Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bailout cost may total just $87 billion

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:14 PM
Original message
Bailout cost may total just $87 billion
Just $87 billion!

WASHINGTON - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is telling Congress that the administration believes the final cost of the government's heavily criticized financial bailout effort could be as low as $87 billion.

Geithner made the new estimate in a letter Friday to congressional leaders that was obtained by The Associated Press.

A year ago, officials were estimating the bailout could cost as much as $500 billion.

The new estimate said the biggest losses will occur from the government's support of mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That loss was put at $85 billion followed by a loss of $49 billion from providing help to homeowners facing the threat of losing their homes through foreclosures.

Geithner's letter estimated that the government would lose $48 billion through the support provided to insurance giant American International Group and another $28 billion would be lost through the billions of dollars in assistance provided to General Motors, Chrysler and their auto financing arms.

The biggest offset to those losses will be earnings of $115 billion that the administration expects the Federal Reserve to realize from the extraordinary assistance it has given to provide liquidity to the financial system.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36742144/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/

Considering the fucking mess, bu$h left, this is remarkable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. LOL at the unrec'er
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
8.  There are multiple ones.
Some people just can't handle the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
change_notfinetuning Donating Member (750 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. What's remarkable is your naivete. I guess there's no way to measure the
lost dignity of those who really have paid for the bailout, and will continue to pay for generations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. we spend that on the bu$h* wars in months
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. And what did it specifically do to fix the problem
Are banks more liquid now, despite the toxic assets no one talks about anymore?

Do they merely have another $87 billion? Or did they just use this money to buy up other failed banks?

What has changed from crisis, ground-zero time?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Execs are at least $87 billion richer
oh, by the way, the problem all the bailouts were supposed to solve is now worse than ever, but who cares about small details like that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. "...low as $87 billion. " That almost covers the bonuses of those that got bailed out.
Just think of all the money we could save by putting them in prison instead of bailing them out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
6. ...and 8 million unemployed...
and trillions lost in the savings on Wall Street when it crashed to 6500. Where do you add that into the equation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. Huh! Nothing on the $4.6 trillion in secret loans from the Fed?
I'm guessing Timmeh is not in favor of the audit of the Fed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
metapunditedgy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. I just read estimates of up to $23 Trillion yesterday.
I don't think this is an apples-to-apples comparison....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SocialistLez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. Oh yes...JUST 87 billion
It could have gone towards improving infrastructure, helping more people afford higher education, clean energy....but know, let the bankers who fu**ed up our economy get $87 billion dollars to wipe their @$$ with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. 100,000 - 300,000 school employees are getting pink-slipped
this month, adding to the already staggering unemployment. $87 billion could do a lot in education fixing buildings and rebuilding infrastructure like installing internet, removing asbestos, rebuilding science labs, reducing class sizes, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SocialistLez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. It really could do a lot.
It's amazing we're spending all this money in Iraq and Afghanistan to fix up their infrastructure (which we fuc*ed up further when we bombed them) but our own country is decaying around our very own eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notesdev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-23-10 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
11. Is that so? Let's see the books
Oh wait, the Fed won't let us see its books, will it?

So we gotta take their word for it, hmmmmmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. Cool
I tried to rec it, but the unrec patrol that hates un-bad news already slammed this to the mat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catshrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Same here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-24-10 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. This place has become truly amazing
Not in a good way either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC