CBO: Government OVERPAYS by 64 Billion in Bail Out (Government Inefficiency)
The_Carpathia
screwed. Government (KNOWN for 500 dollar hammers and such) is
showing themselves equally inefficient at running a bail out.
SHOCKING. You mean that politicians with no business training cannot
run a business better than college trained business leaders with
experience?
According to the Congressional Budget Office (as reported in
Investor's Business Daily, yesterday), the government overpaid by 64
BILLION dollars for the capital injections and loans, compared with
the market value for those actions.
And, these people want to run out health care, education, and job
creation. God help us (oops...I might get sued for saying that).
Kenneth Clifton
--
www.2009jesus.com
Bob LeChevalier
>So...government is the ONLY solution, Mr. Obama?
To some problems, yes.
>Then, we're
>screwed. Government (KNOWN for 500 dollar hammers and such) is
>showing themselves equally inefficient at running a bail out.
Know anybody who is MORE efficient at running a bailout (whatever you
mean by "efficient"?
>SHOCKING.
Not at all. No one has ever done this sort of thing before
>You mean that politicians with no business training cannot
>run a business better than college trained business leaders with
>experience?
Politicians aren't doing so, and aren't trying to do so.
And the business leaders are the ones who made the mess in the first
place, as you conveniently forget.
>According to the Congressional Budget Office (as reported in
>Investor's Business Daily, yesterday), the government overpaid by 64
>BILLION dollars for the capital injections and loans, compared with
>the market value for those actions.
No, that is NOT what was announced. THE CBO said that the first $247
billion has lost $64 billion in value.
This is no big surprise. The bailout is going to companies that are
failing, and primarily for assets that are essentially worthless.
>And, these people want to run out health care, education, and job
>creation.
A truly clueless statement.
>God help us (oops...I might get sued for saying that).
Why, are you now a government spokesperson posting to Usenet in your
official capacity?
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Cary Kittrell
> So...government is the ONLY solution, Mr. Obama? Then, we're
> screwed. Government (KNOWN for 500 dollar hammers and such) is
> showing themselves equally inefficient at running a bail out.
> SHOCKING. You mean that politicians with no business training cannot
> run a business better than college trained business leaders with
> experience?
...who got us where we are today...
-- cary
"Greed is good"
-- Gordon Gekko
Jerry Okamura
"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:5li6n4tpapkgas637...@4ax.com...
> The_Carpathia <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>So...government is the ONLY solution, Mr. Obama?
>
> To some problems, yes.
Which problems?
>
>>Then, we're
>>screwed. Government (KNOWN for 500 dollar hammers and such) is
>>showing themselves equally inefficient at running a bail out.
>
> Know anybody who is MORE efficient at running a bailout (whatever you
> mean by "efficient"?
Well, yes. By definition the "bailout" is the government pouring money into
the market. Since it is a totally run government operation, it can only be
a question of how efficienty it is run, doesn't it? Of course the counter
argument would be, do we really need such a government bailout in the first
place?
>
>>SHOCKING.
>
> Not at all. No one has ever done this sort of thing before
>
>>You mean that politicians with no business training cannot
>>run a business better than college trained business leaders with
>>experience?
>
> Politicians aren't doing so, and aren't trying to do so.
But they are. By definition, they will spend money on enterprises that they
think is where the money should be spent, and they will not spend money on
enterprises, that they do not think they should spend the money. When you
spend money on some things, and not others, you are picking winners and
losers. The winners are the ones who will get the money, and the losers
will be those who do not get the money.
>
> And the business leaders are the ones who made the mess in the first
> place, as you conveniently forget.
Maybe because, "government" encouraged them to make those decisions? For
instance, would a financial institution, lend money to people that they know
in advance will have a difficult, if not impossible chance of making the
payments on that loan? Would they loan that money, "if" they had no way to
transfer the risk to an organization like Fannie Mae? Would you loan money
to someone who you did not think could pay you back?
>
>>According to the Congressional Budget Office (as reported in
>>Investor's Business Daily, yesterday), the government overpaid by 64
>>BILLION dollars for the capital injections and loans, compared with
>>the market value for those actions.
>
> No, that is NOT what was announced. THE CBO said that the first $247
> billion has lost $64 billion in value.
Splitting hairs perhaps? It is lost in either event, is it not?
Bob LeChevalier
>"Bob LeChevalier" <loj...@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:5li6n4tpapkgas637...@4ax.com...
>> The_Carpathia <writi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>So...government is the ONLY solution, Mr. Obama?
>>
>> To some problems, yes.
>
>Which problems?
Regulating and rescuing the current economy, for example.
>Well, yes. By definition the "bailout" is the government pouring money into
>the market. Since it is a totally run government operation, it can only be
>a question of how efficienty it is run, doesn't it? Of course the counter
>argument would be, do we really need such a government bailout in the first
>place?
Well, we could let the world economy go to the shitter, rendering us
unable to buy enough oil to keep our own economy running, and thus
eventually after a dozen or more years and a few million deaths due to
starvation return to a sustainable 19th century economy
>>>You mean that politicians with no business training cannot
>>>run a business better than college trained business leaders with
>>>experience?
>>
>> Politicians aren't doing so, and aren't trying to do so.
>
>But they are. By definition, they will spend money on enterprises that they
>think is where the money should be spent, and they will not spend money on
>enterprises, that they do not think they should spend the money.
The decisions on such things are being made by people like the
Treasury secretary, who probably has more relevant experience than
either the politicians or 95% of the "college trained business
leaders".
>When you
>spend money on some things, and not others, you are picking winners and
>losers. The winners are the ones who will get the money, and the losers
>will be those who do not get the money.
If the money comes with lots of strings, it is not clear that those
who get the money are "winners".
>> And the business leaders are the ones who made the mess in the first
>> place, as you conveniently forget.
>
>Maybe because, "government" encouraged them to make those decisions?
If those decisions were mistakes, then they were idiots to listen to
the government.
>For instance, would a financial institution, lend money to people that they know
>in advance will have a difficult, if not impossible chance of making the
>payments on that loan?
Because they and other institutions have developed seemingly foolproof
CDOs that no one could possibly lose money on under any foreseeable
circumstance (of course it is the unforeseen circumstances that get
you)
>Would they loan that money, "if" they had no way to
>transfer the risk to an organization like Fannie Mae?
Yes, if they could sell the loan to a third party in the private
market.
>Would you loan money to someone who you did not think could pay you back?
I have done so at times, but not with the intent of making money.
The financial institutions did so, did intend to make money, and
indeed made tons of it. Which they then spent making more bad loans.
>>>According to the Congressional Budget Office (as reported in
>>>Investor's Business Daily, yesterday), the government overpaid by 64
>>>BILLION dollars for the capital injections and loans, compared with
>>>the market value for those actions.
>>
>> No, that is NOT what was announced. THE CBO said that the first $247
>> billion has lost $64 billion in value.
>
>Splitting hairs perhaps? It is lost in either event, is it not?
No, because the bad assets that were bought have not been sold. If
they hold those assets until the market improves, then the money is
NOT lost. Since no one expected the bailout investments to make a
profit in the first year, to observe that they have lost money is
rather uninteresting.
Investors who bought a generic stockindex security last year lost a
lot more than 1/4 of their investment in a couple of months. Those
who invested in certain institutions have pretty much lost everything.