U.S. Rescue May Reach $23.7 Trillion

Status
Not open for further replies.

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Bloomberg Article

By Dawn Kopecki and Catherine Dodge

July 20 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as $23.7 trillion to bolster the economy and bail out financial companies, said Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Treasury?s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The Treasury?s $700 billion bank-investment program represents a fraction of all federal support to resuscitate the U.S. financial system, including $6.8 trillion in aid offered by the Federal Reserve, Barofsky said in a report released today.

?TARP has evolved into a program of unprecedented scope, scale and complexity,? Barofsky said in testimony prepared for a hearing tomorrow before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the U.S. has spent less than $2 trillion so far and that Barofsky?s estimates are flawed because they don?t take into account assets that back those programs or fees charged to recoup some costs shouldered by taxpayers.

?These estimates of potential exposures do not provide a useful framework for evaluating the potential cost of these programs,? Williams said. ?This estimate includes programs at their hypothetical maximum size, and it was never likely that the programs would be maxed out at the same time.?

Barofsky?s estimates include $2.3 trillion in programs offered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., $7.4 trillion in TARP and other aid from the Treasury and $7.2 trillion in federal money for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, credit unions, Veterans Affairs and other federal programs.

Treasury?s Comment

Williams said the programs include escalating fee structures designed to make them ?increasingly unattractive as financial markets normalize.? Dependence on these federal programs has begun to decline, as shown by $70 billion in TARP capital investments that has already been repaid, Williams said.

Barofsky offered criticism in a separate quarterly report of Treasury?s implementation of TARP, saying the department has ?repeatedly failed to adopt recommendations? needed to provide transparency and fulfill the administration?s goal to implement TARP ?with the highest degree of accountability.?

As a result, taxpayers don?t know how TARP recipients are using the money or the value of the investments, he said in the report.

?Falling Short?

?This administration promised an ?unprecedented level? of accountability and oversight, but as this report reveals, they are falling far short of that promise,? Representative Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the oversight committee, said in a statement. ?The American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.?

The Treasury has spent $441 billion of TARP funds so far and has allocated $202.1 billion more for other spending, according to Barofsky. In the nine months since Congress authorized TARP, Treasury has created 12 programs involving funds that may reach almost $3 trillion, he said.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should press banks for more information on how they use the more than $200 billion the government has pumped into U.S. financial institutions, Barofsky said in a separate report.

The inspector general surveyed 360 banks that have received TARP capital, including Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co. The responses, which the inspector general said it didn?t verify independently, showed that 83 percent of banks used TARP money for lending, while 43 percent used funds to add to their capital cushion and 31 percent made new investments.

Barofsky said the TARP inspector general?s office has 35 ongoing criminal and civil investigations that include suspected accounting, securities and mortgage fraud; insider trading; and tax investigations related to the abuse of TARP programs.


My take:

Okay... seriously. 24 trillion dollars... I gonna stop buying toilet paper and just wipe my ass with my $1's.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
sensational article. does not mean there is a $24 trillion loss in paper assets.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
But..but...but...without the TARP, there would have been no bonuses...so all you can say is....bring on the TARP baby...too big to fail! :D

Wooooohooooooo!
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Talk about cooked numbers.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Absolutely cooked numbers... and yes, sensationalism at it's finest.

But if you ask what presently is the worst number we could be looking at... this is the number. And guy supposedly saying this, Neil Barofsky, is the "special inspector general for the Treasury?s Troubled Asset Relief Program"... lol. He should know what the damage could be, if anyone does.

We are definitely already on the hook for, what?, 4.5-6 trillion of that with massive amounts of 'dust left to settle'.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Heh, sure nice to be a bank or work for one these days. You can invest in all kinda of risky stuff, and when you get in trouble, you get government's trillions to bail you out. When you get lucky, you get all the bonus like Goldman Sachs just a few days ago.

Yeap, this is a perfect system I tell you.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Okay... seriously. 24 trillion dollars... I gonna stop buying toilet paper and just wipe my ass with my $1's.[/quote]

Perhaps, but what most *won't* do is to get informed in a way that they could have voted against the people who got us into this mess (from both parties, more Republicans).

They'll keep on happily trotting out the same old tired ideology no matter how bad things get.

For there to be a $24 trillion *bailout*, there had to be some pretty serious problems in the industry even WITH the bailout. Where's the massive overhaul justifed by that catastrophe?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
This is not a $24T loss. I think it's saying the US is potentially on the hook for it, but if you used a worse-case, every insurance company in the country would be belly up. Imagine if we all had house fires on the same day, for example. Surely for the country to lose $24T from a catastrophic economy we'd all be done for anyway.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Okay... seriously. 24 trillion dollars... I gonna stop buying toilet paper and just wipe my ass with my $1's.

Perhaps, but what most *won't* do is to get informed in a way that they could have voted against the people who got us into this mess (from both parties, more Republicans).

They'll keep on happily trotting out the same old tired ideology no matter how bad things get.

For there to be a $24 trillion *bailout*, there had to be some pretty serious problems in the industry even WITH the bailout. Where's the massive overhaul justifed by that catastrophe?[/quote]

A better question is where are the thousands of indictments from the massive amount of fraud that took place to get us into this mess? How about a few investigations into the blatantly obvious insider trading?

I am kind of torn on new regulations and laws. If there is a chance they would work I would be all for em but we don't enforce the laws currently on the books why should I believe we will enforce the new ones?

Of course, I am quite sure that the huge amounts of money these wall street firms/guys donate to the politicians has nothing to do with it...
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Big Estimate, Worth Little, on Bailout

Even [Neil] Barofsky, [the inspector general for the TARP financial bailout], concedes that his $23.7 trillion price tag is ?vastly overblown.? It includes cancelled and aborted programs, and assumes that every government-backed mortgage defaults and is worthless, ?every bank in America fails,? and the Treasury defaults on its obligations. Still, the ?sheer unreality of the number? won't stop lawmakers from taking it seriously.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
It's a pity. This means that we're going to have to heavily tax the wealthy folks on Wall Street who have received multi-million dollar bonuses in order to pay for all of this.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
It's a pity. This means that we're going to have to heavily tax the wealthy folks on Wall Street who have received multi-million dollar bonuses in order to pay for all of this.
Is my sarcasm meter broken?

The bad thing is, if we ever hit hyper-inflation, it's all electronic so we won't even be able to wipe our asses with our money.
 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Hey folks.... The article that i posted in the op states pretty clearly that 24 trillion is the hypothetical maximum. I never intended to imply otherwise.

BUT... the dust has not settled and the smoke has not cleared. The housing debacle is not over it remains to be seen how much more damage the government is gonna take.

I main point is when we do these bails outs and decide to go hells bells to prop up our economy.... this is sort of maximum damage we put ourselves on the hook for.

The only reason the bottom hasn't fallen out of the dollar is because other central banks are allowing US to prop our currency up... partly because those central banks are proping their currencies up and partly because, ultimately, central banks are owned and controlled by the same interests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.