Talk:Troubled Asset Relief Program/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Removed self-promotion

Some law firm put in a link to their own analysis of the bill. This was a bit self-promotional, so I removed it. --John Nagle (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored it, pending publications in journals of analysis that have this kind of detail. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Thatcher Proffit linkspam got out of hand. They put in three links to their own site. They've also been blasting promotion for those papers all over the press release world. Let's try to find some non-promotional sources for that. --John Nagle (talk) 18:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Linked to a Forbes article instead. It's better written, too. --John Nagle (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Treasury announcements

United States Treasury Press Room
Access to press releases and initial information on announced regulations for TARP and associated regulatory activities.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Federal Reserve 800 billion dollar Consumer Loan and bond plan

I created a new article that I thought editors here might be smart about. Federal Reserve 800 billion dollar Consumer Loan and bond plan. It is different TARP but appears to meet the original purposes of TARP. Any assistance is appreciated. MPS (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Purpose

Added an expanded definition of the troubled assets in question. Also revised sections relating the program to bank lending. TARP does not give banks incentive to lend. Rather, it removes a disincentive to lend by stabilizing bank balance sheets. It does not improve bank debt ratios, as the securities in questions are assets. It allows these assets to be traded for another asset, cash, which could then be used to pay down debt. However, the presumption behind TARP is that banks will continue to own them or trade them for cash which will be used for lending. Added some updates related to the use of TARP for a bailout of the auto industry. Mikem000 (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Should be noted that TARP was codified for financial institutions. Added information that automakers are not banks. That TARP would need to be changed in order to legally provide TARP funds to automakers.--76.211.235.32 (talk) 07:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Treasury currently lacks the statutory authority to direct TARP funds to the automakers

Anyone have suggestions how to search for a lawyer to litigate on this? http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/?postversion=2008121908 Thx Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If the automakers are determined to be financial entities, or bank holding companies through the purchase of banks, they qualify. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Although, neither of those things happened, as they have not been declared to be financial companies by anyone. President Bush just used his executive authority to change the law itself, as the article states. He can't legally do it, but he did. 129.61.46.60 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Government add on's

I would really like to see what all was add'd to the 700 billion tarp act. I would also,like to know which law makers voted for this act , and what each one add'd to the bill. I am new here and don't know where to look.

 Can anyone help? where do i look for this info?
  Please respond to rwc527@aol.com....
         Rwc527 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Thanks in advance.Rwc527 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not the largest measure....

TARP is not the government has done to help the economy if you count the multiple Federal Reserve asset programs, specifically the PDCF and TAF, and other various auctions or loans. Though these have tended to be more below the radar than anything done through Congress, the sum of the Federal Reserve's actions total around 2 billion, I believe.

Unless, of course, you count each of the Fed actions individually; at which point, you might as well count each of the individual loans made through TARP individually as well. (68.36.204.239 (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC))

I assume you meant to say 2 trillion, i.e. $2,000,000,000,000 , since a mere 2 billion would be much less than the TARP. JRSpriggs (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Relevant items reported in the news after the bailout was passed

