This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
I removed a paragraph added by Ghostofnemo to the "Expenditures and commitments" section on 5 December 2010. It is about Federal Reserve programs, not TARP or any other US Treasury program. The content belongs in Federal Reserve responses to the subprime crisis. --NilsTycho (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The opening section seems like it would be cleaner and a better introduction to the topic if we moved the detailed references to what amounts were borrowed and paid back by the various companies. This information might be better suited to a separate section on 'TARP repayment'.
The opening section seems to be geared as a pre-emptive defense of the progamme itself, and the article would be improved by removing this pro-TARP bias. Specifically, there is bias in mentioning that 'there were fears' that the government would hold on to the companies for a period of years because the section that follows this statement seems to be trying to vindicate TARP in light of those fears. I have nothing against presenting this evidence in the article under 'controversies' or 'disgreements' but it does not seem right for the opening section.
A second specific instance of bias, it seems to me, is the comparison of the amount of GDP spend on TARP compared to the S&L crisis. Again, this seems to be a pre-emptive defense against charges that the TARP was excessive in scope and while this information is relevant to the controversies over TARP, it doesn't seem appropriate for the introductory section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.41.73 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is out of date. " While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.98.128 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This article has little or no mention of the things about this bill.
It was almost universally misunderstood (investment is not spending) and imho rightly loathed that it, among other factors, was key in the formation of both the Tea Party movement and Occupy Wall Street. And the fact that Republicans think Obama passed it and Democrats think Bush passed it. They both supported it.
How do we put this into the article in a citable way?
--LeedsKing (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The third sentence of the article reads "The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion and was expected to cost the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion.", citing '"Measuring the Cost of the TARP" study by Brookings Institution on January 23, 2009, Retrieved January 18, 201". However the cited "study"'s mentions the 300 billion figure in only one sentence: "Consider the potential reaction to an estimate of $175 billion of expected losses with a chance it could rise to $300 billion in a very bad case, offset by a reasonable chance the ultimate cost would be lower than expected." Otherwise it just uses figures from a CBO report and it turns out that the said CBO report estimates the total cost of the TARP at 20.5 billion ([1], p 4-5). What should be done ? I think the best would be to give an estimate of the cost at the time the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was passed, but absent this, I would suggest to simply remove the totally misleading 300 billion figure. --Superzoulou (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention that GM and Chrysler also received aid from Canadian government entities? Maybe this was just for Canadian operations?Gnostics (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Amazing. "George Bush signed it". Sure, true. But who passed the law and sent it to him. It's amazing to have a whole article about a law that says nothing about the circumstances or votes on enacting it. Almost like this is a cover-up.
It really needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Troubled Asset Relief Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)