost of the bailout is difficult, and won't be known for months if not years. But considering $3.5 trillion is about 25% of the U.S. economy ($13.8 trillion in 2007) and the U.S. deficit may hit $1 trillion in fiscal 2009, hyperinflation and/or sharply higher interest rates seem likely outcomes down the road.

More > http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/126117/Cost-of-the-Bailout-3.5T-So-Far-But-%27Real%27-Cost-May-Be-Much-Higher?tickers=AIG,FNM,FRE,XLF,%5EDJI,%5EGSPC,C

[Fireweed247]

18. Why did our Democratic House and Senate help loot the country?

How is it possible there are recent veterans injured, homeless dying on the streets while they give away more money to already rich bastards, this after putting the country in the worst debt in the history of the nation?

Are we the dumbest population of Americans?

[paparush]

19. Goodbye Social Security. Goodbye Medicare. Goodbye Medicaid.

Drowning Govt in a bathtub through bankruptcy will be yet another page in the Bush Legacy.