POTUS Touts TARP Repayment as Debt Reduction – But It Can Be Lent Again
EmailABC News’ Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report:
President Obama wasted no time this afternoon touting the repayment of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds from ten banks, totaling $68.3 billion returned to the TARP program, with $1.8 billion in profit to the taxpayers.
“While we know that we will not escape the worst financial crisis in decades without some losses to the taxpayers, it is worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies, the government has actually turned a profit,” President Obama said in the East Room this afternoon.
While cautioning that this is not a sign that the nation’s troubles are over, the president called the initial return on the investments a “positive sign.”
“As this money is returned, we’ll see our national debt lessened by $68 billion,” Mr. Obama said, “I’ve said repeatedly that I have no interest in managing these banks — or running auto companies or other private institutions, for that matter. So today’s announcement is welcome news to me.”
But the president’s assertion that the national debt will be lessened by $68 billion seems less than certain.
During his Senate confirmation hearing on June 4, Herbert M. Allison Jr, nominee to the assistant secretary for financial stability, said any repayment could be extended to additional firms.
And during the June 5 confirmation hearing for George Madison, the nominee to be counsel to the Treasury Department, Madison said “when there are repayments on TARP investments, that creates more headroom under that $700 billion cap that allows for additional investments to be made.”
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said today that was possible.
“I certainly wouldn’t rule it out, but I also wouldn’t rule it in,” said Gibbs.
– Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller
Obama: 'Now Is the Time For Common Sense Action' 
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives
“I’ve said repeatedly that I have no interest in managing these banks — or running auto companies or other private institutions, for that matter.”
Me thinks thou doth protest too much…
Posted by: tjp612 | June 9, 2009, 5:21 pm 5:21 pm
Once again Obama is robbing the taxpayers. The original agreement was that the repayed TARP money be returned to the treasury.
Instead Tim Geithner are holding it in a little slush fund that they can dole out to whomever they find deserving.
In addition for those of you that remember the 200 billion dollars that Obama funneled through AIG to bail out euro banks, you should know he is doing the same money laundering with GM. They have just funneled 2 billion taxpayer dollars through GM to bail out Delphi??
This is insane and it is criminal. These people are out of control and exerting controls and spending as never before imagined.
Now Obama feigns concern and speaks of “paygo”.
Well that is his code for taxes. But I would suggest that before he raises our taxes to pay for his grossly excessive record spending that he:
Rescind the failed stimulus
Rescind the 9,000 earmarks in the spending bills
Return the Tarp money to the treasury
Stop funneling money through these corporations to other entities.
Stop paying off your union buddies.
IN addition, today, the EPA (environmental protection agency) announced that it intends to impose new taxes.
Never before has an unelected body been able to impose taxes. There is no vote and they answer to no one but Obama. This EPA group intends to illegally impose the following taxes on farm animal flatulence. Yes that is right.
Cows $175/ year/ head
Pigs $20/year/ head
and so on.
This will cause meat and dairy prices to skyrocket.
Does the phrase “no taxation without representation” from the constitution mean anything?
This is illegal and the dems are lying down and letting Obama shred our rights, funnel money to his buddies, and destroy our economy to ensure his own power.
Posted by: MNM | June 9, 2009, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
Turning a profit? I’m a little fuzzy on the law but is there something against that? I honestly don’t know. Only know the government can’t be in competition with the private sector and this doesn’t sound like a conflict on the surface.
And knowing how government aquisitioning works, wheres that 1.8B going? Congress and appropriations or the administration? Maybe they can put it towards paying social security benefits.
Posted by: KR | June 9, 2009, 5:32 pm 5:32 pm
“Does the phrase “no taxation without representation” from the constitution mean anything?”
Must be from the Rush Limbaugh school of Constitutional studies since that phrase is not in the Constitution.
And the only ones who have a beef with that are the residents of DC.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 9, 2009, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm
“Stop paying off your union buddies.”
So investment banksters have a union now?
Posted by: Flash Override | June 9, 2009, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm
“IN addition, today, the EPA (environmental protection agency) announced that it intends to impose new taxes.”
Its a proposed fee.
“Never before has an unelected body been able to impose taxes.”
ROFLMAO!
Fees are taxes and no government agency has ever imposed a fee?
Wait a minute! I didn’t elect the DMV and they charged me “taxes” for my license!
“There is no vote and they answer to no one but Obama.”
EPA is also answerable to Congress.
