Posted on 02/26/2009 6:41:15 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is budgeting for a new $750 billion bank bailout this year, raising the prospect of a dramatic increase in the stake taxpayers already hold in the beleaguered financial sector.
The White House's 2010 budget released Thursday includes a $250 billion contingency fund for 2009, the projected cost to the government of purchasing $750 billion in assets from banks in need of capital infusions.
In essence, taxpayers would foot the entire $750 billion up front. Administration budget writers predict the value of the assets that the government purchases would result in a loss of 33 cents for every $1 spent, hence the $250 billion net expenditure.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
earlier thread
US seeks new $250 bln bank bailout: report (wants money as “overly conservative” placeholder)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2194624/posts
and your reward for bailing out this insanity is higher taxes.
“President Barack Obama is budgeting for a new $750 billion bank bailout this year, .....”
Budgeting? LOL!
Some bright Freeper today said it right: The Dems are no longer taxing and spending - they’re spending and then taxing.
There is a tagline in there somewhere.
This is an interesting fact considering that all of the major banks represented at the Senate hearing a couple of weeks ago said they didn’t need any more money. Perhaps they do, but I know they are itching to get rid of the government influence and really don’t want it to have any larger share of their business than it already has.
It will be interesting if we could find out where that money really ends up.
In essence, taxpayers would foot the entire $750 billion up front. Administration budget writers predict the value of the assets that the government purchases would result in a loss of 33 cents for every $1 spent, hence the $250 billion net expenditure.
My accounting would put that as $750B down in 2009, and the offset of $500B (if it ever comes) would occur as income in future years.
Can some explain where this logic goes wrong with the Great One’s mathematics?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.