US Set to profit $8 BILLION on citibank bailout

[cre8tiff]

 

As reported by the Washington Post. I knew they said this might happen, but holy spit!!

[Chief Dick]

That's awesome.

 

Good job Obama.

[cre8tiff]

That's awesome.

 

Good job Obama.

 

To be perfectly honest, I THINK that one belongs to George W.

 

Citibank's bailout was in November 2008, prior to Obama taking office.

[Chief Dick]

That's awesome.

 

Good job George W.

[bpwallace49]

I am just glad that we finally got our investment back.

[evil_gop_liars]

That's awesome.

 

Good job Obama.

 

 

That's awesome.

 

Good job George W.

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

Sweet! Hope a whole lot more of them come back as money makers for us.

[Chavez]

To be perfectly honest, I THINK that one belongs to George W.

 

Citibank's bailout was in November 2008, prior to Obama taking office.

I have no problem crediting them both - IIRC Obama could've deep-sixed the bailouts but stuck with them.

[Ursa Majoris]

Sweet! Hope a whole lot more of them come back as money makers for us.

And they will. Presumably the "must never interfere with business brigade" will be along in a minute to tell us this is government theft or whatnot.

[Azazello1313]

most of the actual banks that received funds as part of the "bank bailout" have paid the funds back, with interest. see this graph. to the extent TARP was used as it was supposed to be used, it was pretty successful.

[westvirginia]

And they will. Presumably the "must never interfere with business brigade" will be along in a minute to tell us this is government theft or whatnot.

 

[Ursa Majoris]

Well, is it?

[Fatman]

most of the actual banks that received funds as part of the "bank bailout" have paid the funds back, with interest. see this graph. to the extent TARP was used as it was supposed to be used, it was pretty successful.

 

That's the ironic part - the troubled assets program that was abandoned was still probably the better idea. History will evaluate the massive public works spending.

[dmarc117]

so do us taxpayers get some of that? or do the dolts in dc just have 8bil more to spend on crap?

[gbpfan1231]

so do us taxpayers get some of that? or do the dolts in dc just have 8bil more to spend on crap?

Well it is not really 8 billion - don't they owe 25% - oh wait - 28.5% in capital gains taxes?

[Savage Beatings]

And they will. Presumably the "must never interfere with business brigade" will be along in a minute to tell us this is government theft or whatnot.

 

 

I'll reserve judgement until we find out what happens to the repaid money. Does it just get respent on the whims of Washington, or will it be used to pay back whichever mysterious source we used to come up with the money in the first place?

[cre8tiff]

so do us taxpayers get some of that? or do the dolts in dc just have 8bil more to spend on crap?

 

My guess is Washington will use it... hopefully to offset deficit.

[Ursa Majoris]

My guess is Washington will use it... hopefully to offset deficit.

Obviously it goes back into the government's books. What happens to it then is anyone's guess.

[Azazello1313]

I'll reserve judgement until we find out what happens to the repaid money. Does it just get respent on the whims of Washington, or will it be used to pay back whichever mysterious source we used to come up with the money in the first place?

 

well, considering those funds came out of the same bucket we used to bail out the auto companies (for for political reasons unrelated to the banking crisis), and that is money we will probably never see again, the program as a whole is still going to be a net loss to the taxpayer.

[Ursa Majoris]

well, considering those funds came out of the same bucket we used to bail out the auto companies (for for political reasons unrelated to the banking crisis), and that is money we will probably never see again, the program as a whole is still going to be a net loss to the taxpayer.

Didn't the government take shares in GM? If so, it certainly is very possible we'll see that again and with interest in time.

[The Mucca]

Didn't Freddie and Fannie get a ton of money, wonder if that will ever be paid back?

[Ursa Majoris]

Didn't Freddie and Fannie get a ton of money, wonder if that will ever be paid back?

Now that one, I'll grant you, would be a hell of a stretch. If we ever do, it's decades away.

[i_am_the_swammi]

well, considering those funds came out of the same bucket we used to bail out the auto companies (for for political reasons unrelated to the banking crisis), and that is money we will probably never see again, the program as a whole is still going to be a net loss to the taxpayer.

 

 

You do realize what likely would have happened had our auto industry, and all the companies that supply parts, services, transportation, etc. to it, been allowed to fail, right?

 

The fact you think it resulted in a "net loss" for taxpayers is very curious.

[WaterMan]

Maybe the leaders in power thought it would be bad to have both the North and South crippled with unemployment? So they bailed out the North's automakers.

[Azazello1313]

You do realize what likely would have happened had our auto industry, and all the companies that supply parts, services, transportation, etc. to it, been allowed to fail, right?

 

The fact you think it resulted in a "net loss" for taxpayers is very curious.

 

typically, when you loan out money and never get it back, or get back some worthless stock, then yeah, you count that as a loss.

 

what would have happened if GM and chrysler were allowed to go into bankruptcy? the assets would have been sold, and the taxpayers and bondholders would have got a relatively better deal while the UAW pensioneers and government technocrats would have gotten a worse deal because it would have been handled like any other large failed company.

 

keeping failed companies afloat with taxpayer subsidies can make sense when there is an acute crisis nobody saw coming that affects a particular industry and the subsidy is treated as a loan. for example, the airline bailouts post-9/11, or TARP to the extent it was used as intended. but bailing out companies that have slowly been digging their own hole of failure for decades is just bad economics (ask wiegie if you don't trust me).