>>Mike,
>>
>>>http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11980
>>
>>have only scanned the abstract, but am not sure everything is as rosy.
>>I have also not closely followed the current exposure to Fredie and Fannie,
>>but have my doubts that in that are all is (s)well.
>>
>>I do remember some stink about GM paying back tarp from another gov credit
>>and some banks probably have used low fed rates to exchange credit:
>>no more rules attached and less stigma.
>>
>>
>>I have not followed closely enough to cite numbers, but my gut tells me things are still screwy.
>>But I doubt that Fannie and Freddy will cost the taxpayer so little in total.
>>
>>The repo shuffle Dragan wrote about IMHO is mostly a way to get clear numbers on the losses
>>- at the current interest rate a way not to show too high profits by realizing those losses,
>>which can be partly by devaluating the property when taken over and on selling again
>>with a loss. But I'm no bookkeeping expert ;-)
>>
>>regards
>>
>>thomas
>
>I think the picture that Mike is not seeing is that yes, the banks are doing better, and money is getting paid back to the government (and tax payers). However, it is not in the taxpayers' pockets and the taxpayers are still losing their homes. There are still tragic numbers of folks without sufficient income and too many bills. I still do not think the money has benefited the public - other than keeping the banks from going under.

Do you truly believe that banks and equally large financial institutions -- referred to in shorthand as too big to fail -- going under rapidly would not have had a crippling effect on the world financial system? I consider the guys who stopped that from happening -- mostly Republicans -- to be genuine heroes. And I believe history will judge them as such.