Wikipedia isn't a news blog, and a list of so-called news stories somehow related to the TARP doesn't merit its own section in this article. Editors are welcome to incorporate any such pertinent facts into the article, but these tangentially related news items really don't belong in a separate section, and I'm going to remove them now. Dgf32 (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't readers be able to know how the bailout money is being spent? If I incorporated it into the text, how would that be any different? Wouldn't it be better if you improved what I added, instead of erasing it? I think your wording of "so-called news stories somehow related to the TARP" implies that you think this information is fictional and not relevant. These are real news stories, not "so-called" news stories. And they are not just "somehow related." They are the real world results of this bailout. Your comment implies that my sources are not legitimate and that the events are not related, and you are wrong on both counts. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. I see this is the only edit that you have ever made to this article. The other editors - the people who are regular contributors to this article - didn't seem to have any problem with my additions. Only you did. Why did you only now suddenly take an interest in this article, and why did you only make one edit to it? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really good at finding information. Perhaps I'm not always so good at writing about it. Can we please leave the info in the article, and if anyone wants to rewrite it to make it better, they can do that? I have put the info back into the article, but instead of calling it "news," I put it in the already existing section called "effects." All of this information is relevant and from relable sources. If someone else wants to rewrite it to make it better, please do so. But please don't remove it from the article - readers should be made aware of how this bailout money is being spent. The fact that the banks and the politicians refuse to say how the bailout money is being spent, as well as the other info, is extremely relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your contributions. Yes, people certainly should know how the TARP funds are being spent. There are newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, and news blog to report this. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Reporting specific details from news items is fine if they can be integrated into the main text of the article, but separate sections should not be created to fulfill functions normally exercised by journalism. You seem to be very good at reporting information and writing on it, but Wikipedia isn't the right place to publish this type of work. If there are parts of the text that can be incorporated into the main text of the article please do so, and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Dgf32 (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything that I added is relevant. It is extremely relevant that banks and politicians are not willing to tell reporters how the money is being spent. The very "newspapers, magazines, TV, radio" that you claim people shold turn to for this information, are the very same sources from which most wikipedia content comes from. If we could not cite these sources, then the article would either not exist, or it would be very tiny. Yes, wikipedia is encyclpedic, and once those other sources have stopped reporting on this, wikipedia will likely be the biggest source of information that people turn to to find this information. Also, you have never edited this article before you erased my stuff. Why are you all of a sudden starting to edit it now? The other editors here - the ones who regularly edit the article - didn't seem to have any problem with what I added. Only you did. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone else has renamed the section "Controversies," which I fully agree with. I also think that each item should be in its own seperate section - otherwise the one and only "Controversies" section would be too long. Each of these items it interesting enough to deserve its own section, and it makes the article more readable. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For a bit of perspective, during the U.S. political campaigns of 2008, all presidential campaign articles had sections or independant pages entitled "controversies" dispersed and fully integrated into the body of the articles, consequently giving appropriate context and weight to such supposed controversies, and removing an often out of context list. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. But a seperate article is warranted only if the original article gets too long. Anyway, people (but not the person who removed it) have helpfully edited this to integrate it into the article, as was originally suggested by the person who removed it. It's always better to make something better than it is to remove it, when it's relevant and well sourced. If the article gets too long, then yes, this material could be placed into a new article. I have made some changes to it too, and I am very happy with how these new additions have now been integrated into the rest of the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Also, you have never edited this article before you erased my stuff. Why are you all of a sudden starting to edit it now? The other editors here - the ones who regularly edit the article - didn't seem to have any problem with what I added. Only you did."

This is really inappropriate. There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia, and any editor, evan an anonymous IP editor, may edit any article for any reason. Just because I had not edited this article before, does not mean that I can not or should not do so. Dgf32 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Yes, wikipedia is encyclpedic, and once those other sources have stopped reporting on this, wikipedia will likely be the biggest source of information that people turn to to find this information."

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your journalism. I've reviewed your other contributions and your talk page, and it appears that many editors have questioned why you continue to use Wikipedia as a forum to publish your journalism. You should review What Wikipedia Is Not, in particular the section on why Wikipedia is not used to publish journalism. Dgf32 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, those quotes are out of context. On your talk page, I explained that some other editors had been looking at my edit history and following me around and erasing my stuff at lots of other articles. Then I said it wad odd that you had made thousands of edits without ever editing any political articles, and then I said it was odd that the first and only time you ever edited any political article was when you came here to erase my stuff, even though you had never edited any other political articles, and even though you hadn't made any other edits to this article, and even though you hadn't edited any other articles at all during the two previous weeks. All of that seems very odd, from a statistical point of view. When I asked you if you were a sockpuppet for another editor, or if you had more than one account here - you did not answer. If you had said no, I would have believed you. But you didn't answer, and I find that to be very interesting. Second of all, I incorporated the information into the text of the article exactly as you had said. It's the exact same content, but I replaced the quotes with summaries, and I didn't give anything its own section. Like you suggested, I incorporated it into the rest of the article. The reason some people make those criticisms about my contributions is because they don't want to see their idols and ideas criticized. I cite my sources - Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. These are all legitimate sources. When I said it was important for another article to explain that the politicians and banks weren't willing to explain how the bailout money was being spent, they said it was "not relevant" and "trivial." When I asked them how the way the banks spend the bailout money is "not relevant" and "trivial," they never answered. And now you are defending them, which merely reinforces my idea that you are a sockpuppet for another editor, or that you have more than one account. The only people who oppose these articles explaining that the banks and politicians are not willing to explain how the bailout money is being spent are you, and my stalkers from other articles. And you didn't answer my question about you being a sockpuppet for another editor, or about you having another account. From a statistical point of view, all of this is very interesting. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you tell me that you are not a sockpuppet for another editor, and that you do not have more than one account, I will admit that what I said was very, totally, completely wrong, and I will apologize, and I will admit that I feel very bad and guilty about what I said. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not a sockpuppet, and furthermore, I have no idea why you think I might be a sockpuppet. You should have a look at my contributions and made a judgement for yourself. I highly doubt that I would have spent two years and made 3,754 edits to create a sockpuppet account just to remove questionable edits. Dgf32 (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow! I was mean to you, and you responded by being kind to me. Thanks. That's very humbling. What I said before was very, totally, completely wrong, and I apologize, and I admit that I feel very bad and guilty about what I said. Thanks for your advice. I changed my entries in the article so it no longer looks like a bunch of newspaper headlines. The info should be in the article, just not in the format that I had originally put it there. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's look for consensus. Is this information relevant?

