<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How much bailout money will taxpayers get back?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/</link>
	<description>Your guide to American economic policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:17:34 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bank bailout will cost billions to taxpayers &#187; The Business Content - The latest Business News that you can follow on web and mobile.</title>
		<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/comment-page-1/#comment-13931</link>
		<dc:creator>Bank bailout will cost billions to taxpayers &#187; The Business Content - The latest Business News that you can follow on web and mobile.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:05:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/how-much-bailout-money-will-taxpayers-get-back/#comment-13931</guid>
		<description>[...] The ultimate tally for taxpayers is a moving target even by government accounting standards because there are still so many things that could go right (or wrong) with the TARP program. In August, the Treasury estimated that roughly $341 billion of the $700 billion would never come back. On Sunday, a Treasury official was quoted as saying the Obama administration now figures it will get back at least $200 billion more than previously estimated, largely because the banks that took loans did better than expected and some of the spending on rescue programs won&#8217;t be needed. [...]&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;13931&#039;,&#039;Bank bailout will cost billions to taxpayers &raquo; The Business Content - The latest Business News that you can follow on web and mobile.&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;13931&#039;,&#039;Bank bailout will cost billions to taxpayers &raquo; The Business Content - The latest Business News that you can follow on web and mobile.&#039;,&#039;&#91;...&#93; The ultimate tally for taxpayers is a moving target even by government accounting standards because there are still so many things that could go right (or wrong) with the TARP program. In August, the Treasury estimated that roughly $341 billion of the $700 billion would never come back. On Sunday, a Treasury official was quoted as saying the Obama administration now figures it will get back at least $200 billion more than previously estimated, largely because the banks that took loans did better than expected and some of the spending on rescue programs won&#8217;t be needed. &#91;...&#93;&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The ultimate tally for taxpayers is a moving target even by government accounting standards because there are still so many things that could go right (or wrong) with the TARP program. In August, the Treasury estimated that roughly $341 billion of the $700 billion would never come back. On Sunday, a Treasury official was quoted as saying the Obama administration now figures it will get back at least $200 billion more than previously estimated, largely because the banks that took loans did better than expected and some of the spending on rescue programs won&#8217;t be needed. [...]
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('13931','Bank bailout will cost billions to taxpayers &amp;raquo; The Business Content - The latest Business News that you can follow on web and mobile.'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('13931','Bank bailout will cost billions to taxpayers &amp;raquo; The Business Content - The latest Business News that you can follow on web and mobile.','&amp;#91;...&amp;#93; The ultimate tally for taxpayers is a moving target even by government accounting standards because there are still so many things that could go right (or wrong) with the TARP program. In August, the Treasury estimated that roughly $341 billion of the $700 billion would never come back. On Sunday, a Treasury official was quoted as saying the Obama administration now figures it will get back at least $200 billion more than previously estimated, largely because the banks that took loans did better than expected and some of the spending on rescue programs won&amp;#8217;t be needed. &amp;#91;...&amp;#93;'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Obama economic speech @ Brookings Institute 12/9/'09</title>
		<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/comment-page-1/#comment-13671</link>
		<dc:creator>Obama economic speech @ Brookings Institute 12/9/'09</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:07:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/how-much-bailout-money-will-taxpayers-get-back/#comment-13671</guid>
		<description>[...]  [...]&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;13671&#039;,&#039;Obama economic speech @ Brookings Institute 12\/9\/\&#039;09&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;13671&#039;,&#039;Obama economic speech @ Brookings Institute 12\/9\/\&#039;09&#039;,&#039;&#91;...&#93;  &#91;...&#93;&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  [...]
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('13671','Obama economic speech @ Brookings Institute 12\/9\/\'09'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('13671','Obama economic speech @ Brookings Institute 12\/9\/\'09','&amp;#91;...&amp;#93;  &amp;#91;...&amp;#93;'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Asian leaders to Obama: Where&#8217;s the beef? &#124; NwoDaily.com</title>
		<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/comment-page-1/#comment-13336</link>
		<dc:creator>Asian leaders to Obama: Where&#8217;s the beef? &#124; NwoDaily.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:40:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/how-much-bailout-money-will-taxpayers-get-back/#comment-13336</guid>
		<description>[...] Brunei&#8217;s entire annual GDP is roughly $20 billion, which is less than the U.S. government has poured into [...]&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;13336&#039;,&#039;Asian leaders to Obama: Where&#8217;s the beef? &#124; NwoDaily.com&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;13336&#039;,&#039;Asian leaders to Obama: Where&#8217;s the beef? &#124; NwoDaily.com&#039;,&#039;&#91;...&#93; Brunei&#8217;s entire annual GDP is roughly $20 billion, which is less than the U.S. government has poured into &#91;...&#93;&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Brunei&#8217;s entire annual GDP is roughly $20 billion, which is less than the U.S. government has poured into [...]
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('13336','Asian leaders to Obama: Where&amp;#8217;s the beef? | NwoDaily.com'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('13336','Asian leaders to Obama: Where&amp;#8217;s the beef? | NwoDaily.com','&amp;#91;...&amp;#93; Brunei&amp;#8217;s entire annual GDP is roughly $20 billion, which is less than the U.S. government has poured into &amp;#91;...&amp;#93;'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kandoll</title>
		<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/comment-page-1/#comment-13230</link>
		<dc:creator>Kandoll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:08:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/how-much-bailout-money-will-taxpayers-get-back/#comment-13230</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It’s great to see that people are earning more by giving valuable content for free.
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('13230','Kandoll'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('13230','Kandoll','It’s great to see that people are earning more by giving valuable content for free.'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: New Jobless claims rise to 576,000 - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 4 - City-Data Forum</title>
		<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/comment-page-1/#comment-7353</link>
		<dc:creator>New Jobless claims rise to 576,000 - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 4 - City-Data Forum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:42:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/how-much-bailout-money-will-taxpayers-get-back/#comment-7353</guid>
		<description>[...] Here&#039;s an article that estimates we&#039;ll only recoup 87% of those bailout loans.  How much bailout money will taxpayers get back?**&#124;**KeithHennessey.com [...]&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;7353&#039;,&#039;New Jobless claims rise to 576,000 - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 4 - City-Data Forum&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;7353&#039;,&#039;New Jobless claims rise to 576,000 - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 4 - City-Data Forum&#039;,&#039;&#91;...&#93; Here&#39;s an article that estimates we&#39;ll only recoup 87% of those bailout loans.  How much bailout money will taxpayers get back?**&#124;**KeithHennessey.com &#91;...&#93;&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Here&#39;s an article that estimates we&#39;ll only recoup 87% of those bailout loans.  How much bailout money will taxpayers get back?**|**KeithHennessey.com [...]
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('7353','New Jobless claims rise to 576,000 - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 4 - City-Data Forum'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('7353','New Jobless claims rise to 576,000 - Politics and Other Controversies - Page 4 - City-Data Forum','&amp;#91;...&amp;#93; Here&amp;#39;s an article that estimates we&amp;#39;ll only recoup 87% of those bailout loans.  How much bailout money will taxpayers get back?**|**KeithHennessey.com &amp;#91;...&amp;#93;'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tristan</title>
		<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/comment-page-1/#comment-3649</link>
		<dc:creator>Tristan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/how-much-bailout-money-will-taxpayers-get-back/#comment-3649</guid>
		<description>It seems that the interest repaid is not added into these figures.  Why is that.  I&#039;m also curious why any of the private businesses will not be paid in full.  I understand F &amp; F, because they are not private.  However any money given to a private business that will presumably at some point become profitable, ought to pay taxpayers back for the money they took 100% of it.  Why should AIG be allowed to keep any of their profits until they have the taxpayer paid off?&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;3649&#039;,&#039;Tristan&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;3649&#039;,&#039;Tristan&#039;,&#039;It seems that the interest repaid is not added into these figures.  Why is that.  I\&#039;m also curious why any of the private businesses will not be paid in full.  I understand F &amp; F, because they are not private.  However any money given to a private business that will presumably at some point become profitable, ought to pay taxpayers back for the money they took 100% of it.  Why should AIG be allowed to keep any of their profits until they have the taxpayer paid off?&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems that the interest repaid is not added into these figures.  Why is that.  I&#8217;m also curious why any of the private businesses will not be paid in full.  I understand F &amp; F, because they are not private.  However any money given to a private business that will presumably at some point become profitable, ought to pay taxpayers back for the money they took 100% of it.  Why should AIG be allowed to keep any of their profits until they have the taxpayer paid off?
