Has President Obama been hurt or diminished by the TARP bailouts?

[kentuck]

How much political capital has he spent on bailing out the banks, saving Goldman Sachs and CitiGroup, and bringing Wall Street back to life?

Also, has this affected his ability to push for health care reform? Since the economy has not recovered and there is not a lot of light at the end of the tunnel, and the unemployment rate is much higher than anyone thought it would be, which of these issues is pushing down his poll numbers, the health care issue or the bank bailouts and their failure to do as proposed?

As we recall, the initial bailouts were to save the "troubled assets", hence the name TARP (Troubled Assets Recovery Program). However, they have done nothing to recover the troubled assets. Instead, they paid off their debts, or bought up more banks with the taxpayer money. How much has this affected President Obama's standing in the polls?

[timeforpeace]

1. Events are moving too rapidly for people to remember that. Might hurt if they did.

[livetohike]

2. Goldman paid back their TARP this week

I think there needs to be a massive ad blitz once the majority of the recipients pay back their TARP payments.

I doubt this is hurting him. Even the Republicans realized what a mess things were and although they squawked about TARP, doing nothing was not an option.

[lurky]

3. Yes.

I'm not sure he had a choice, but he owns the bailout now. Think about it this way: People despise Wall Street banks right now, with damn good reason, and Obama has embraced and supported Goldman, et. al. with only token criticism.

[HamdenRice]

4. Among the stupid, he has been hurt. Among those who read and deal in facts, not so much.

Can you state the date on which the TARP bailout bill was passed? Do you know who was president?

So if you are part of the constituency that is so non-reality-based that you think that the Obama administration is responsible for the TARP program, then I suppose it's possible the TARP bailout would contribute to a negative opinion of the Obama administration.

On the other hand, if you are part of the constituency that has a basic grasp of facts, and the ability to think about dates (for example the ability to distinguish the challenging concept of "January" from the equally challenging concept of "October") then you might not attribute TARP to the Obama administration.

That said, even though it was crafted by the Bush administration (not really, actually by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown) TARP 1 actually worked without causing the federal government to incur (so far) unreimbursable costs at the levels at first projected.

[kentuck]

7. "Among those who read and deal in facts..."

would likely be a small minority.

Yes, Bush and Paulson announced the initial TARP bailout in the middle of September, 2008. They asked for $700 billion dollars, of which they spent $350 billion. They left the remaining $350 billion to the Obama Administration to do with as he pleased. At the suggestion of Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, and I'm sure there were others, they decided to continue the bailout that Bush and Paulson began. Since that initial $350 billion, we, the taxpayers, are in the pot for several trillion dollars now.

But we saved the banks and most likely, Wall Street as well. Meanwhile, Main Street continues on a steep slide and we have no idea when we will hit bottom? But, back to your point, Obama did not have to spend the remaining TARP money and the extra trillions on the big banks but that was his decision.

So, you remember it differently from that??

[theoldman]

8. I don't think I ever heard that Obama spent all of the remaining $350 billion.

Where do you get the idea that the bailout is now in trillions? Are you including the stimulus package that has nothing to do with banks?

[Political Heretic]

25. Speaking of facts, champ

Obama voted for TARP. He then continued the program on his watch, and has continued spending TARP money without major alterations to the basic program.

Since taking office, the Obama administration has spent about 200-250 billion of Tarp funds (573$ billion total, http://bailout.propublica.org/)

By the way, I think the answer to the OP is, no, I don't think Obama is particularly hurt by TARP, because public attention span is too small, and because even if you disagree with the bailout, people are still aware that it wasn't this president that created the economic collapse.

[kentuck]

26. Are you sure?

"people are still aware that it wasn't this president that created the economic collapse."

[Political Heretic]

27. No, I'm not sure that people are still aware, but hopefully

[natrat]

28. the tarp is a drop in the bucket

the government is in the hole for up to 23 trillion in aggregate,,, most of that is not coming back

[natrat]

29. i guess "smart people" dont talk about the whole picture

$23.7 Trillion? Really?



This is starting to sound like real money. But is it?