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I say that this information is very relevant to this article. What does everyone else think? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Government officials overseeing the bailout have acknowledged difficulties in tracking the money and in measuring the bailout's effectiveness. [36] On January 26, 2009, Bloomberg News asked the Treasury Department which securities it had backed over the past two months for Bank of America and Citigroup. On January 27, the department's spokesperson, Stephanie Cutter, said that she would look for an answer. However, by the end of business day January 28, she had not provided an answer. [37]

The Associated Press asked 21 banks, each of which had received at least $1 billion in bailout money, the following four questions: How much has been spent? What was it spent on? How much is being held in savings? and What's the plan for the rest? None of the banks provided specific answers. Some banks claimed that they did not know what they were doing with the money. [38]

On February 5, 2009, Elizabeth Warren, chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel, told the Senate Banking Committee that during 2008, the federal government paid $254 billion for assets that were worth only $176 billion. [39]

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. So it's 1-0 in favor of keeping the info in the article. That went very well. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The third paragraph certainly seems relevant to the article as it actually provides information (and involves congressional action directly related to the TARP). The first two paragraphs on the other hand, are completely irrelevant as they don't provide any information. Basically, we could stop at the first sentence. "Government officials overseeing the bailout have acknowledged difficulties in tracking the money and in measuring the bailout's effectiveness." The bits about a reporter trying to find information and not being able to are meaningless. We don't need to list the questions that an AP reporter asked (and never got an answer to), it has nothing to do with this article. Further, there are multiple WP:WTA problems with the wording (you can't say "claimed" or "however" to color the POV of a section.) That's an ongoing issue. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the banks and government are not willing to answer the reporters' questions about how they are spending the bailout money is extremely relevant. And if you think the word "claimed" isn't right, then you can change it to "said" instead. This information was reported in the mainstream media, and readers should be made aware of it. Why do you think the fact that the banks and government aren't willing to tell reporters how the bailout money is being spent is not relevant to the article? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is an encyclopedia, not news. No information is provided by quoting the reporters inability to get questions answered. Essentially the whole point of that is that "information about this is hard to obtain" but we've already said that. You don't need to keep saying it with different words. It's just poor writing and not at all relevant to an article about the legislation. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've trimmed those sections and merged them with the earlier paragraph about congressional testimony. Also, I've removed some other paragraphs that are completely unrelated to this particular article (a discussion of the foreclosure rate, for instance). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not what this secion of the talk page is about. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add this, but I really like it, and I hope it will stay in the article:

The Congressional Review Panel created to oversee the TARP concluded on January 9, 2009: "In particular, the Panel sees no evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures". The panel also concluded that "Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending." [34]

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits in the Controveries should not be considered as Vandalism: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, the insertion of nonsense into articles or otherwise replacing legitimate content with vandalism.

NOTE:Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism. Edits and notes by Loonymonkey are unfounded at best. There is no addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, the insertion of nonsense into articles or otherwise replacing legitimate content with vandalism. Loonymonkey, please move on to pages that contain pages of Vandalism as that seems to the area you are an expert at. Please cease and desist deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Allitnics (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to avoid engaging in personal attacks and stick to discussing the material in question. While typing your attack rant, you forgot to mention the actual edits or provide any justification whatsoever as to why the material you are trying to include in the article belongs there. Please discuss before adding again. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, You have been lectured on NPOV before and now again: One central tenet of Wikipedia is that articles should remain neutral by "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. The edits you continue to make do not relate to the integrity of Wikipedia. If you want to take this personally you can but this is constructive criticism of your Wikipedia interpretations that do not relate to Wikipedia policies. Your hostility is not warranted nor are they appropriate to Wikipedia. Allitnics (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an odd coincidence that you use the exact same language as Grundle2600 and your only contributions ever are to support that editor in this argument. You do realize that sockpuppetry will get both accounts permanently banned, don't you? --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, reliable sources have reported that the banks and the government have refused to answer questions about how the banks are spending the bailout money. You keep erasing this content, in violation of the wikipedia NPOV policy that Allitnics just quoted. Here, I'll quote it for you again: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." Loonymonkey, every time you erase information of that type, in this article, and in other articles that I have edited, you are violating wikipedia's NPOV policy. Please stop doing this. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and we do mention that in the article. The problem is, you're attempting to say the same thing over and over again to push a particular point of view. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia NPOV policy states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." Reliable sources have reported that the banks and the government have refused to answer questions about how the banks are spending the bailout money. Some of you keep erasing this content, in violation of the wikipedia NPOV policy. Please stop doing this. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The information you are attempting to add provides no new information to the article as we already discuss that the money is difficult to track. You don't have to mention it repeatedly. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not "difficult to track" hundreds of billions of dollars. My sources show that the banks and politicians are not willing to answewr reporters' questions. They know how the money is being spent - they are lying when they say they don't know. How could anyone spend hundreds of billions of dollars and not know how they spend it? You put far too much trust in corporations and politicians. Free speech is the last check against government abuse. This article should let readers know that the banks and politicians are corrupt liars. They know exactly how the money is being spent - they just don't want to tell reporters. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Loonymonkey's assessment. My only remaining comment is that commentary and opinions, even those of individuals who might be considered experts, should not be included in the article. Dgf32 (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If a commentary or opinion is labelled in the article as being a commentary or opinion, it can indeed be in the article, because it is a verifiable fact that the commentary or opinion exists. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made thousands of edits here at wikipedia, and I've never erased anything that was well sourced and relevant to the article that it was in - and that was something that I decided upon before I ever even read the NPOV policy - I decided it because I believe in free speech, openness, transparency, and diversity of opinion. I want these articles to have as much well sourced, relevant information as possible. Wikipedia is supposed to be about openness and transparency. This article has lots of information about the intent of the bailout bill, and that's a good thing. But it should also have lots of information about the actual real world results of the bailout, too. It is extremely relevant that the banks who got these hundreds of billions of dollars are not willing to tell the media how they are spending it. It is also extremely relevant that the politicians who oversaw the bailout are also not willing to tell the media how this money is being spent. This information has been well publicized by many reliable, mainstream news sources, and it should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

To Grundle2600: You said "It's not 'difficult to track' hundreds of billions of dollars.". Suppose you gave me a few hundred dollars without restrictions and I put it into my wallet. Then several weeks later, you asked me what I spent it on. I would not be able to tell you because it was commingled with my own money and I did not track how I spent each bill nor did I consider which purchases or deposits I would have refrained from had I not had it. The banks may be in a similar situation.

If you want a separate accounting, then you should make that a condition up-front. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good point. But I still think the article should mention it. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Article name

This article needs to be renamed. — C M B J 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To? Gross nicknames it the "Universal Hedge Fund" but that's not in anyway official. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the text of the bill specify a title? — C M B J 20:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about a fund under control of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, not about the law that created it. I guess we could call it the "U.S. Economic Stabilization fund"? I'm sure once it gets up and running it will be more clear what people are calling it. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just suggesting that the legal text might have already coined a title for the fund. If it hasn't, United States Emergency Economic Stabilization fund could work for now. — C M B J 21:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just created Office of Financial Stability, for the new unit at Treasury that runs the program. The new head of that office has just been announced. --John Nagle (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Somebody put in a "merge to" tag, but they didn't put a "merge from" tag on the article they wanted to merge to, and didn't start a discussion. So I removed the merge tag. We do have several related articles, but this is a big, complex subject involving somewhere near a trillion dollars, and vast amounts of press coverage. We'll have material pouring in as the program cranks up over the next few weeks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Above discussion of the article name was from before the present name of Troubled Assets Relief Program was implemented. John M Baker (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the US Department of the Treasury's website, this program is the Troubled Asset Relief Program B0mbrman (talk) 10:03 am, 26 March 2009, Thursday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4)

