One of the great realities in life today is the vast array of news and commentary sources available at the flip of a switch. I personally have a great thirst for knowledge. While my focus may at times be somewhat limited, my drive time finds me typically tuned to ‘talk radio’ and the computer both sitting in front of me during my work-day and strapped to my hip in the form of a ‘Blackberry’ brings me news bulletins one after another. The news blurbs come from various sources, and direct commentary from others. One such web site I go to for deeper insight is called Slate. (http://www.slate.com/)
For those of you familiar with Slate, its scope, buttons and links are wide ranging indeed.
My connection with this site started at about the time of its inception in the late 90s. I had the great fortune to be 1 of 4 individuals who shared an airport shuttle between Denver and Vail in December 1995 or 1996. (No the picture here is not taken in December, but you I think you get the idea!) One of the other riders on the shuttle was an man/entrepreneur about my age who was just getting (or had just gotten) Slate off the ground. We talked continuously the whole way up and over the pass and by the time we parted, I was totally enthralled with his dream. Since that day, I’ve read and commented often. In 1999 I was even contacted by the editorial staff once for permission to re-publish one of my longer commentaries on the seeming inability for common men and women to have a real effect on the political process. (One of the crosses I continually bear!)
This is a rather lengthy introduction to the source of the article that follows.
This is a rather lengthy introduction to the source of the article that follows.
I saw it on my screen as part of the "Slatest Morning Edition" today, but it apparently was originally published in The Washington Post on November 30, 2010. I encourage you to read this and ponder it a bit. You may also want to read some of the comments posted on the Slate Site. I find them well structured and very though provoking indeed. They in sum tend to support my thoughts wherein I find the reality of our country’s current economic woes and the arguments of the Spin-Miesters/Politicos to be frustratingly incongruent. Selective use of facts and collective fear mongering continually ignores what I find the most frightening and dangerous element of our society… the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots! Check out some of Rachel Maddow’s info on this subject. (Yes, she’s probably considered a bit to the Left, but all in all I believe her to be quite solid factually.) Taken separately or together, they may give you a little pause too.
Best… JDS
TARP Wasn't Such a Bad Deal After All
Conventional wisdom has it that government programs achieve less and cost more than they are intended to, but in a startling report released Monday, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the 2008 bailout has cost billions less than expected. Congress originally authorized a $700 billion expenditure when it voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program two years ago, but the CBO says it turns out TARP is going to cost taxpayers "a mere $25 billion." In other words, "the equivalent of less than six months of emergency jobless benefits" (which expire Tuesday night, by the way). TARP has required an outlay of $389 billion, and there's another $44 billion waiting to be distributed, but $212 billion has already been paid back by banks like Citigroup and Bank of America. Some of those banks have turned a profit for TARP, and the government has made billions from the IPO of auto companies it took over in 2008. "It was not apparent when the TARP was created two years ago that the cost would turn out to be this low," the CBO report says. But "because the financial system stabilized and then improved, the amount of funds used by the TARP was well below the $700 billion initially authorized, and the outcomes of most transactions made through TARP were favorable for the federal government."
Read original story in The Washington Post Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010
TARP Wasn't Such a Bad Deal After All
Conventional wisdom has it that government programs achieve less and cost more than they are intended to, but in a startling report released Monday, the Congressional Budget Office announced that the 2008 bailout has cost billions less than expected. Congress originally authorized a $700 billion expenditure when it voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program two years ago, but the CBO says it turns out TARP is going to cost taxpayers "a mere $25 billion." In other words, "the equivalent of less than six months of emergency jobless benefits" (which expire Tuesday night, by the way). TARP has required an outlay of $389 billion, and there's another $44 billion waiting to be distributed, but $212 billion has already been paid back by banks like Citigroup and Bank of America. Some of those banks have turned a profit for TARP, and the government has made billions from the IPO of auto companies it took over in 2008. "It was not apparent when the TARP was created two years ago that the cost would turn out to be this low," the CBO report says. But "because the financial system stabilized and then improved, the amount of funds used by the TARP was well below the $700 billion initially authorized, and the outcomes of most transactions made through TARP were favorable for the federal government."
Read original story in The Washington Post Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010
