3 ms·

For comparison, Obama bailed out wall street in 2008 for 3.6T. Bernie is still on the cheap.

by atmosx 7y ago

jupiter90000 7y ago
you mean this one signed by Bush? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilizati... 'free market economics'
- jquery 7y ago
  That was actually a great example of bipartisanship coming together to save our economic system from a total meltdown. "Let it all come crashing down" was the alternative. We (the taxpayers) were paid back and measures were put in place to prevent a recurrence.
- atmosx 7y ago
  Yes, that is what I had in mind.
jquery 7y ago
The "bailout" was the mass purchase of troubled assets which had underlying securities. IIRC we were paid back in full by Wall Street. So this proposal to cancel student debt is not a parallel. Completely federalizing existing student debt would be a more accurate parallel but would not cancel any individual's student debt.
prewett 7y ago
You mean the TARP program which was proposed for 0.7T, authorized for 0.475T, actually spent 0.426T and recovered 0.441T? The one that was signed into law by Bush? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
KingMachiavelli 7y ago
I wanted to make this comparison (since I want something to be done even if it isn't a direct canceling of the debt) but there is a key difference; the government bought the toxic assets to stabilize financial institutions. I don't know all of the details but it seems it also bought shares of the institutions it was savings at super low prices. This in addition the the the amount that was paid back under the TARP means that it was net cost neutral (depending on how you count inflation, etc). To cancel students loans would mean getting 0% back on the entire ammount. An student loan equivilent of the TARP would be extending the loan payment period, adjusting the interest rate, pausing interest for a period, and other progams to ease the burden of the loans but still keep them on the books.
adventured 7y ago
You seem to be confusing TARP with the Fed's balance sheet. TARP was repaid, in a short amount of time, and at a slight profit. TARP is also one reason why the US has the world's strongest financial system, ten years post great recession. The major US banks are the marvel of the world in terms of overall health. Meanwhile, the Eurozone's financial system has largely been meandering through disaster for a decade. It's essentially universally agreed by economists - and the actual results easily demonstrate it is true - that what the US Treasury and Fed did, was the right decision. TARP worked and it was repaid.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

For comparison, Obama bailed out wall street in 2008 for 3.6T. Bernie is still on the cheap.

by atmosx 7y ago

For comparison, Obama bailed out wall street in 2008 for 3.6T. Bernie is still on the cheap.

you mean this one signed by Bush? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilizati... 'free market economics'

jquery 7y ago
That was actually a great example of bipartisanship coming together to save our economic system from a total meltdown. "Let it all come crashing down" was the alternative. We (the taxpayers) were paid back and measures were put in place to prevent a recurrence.
atmosx 7y ago
Yes, that is what I had in mind.

jquery 7y ago

The "bailout" was the mass purchase of troubled assets which had underlying securities. IIRC we were paid back in full by Wall Street. So this proposal to cancel student debt is not a parallel. Completely federalizing existing student debt would be a more accurate parallel but would not cancel any individual's student debt.

prewett 7y ago

You mean the TARP program which was proposed for 0.7T, authorized for 0.475T, actually spent 0.426T and recovered 0.441T? The one that was signed into law by Bush? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

KingMachiavelli 7y ago

I wanted to make this comparison (since I want something to be done even if it isn't a direct canceling of the debt) but there is a key difference; the government bought the toxic assets to stabilize financial institutions. I don't know all of the details but it seems it also bought shares of the institutions it was savings at super low prices. This in addition the the the amount that was paid back under the TARP means that it was net cost neutral (depending on how you count inflation, etc). To cancel students loans would mean getting 0% back on the entire ammount. An student loan equivilent of the TARP would be extending the loan payment period, adjusting the interest rate, pausing interest for a period, and other progams to ease the burden of the loans but still keep them on the books.

adventured 7y ago

You seem to be confusing TARP with the Fed's balance sheet. TARP was repaid, in a short amount of time, and at a slight profit. TARP is also one reason why the US has the world's strongest financial system, ten years post great recession. The major US banks are the marvel of the world in terms of overall health. Meanwhile, the Eurozone's financial system has largely been meandering through disaster for a decade. It's essentially universally agreed by economists - and the actual results easily demonstrate it is true - that what the US Treasury and Fed did, was the right decision. TARP worked and it was repaid.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]