"Assets" vs. "Asset" in the Title

Considering that the Treasury Department Calls it the Trouble Asset Relief Program (http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/eesa/), shouldnt we change it, instead of using the word "Assets"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inks.LWC (talk • contribs) 23:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Treasury Department uses both spellings, as does the statute, see the discussion here. John M Baker (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was unaware that they used both, but the majority of the time, they use "Asset". Inks.LWC (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Searching google for "site:treas.gov "troubled assets relief program"" retrieved 55 results. Searching google for "site:treas.gov "troubled asset relief program"" retrieved 381 results B0mbrman (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Troubled Asset Relief Program no longer redirects to this page B0mbrman (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To B0mbrman: Please do not do that again. Creating forked sources (especially without identifying the source) is forbidden! If you want to move this page to that name, you should go through the process of getting a consensus on moving this page. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'd like to get consensus on moving the page on the grounds stated B0mbrman (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have no objection to the move. My only objection was to the process you were attempting. If no one objects to the move within a reasonable period of time (say a week), then I suggest that you ask an administrator to perform the move. Administrative help will be necessary, since the redirect over which you would be moving has a non-trivial history (and it is necessary that the history of the article be carried with it to the new location, for reasons relating to copyright law). Do not forget to also move the talk page and any subpages such as archives of the talk page. JRSpriggs (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Done — moved Troubled Assets Relief Program to Troubled Asset Relief Program.—Markles 00:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Done — moved Talk:Troubled Assets Relief Program to Talk:Troubled Asset Relief Program.—Markles 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Small Business TARP

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/03/04/bank0304.html states that a small bank in Georgia has received $5M in TARP funds - the smallest amount I see reported so far to any entity. Navuoy (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Stock is call option on assets???

65.1.71.144 (talk · contribs) just added a paragraph about the date February 10, 2009 to the section Troubled Assets Relief Program#Timeline of Changes to the Initial Program. It includes "Because stock is a call option on a firm's assets, ...". Frankly, I have no idea what he means by this. Do any of you? JRSpriggs (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

when you liquidate firm assets, debt gets paid first, then equity. if firm value < debt value, equity gets paid nothing, if firm value > debt value, equity gets paid (firm value - debt value), so equity follows the long call option's hockey stick payoff, conversely, debt value follows a short put payoff. Tviking (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Troubled Assets are now "Legacy Assets" making the proper acronym LARP going forward.

The plan released by the Secretary of Treasury today has rebranded "Troubled" assets "Legacy Assets." Presumably this is because our children are going to inherit them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.58.204.226 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

More likely, they want to emphasize that those assets are a legacy (left over) of the hated (by Democrats) Bush administration. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's actually a legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, but OK, whatever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.5 (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Voters

Since this bill hass gained such prominence, and hundreds of thousands of Americans protested about it in April 2009, shouldn't it be acceptable to publish the list of those who voted for this legislation? I think a by name list of those who voted for it would contribute to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.219.241.11 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to dig through the Congressional Record and find the names, be my guest. I believe that the bill was signed on October 3, 2008, so the final votes should have been on that date or shortly before that. Or you could try a newspaper or magazine which frequently records such votes, e.g. Human Events. Bear in mind that the number of the law was Public Law 110-343. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

New York Times article on bonus restrictions.

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article cites someone who is scheduled to receive a $100 million bonus from Citigroup, a company that received bailout money. According to the article, on the one hand, taxpayers get upset when they hear about their tax dollars being used in this manner. On the other hand, this person helped Citigroup to net about $2 billion in profit, and if the government limits his bonus, he'll just go to work for a different company that isn't subject to such restrictions, which would end up hurting, not helping, Citigroup. Therefore, the restrictions on bonuses end up hurting the very companies that the government claims it was trying to help by giving them the bailouts in the first place. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

AIG payments of $13B to Goldman Sachs

In a Nov 10 2009 Times Online interview, the CEO of Goldman Sachs explains:

"Blankfein dismisses any suggestion that Goldman needed to be bailed out, and, by extension, rejects any notion that the firm is now profiting from public support. Sure, he took $10 billion from Washington’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp). But the bank has since repaid the cash, with healthy interest — 23%. Goldman also benefited from the federal bailout of the huge US insurance firm AIG. Goldman had bought $20 billion worth of insurance from AIG and received billions of dollars — perhaps as much as $13 billion — when Washington pumped $90 billion into the stricken giant."

The statement by Blankfein states that $13B of this was paid to Goldman due to the insurance(credit default swaps?) purchased from AIG. This makes more sense than AIG using the money internally on things like payroll. This statement also indicates that Goldman paid back $12.3B for the $10B it borrowed under TARP.

