The article seemed pretty cool until he started talking about the "$700 billion dollar rescue of Wall Street". Why do authors constantly love to throw out this

The article seemed pretty cool until he started talking about the "$700 billion dollar rescue of Wall Street". Why do authors constantly love to throw out this number without any context? It just makes me think that the author is either stupid or full of crap. Here's some basic info right from the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program "The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion [...] reduced [...] to $475 billion. [...] total disbursements would be $431 billion. [...] $245 billion handed to U.S. and foreign banks. [...] $169 billion has been paid back." And here are the latest numbers: http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/10/11/cbo-updates-tarp-tally-24b-cost-to-taxpayers-14b-from-aig-bailout/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2012/10/11/cbo-upd... "the latest update from the Congressional Budget Office projects the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will ultimately wrap up at a cost of $24 billion." "The ultimate losses from TARP will not come from that first round of spending, as all of those initial bank investments have been repaid, but instead from the use of TARP funds to help smaller banks (minimally), as well as the extension of the program to pump $79 billion into automakers General Motors and Chrysler and contribute to the bailout of insurer American International Group."