But hey when frothing at the mouth, what’s the truth to t aright winger.
Posted by: Ryan C | June 9, 2009, 5:53 pm 5:53 pm
Some of the banks want to pay back the money, but they have to wait for the government to give their approval. It seems the BO administration didn’t have a plan for repayment.
Posted by: CW | June 9, 2009, 5:54 pm 5:54 pm
“President Obama wasted no time this afternoon touting the repayment of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds from ten banks, totaling $68.3 billion returned to the TARP program, with $1.8 billion in profit to the taxpayers.”
I am confused. Weren’t all the banks required to take the TARP money, even those that did not need the money? Those banks tried to give the money back right away but were told they could not as it would signal which banks were weak.
Did the government charge interest on money that it required, er, demanded profitable banks take? That sounds illegal like a mob shakedown.
And, now that money isn’t being returned to the treasury? This does not sound like a good idea.
Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | June 9, 2009, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm
I am so tired of Obama claiming the financial crisis that his administration inherited…why doesn’t he just come clean and say “contributed to” if he is so committed to attaching blame every time he speaks. I find it very hypocritical.
Posted by: MSG | June 9, 2009, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm
Must be from the Rush Limbaugh school of Constitutional studies since that phrase is not in the Constitution.
And the only ones who have a beef with that are the residents of DC.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 9, 2009 5:42:39 PM
——–
While you are correct the phrase does not appear, history and historians agree that that is the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Or, are you telling us, that we can be taxed without representation? That for the first time in history, endowed with a new power by the Obamasiah himself, the EPA is now allowed to tax citizens.
That these taxes can be assigned without congressional input or vote. Which takes any control or consent out of the hands of the voters?
Are you telling me now that we can be taxed by those we have not elected?
How will that ever be controlled??
There are no limits and no one to answer to when some government agency has a right to tax us without representation.
Is this what you dems are promoting now.
No representation for taxation??
Isn’t that why we had a Declaration of Independence in the first place? Remember the boston tea party?? Remember what this country was founded on??
Perhaps the new Obama socialism does not allow for representation. Citizens voting just get in the way of his plans??
This is america, right???
Posted by: MNM | June 9, 2009, 6:18 pm 6:18 pm
Wait a minute! I didn’t elect the DMV and they charged me “taxes” for my license!
“There is no vote and they answer to no one but Obama.”
EPA is also answerable to Congress.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jun 9, 2009 5:53:04 PM
Posted by: MNM | June 9, 2009, 6:26 pm 6:26 pm
Just a note- the 68 billion being repaid today is from firms that didn’t really need the money. They were forced by Paulson to take it. That money was never at stake. It’s the stimulus investments, loans and now ownership of GM and Chrysler that are the most worrying and ones that will contribute to the debt of this country for decades to come, with no positive benefits besides political payouts to Democrat sponsors in the 08 election cycle like the SEIU, UAW, ACORN, and GE.
Posted by: Aaron | June 9, 2009, 6:48 pm 6:48 pm
I am so tired of Obama claiming the financial crisis that his administration inherited…why doesn’t he just come clean and say “contributed to” if he is so committed to attaching blame every time he speaks. I find it very hypocritical.
Posted by: MSG | Jun 9, 2009 6:04:50 PM
———–
While Obama did inherit problems he has exacerbated them exponentially.
His massive, pork and earmark laden spending has quadrupled the deficit.
He has funneled billions of dollars to rescue overseas banks, without consulting the public or congress.
Obama funneled 200 billion in eurobank bailouts via AIG
Obama most recently funneled 2 billion dollars through GM to bail out Delphi??? I wonder how much Delphi donated to Obama directly or indirectly.
He has massively increased our debt and the failed stimulus of almost 800 billion was only his opening salvo.
He has approved 9000 earmarks in one spending bill alone.
Obama has deliberately created an excuse to increase taxes. This useless wasteful corrupt spending did no good and contributed greatly to the miserable economy.
Obama’s own congressional budget office told us the recovery would happen faster without the stimulus, but that wasn’t really the point.
Corrupt Payoffs and opportunities to increase taxes were the point all along.
Posted by: MNM | June 9, 2009, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm
…and the government has actually turned a profit… huh??? Just what percentage of the TARP payback does this repayment represent??…
This is the old loan in trillions, pay back in billions.. we’ve heard this before .. spend in billions, save in millions…
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 9, 2009, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm
But this cannot be!! Obama’s policies were suppose to fail. They were not suppose to work as he said they would. This definitely is not good for the gop!!!