I'm not sure how to add these details to this article because I don't understand the financial nature of these transactions. Jeff Carr (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

New Cost Estimate?

Saw this today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091207/bs_nm/us_economy_treasury_tarp Basically the cost of TARP is way less then thought. Should this be mentioned?Planetary (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It should definitely be mentioned (with the usual NPOV considerations of course). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dividends/Interest/Warrant income

The table would greatly improve a reader's understanding of the subject by indicating the amount over or under the original TARP allocation that the institution has paid back. Obviously in its current format, no "Y" in the paid back column means not all has been paid, but what about noting those that have paid back some but not all (I think Citigroup is in this camp) and those from whom the government has made back more than its investment (apparently all the major banks with a "Y")? In other words, instead of "Y", we should note the total return, either in a percentage (45%, 115%) or in a dollar figure. We would then have a column at the bottom for purchases in the one column, and payment with income in the second. I believe the government was paid a hefty dividend from most if not all of those preferred stocks, and the stock and warrants are clearly sold at a much higher price than that at which it was valued in the midst of the crisis. And there seems to be a difference in paying back the TARP and in selling the warrants.

While Citigroup and Bank of America have a "Y" for paying back the TARP, I believe that A, Citigroup has not paid back the entirety of its TARP (and therefore giving a figure would clear this up) and B, the government still holds warrants in both companies which is plans to sell this year. Checking the ref, yes, it says Wells Fargo and Citi paid back a combined 45 billion, so that means Citi has thus far paid back $20 billion of its $45.

On a related note, why is there not a reference and date for each "Y"? Abrazame (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Anybody on this article? There was a report today (I think TV) that Citigroup has already paid $8.1 billion in dividends, interest and fees, not counting the sale of stock & warrants held by the govt. Obviously they required more govt. investment than other banks, but there's got to be somewhat fewer billions more that each of the other banks who have paid back TARP also paid on the govt.'s investment. Abrazame (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ditto GM. Anybody on this article? Used to be quite a lot of participation here...is nobody following this story anymore? Abrazame (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

TARP seems to be an acronym

I am doing a work on English language abbreviations, sometimes i am in doubt what I am dealing with - an acronym or a regular abbreviation. In case of TARP I think it is worth to mention that it is pronounced as 'tarp' (and not T.A.R.P.) thus being an acronym. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya-42 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Need help updating GMAC payback

I was going to update the chart in the article, but I'm not sure how to do the coding for a reference. In any case, I found this article:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/economy/aig-repays-6-9-billion-to-treasury-20110309

which is about AIG, but near the end mentions $2.7 billion from Ally Financial (formerly GMAC). Could someone update this? Thanks --Daniel (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is General Motors?

This article seems to have been diffused through some corporate lens; Wikipedia contains no definitive information as to the disbursement of funds to General Motors, neither to the process of their inclusion into the TARP, nor the sum total. This is an encyclopedia, designed to convey complex realities through tangible concepts. The financial section of the site as a whole seems to have failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.100.117 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Maiden Lane Transactions

Should the Maiden Lane Transactions ($200 billion) be included here? It seems like they should at least be in the "see also" list of wiki pages.Jeff Carr (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I not feeling confident to contribute to this article but it seems that the mention of Maiden Lane needs to be corrected to reflect that all maiden lane,II, III assets have been reclaimed with interest/gain http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/maidenlane.html and also correct AIG mention w.r.t. the recent sale by the federal reserve of all AIG shares http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/23/news/economy/federal-reserve-aig-bailout Tsatalos (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Bailout! The Game

I don't find a link to an article about some random boardgame appropriate for an encyclopedia article on an important topic. So I'm deleting it. It's just advertising, and links to a page that was nominated for deletion for conflict of interest. --Mujokan (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Update "Participants" section info from 2009

There is a sentence in the "Participants" section that begins:

"As of 2009, the U.S. Treasury has not yet released ..."

It is already 2011.

This sentence should be updated to indicate either what the Treasury released or that it still has not released it. 71.109.153.170 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Expenditures and Commitments Update

The Capital Purchase Program expenditure data needs to be updated. The cite for the data has also moved. The CPP has now expended $205 billion.

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/investment-programs/cpp/Pages/capitalpurchaseprogram.aspx

Gmaestas (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph about Federal Reserve programs

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)

Edit request

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)

Political impact

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)

Canadian Aide

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)