Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, March 19, 2019

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler claimed Sen. Bernie Sanders inflated the amount of taxpayer bailout money Wall Street received following the 2008 financial crisis. But Glenn on counted TARP money, which was designed to hide the full cost. Here is the truth for the 14 largest participants (excluding CBLS) measured in billions of dollars: Participant Total Percentage of total Citigroup $2,654.0 13.6% Merrill Lynch 2,429.4 12.4 Morgan Stanley 2,274.3 11.6 AIG 1,046.7 5.4 Barclays (UK) 1,030.1 5.3 Bank of America 1,0 17.7 5.2 BNP Paribas 1,002.2 5.I Goldman Sachs 995.2 5. I Bear Stearns 975.5 5.0 Credit Suisse 772.8 4.0 Deutsche Bank 711.0 3.6 RBS (UK) 628.4 3.2 JP Morgan Chase 456.9 2.3 UBS 425.5 2.2 All others 3,139.3 6.1 Totals $ 19,559. 100%

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

US taxpayers even paid out trillions for Banks in France, Germany, Switzerland and the UK.

Responding to Jones' rebuttal, Kessler -- who sparked outrage last year after his error-riddled Medicare for All "fact-check" -- argued that "there is a definitional issue about what one considers a bailout" and suggested that loans from the Fed may not fit his definition.

This argument sparked ridicule on social media, with critics accusing Kessler of playing word games to score cheap points at the expense of factual accuracy.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

And no one went to jail. Obama and holder destroyed liberals' credibility of fighting back against the plutocrats, and anti plutocrat voters switched to trump.

#1 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-20 12:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speaks,

I've explained this to you countless times - Our Government was the Genesis of this and the reason prominent bankers didn't go away is that prominent members of both parties would have gone too.

The System was bigger than Obama.

www.nytimes.com

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 12:15 AM | Reply

WAPO was claiming Bernie Sanders, a cosponsor of the Senate Bill which forced an audit of the Federal Reserve, was exaggerating the cost by saying it cost trillions. Its part of a widespread campaign to discredit the incorruptible Sanders, who if anything was understating the level of damage.

Fannie and Freddie aren't even on that list, which implies that the actual cost was even higher.

Let us not confuse the desire to put a stop to redlining and other banking practices which restrict loans or charge higher rates based entirely on race with no-doc and liar made available to millions of people through Countrywide and WAMU. We do know that Congressmen important to Mozilla got sweet loan deals.

Everything the Federal Reserve has done was designed to prop up Real Estate prices for the Bank's sake. Already there is more evidence of reducing loan qualifications for the same reason. People rush to buy houses when rates are low which drives up prices. But you can never change the price you paid, whereas loan rates change all the time.

#3 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-20 12:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Were the loans paid back?

#4 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-03-20 07:15 AM | Reply

Very reasonable question. Too reasonable for this ----------- site, but lets check the scorecard anyways.

projects.propublica.org

The government committed bailout money to 978 recipients. Those recipients have received a total of $441 billion. A total of $390 billion has been returned.

The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the TARP money invested or loaned. So far, the total return is: $52.5B.

While the Treasury has paid out money to 978 recipients, only 780 of those received funds via investments meant to return money to taxpayers. The rest received subsidies through TARP's housing programs – that money (so far totaling $29.1 billion) isn't coming back.

Of the 780 investments made by the Treasury, 633 have resulted in a profit. 138 of the investments resulted in a loss. So far, the profits amount to $48.3 billion, while the losses amount to $17.3 billion. 9 of the investments are still outstanding.

The total amount invested in Fannie and Freddie so far is $191B. The Treasury has been earning a return on its investments, which has resulted in a profit. So far the companies have paid $297B in dividends to the Treasury.

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-03-20 07:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

12% net is actually pretty damn good.

