Repayment of TARP investments, about $200 billion to date, must be dedicated to reducing U.S. debt

[Leopolds Ghost]

"Repayment of TARP investments, about $200 billion to date, must be dedicated to reducing U.S. debt."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2115873120100721

So this is really a program to suck $700 billion out of discretionary spending, give it to Wall Street, and use the dividends to pay off bond holders, like Reagan wanted to do?

I thought this was exactly the tactic of the "drown the government in the bathtub" plan articulated by Norquist in the 1980s, to do so in a way that would make people cheer for reducing the size of discretionary programs for the poor. Is it not?

Keep in mind that under neoliberal economics, which is taught in all modern Public (City/State) Administration courses, professional administration of government investment requires the use of "cap rates" calculations,

which mandate and compel reduction in services to the poor on the grounds that they are not revenue-neutral: they do not attract and foster ultra-high-wage earners in your jurisdiction.

So targeting the rest of the budget while diverting money to TARP (and not putting it back in the budget) can be justified on "Neoliberal" grounds as well as Reaganite.

Note: Reposted as suggested after being cited as a call-out, although the above quote was not a response to anyone, but in reference to Reuters. The mods suggested I repost the thread with no reference to any previous thread, so I am doing so. It seems people are on a tight leash these days, and assume any criticism of programs to be negative. I don't see what I said that could cause anyone offense. Especially since no one even replied the last time this was posted.

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. What I'm saying is, we're talking about a massive $700 billion transfer of wealth to securityholders

(just to follow up on what I previously posted)

While investment in, say Mass Transit is limited to $1-5 billion a year nationwide,

And investment in Public Housing is limited to subsidizing their demolition and requiring
credit checks for new residents. (How would Citigroup fare on a credit check?)

And everyone's been defending TARP on the grounds that it is "revenue neutral" (see my OP).

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. Another fact that no one talks about: past inflation is deliberately under-represented

(another point I posted in a totally different thread.)

Numerous articles were written about Clinton and Greenspan's decision to adjust how inflation is calculated to massively reduce the percieved loss of buying power. This was right around the time Clinton and Gramm worked together to end Glass-Steagall (and I remember that summer, when Citi and Nations Bank changed their names to "Banc" for a good solid year so they could begin illegally buying up fincancial services firms with inflated stock price transactions to create the "too big to fail" entities that folks are now cheering for the "success" of TARP by cheering the survival of these enterprises, which were created criminally under a loophole expressly and openly advertised by the government). "We intend to end that law anyway, so as long as they do not have "Bank" in their name, we will not prosecute them for circumventing Glass-Steagall" is roughly what the administration (not just Gramm) said. This was months before the Gramm act was ensured passage.)

Anyhow, around the same time, as discussed in detail at the time in several publications, Greenspan adjusted inflation calculations to include *computing power*.

So as to allow Moore's Law to come into effect, negating the continual decrease in actual buying power.

According to the Greenspan rule change, you can buy 10x more with your dollar because your computer is 10x the computing power it had 5 years ago, even if you can't put food on your family. No joke.

[Leopolds Ghost]

3. Oh well, can't get any feedback on this

No point in beating a dead horse I guess.