They didn't do it because they sensed that, as always happens when Democrats try to objective facts into political capital, there would have been a crapstorm of disbelief and derision from the Beltway MSM supported by minute parsing of the statements by "factcheckers" looking for some particle of inaccuracy they could use to denounce the claim as false.

For some reason the Democrats, over the last 3 decades or more, have been absolutely horrendous when it comes to defining the narrative in their favor. If 90% of the donations they received went to a capable Public Relations firm, they might actually have a chance of succeeding.

As for the public's hatred of the TARP bailout, you can thank Wall Street bonuses and the media's 24/7 reminder of it for that.

TARP was a smokescreen. The real cost of the bank bailout was absorded by the FED when it picked up over $2 TRILLION in bad debts from the banking system. They're currently recorded on the Fed's books at their face value. There is absolutely no way those securities can be sold off anywhere near the value the FED paid to get them off the banks' books.

That's one of the biggest single reasons the FED has little ability to actually do anything to help the economy. A sizable portion of its 'assets' are illusionary.

I think it would have - if nothing else, it wouldn't have let the "TARP was the most horrible thing EVER" narrative take hold in the public mindset.

There you go again, Steve. TARP was the tip of the iceberg in terms of the public bailout of the banking industry. The return to health of the banks is largely based on the Fed buying toxic assets and accounting legerdemain. And, now, with the foreclosure problems shedding light on just how criminal the banks have been, investors are, rightfully, in my opinion, wanting their money back, which now means that the banks are freshly on the hook for potentially 10's of billions of dollars. What will that exposure do their balance sheets and will that exposure require yet another round of government bailouts?

TARP and all of the rest that the Obama Administration (and, though, TARP was started in the Bush administration, the Obama administration has vigorously defended it, so spare me this is not a defense of the Obama administration crap) has done for the banking criminals were the only thing done on their behalf, then maybe you and the other TARP defenders would have a point. The fact that TARP is just the tip of the iceberg in the government's ongoing aiding and abetting in the biggest case of fraud in the history of the universe, means that people who aren't crazy about the bailouts are the ones being rational here. You and your ilk are the ones living in fantasy land.

They're currently recorded on the Fed's books at their face value. There is absolutely no way those securities can be sold off anywhere near the value the FED paid to get them off the banks' books.

Sigh. Not for nuthing, but the FED isn't your ordinary trading firm or bank or investor. They are the ultimate long term investor. They don't NEED to sell them off. They can perfectly afford to sit on them forever as long as they keep performing - and at the price they paid, they're pocketing a tidy little yield.

So bailing out loan sharks would be OK as long as the government makes a small profit on the deal? Too bad Bernie Madoff didn't know about these rules, he might have been able to get a loan and ride things out, too.

Accept the Fed keeps stating they intend to sell those assets off NOW to buy back their own securities in some vague effort to put more liquidity into the banks so they'll start loaning people money again.

Good point by thorin-1, not to mention that the Fed has kept interest rates extraordinarily low so that the banks can not help but make money and of course they are getting paid to keep reserves at the Fed. More to the point, Obama used TARP money to bail out the auto industry and at the end of the day, no matter how distasteful, bailing out the banks was the right thing to do and Dumbya did it--not Obama. What Obama and the Dems did do was pass a Fin Reg bill which does little to prevent this from happening again. It is not anything that the Dems can spin to their advantage.

It's complete and utter bullshit that the govenrment is going to make money on the TARP bailout. It's all propaganda. The assests they saved are still ridiculously overvalued. It.s a sham that is going to come crashing down.

Nine stories the press is underreporting -- fraud, fraud and more fraud

"6. The ongoing massive cover up of losses on bad assets, particularly by the “too big to fail” institutions, which I call “systemically dangerous institutions” (SDIs). Those institutions, along with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and Congress (at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce and with no opposition from the Obama administration) in April 2009 forced the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to change the rules so that the banks do not have to recognize their losses unless and until they sell the bad assets. The implications of this cover up are large (and rarely reported). At the very least, it means that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s propaganda campaign about TARP saving the world at virtually no cost (perhaps even a "profit") is nonsense -- despite its success in influencing the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times. Consider: A) The repayment of TARP funds does not mean the banks are healthy. Their asset values are often grossly inflated, which means their net worth is grossly inflated. That means that the claims that we have increased net worth requirements (and that Basel III will further increase net worth requirements) are false. Net worth requirements have meaning only if the accounting is honest B) The repayment of TARP funds does mean that the banks are freed from any meaningful restraint on senior officer compensation. Note that absent the accounting lies the banks would often be reporting losses (and failure to meet required capital requirements, or outright insolvency) and could not pay their senior officers bonuses and would be subject to mandatory closure under the Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) law. C) No commercial entity would have ever signed the TARP deals on the terms that the U.S. drafted for itself. The U.S. provided not only fresh money but an unlimited de facto guarantee (along with permitting phony accounting). If the U.S. had negotiated competently it would have owned virtually all the shares of every TARP recipient (which, of course, was a political impossibility). D) The accounting lies are stalling the recovery. Markets cannot clear promptly when one creates an incentive to hold massively overvalued assets for years. E) The losses are still there, but the taxpayers are on the hook via Fannie and Freddie and the Fed (which has taken over a trillion dollars in toxic collateral at grossly inflated values)."

I expect that once the Republicans can find a way to take sole ownership of TARP, they will spin it as a Republican success. It was proposed by a Republican administration and passed only with substantial support from Republicans in Congress and then somehow the Obama administration was stymied in their attempts to help the big banks hold on to their ill-gotten gains. That's the spin they will attempt eventually.

Anything that will remove some of the tarnish from Bush's last three years in office will be welcome by the Republicans and especially the loyal Bushies. Look to Karl Rove as the bellweather. The big lie is his forte.

as long as you ignore the trillions in toxic assets bought by the Fed, by Freddie and Fannie, then yes, TARP was cheap. so yes, let's pretend that trillion+ dollars is covered by magical pixie dust, and let's also pretend the other guarantees are also imaginary.

Benen's cluelessness on this issue means he's bought into Geithner's propaganda, lock, stock, and barrel.

I'm a first time visitor to this site. And probably the last. Wow a lot of people are very gullible.

1) Bush gave the money but Obama collected on the debts. Yeah Obama collected by keeping a bunch of crooked rich bankers in business. The bankers are fine to give the gov a little juice so they can stay in business. And Obama made it better for them with perpetual zero interest rates that they can pass on to the little people for 2-3% ensuring their big bonuses without having to worry about pesky market forces that would otherwise put them out of business or in jail. How can the left be so outraged by Bush cozying up to big oil and they're fine with Obama cozying up to rich bankers - I don't get it!

2)thorin-1 is right. TARP may make a few billion while the whole package causes the Fed to lose a trillion. No problem it will just be inflated away through QE2/3/4/5/6/7. Also the same people on the left who are okay with Obama in bed with bankers also don't seem to care about the devaluation of our money which is way worse for the little people. Obama bails out bankers and keeps the easy money charade going. I was pissed when Bush did it and thought I'd find a lot of companionship through outrage on the left when Obama did it. Don't you guys care about economic policies that devastate the lower and middle class or are you all upper class elites?

3) I have to laugh at fourlegsgood post. Yeah with unemployment getting better and it coming to light how tidy and neat and legally clean all these mortgages now held by the fed are we can just sit back for 20 years and reap a tremendous profit. LOL. The Fed owns a bunch of crap with broken chains of ownership or title thats been pledged to more than one securitized package.

Remember that old saying about opening your mouth and removing all doubt as to being an idiot? Some of the commenters here fit that description to a tee. first off bailing the banking system out wasn't some giant conspiracy to give money to bankers. Secondly getting the money back at a profit is a bad thing?
Third not bailing the banks out quite possibly could have lead to the type of financial armegeddon that would have put a serious hurting on everyone in the world.
Being delusional about the results of not doing the tarp bailout doesn't change the situation. Christ some you sound like crusty old teabaggers. Ehh don't spend no money exceppins if it's for me.

Spin it as a profit and as the most successful Bush policy. Make the GOP own it. It's their's. Their legacy of governance is full of Big Government intervention. Don't let this one slip away.

Gandalf - I'd like to know just how this financial armageddon would have played out had we let the bad apples spoil. I work in finance and I'd like to know how the average American would have had a "serious hurting". Maybe I wouldn't be able to go to Starbucks and order my financially engineered derivitive. Maybe the CEO at Goldman or JP Morgan would have realized he would not get his million dollar bonus and his fear would somehow affect me.
The liquidity crisis is a strawman. It was fixed immediatley thru bolstering FDIC and could have been expanded by the gov covering all deposits thru their unlimited printing presses.

And btw the gov/finance alliance is not a conspiricy its an expediant way for politicians to raise money and get re-elected. And if you think that's all proper read HR3808. Before congressional recess and without discussion congress passes a bill to save the financial industry from the fraud disclosures that are currently proceeding in the courts. thank God Obama had the balls to vetoe it.

Again I'd seriously like to hear the details of how a non bailout would affect me an average Joe. I can't get cash to pay daily necessities? No - the gov insurance and promises soon after the crisis solved that and asuaged the institutional liquidity crisis in the short term paper market.

My 401 would lose value? It did anyway. Why not take all the resources used to prop up bad/fraudelent players/markets and buy stuff to support the markets like we're doing anyway with QE.

The capital markets would freeze up and the IPO pipeline would constrict so that business growth dwindled? It did anyway!

Just do me a favor and question the premise "the smart people saved me". You don't have to change your mind just be a little more skeptical.