Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: The Point about TARP, the Auto Bailout and Sanders [View all]think
(11,641 posts)17. Choosing extremely flawed legislation like TARP over trying to find GOOD solutions to huge problems
isn't called living in the real world. It's called fear and political expedience.
The Inspector General overseeing TARP had this to say about TARP:
Neil Barofsky on the failures of TARP
By Jeff Horwich
July 23, 2012 | 4:05 AM
~Snip~
Barofsky: Well essentially, they wanted me to back down, I think. Every time I started to raising some concerns, the pushback I got was remarkable. I remember within the first couple of days, I started hearing a refrain that I heard over the course of a couple of years -- from the Bush administration to the Obama administration -- saying Neil, we hear what youre saying about your concerns about fraud and potential abuses in this program but really you dont have to worry about it because these are banks, they are not going to risk their reputations by taking unfair advantage and possibly profiting off of the taxpayer.
Horwich: You write a lot about your disillusionment with the Home Affordable Modification Program -- TARP money that was supposed to go to banks to help people stay in their homes. In your view, what happened to it?
Barofsky: Well, the program has been an abysmal failure; supposed to help up to four million people, even today its only 20 percent of that number and it doesnt look like its going to get much better. We confronted Tim Geithner about this and his response was very telling. He wasnt talking about how the program could be improved to help homeowners. He said the program, would help and I quote here foam the runway for the banks.
And by that he explained the banks could deal with a certain number of millions of foreclosures over a certain period of time but anything more than that could put the financial system and those banks in jeopardy. With that in mind, theres little surprise that the program has been such a failure for everyone other than the large banks....
http://www.marketplace.org/2012/07/23/economy/neil-barofsky-failures-tarp
By Jeff Horwich
July 23, 2012 | 4:05 AM
~Snip~
Barofsky: Well essentially, they wanted me to back down, I think. Every time I started to raising some concerns, the pushback I got was remarkable. I remember within the first couple of days, I started hearing a refrain that I heard over the course of a couple of years -- from the Bush administration to the Obama administration -- saying Neil, we hear what youre saying about your concerns about fraud and potential abuses in this program but really you dont have to worry about it because these are banks, they are not going to risk their reputations by taking unfair advantage and possibly profiting off of the taxpayer.
Horwich: You write a lot about your disillusionment with the Home Affordable Modification Program -- TARP money that was supposed to go to banks to help people stay in their homes. In your view, what happened to it?
Barofsky: Well, the program has been an abysmal failure; supposed to help up to four million people, even today its only 20 percent of that number and it doesnt look like its going to get much better. We confronted Tim Geithner about this and his response was very telling. He wasnt talking about how the program could be improved to help homeowners. He said the program, would help and I quote here foam the runway for the banks.
And by that he explained the banks could deal with a certain number of millions of foreclosures over a certain period of time but anything more than that could put the financial system and those banks in jeopardy. With that in mind, theres little surprise that the program has been such a failure for everyone other than the large banks....
http://www.marketplace.org/2012/07/23/economy/neil-barofsky-failures-tarp
This is what happens when lawmakers choose expediency and vote for bad laws. The big banks got theirs and the American people got screwed. Bernie Sanders knew the TARP program was flawed and that's why he voted against it.
Just because YOU weren't one of the millions that got screwed doesn't mean that the TARP program was a good thing. Overall it was horrible legislation for millions of Americans and awesome legislation for corrupt banks that should have had it's top leaders prosecuted and the banks broken up. Now the too big to fail banks are even bigger than they were before the crisis.
And during that time Goldman Sachs lied to congress, lied to it's clients, and was convicted of breaking US law while it's CEO became a billionaire.
How in any way shape or form is that JUSTICE? How is that good legislation?
I
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If Tarp had been voted down what do you think would have happened? If if was so vitally important
PoliticAverse
Mar 2016
#11
Choosing extremely flawed legislation like TARP over trying to find GOOD solutions to huge problems
think
Mar 2016
#17
No. I prefer that better legislation passed. And it could have had Democrats pushed for it.
think
Mar 2016
#24
And again you miss the real fallout from Clinton's point. It caused people to discuss
PoliticAverse
Mar 2016
#9
I think they should have been allowed to fail because depositors were protected.
Motown_Johnny
Mar 2016
#16
Was going to respond to this mischaracterized nonsense, but the Michigan voters already have.
EndElectoral
Mar 2016
#18
Hillary claimed Bernie OPPOSED the auto bailout which was a LIE. No parsing of words changes that.
AtomicKitten
Mar 2016
#21
Actually that's not at all what she said. she was quite precise in her language.
kennetha
Mar 2016
#27
Yes. I'd double down on that attack. It obviously worked really well in Michigan.
DefenseLawyer
Mar 2016
#38