Dow Jones Newswires reports that the special inspector general overseeing U.S. bailout efforts plans to tell Congress that total government support aimed cleaning up the recent financial unpleasantness could reach $23.7 trillion. Yes, that is trillion. With a T.

Dow Jones’ Meena Thiruvengadam writes:

In prepared testimony for a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Special Inspector General Neil Barofsky said the figure included spending and commitments for several agencies that have implemented programs aimed at supporting the economy and the U.S. financial system.

“TARP does not function in a vacuum,” he said, referring to the government’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program–its most visible effort to counter the financial meltdown.

The top Republican on the oversight committee, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, blasted the figure provided by Barofsky, saying “If you spent a million dollars a day going back to the birth of Christ, that wouldn’t even come close to just $1 trillion–$23.7 trillion is a staggering figure.”

It’s important to keep in mind the $23.7 trillion doesn’t really represent “spending.”

It takes into account run-of-the-mill TARP programs such as loans to industries — the $79.3 billion lent to troubled auto giants for example — as well as exposure in the form of backstops to loans, such as the projected $1 trillion worth of backing for loans available through the TALF program. Also, we should point out that the mega-figure referenced above also includes a projected $500 billion to $1 trillion for to help banks shed their balance sheets of those toxic — oh, right, sorry … legacy assets through the Public Private Investment Program, or PPIP.

Beyond that, the $23.7 trillion figure also includes total forecast exposure of the Fed, the FDIC, the Treasury — outside the TARP program — as well as the cost of swallowing up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not too mention the potential cost of the enlarged guarantees tied to agencies such as Ginnie Mae. (For the full rundown on everything thrown into the number check out this section of the watchdog agency’s quarterly report.)

The thing is, not all of the funding tied to financial crisis programs is going to get used. For instance, The Journal had a story on how the Fed’s lending has ebbed since the worst of the financial crisis, which suggests that the Fed won’t have to use all the ammo it set aside to combat the financial collapse.

Another example of a program looks like it won’t get used is the PPIP, referenced above, which pretty much everybody said was dead on arrival.

So while the $23.7 trillion figure is likely to get some attention over the next couple days, the U.S. really won’t end up putting that much at risk. Anyway, food for thought.

[kentuck]

30. This is my understanding also but I had not heard the $23.7 billion figure?

"..the $23.7 trillion figure also includes total forecast exposure of the Fed, the FDIC, the Treasury — outside the TARP program — as well as the cost of swallowing up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not too mention the potential cost of the enlarged guarantees tied to agencies such as Ginnie Mae.."

[theoldman]

5. I thought it was the Republicans who bailed out the banks.

Bush was president and Paulson was treasury secretary. Obama inherited the mess. If he does not fix it, it will hurt him

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. I wonder - do you see any alternative to what he did to fix the disaster caused by the GOP?

Whether it hurt or helped, there was no choice.

[kentuck]

9. There was no choice?

Oh, I think he had a choice. But I don't know what the consequences would have been if he had not bailed out Goldman Sachs and the other big banks? I'm sure they would have figured out something to save their skins? Now they have all the money, including the $10 trillion dollars that the FED has invested in their survival. That is not monopoly money. When we go into a depression, that does not mean that the Big Banks will be in a depression also.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. People who hold other people's money, if you let them die, will cause a mass financial disaster

I am as angry as you at CEOs, financial crooks, etc. I think they all belong behind bars and I pray daily the ones that caused this disaster end up there, but there's no possible way anyone at all sitting in the presidential seat could've fixed this problem without putting money into it. The only ones that keep saying that are Repukes, and they're the ones that caused the problem to begin with.

[kentuck]

13. We saved the devil...

that caused the disaster to begin with? That makes a lot of sense, don't it? Of course, if we say there was nothing else that could be done, then there is nothing else to discuss, is there?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

15. You're recommending throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater

I disagree. Let's throw out the dirty bathwater and keep the baby. Jail the criminals. Keep and save the banks. The banks hold people's moneys, pensions, retirements and they sure are the place that hold my very few dollars. I do NOT want them to be allowed to crash land, no matter how much you believe the banks that hold my money should not be bailed out.

