PDA

View Full Version : Economics TARP estimates double in just a couple of months


banyon
04-06-2009, 05:21 PM
Congressional Budget Office Doubles Estimated TARP Cost

http://seekingalpha.com/article/129655-congressional-budget-office-doubles-estimated-tarp-cost

In what should likely be a much more publicized piece of information, the Congressional Budget Office doubled the projected cost of the TARP bailout plan to $356 billion, versus an earlier estimate of $189 billion: an increase of $167 billion on the taxpayer's dime. According to the March CBO report (click to enlarge (https://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/03-20-PresidentBudget.pdf)), the total revised deficit under the Obama budget will hit $1.8 trillion in 2009 (and then never go negative pretty much in perpetuity, in other words deficit forever):

http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/4/6/saupload_cbo1_1.jpg

Among the main adjustments in the inner projection years (2009 and 2010) is the increased assumption in TARP costs: $152 billion in 2009 and $15 billion in 2010 (click on chart to enlarge). Curiously, the CBO is also projecting a substantial increase in Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) costs: $52 billion and $5 billion in the respective years.


http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/4/6/saupload_cbo2_1.jpg

On page 8 of the CBO report, the reason for the astounding increase in TARP costs is given:

Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Since January, CBO has raised its estimate of the net cost (on a present-value basis) of the transactions covered by the TARP by $152 billion for 2009 and by $15 billion for 2010. Those revisions stem from three factors—changes in financial market conditions, new transactions, and a small shift in the anticipated timing of disbursements. Since CBO’s previous estimate was completed, market yields on securities issued by the firms that have received TARP funds have increased, thereby boosting the estimated subsidy cost of the Treasury’s purchases of preferred stock, asset guarantees, and loans to automakers. Also, the Treasury announced additional deals with Bank of America and American International Group (AIG) as well as participation of up to $50 billion in the Administration’s foreclosure mitigation plan, all of which involve subsidy rates that are higher than the averages in the previous baseline.


If it took a mere couple of months for projected TARP costs to double for taxpayers, ZH can't wait to see what the final cost will be as calculated by the CBO in another 9-12 months.

I recommend readers flip through the entire CBO report not only for the pretty charts, but to see the slow motion trainwreck our economy is becoming, based on current insane spending projections, which dig the economy into a hole so deep that there is nothing in conventional finance that could possibly pull it out absent eventual hyperinflation or sovereign default.

<a title="View 03-20-PresidentBudget on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/13998052/0320PresidentBudget" style="margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block; text-decoration: underline;">03-20-PresidentBudget</a> <object codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" id="doc_53074930977358" name="doc_53074930977358" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" align="middle" height="500" width="100%" > <param name="movie" value="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13998052&access_key=key-17o2z5v9eumwzptaafve&page=1&version=1&viewMode="> <param name="quality" value="high"> <param name="play" value="true"> <param name="loop" value="true"> <param name="scale" value="showall"> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"> <param name="devicefont" value="false"> <param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff"> <param name="menu" value="true"> <param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> <param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"> <param name="salign" value=""> <embed src="http://d.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=13998052&access_key=key-17o2z5v9eumwzptaafve&page=1&version=1&viewMode=" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" play="true" loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque" devicefont="false" bgcolor="#ffffff" name="doc_53074930977358_object" menu="true" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" salign="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" align="middle" height="500" width="100%"></embed> </object> <div style="margin: 6px auto 3px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;"> <a href="http://www.scribd.com/upload" style="text-decoration: underline;">Publish at Scribd</a> or <a href="http://www.scribd.com/browse" style="text-decoration: underline;">explore</a> others: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/browse/Research/" style="text-decoration: underline;">Research</a> <a href="http://www.scribd.com/browse/Magazines-Newspapers/" style="text-decoration: underline;">Magazines &amp; Newspape</a> <a href="http://www.scribd.com/tag/magazines" style="text-decoration: underline;">magazines</a> <a href="http://www.scribd.com/tag/wills%20and%20trusts" style="text-decoration: underline;">wills and trusts</a> </div>

KC Dan
04-06-2009, 05:32 PM
one word thought - staggering

Mr. Flopnuts
04-06-2009, 05:34 PM
one word thought - staggering

I agree. But my word was Jesus.

mlyonsd
04-06-2009, 05:38 PM
Fannnntastic.

KC Dan
04-06-2009, 05:41 PM
I have a feeling that in the next twenty years, I'm going to be able to wallpaper my house with $1 bills since the dollar will be worthless...

wild1
04-06-2009, 05:55 PM
Change you can believe in!

banyon
04-06-2009, 05:57 PM
Change you can believe in!

Partisan bickering that helps us all!

Simplex3
04-06-2009, 06:11 PM
I have a feeling that in the next two years, I'm going to be able to wallpaper my house with $1 bills since the dollar will be worthless...

Slightly over-hyped your post.

wild1
04-06-2009, 06:14 PM
Partisan bickering that helps us all!

I don't consider it pointless tally-marking to point the fact out, when he marketed himself as a different kind of politician, and a moderate, and a consensus governor, that his administration bears no resemblance to that.

banyon
04-06-2009, 06:18 PM
I don't consider it pointless tally-marking to point the fact out, when he marketed himself as a different kind of politician, and a moderate, and a consensus governor, that his administration bears no resemblance to that.

The TARP was done before he ever took office. Both candidates supported it then, and haven't changed their positions one whit AFAICT.

But, yeah, it sounds good to ridicule slogans.

mlyonsd
04-06-2009, 06:25 PM
The TARP was done before he ever took office. Both candidates supported it then, and haven't changed their positions one whit AFAICT.

But, yeah, it sounds good to ridicule slogans.

I get the impression neither side knows what to do about the banking system.

And if they do, they don't want to admit it because we might throw all of them out for getting us in this position in the first place.

wild1
04-06-2009, 06:25 PM
The TARP was done before he ever took office. Both candidates supported it then, and haven't changed their positions one whit AFAICT.

But, yeah, it sounds good to ridicule slogans.

The fact that he didn't have the opportunity to start it because he wasn't in office yet in no way means he wouldn't have done it or even done more. Believe he has even said before that FDR's problem with his belligerent spending in the 1930s was that he didn't spend enough and what he did, he did not spend fast enough.

If you choose to believe Obama wouldn't have had any part of nationalizing a bunch of banks had he been sworn in back in October instead of in January, I suppose that's your prerogative. He has done nothing to indicate this and has only served to perpetuate the systemic damage to the country's economic system. He'd do even more if he could.

banyon
04-06-2009, 06:30 PM
The fact that he didn't have the opportunity to start it because he wasn't in office yet in no way means he wouldn't have done it or even done more. Believe he has even said before that FDR's problem with his belligerent spending in the 1930s was that he didn't spend enough and what he did, he did not spend fast enough.

If you choose to believe Obama wouldn't have had any part of nationalizing a bunch of banks had he been sworn in back in October instead of in January, I suppose that's your prerogative. He has done nothing to indicate this and has only served to perpetuate the systemic damage to the country's economic system. He'd do even more if he could.

Your point was that he campaigned one way and now acted another. At least with respect to this issue, it's completely false, your speculation about what might have been (despite Obama's statements to the contrary against bank nationalization) notwithstanding.

wild1
04-06-2009, 06:35 PM
Your point was that he campaigned one way and now acted another. At least with respect to this issue, it's completely false, your speculation about what might have been (despite Obama's statements to the contrary against bank nationalization) notwithstanding.

the soft stuff about honesty, and fighting for you, and different kind of politician and all that is bearing out to be false in my opinion. the most conservatives could hope for was for him to live up to the campaign promises, it appears we will not be indulged. we are not getting some transcendant, reach across the aisle, working with the other side, common sense government president. We are getting a blank check hadned over to the most radical people in washington.

i was just pointing out aside from that, that deflecting criticism about his handling of the economic crisis with "Bush started it" is spurious. "Bush started it" is readily granted by all these detractors and has no point of reference to where we are today or where we're going. Continuing a policy is an endorsement of it, as is an expansion.

SBK
04-06-2009, 06:36 PM
There will never be an end to the amount of reasons why we should have never done this in the first place.

banyon
04-06-2009, 06:37 PM
i was just pointing out aside from that, that deflecting criticism about his handling of the economic crisis with "Bush started it" is spurious. "Bush started it" is readily granted by all these detractors and has no point of reference to where we are today or where we're going. Continuing a policy is an endorsement of it, as is an expansion.

Did I miss the part where I claimed Obama didn't endorse the TARP solution?

wild1
04-06-2009, 06:41 PM
Did I miss the part where I claimed Obama didn't endorse the TARP solution?

reading back, i see that was probably not the point you were trying to make.

i think it is understandable to see people react like that argument is coming, because it's often offered

banyon
04-06-2009, 07:06 PM
reading back, i see that was probably not the point you were trying to make.

i think it is understandable to see people react like that argument is coming, because it's often offered

I knew I wasn't going to like everything about Obama. His coziness with the financial institutions and his stamp of approval on this shameful theft of taxpayer funds are just a couple of the disagreements I have had with him.

At a minimum, I expect Obama to: 1) get us out of Iraq 2) radically revamp Health care, and 3) develop a national energy policy. If he does those things in 4 years, I will be satisfied.

That being said, I doubt I will like Obama's actions or inactions on :"clean coal", corporate outsourcing, illegal immigration, reforming prisons, among others.

HonestChieffan
04-06-2009, 08:02 PM
Well you have an energy policy...pump those tires.

Bush successfully implemented the surge so Obama can move forward with the plan to move out of Iraq as scheduled.

Helath Care will be a disaster under an Obama plan and with any luck that will fail as it did under Clinton.

You dont care about the economy, inflation, or social engineering we cannot afford so you like many demos will be pleased.

wild1
04-06-2009, 08:24 PM
I knew I wasn't going to like everything about Obama. His coziness with the financial institutions and his stamp of approval on this shameful theft of taxpayer funds are just a couple of the disagreements I have had with him.

At a minimum, I expect Obama to: 1) get us out of Iraq 2) radically revamp Health care, and 3) develop a national energy policy. If he does those things in 4 years, I will be satisfied.

That being said, I doubt I will like Obama's actions or inactions on :"clean coal", corporate outsourcing, illegal immigration, reforming prisons, among others.

I would like to see reform of the prison system. You need only watch a cable TV show about them to know that many of these places are inhumane and downright dangerous.

But I have yet to see anyone propose reform that doesn't amount to releasing a bazillion criminals early.

You would think that the human rights liberals out there would want to invest in the prison system -build more prisons that are modern, more humane, and reduce the crowding in the system. It's a common-sense solution.

Releasing felons doesn't help anything, i'm sure you know how many of them end up back in.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-06-2009, 08:28 PM
I would like to see reform of the prison system. You need only watch a cable TV show about them to know that many of these places are inhumane and downright dangerous.

But I have yet to see anyone propose reform that doesn't amount to releasing a bazillion criminals early.

You would think that the human rights liberals out there would want to invest in the prison system -build more prisons that are modern, more humane, and reduce the crowding in the system. It's a common-sense solution.

Releasing felons doesn't help anything, i'm sure you know how many of them end up back in.

What's wrong with releasing non violent drug offenders?

banyon
04-06-2009, 08:34 PM
What's wrong with releasing non violent drug offenders?

What type?

KC native
04-06-2009, 08:35 PM
What type?

You know where I stand on this. All of them :D

HonestChieffan
04-06-2009, 08:35 PM
criminals need to be in jail. Stay full term. And not enjoy it.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-06-2009, 08:36 PM
What type?