Posted by: rush dumbaugh | June 9, 2009, 8:01 pm 8:01 pm
Aaron:”Just a note- the 68 billion being repaid today is from firms that didn’t really need the money. They were forced by Paulson to take it. That money was never at stake.”
The Right has been fond of “charging” all the TARP spending (and all the stimulus spending and tax cuts for the next several years out) to a mythical “Obama’s deficit” number. That’s the nonsense he’s directly refuting.
While it’s obvious to you that this $70 billion was never at stake, the Right has been insisting it (and every cent in GM and Chrysler, and the $280 billion in stimulus tax cuts, and the infrastructure improvements, etc) was put into a big pile and personally burned by the President.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 9, 2009, 8:16 pm 8:16 pm
“Just what percentage of the TARP payback does this repayment represent??…
This is the old loan in trillions, pay back in billions.. ”
Loan in trillions pay back in billions? I guess that’s the rightwing’s proud contempt of math. The TOTAL TARP funding was $700 billion, and half of that was splashed out prior to Obama even being inaugurated.
$68 billion is 10-20% of the total program cost, depending on how much of it you are considering part of the ‘loan’ program. For the math impaired, loaning trillions and being paid back billions is one to two orders of magnitude less (1% – 0.1%).
Posted by: jhw539 | June 9, 2009, 8:24 pm 8:24 pm
Let’s see. Obama said in 6 months after he was elected he’d begin bringing the troops from Iraq! Did it happen? No. He said he would give millions of jobs with his new jobs programs and is now back peddling because he didn’t anticipate the unemployment going up so high. This is what happens when an inexperienced person is elected to the office of President. And, all of you follow him like bleating sheep and do not hold him accountable. I don’t know what is more pathetic, his lack of experience, or your blindness!
Posted by: obamanever | June 9, 2009, 8:27 pm 8:27 pm
So, I am not surprised that he does not have the answers again about Tarp. Read my entry above.
Posted by: obamanever | June 9, 2009, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm
MSG wrote;
“I am so tired of Obama claiming the financial crisis that his administration inherited`.
—————————————-
Dont try to rewrite history. Obama inherited this mess from Bush and the repubs and there is not way to spin it.
This recession started in the spring of 2008. According to Bush and the repubs there was not need to tackle it because `the markets will take care of themselves`. Now see where the economy ended.
Obama has started cleaning your mess and his policies are working.
Posted by: Norm | June 9, 2009, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm
Oh, that’s okay. Obama can just keep robbing the taxpayers to fund all his pie in the sky dreams. All of his zombie followers won’t have any objections of any kind to anything he does at all. He can do no wrong. Good luck with that kind of thinking. Isn’t that what got us into trouble with George Bush, jr? I see the prime minister of the UK is in big trouble and is falling and I hope that Obama is the next one to go! Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy!
Posted by: obamanever | June 9, 2009, 8:33 pm 8:33 pm
Obamanever,
Bush and the repubs were spending the taxpayers cash on a war based on lies. Now Obama wants to spend our money on healthcare for 47 million Americans and Energy independence. Is this what you hate so much?
Posted by: Norm | June 9, 2009, 8:48 pm 8:48 pm
Obamacare means rationing, lower quality of health care, and the nydra of Obama-Kennedy-Dudd deciding what care you’ll receive.
The denials of Orszag are most amusing. Congress is going to decide what’s “efficient.”
Just think- Obama is going to do for you what he’s done for the banks, auto industry and employment.
If you like the economy, you’re gonna love Obamacare.
Posted by: drjohn | June 9, 2009, 9:15 pm 9:15 pm
You’re insane if you think Obama cares about energy alternatives. It’s a ruse to raise monumental amounts of taxes. He’ll more than double the cost of energy and kill this economy once and for all.
Posted by: drjohn | June 9, 2009, 9:16 pm 9:16 pm
The “profit” does not take into account the time value of money or the loss due to inflation. Also, much of the money sent to AIG, Citicorp, and Bank of America/Merrill Lynch will never be recovered. Mr. Tapper could go down in the history books if he could ask better questions. For instance, where is Obama’s birth certificate showing the hospital and city of birth. The cert of live birth was given to any foriegn born baby in Hawaii in the 60s. Also, why did William Ayers write Dreams of My Father? The book is too similar to Ayers’ books Fugitive Days and To Teach. For example, same green-eyed girlfriend whose father owns a luxury country estate with a large pond in the back yard. Same descriptions of boys on top of water buffalo. Same nautical metaphors and expressions. Same East River NYC story of how the river flows meet the tides.