[kentuck]

19. How many criminals are in jail?

Other than Madoff, can you name any bankers and investors that got us into this mess that are now doing time?? Just who is this "baby" you are talking about? What dirty bathwater do you want to throw out?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. Excuse me? Are you saying it doesn't happen within the next 30 seconds, you're dissatisfied?

What are YOU doing to fix it?

[kentuck]

32. Oh..if we wait a little longer, they will all be in jail?

Is that what you think?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

33. Wait. You're saying that if they're not in jail now, you're disappointed, am I correct?

Does your life work with the speed of a laser or what? You must be a genius of some kind, that things go so swiftly and perfectly in your life. Sheesh.

Do you not wait 30 seconds for anything? You gotta have it all now or you explode?

WTF?

[kentuck]

34. Where are you getting this 30-second shit??

It's been six months. What is this WTF? Who's exploding" ? Where do you get this crap?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

36. From you, who else? You want everything yesterday, and instant...

You don't give a sh*t that the right wingnuts spent decades destroying everything. You just want to sit back and have somebody, anybody, "FIX IT." And if they can't fix it instantly, you'll pout. Am I incorrect in this? If I am, perhaps you'd better explain what exactly you want from Obama.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Not much...so far...until the bills come due and more people are unemployed.

The condition of the economy will be blamed on who is currently in the White House. Obama inherited an unfixable situation. Come 2012, if the economy isn't improving he'll be blamed.

The mistake made is that the people think the politicians, the economists, and Wall Street are running the economy. When, in fact, the reverse is true.

Kinda like the flea on the elephant's ear who thinks it's driving.

[sandnsea]

12. The DOW is at 9000, house sales are moving

In 6 months they'll be praising Bush for TARP and the economic recovery.

[HamdenRice]

22. God damn you nailed it!

We don't support Democrats. But if this thing continues to work they'll be saying Bush saved the economic world, just the way they said that the entire Clinton expansion was because of Reagan-Bush and the Bush II recession was because of Clinton.

[kentuck]

23. But until then...

everything will be blamed on Barack Obama...

[quiller4]

14. and paid taxpayers back. I disagree that "the economy has not recovered"

I don't believe recovery is complete but it is well underway. Unemployment is always a lagging indication for the rate of new claims is declining. In some areas the rate of unemployment is dropping. I know that nationally we are still near 10% but we have pockets where the rate has dropped to less than 6%. In my own area housing sales have trended up for 3 straight months while foreclosure rates have dropped for 4 months.

We aren't out of the hole yet but we the free fall is over and we are climbing.

[kentuck]

20. That's good news but...

Your area must be the only place in the country that is recovering? Most of the people I know live in areas that get worse with each quarterly report. There is no sign that unemployment is going to ease any time soon. You're right in that we are not out of the hole yet. I'm not sure we have even reached the bottom of the hole?

[geckosfeet]

16. Hurt. The only ones who appear to have benefited work on Wall St.

Less money and political pull for other initiatives since he had to push hard to get TARP funded.

The american taxpayer took tarp on the chin and has a right to be pissed off about it.

[kentuck]

18. And you can't even get health care ?

Very appreciative, aren't they?

[Kansas Wyatt]

17. Too bad he decided to help Corporate America instead of...

We The People

Instead, he shoved it up our ass and broke it off, and would like to keep it broke off for many years to come.

No? Well, how's that alleged 'government health care' working out for the Insurance Industry then?

What is good for Corporate America, doesn't mean it's good for the American People.

[KoKo]

21. I think it has hurt him. Even though Bush caused the banking fiasco...

it's now owned by Obama because he kept the same Bush people and even added some of their cronies. It hurt his health care reform and allowed him to be open for criticism.

[kentuck]

24. I think it may have hurt him also, KoKo

If the economy was showing signs of recovery, that people could see, then his health care plan might be looked at more favorably also.

[earth mom]

35. Obama had a choice to help the people, but he choose to help corporate america instead.

Quit living in denial ya'll.