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('3649','Tristan'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('3649','Tristan','It seems that the interest repaid is not added into these figures.  Why is that.  I\'m also curious why any of the private businesses will not be paid in full.  I understand F &amp;amp; F, because they are not private.  However any money given to a private business that will presumably at some point become profitable, ought to pay taxpayers back for the money they took 100% of it.  Why should AIG be allowed to keep any of their profits until they have the taxpayer paid off?'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Six month economic policy status update&#160;&#124;&#160;KeithHennessey.com</title>
		<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/comment-page-1/#comment-2739</link>
		<dc:creator>Six month economic policy status update&#160;&#124;&#160;KeithHennessey.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:33:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/how-much-bailout-money-will-taxpayers-get-back/#comment-2739</guid>
		<description>[...] office, in part due to significant new government efforts with AIG and Citigroup, and an ongoing flow of hundreds of billions of dollars to Fannie Mae and Freddie [...]&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;2739&#039;,&#039;Six month economic policy status update&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;KeithHennessey.com&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;2739&#039;,&#039;Six month economic policy status update&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;KeithHennessey.com&#039;,&#039;&#91;...&#93; office, in part due to significant new government efforts with AIG and Citigroup, and an ongoing flow of hundreds of billions of dollars to Fannie Mae and Freddie &#91;...&#93;&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] office, in part due to significant new government efforts with AIG and Citigroup, and an ongoing flow of hundreds of billions of dollars to Fannie Mae and Freddie [...]
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2739','Six month economic policy status update&amp;nbsp;|&amp;nbsp;KeithHennessey.com'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2739','Six month economic policy status update&amp;nbsp;|&amp;nbsp;KeithHennessey.com','&amp;#91;...&amp;#93; office, in part due to significant new government efforts with AIG and Citigroup, and an ongoing flow of hundreds of billions of dollars to Fannie Mae and Freddie &amp;#91;...&amp;#93;'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mekhong Kurt</title>
		<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/comment-page-1/#comment-2517</link>
		<dc:creator>Mekhong Kurt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 11:35:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/how-much-bailout-money-will-taxpayers-get-back/#comment-2517</guid>
		<description>While I have to admit I have to struggle to understand this subject, I do have a question, one that I *hope* is legitimate.

Assuming the answer is knowable, how much, if any, would it have cost us (the taxpayers) had we *not* done this? I&#039;m not implying it would have cost us more, for the simple reason I haven&#039;t the foggiest. That&#039;s why I&#039;m asking -- I mean this to be a genuine question from someone (that would be me) who doesn&#039;t have the slightest idea how to figure this stuff out.

IF it would cost us more not to have done this (or to have taken a different route, if any were avialable), then this route seems okay, although it still leaves us holding the bag on part of the bill. If this way cost us more than doing nothing or taking another highway, well, then, this was indeed a mistake. I&#039;ve tended to trust the government on this because of the rather extreme bipartisan nature of its roots, started under Bush and continued under a very different President, Obama. I realize the danger of placing one&#039;s faith in such fashion, but in the absence of having the expertise of approaching it on my own, I can&#039;t think of a better way to decide than to think, &quot;Well, if two guys who would cut each other&#039;s throat in a dark alley, given the chance agree, they must be on to something. I hope.&quot;

Now that the dirty deed is done, I do hope it works and impacts us as little as possible. Counting all my taxes -- federal, state, and local -- I pay just shy of 40% of my gross income in taxes to over 30 different government entities with taxing authority. And that&#039;s enough. Except I will accept paying more if it is GENUINELY for the greater good. Not because I&#039;m Mr. Goody Two Shoues, but because the greater good is also my good, at least indirectly.  Of course, there are limits to my willingness.&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;2517&#039;,&#039;Mekhong Kurt&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;2517&#039;,&#039;Mekhong Kurt&#039;,&#039;While I have to admit I have to struggle to understand this subject, I do have a question, one that I *hope* is legitimate.\r\n\r\nAssuming the answer is knowable, how much, if any, would it have cost us (the taxpayers) had we *not* done this? I\&#039;m not implying it would have cost us more, for the simple reason I haven\&#039;t the foggiest. That\&#039;s why I\&#039;m asking -- I mean this to be a genuine question from someone (that would be me) who doesn\&#039;t have the slightest idea how to figure this stuff out.\r\n\r\nIF it would cost us more not to have done this (or to have taken a different route, if any were avialable), then this route seems okay, although it still leaves us holding the bag on part of the bill. If this way cost us more than doing nothing or taking another highway, well, then, this was indeed a mistake. I\&#039;ve tended to trust the government on this because of the rather extreme bipartisan nature of its roots, started under Bush and continued under a very different President, Obama. I realize the danger of placing one\&#039;s faith in such fashion, but in the absence of having the expertise of approaching it on my own, I can\&#039;t think of a better way to decide than to think, \&quot;Well, if two guys who would cut each other\&#039;s throat in a dark alley, given the chance agree, they must be on to something. I hope.\&quot;\r\n\r\nNow that the dirty deed is done, I do hope it works and impacts us as little as possible. Counting all my taxes -- federal, state, and local -- I pay just shy of 40% of my gross income in taxes to over 30 different government entities with taxing authority. And that\&#039;s enough. Except I will accept paying more if it is GENUINELY for the greater good. Not because I\&#039;m Mr. Goody Two Shoues, but because the greater good is also my good, at least indirectly.  Of course, there are limits to my willingness.&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I have to admit I have to struggle to understand this subject, I do have a question, one that I *hope* is legitimate.</p>
<p>Assuming the answer is knowable, how much, if any, would it have cost us (the taxpayers) had we *not* done this? I&#8217;m not implying it would have cost us more, for the simple reason I haven&#8217;t the foggiest. That&#8217;s why I&#8217;m asking &#8212; I mean this to be a genuine question from someone (that would be me) who doesn&#8217;t have the slightest idea how to figure this stuff out.</p>
<p>IF it would cost us more not to have done this (or to have taken a different route, if any were avialable), then this route seems okay, although it still leaves us holding the bag on part of the bill. If this way cost us more than doing nothing or taking another highway, well, then, this was indeed a mistake. I&#8217;ve tended to trust the government on this because of the rather extreme bipartisan nature of its roots, started under Bush and continued under a very different President, Obama. I realize the danger of placing one&#8217;s faith in such fashion, but in the absence of having the expertise of approaching it on my own, I can&#8217;t think of a better way to decide than to think, &#8220;Well, if two guys who would cut each other&#8217;s throat in a dark alley, given the chance agree, they must be on to something. I hope.&#8221;</p>
<p>Now that the dirty deed is done, I do hope it works and impacts us as little as possible. Counting all my taxes &#8212; federal, state, and local &#8212; I pay just shy of 40% of my gross income in taxes to over 30 different government entities with taxing authority. And that&#8217;s enough. Except I will accept paying more if it is GENUINELY for the greater good. Not because I&#8217;m Mr. Goody Two Shoues, but because the greater good is also my good, at least indirectly.  Of course, there are limits to my willingness.
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2517','Mekhong Kurt'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2517','Mekhong Kurt','While I have to admit I have to struggle to understand this subject, I do have a question, one that I *hope* is legitimate.\r\n\r\nAssuming the answer is knowable, how much, if any, would it have cost us (the taxpayers) had we *not* done this? I\'m not implying it would have cost us more, for the simple reason I haven\'t the foggiest. That\'s why I\'m asking -- I mean this to be a genuine question from someone (that would be me) who doesn\'t have the slightest idea how to figure this stuff out.\r\n\r\nIF it would cost us more not to have done this (or to have taken a different route, if any were avialable), then this route seems okay, although it still leaves us holding the bag on part of the bill. If this way cost us more than doing nothing or taking another highway, well, then, this was indeed a mistake. I\'ve tended to trust the government on this because of the rather extreme bipartisan nature of its roots, started under Bush and continued under a very different President, Obama. I realize the danger of placing one\'s faith in such fashion, but in the absence of having the expertise of approaching it on my own, I can\'t think of a better way to decide than to think, \&quot;Well, if two guys who would cut each other\'s throat in a dark alley, given the chance agree, they must be on to something. I hope.\&quot;\r\n\r\nNow that the dirty deed is done, I do hope it works and impacts us as little as possible. Counting all my taxes -- federal, state, and local -- I pay just shy of 40% of my gross income in taxes to over 30 different government entities with taxing authority. And that\'s enough. Except I will accept paying more if it is GENUINELY for the greater good. Not because I\'m Mr. Goody Two Shoues, but because the greater good is also my good, at least indirectly.  Of course, there are limits to my willingness.'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William</title>
		<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/comment-page-1/#comment-2246</link>
		<dc:creator>William</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:51:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/how-much-bailout-money-will-taxpayers-get-back/#comment-2246</guid>
		<description>Keith,

I have been trying to follow the CBO&#039;s forecast(s) for budget deficits (and more importantly the debt issuance that results).  Presumablly, their forecast included some amount of bailout recovery.  Do you believe that their latest deficit forecast includes these projected bailout results?&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;2246&#039;,&#039;William&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;2246&#039;,&#039;William&#039;,&#039;Keith,\r\n\r\nI have been trying to follow the CBO\&#039;s forecast(s) for budget deficits (and more importantly the debt issuance that results).  Presumablly, their forecast included some amount of bailout recovery.  Do you believe that their latest deficit forecast includes these projected bailout results?&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keith,</p>
<p>I have been trying to follow the CBO&#8217;s forecast(s) for budget deficits (and more importantly the debt issuance that results).  Presumablly, their forecast included some amount of bailout recovery.  Do you believe that their latest deficit forecast includes these projected bailout results?