#6 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-03-20 07:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

12% gross, not net. Given how grossly inefficient the government is, it would be interesting to see the actual net profit %.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-03-20 08:01 AM | Reply

TARP was a rare government success.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 09:33 AM | Reply

TARP was a rare government success.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ

Rare only because we never talk about government successes. It also depends on how you define success. While it did keep the economy from completely imploding the results for the people are not great. The consolidation that happened as a result of the crisis was a bad thing for consumers. Too big to fail became even bigger and regionals have had to become too big to fail in order to survive.

#9 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-03-20 09:56 AM | Reply

"TARP was a rare government success." - #8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 09:33 AM

Off the top of my head I can list several government successes:

✔ The creation and expansion of the national park system

✔ Winning 2 world wars

✔ Building the first atom bomb

✔ Rebuilt Europe After World War II, the first time in human history a victor helped rebuild the vanquished.

✔ Saving Berlin through the Berlin Airlift in 1948-1949

✔ Building the largest construction project in the history of the world (Eisenhower's National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956).

✔ Creating and maintaining the national air traffic control system.

✔ Reversing Plessy v. Ferguson.

✔ Landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.

✔ The creation of ARPANET (by which we're here on the DR)

✔ Winning the Cold War (a war fought by presidents from Truman through George H.W. Bush)

I'm sure that there are more...

#10 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-20 09:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Only 2 of those are not military projects. How much more do you want to spend with the Pentagon?

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-03-20 09:59 AM | Reply

"Only 2 of those are not military projects." - #11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-03-20 09:59 AM

So?

The Interstate System is, by definition, a military project. Yet millions of American civilians are utilizing it as I type this.

Rebuilding Europe after WWII served as a buffer to the (then) Soviet Union and opened up import/export markets for American businesses (amounting to over a trillion dollars - imports and exports - as recently as 2016).

As for the space program ("Landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth"),

"We see the transformative effects of the Space Economy all around us through numerous technologies and life-saving capabilities. We see the Space Economy in the lives saved when advanced breast cancer screening catches tumors in time for treatment, or when a heart defibrillator restores the proper rhythm of a patient's heart ... .We see it when weather satellites warn us of coming hurricanes, or when satellites provide information critical to understanding our environment and the effects of climate change. We see it when we use an ATM or pay for gas at the pump with an immediate electronic response via satellite. Technologies developed for exploring space are being used to increase crop yields and to search for good fishing regions at sea."

source

You asked how much more do I want to spend with the Pentagon. While most can agree that the US spends way too much on its defense budget, there's no denying that there are still some government successes from such expenditures, which was the basis for my retort in #10.

#12 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-20 10:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Good stuff, Hans. Per usual.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 10:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 10:20 AM

Thanks, JeffJ!

#14 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-20 10:25 AM | Reply

I'm sure that there are more...
#10 | POSTED BY HANS

Untold publically funded research break throughs that have translated to medical breakthroughs and technological advancements.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2019-03-20 10:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Speaks,

I've explained this to you countless times - Our Government was the Genesis of this and the reason prominent bankers didn't go away is that prominent members of both parties would have gone too.

The System was bigger than Obama.

www.nytimes.com

#2 | Posted by JeffJ

Yes, and a non-sellout representative of the voters would have been happy to send them there.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-20 11:04 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Sitzkrieg is making the same mistake as Kessler from WAPO, by only considering TARP, which was quickly paid back in order to prrmit CEO bonuses. I'm not sure anyone knows what the final cost of the bailout will be because the Fed is still sitting on $6-7trillion in toxic assets, a figure that will skyrocket when the next crisis hits.

TARP was designed ss a story to cover up what was really going on.

#17 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-20 11:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The cold war isn't over. Communist influence on the American left and its insurgency into the Democrat party is still playing out even though the Soviet Union is gone.

#18 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-03-20 11:30 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The cold war isn't over because the USA deliberately reignited it. Please tell me who is the communist anymore?

#19 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-03-20 11:36 AM | Reply

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg

We have been there and discussed the success of the emergency government loans under TARP many times in the past. To pretend this -------- site never discussed if the loans were paid back is intellectually dishonest. I know I have personally discussed that part of the success when others were lambasting TARP, the GM, Chrysler, Fannie and Freddie bailouts. It almost feels like a whataboutism... Like you are defending corporate welfare/socialism.