Well, the ones that peddle to kids belong where they're at. Otherwise, I say let them go.

banyon
04-06-2009, 08:36 PM
Well you have an energy policy...pump those tires.
Bush .

BLARRRRRR HARRR HARR HARRR!!!!!

I remember when Obama put that forth as his energy policy... Oh that's right, he didn't! i forgot you were an inveterate fabricator.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-06-2009, 08:36 PM
criminals need to be in jail. Stay full term. And not enjoy it.

Yeah. The guy that smokes some pot is so much worse than those that drink beer.

banyon
04-06-2009, 08:37 PM
Well, the ones that peddle to kids belong where they're at. Otherwise, I say let them go.

How about a three time violent offender who has already refused to go to rehab 2x?

Mr. Flopnuts
04-06-2009, 08:39 PM
How about a three time violent offender who has already refused to go to rehab 2x?

Honestly Banyon, the way I feel is if he's not hurting anybody, let him live his life. Oh, wait. No, no. Only NON violent offenders. The violent ones need to be locked up. There is no excuse for violence IMO. Ever.

banyon
04-06-2009, 08:41 PM
Honestly Banyon, the way I feel is if he's not hurting anybody, let him live his life. Oh, wait. No, no. Only NON violent offenders. The violent ones need to be locked up. There is no excuse for violence IMO. Ever.

No, I mean someone doing drug crimes after they were violent and released. (which happens alot).

Mr. Flopnuts
04-06-2009, 08:41 PM
As a matter of fact, if they're convicted of violence that results in serious injury, AFAIC, they can go to rehab in jail. And should be forced too.

I may advocate letting people do drugs, but only responsibly. Much like folks expect people to do with alcohol.

KC native
04-06-2009, 08:43 PM
No, I mean someone doing drug crimes after they were violent and released. (which happens alot).

Unless they commit another violent crime they shouldn't go to jail.

Mr. Flopnuts
04-06-2009, 08:43 PM
No, I mean someone doing drug crimes after they were violent and released. (which happens alot).

Sorry, I misunderstood. I guess it depends on the drug. If the guy is smoking weed, he's probably got a better grip on his anger management IMO. Otherwise, anything like Coke, Meth, Heroin, those things should get him straight into treatment. And if he refuses, the only other option is prison. If you're mentally unstable, you shouldn't be allowed to drink either.

banyon
04-06-2009, 08:43 PM
Unless they commit another violent crime they shouldn't go to jail.

You like that risk, huh?

KC native
04-06-2009, 08:45 PM
No, I mean someone doing drug crimes after they were violent and released. (which happens alot).

You should check out Greenwald's report on decriminalization.

[/url]http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/02/portugal/

KC Dan
04-06-2009, 08:47 PM
Is this a drug crime and punishment thread or a TARP thread. Good hijacking Wild1. bravo...

KC native
04-06-2009, 08:47 PM
You like that risk, huh?

I'm not worried about it. I'd much rather people have realistic avenues to pursue treatment and rehabilitation versus our current approach that hasn't worked at all.

rrl308
04-06-2009, 09:15 PM
There will never be an end to the amount of reasons why we should have never done this in the first place.

This

Simplex3
04-07-2009, 07:34 AM
I would like to see reform of the prison system. You need only watch a cable TV show about them to know that many of these places are inhumane and downright dangerous.

But I have yet to see anyone propose reform that doesn't amount to releasing a bazillion criminals early.

You would think that the human rights liberals out there would want to invest in the prison system -build more prisons that are modern, more humane, and reduce the crowding in the system. It's a common-sense solution.

Releasing felons doesn't help anything, i'm sure you know how many of them end up back in.

...or you could just release everyone who is in for possession of drugs. Problem solved.

Simplex3
04-07-2009, 07:35 AM
What's wrong with releasing non violent drug offenders?

Beaten to the punch.