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2246','William'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2246','William','Keith,\r\n\r\nI have been trying to follow the CBO\'s forecast(s) for budget deficits (and more importantly the debt issuance that results).  Presumablly, their forecast included some amount of bailout recovery.  Do you believe that their latest deficit forecast includes these projected bailout results?'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DMXRoid</title>
		<link>http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/tarp-repayments/comment-page-1/#comment-2103</link>
		<dc:creator>DMXRoid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:47:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/26/how-much-bailout-money-will-taxpayers-get-back/#comment-2103</guid>
		<description>DLawrence,
I think that your (and other people&#039;s) fear of deflation is rooted in the Great Depression.  That&#039;s still our pattern for what we define as true economic crisis, so when things turn south, there&#039;s a natural tendency to try to correlate what we see/fear to that.  Really, though, I can&#039;t see rapid deflation ever happening in this country again.  The first time around was because of a gross mismanagement of the money supply by the Fed, a lesson that pretty much everyone has learned and will not repeat.  In fact, since the 50&#039;s, no quarter of GDP shrinkage has been accompanied by anything more than moderate deflation (.5%-2% per month), and from 1955 - March 2009, we didn&#039;t even have a single MONTH of deflation.  There&#039;s a little bit of it going on right now (we experienced a -1.28% rate of inflation in May, apparently), but I don&#039;t know that I can count that as the sign of a catastrophe after over 5 uninterrupted decades of inflation.  (I got my numbers from here: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=4). 

Were I in your shoes, I&#039;d be much more worried about the threat of inflation devaluing the dollars in your retirement account.  It&#039;s just straight impossible to pump as much money as TARP and the StimuTax did/will do into the economy and not experience a drop in the buying power of the dollar.  It doesn&#039;t seem out of the realm of possibility that we could be not too far away from a 70&#039;s style stagflation, or a 90&#039;s Japan, (especially with energy prices back on the rise), and there&#039;d be much less that the Fed could do about it compared with the risk of a drastic decrease in money supply.  It&#039;s really easy for them to print dollars, it&#039;s NOT easy for them to recall dollars from circulation and burn them.  They can increase interest rates, but are limited by how much they can do that b/c they don&#039;t want to stifle inter-bank lending and jack up the banking system.&lt;div class=&quot;comment-remix-meta&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;replyto&quot; onclick=&quot;replyto(&#039;2103&#039;,&#039;DMXRoid&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Reply&lt;/a&gt;  - &lt;a href=&quot;#&quot; class=&quot;quote&quot; onclick=&quot;quote(&#039;2103&#039;,&#039;DMXRoid&#039;,&#039;DLawrence,\r\nI think that your (and other people\&#039;s) fear of deflation is rooted in the Great Depression.  That\&#039;s still our pattern for what we define as true economic crisis, so when things turn south, there\&#039;s a natural tendency to try to correlate what we see\/fear to that.  Really, though, I can\&#039;t see rapid deflation ever happening in this country again.  The first time around was because of a gross mismanagement of the money supply by the Fed, a lesson that pretty much everyone has learned and will not repeat.  In fact, since the 50\&#039;s, no quarter of GDP shrinkage has been accompanied by anything more than moderate deflation (.5%-2% per month), and from 1955 - March 2009, we didn\&#039;t even have a single MONTH of deflation.  There\&#039;s a little bit of it going on right now (we experienced a -1.28% rate of inflation in May, apparently), but I don\&#039;t know that I can count that as the sign of a catastrophe after over 5 uninterrupted decades of inflation.  (I got my numbers from here: http:\/\/inflationdata.com\/inflation\/Inflation_Rate\/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=4). \r\n\r\nWere I in your shoes, I\&#039;d be much more worried about the threat of inflation devaluing the dollars in your retirement account.  It\&#039;s just straight impossible to pump as much money as TARP and the StimuTax did\/will do into the economy and not experience a drop in the buying power of the dollar.  It doesn\&#039;t seem out of the realm of possibility that we could be not too far away from a 70\&#039;s style stagflation, or a 90\&#039;s Japan, (especially with energy prices back on the rise), and there\&#039;d be much less that the Fed could do about it compared with the risk of a drastic decrease in money supply.  It\&#039;s really easy for them to print dollars, it\&#039;s NOT easy for them to recall dollars from circulation and burn them.  They can increase interest rates, but are limited by how much they can do that b\/c they don\&#039;t want to stifle inter-bank lending and jack up the banking system.&#039;); return false;&quot;&gt;Quote&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DLawrence,<br />
I think that your (and other people&#8217;s) fear of deflation is rooted in the Great Depression.  That&#8217;s still our pattern for what we define as true economic crisis, so when things turn south, there&#8217;s a natural tendency to try to correlate what we see/fear to that.  Really, though, I can&#8217;t see rapid deflation ever happening in this country again.  The first time around was because of a gross mismanagement of the money supply by the Fed, a lesson that pretty much everyone has learned and will not repeat.  In fact, since the 50&#8217;s, no quarter of GDP shrinkage has been accompanied by anything more than moderate deflation (.5%-2% per month), and from 1955 &#8211; March 2009, we didn&#8217;t even have a single MONTH of deflation.  There&#8217;s a little bit of it going on right now (we experienced a -1.28% rate of inflation in May, apparently), but I don&#8217;t know that I can count that as the sign of a catastrophe after over 5 uninterrupted decades of inflation.  (I got my numbers from here: <a href="http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=4)" rel="nofollow">http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=4)</a>. </p>
<p>Were I in your shoes, I&#8217;d be much more worried about the threat of inflation devaluing the dollars in your retirement account.  It&#8217;s just straight impossible to pump as much money as TARP and the StimuTax did/will do into the economy and not experience a drop in the buying power of the dollar.  It doesn&#8217;t seem out of the realm of possibility that we could be not too far away from a 70&#8217;s style stagflation, or a 90&#8217;s Japan, (especially with energy prices back on the rise), and there&#8217;d be much less that the Fed could do about it compared with the risk of a drastic decrease in money supply.  It&#8217;s really easy for them to print dollars, it&#8217;s NOT easy for them to recall dollars from circulation and burn them.  They can increase interest rates, but are limited by how much they can do that b/c they don&#8217;t want to stifle inter-bank lending and jack up the banking system.
<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('2103','DMXRoid'); return false;">Reply</a>  &#8211; <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('2103','DMXRoid','DLawrence,\r\nI think that your (and other people\'s) fear of deflation is rooted in the Great Depression.  That\'s still our pattern for what we define as true economic crisis, so when things turn south, there\'s a natural tendency to try to correlate what we see\/fear to that.  Really, though, I can\'t see rapid deflation ever happening in this country again.  The first time around was because of a gross mismanagement of the money supply by the Fed, a lesson that pretty much everyone has learned and will not repeat.  In fact, since the 50\'s, no quarter of GDP shrinkage has been accompanied by anything more than moderate deflation (.5%-2% per month), and from 1955 - March 2009, we didn\'t even have a single MONTH of deflation.  There\'s a little bit of it going on right now (we experienced a -1.28% rate of inflation in May, apparently), but I don\'t know that I can count that as the sign of a catastrophe after over 5 uninterrupted decades of inflation.  (I got my numbers from here: http:\/\/inflationdata.com\/inflation\/Inflation_Rate\/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=4). \r\n\r\nWere I in your shoes, I\'d be much more worried about the threat of inflation devaluing the dollars in your retirement account.  It\'s just straight impossible to pump as much money as TARP and the StimuTax did\/will do into the economy and not experience a drop in the buying power of the dollar.  It doesn\'t seem out of the realm of possibility that we could be not too far away from a 70\'s style stagflation, or a 90\'s Japan, (especially with energy prices back on the rise), and there\'d be much less that the Fed could do about it compared with the risk of a drastic decrease in money supply.  It\'s really easy for them to print dollars, it\'s NOT easy for them to recall dollars from circulation and burn them.  They can increase interest rates, but are limited by how much they can do that b\/c they don\'t want to stifle inter-bank lending and jack up the banking system.'); return false;">Quote</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
