Basic outline of the bailouts is here at Bloomberg, estimating total loans/guarantees at $7.7 trillion. But that was 6 weeks ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109…

A line-by-line accounting of all the loan/guarantee programs is here:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/calculatin…

What did the Fed receive in exchange for these loans and guarantees? How much will ultimately be lost? Of the stuff the taxpayer has been buying through TARP and other programs, what is the real value? How much will the taxpayer lose on the deal? How many “guarantees” will eventually have to be made good?

No one knows the answer to this. But if the ultimate cost is only 20% of all the loans/guarantees, the loss to taxpayers would be $1.7 trillion dollars. This dwarfs the cost of Obama's stimulus plan (or the No Pork Left Behind Act, as I like to call it). If losses are higher, then they will dwarf the Democrat “stimulus” plan even more.

I don't see how the taxpayer is going to get out of this without taking a $2 Trillion haircut, in addition to another Trillion for the “stimulus.” Could be much worse. Whatever is lost through Federal Reserve contributions to this overall program, will come out of our hides in inflation, which is a regressive tax on all who hold assets in dollars.

And I know it is indelicate to point out, but these programs have all been targeted at the business sector, not at the individual. Even the FDIC guarantees were extended to encompass rich depositors. It is a bailout for the rich. It is a way to privatize gains, while socializing losses of these institutions. Can someone explain to me how this approach is more than a hair's breadth different from the Republican approach? They bail out the rich first, and maybe after a year or two, they'll get around to you and your neighbor. Or maybe they are hoping the bailout money will trickle down? Haha.

“Change” is mostly a mirage. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Basic outline of the bailouts is here at Bloomberg, estimating total loans/guarantees at $7.7 trillion. But that was 6 weeks ago.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109…

A line-by-line accounting of all the loan/guarantee programs is here:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/calculatin…

What did the Fed receive in exchange for these loans and guarantees? How much will ultimately be lost? Of the stuff the taxpayer has been buying through TARP and other programs, what is the real value? How much will the taxpayer lose on the deal? How many “guarantees” will eventually have to be made good?

No one knows the answer to this. But if the ultimate cost is only 20% of all the loans/guarantees, the loss to taxpayers would be $1.7 trillion dollars. This dwarfs the cost of Obama's stimulus plan (or the No Pork Left Behind Act, as I like to call it). If losses are higher, then they will dwarf the Democrat “stimulus” plan even more.

I don't see how the taxpayer is going to get out of this without taking a $2 Trillion haircut, in addition to another Trillion for the “stimulus.” Could be much worse. Whatever is lost through Federal Reserve contributions to this overall program, will come out of our hides in inflation, which is a regressive tax on all who hold assets in dollars.

And I know it is indelicate to point out, but these programs have all been targeted at the business sector, not at the individual. It is a bailout for the rich. It is a way to privatize gains, while socializing losses of these institutions. Can someone explain to me how this approach is more than a hair's breadth different from the Republican approach? They bail out the rich first, and maybe after a year or two, they'll get around to you and your neighbor. Or maybe they are hoping the bailout money will trickle down? Haha.

“Change” is mostly a mirage. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Lowering taxes as a way to boost your popularity and get votes is never a good idea. Although I do believe a misappropriate percentage of total income taxes paid into the system comes from the middle and lower classes, tax cuts are not going to give the economy the shot in the arm that it so desperately needs. Ditto for incentives, rebates or whatever you want to call them. So I agree with you that tax cuts are not the answer at this time. But I will stand behind my statement that if you broaden the tax base (put more people to work) then tax rates CAN be lowered without sacrificing government services. This gives more disposable income to individuals and families, which stimulates the economy even more, creating a happy circle (sorry about sounding like Bob Ross, but what's the opposite of a “vicious cycle”?) It also gives those who choose to save money a chance to replenish their savings accounts, which builds up net worth and gives banks more money to lend to others. It's all good! The bottom line is – attack unemployment now. I don't care if the statistics and numbers don't fit the definition of a recession or depression or concession or whatever, it's going to get really bad if it's not nipped in the bud right away.

Obama got my vote but not because of his skin color or because I think he's some kind of deity, but because I believe he is exactly what this country needs as a leader and was the best candidate running for the job. He has multiple qualities that can go a long way in healing the wounds that the USA has inflicted on many parts of the world over the past few years, ruining our reputation across the globe. At the time of the primary and general elections, foreign policy was the determining factor for my decision of which little box I colored in. Hillary brought too much baggage with her, and Obama certainly trumped McCain in foreign policy as well (IMHO).

As far as the basketball court goes, yeah, it would be interesting to find out how much it's going to cost, but I really don't think it's that big of a deal. Unless it gets to be something outrageous, with jewel encrusted backboards and nets made from golden ropes, but then I don't see Obama going for the “Liberace as Jock” court design.

And just for the record, although I'm a Determined Dem, I certainly would not have screamed bloody murder if Bush had made improvements or changes to the White House. The WH is where the president has to live for 4 or 8 years so they should be able to change it to suit their needs. I don't have the attitude of “it's okay for my party, but not the other” that has proliferated from the bile that is AM talk radio. I may be a hardline Democrat (their basic philosophies are more in line with what I believe), but I consider myself to be very “fair and balanced” when it comes to politicians. I think they're all crooks.

And my question to you is not loaded. I don't think taxes should be lowered any more. Bush gave every single American a Federal tax cut, and twice gave “refunds” to everyone except the rich (or something like those who make over 125K). We pay the lowest tax rates of any Western country (or close to it). With all the crap going on economically, I don't think he should cut them further. Folks who supported him (including me) need to realize that they already pay low taxes as compared to other developed countries and if they want all these great things to happen – especially the infrastructure initiatives which will cost a fortune – they need to pay up.