I am attempting to extract from you your understanding of economics. I simply refuse to waste my time and effort in educating people in economics 101.

For your sake I will remain fair and friendly in my response to your rebuttal. And on the morrow, I will provide some of the necessary evidence that justifies my view.

Personally, I hoped you would have researched all of the facts surrounding the TARP before you assert the necessity of TARP.

Obviously, I must correct that oversight!

Dude, you should have done your homework on this issue.

You normally do, but not this time!

I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

You should! I am employing your tactic as an opposing view.

Are you suggesting that Geithner and Bernanke and many others are conspiring to steal money from the American people for the purpose of enriching themselves? And they have duped our President and Congress and much of the American public? Do you have evidence for these outrageous claims?

Conspiracy connotes secrecy; the facts from which my inferences are drawn are public statements.

Such as: November 22, 2008 (LPAC) -- Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.) said yesterday that it was Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who personally told Congressmen that there would be martial law in America if they did not pass the bailout of the banks as demanded by the Bush Administration. On Oct. 2, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said on the House floor that "Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day, another couple of thousand the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."

Now, Senator Inhofe, speaking on KFAQ radio station in Tulsa, has confirmed who it was that issued this threat. The interview host Pat Campbell asked Infhofe, "Somebody in D.C. was feeding you guys quite a story prior to the bailout, a story that if we didn't do this we were going to see something on the scale of the depression, there were people talking about martial law being instituted, civil unrest. Who was feeding you guys this stuff?"

Inhofe replied, "That's Henry Paulson. We had a conference call early on, it was on a Friday I think--a week and half before the vote on Oct. 1. So it would have been ... the 19th of September, we had a conference call. In this conference call and I guess there's no reason for me not to repeat what he said, but he said, he painted this picture you just described. He said, This is serious. This is the most serious thing that we faced."

And as for our president, Obama, he was a senator when he voted for TARP.

Clearly, Paulson resorted to fear-tactics! No proof, just fear-mongering and threats!

Oh, and by the way, Paulson changed his mind a day later about the allocation of TARP funds after the bill was signed. If you know the history and facts about TARP you should already be aware of the fact that Paulson decided to purchase shares in healthy financial institutions instead of buying-up toxic assets. (Christina D. Romer, is ignorant of that fact for she affirms: “Congress’s approval of the not-always-popular TARP legislation was another bold move. Creating a fund that could be used to shore up the capital position of banks and take troubled assets off banks’ balance sheets has proven both necessary and valuable. I firmly believe that the capital infusions last fall, many of which are now being paid back with interest, were a key part of the thin green line between stability and continued crisis.”)

TARP funds were used to buy shares in banks. They were not used to take troubled assets off of the balance sheets of banks. And hence the toxic assets remained on the books of the banks.

(You do understand that when you or I buy a share of a bank or we are not buying the bank’s assets. We are in effect loaning money to the bank, without collateral.)

Have you watched the interviews I posted?

Yep!

Do you understand the lessons history has taught us about inaction or weak action in the face of financial crises? Like say America in the 30s or Japan in the 90s?

I also understand that Ben Bernanke is aware of the fact that the Federal Reserve caused the great depression (The Great Contraction of 1929-33).

“Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.” –Ben Bernanke

http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/ SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm

Could it be that you have preconceptions that are preventing you from evaluating things clearly?

Possibly, but I need no preconception to evaluate the obvious.

Frankly your rejection of the consensus view of eminently qualified economists while offering nothing but glib remarks and random factoids smacks of conspiracy-theorism and makes me wonder whether you are entirely sane.

Sanity, what makes you think you are sane enough to determine what is insane? Shove your smug ad-hominem to where it belongs, the dumpster. (I question my own sanity at times though!)

Here is a thoughtful comparison between our current recession and the beginnings of the Great Depression by Christina Romer, the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Thoughtful?

How can it be thoughtful when she predicates the validity of her comparison upon: “I feel strongly”?

Those words indicate nothing more than uncertainty about the subject at hand. And frankly, I am left wondering if you understand any aspect of this question of TARP.

I wonder if you will read it, or simply dismiss it because it goes against your world view.

Well, I guess I would have to read it before I could know that it goes against my world view now wouldn’t I?

Consider this my smug friend: The Federal Reserve has both the authority and means to prevent and stop another Great Depression from occurring without tax-payer dollars. And it is upon that same fact I can rightfully be angry about the unnecessary allocation of additional tax-payer dollars.

Were major financial institutions of the US facing insolvency last year? Yes, without doubt! Did the Federal Reserve have the authority and means to prevent the collapse of those major institutions? Yes!

Now that, my smug friend, is the question you ought to seek an answer for! That is: Why did Hanky Panky Paulson (Secretary of the Treasury at the time, also former CEO of Goldman Sachs), along with Helicopter Ben Bernanke (The chairman of the Federal Reserve, then and now), and Timmy Geithner (then president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and then later the Secretary of the Treasury) choose to wrangle congress into passing TARP when the Federal Reserve could have single-handedly accomplished the same objective?