Of course the fact the government had to bail out irresponsible capitalism, those responsible for egregious behavior of the banks were rewarded rather than jailed, etc is the root of the problem but sure - let's discuss if they paid back the loans and it was profitable for the government/taxpayers. I think it is great it has been profitable BUT it should have never had to happen! The clear and blatant greed of the big investment brokerages and banks is THE root cause of the issue. And let's continue to be honest - who made out like bandits in the ensuing chaos? The 1%. Who were the big losers? Everyone else. The collapse of the Global Banking system simply could not be allowed. Then throw in the emergency loans of the Fed on top of the actual bailouts...

There should have been a LOT of C-Level execs AND board members in court and jail. If this happened in China - they would be organ donors (just sayin'...)

Now we are going right back there without putting in effective curbs and repealing curbs that were put in. Yes a lot of people in Congress should be joining those execs. We need strong controls like the Glass-Steagall Act (GSA). But we also need to have protections for our corporations from being snapped up by foreign companies at will (see China) because they can use our laws to their advantage while our companies can not do the same in their country. One thing Trump does have right is something has to be done about China but I don't think he is going about it the right way...

#20 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2019-03-20 11:39 AM | Reply

You asked how much more do I want to spend with the Pentagon.

#12 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2019-03-20 10:17 AM | FLAG:

Yes, and you won't answer. What's your next big military spending project that's going to provide the groundwork for private industry to build an Internet or global navigation system?

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-03-20 11:40 AM | Reply

It almost feels like a whataboutism... Like you are defending corporate welfare/socialism.
#20 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE AT 2019-03-20 11:39 AM | FLAG:

Then you've made up your own narrative. Nothing is too big to fail.

#22 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-03-20 11:42 AM | Reply

"Yes, and you won't answer. What's your next big military spending project that's going to provide the groundwork for private industry to build an Internet or global navigation system?" - #21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-03-20 11:40 AM

My answer:

"You asked how much more do I want to spend with the Pentagon. While most can agree that the US spends way too much on its defense budget, there's no denying that there are still some government successes from such expenditures, which was the basis for my retort in #10. - #12 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-20 10:17 AM
I consider myself "most" in my in-context answer.

#23 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-20 11:45 AM | Reply

"...the Democrat party..." - #18 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-03-20 11:30 AM

There is no such thing.

#24 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-20 11:46 AM | Reply

"...the Democrat party..." - #18 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-03-20 11:30 AM
---
There is no such thing.

#24 | POSTED BY HANS

What about Dema? I'm asking for sni.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 12:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"What about Dema? I'm asking for sni." - #25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-03-20 12:10 PM

For sni?

Dema is too many letters for him. :-)

#26 | Posted by Hans at 2019-03-20 12:13 PM | Reply

--What about Dema?

Just drop the "d" and call them the Emocrat Party. They are all about emotions and feelings.

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-03-20 12:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Just drop the "d" and call them the Emocrat Party. They are all about emotions and feelings.

#27 | Posted by nullifidian

You say that as if it's a weakness.

The other option is being a sociopath like republicans.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-03-20 01:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

TARP was a rare government success.

#8 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Is that why Republicans hate it?

#29 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-03-20 02:02 PM | Reply

The cold war isn't over. Communist influence on the American left and its insurgency into the Democrat party is still playing out even though the Soviet Union is gone.

#18 | Posted by visitor

As opposed to the outright co-opting of the Republican party, eh?

OCU

#30 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-03-20 03:24 PM | Reply

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Our government never made a dime on the 'bail-out' money.

#31 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-03-21 06:11 PM | Reply

Seriously?
Hanford turned your brains to mush.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-03-21 06:35 PM | Reply

Our government never made a dime on the 'bail-out' money.

#31 | Posted by Sniper

Wrong again!

Detailed Breakdown: Bailout Scorecard

OUTFLOW: $632.4B
INFLOW: $739.7B

Profit: $107B

#33 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-03-21 08:43 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort