Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Just The Facts
Date:	2/7/2014 8:01:26 PM (updated 2/7/2014 8:05:03 PM)

This is an interesting summary of the reimbusement of the bailout money to the Treasury. 

The Facts 

937 Recipients

 $609 Billion Total disbursement

 $384 Billion Total returned

 $237 Billion Total revenues from dividends, interest, and other fees

 $12.5 Billion Total PROFIT to date

This includes $11 Billon that GM owes and will never be paid back. 

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Just The Facts
Date:	2/8/2014 8:33:09 AM

That is an interesting list, especially seeing which bailout recipients defaulted on all or a portion of the money they received. Wasn't the bailout proposed by the Bush administration and approved in a bipartisan way by Congress?  Would love to see a similar list of how the Porkulus was spent but for some reason I doubt there are any journalists in the govt media that want that information out.....I know Dems would not.

I opposed the bailout for two reasons. One, by not making these banks suffer the consequences of their poor decisions it creates a moral hazard for them to do so again.  After all, the govt will bail them out so what the heck.  Two, anything that govt does in haste or in the midst of a crisis is likely to incur all sorts of fraud.  Looking at the number of lenders that didn't pay back the money they were given sure proves that theory.  And its also not surprising that the two biggest recipients are Fannie and Freddie and neither have even paid back what they were given.  But they have lots of company in that regard.

One thing I can tell you with 100% certainty is if I ran an investment fund that had almost $700B in it in 2008 and I only returned a profit of $12B I would be hit with a multitude of shareholder lawsuits and rightly so.  But for all that, there were plenty of reasoned arguments for the Bush administration to believe the bailout was necessary to avoid a more serious economic problem and enough members of Congress were convinced as well. We will never know what would have happened had it not been done but the fact that almost half the money was simply returned tells me that it was way overblown. I recall clearly all the stories of banks being forced to take the money even though they didn't want it or need it because the strings it came with were unacceptable to them.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Just The Facts
Date:	2/8/2014 2:24:59 PM (updated 2/8/2014 2:25:49 PM)

Fredie and Fannie are included in the totals and both are paying back the money.Of the total $188 Billion they borrowed, they owe $2.3 Billion and are making payments. As to the ROI, I doubt as a Hedge Fund manger you would have invested in only companies that required bailout money and attracted $700Billion in finds to invest. At the time of the bailout, many were convinced that Treasurywould lose money on the bailout. You have a very hard time accepting that the numbers are at least positive. The big drag is GM and on that you were right.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Just The Facts
Date:	2/8/2014 3:44:48 PM

When did I say I was unhappy?  I simply pointed out some very simple truths. But to your point, there are lots of funds that invest in troubled companies and I can assure you that they would be looking for a much higher return than one that takes less risk and what you apparently thinks is just wonderful.  That the govt made any money at all is a miracle. That they have only made a tiny percentage return given all the risk they took at our expense is pathetic.  You remind me of the govt employee review comment that the employee sets very low expectations for themselves and then consistently fails to meet them.

But if you look at what any reasonably intelligent person would have made with $700B in five years and it would have been in the hundreds of billions, not a measly 12. You sure have low expectations. I hope you're not that dumb with your own money. 

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Just The Facts
Date:	2/8/2014 10:56:48 PM

"When did I say I was unhappy?" You are correct you did not. So, one can only assume you are happy with the result. After all, this was a BAILOUT not an iINVESTMENT  that a prudent Hedge fund manger would  make. But then I live on an EBT card , title 8, free health insurance, and free phone while you drive a BMW and make timely tax payments to upport my kind. Thanks.    

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I'm neither happy or unhappy with the results
Date:	2/9/2014 10:39:23 AM

What I did not like at the time and still do not like is the use of taxpayer funds to bail out private companies for taking unacceptable risks and getting burned.  Not only is it wrong in the first place but it creates the moral hazard that we are seeing repeated with big insurance companies now wanting the federal govt to bail them out for going along with Obamacare.  After seeing what happened with the banks they logically thought what the heck, we'll go along with this bill even though we have no idea what it means because if it turns out bad the taxpayers will once again bail out big business and this will be done by the Democrats. Imagine, the so called party of the people is really a tool of big business. One would think that we might agree on this subject. 

So GF, I know you posted these facts because from a purely superficial, emotional perspective it seemed like good news.  But as you can see, a thoughtful, logical rational examination leads one to understand that the paltry $12B return is immaterial to whether this bailout should or should not have occurred.  I continue to believe that it is almost always a bad idea to use taxpayer funds to bail out private companies that have engaged in stupid business behavior.  And even if there is a rare occasion when it becomes necessary it should be very limited and not shoved down the throats of companies that don't need the funds or want the funds.

Think critically GF......stop emoting.......and I drive a 2006 Lexus LS 430 that I bought used in 2007, not a Bimmer. We used to joke that the difference between a cactus and a BMW was that with the cactus the prick is on the outside.  :-). Apologies to all BMW owners.  

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	It's Time
Date:	2/9/2014 11:28:28 AM (updated 2/9/2014 11:30:22 AM)

It's time to treat yourself to a new company leased Lexus that the government will help  with he payments. After all, you deserve it. Take a trip to Nalley Lexus on Roswell Road and look at a Lexus LS460 AWD. There is even a hybrid Lexus. Martini's New Car

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	No thanks
Date:	2/9/2014 10:04:45 PM

I'll stick with my current car for a few more years. Meanwhile you stick with your failed ideology.