Posted by: Colonel Rebel | June 9, 2009, 10:14 pm 10:14 pm
drjohn:”Obamacare means rationing,”
What world do these right wingers live in where there is infinite healthcare available to all in need? Because in the world most Americans live in, healthcare IS ALREADY rationed by maddening pre-approval processes run by for-profit companies, who coincidentally make more money if they lose your paperwork a few times just to make sure you really need that non-generic drug or pricey diagnostic scan.
And that’s if you’re lucky and have insurance.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 9, 2009, 11:11 pm 11:11 pm
obamanever:”Obama said in 6 months after he was elected he’d begin bringing the troops from Iraq! Did it happen? No.”
Actually, back here in Reality, Obama said that on “my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war”, New York Times, July 14, 2008.
And on his first day in office he did.
It’s a bit disingenuous to pull remarks out of context or just fabricate out of whole cloth ‘promises’ when his actually solid, documented commitments are so easily looked up.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 9, 2009, 11:15 pm 11:15 pm
Typical Obama bald faced, explicit lies in his speeches.
And, soft pedaled (like tapper here) or ignored by the MSM.
Sad, but true.
i mean, this one isn’t even close. This ranks up there with the “Obama didn’t bow to the Saudi King” lie.
Posted by: the Truth | June 10, 2009, 12:35 am 12:35 am
Jhw539: In this Marxist styled comment of yours, you argue that ‘for-profit companies’ are responsible for rationing what? Their own profit? Why don’t you go look for a good general physician that has time to understand your case and determine your need, if you want to find out where the real shortage is. We really won’t be having a shortage of armchair idealist academic and opportunistic Marxist rantings against the evils of productivity in the coming decades.
“What world do these right wingers live in where there is infinite healthcare available to all in need? Because in the world most Americans live in, healthcare IS ALREADY rationed by maddening pre-approval processes run by for-profit companies, who coincidentally make more money if they lose your paperwork a few times just to make sure you really need that non-generic drug or pricey diagnostic scan. “
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | June 10, 2009, 12:48 am 12:48 am
It wouldn’t be a debt if Obama hadn’t been giving out money we didn’t have in the first place. It seems perhaps like they ever really needed it.
You can sure bet that it won’t go back into the Treasury. Obama will spend it again and again – and claim he’s reducing the debt.
Are we really so stupid as to buy this nonsense?
I hope not.
Posted by: Jon F | June 10, 2009, 3:05 am 3:05 am
Wait until the Obama administration introduces a VAT tax (Value Added Tax).
Then there is the question of a collapse of the dollar, inflation, & interest rates in the high teens.
Anyone remember the 1970′s & Jimmy Carter’s fiasco of a Presidency?
Posted by: Terry | June 10, 2009, 6:00 am 6:00 am
It wouldn’t be a debt if Obama hadn’t been giving out money we didn’t have in the first place. It seems perhaps like they ever really needed it.
You can sure bet that it won’t go back into the Treasury. Obama will spend it again and again – and claim he’s reducing the debt.
Are we really so stupid as to buy this nonsense? I hope not. : Jon F ——————-
Please stay in reality! Pres. Obama didn’t start this and you know it! Pres. Bush remember him?
Posted by: Try the truth | June 10, 2009, 7:56 am 7:56 am
Can there be any other post other than “Bush did it!” Is that the extent of the argument?
And by the way, spring 2008 a Democrat Congress had been in control for a year, they make the budget, are they completely safe havened from any of the economic responsibility? That’s awefully selective.
Posted by: KR | June 10, 2009, 9:08 am 9:08 am
No other president has blamed his predecessor so frequently and so derisively. Man up, Obama.
What a racket. Demand banks that don’t need the bailout to take the money and then require them to pay interest on the loans they didn’t need nor want.
Is the government supposed to extort interest from businesses and call it “profit”?
Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | June 10, 2009, 9:59 am 9:59 am
Once again, President Obama has shown the people who want him and the country to fail that his judgment is sound. The banking system did not collapse like the critics wanted and the economy is starting to recover. The banks are starting to pay the money back ahead of schedule and soon so will Chrysler and General Motors who the critics also wanted to close. I shutter to think what would have happened had McCain/Palin been elected. We would be standing in breadlines by now.
Posted by: V. Brame | June 11, 2009, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm