• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama v. Geithner on TARP Repayments: Save or Spend?

    In his statement yesterday announcing that 10 banks would be repaying $68 billion in TARP bailout funds, President Obama proudly asserted that the step would reduce the national debt:

    “And as this money is returned, we’ll see our national debt lessened by $68 billion — billions of dollars that this generation will not have to borrow and future generations will not have to repay.”

    But apparently, he didn’t check with his treasury secretary first. In an op-ed in the New York Times last month, Timothy Geithner said that the returned funds would “free up resources” for new loans “to help support community banks, encourage small-business lending and help repair and restart the securities markets.”

    Oops.

    Asked about the issue yesterday, White House press spokesman tried to navigate a middle ground, saying “It’s our obvious hope that additional money is not going to have to be used to stabilize banks.”

    That’s a good waffle, but far different than either the president’s firm statement that the national debt would be reduced or Geithner’s wish list for recycling TARP funds.

    Someone needs to call a meeting to figure out what the plan is here.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Obama v. Geithner on TARP Repayments: Save or Spend?

    1. MAS1916 - Denver, CO says:

      Yup! Nice Catch!

      Geithner is looking for other industries to take over. He seems to believe that TARP money may be used at the discretion of the Treasury for anything. Obama will thank him for this in 2012.

      The New York Times and Boston Globe have already stuck out their little leftist hands. It is interesting that news industry folks are the ones that view it as "government's money" without making the connection that it comes from taxpayers.

      And what in the world would the Boston Globe look like if Geithner and Obama bailed it out? It would still fail anyway, but it would be interesting. ( for a sneak peek at who would be the managing editors should the Globe be taken over, you can view: http://firstconservative.com/blog/political-humor… )

      The Globe (and NYT) will fail regardless of whether or not it receives financial assistance. Their problem is credibility – which cannot be corrected in just a few months.

    2. Barb -mn says:

      Larry, MO and Curly? Unable to communicate or only able to communicate by confusion and no accountability. America doesn't deserve this.

      A matter as important as this and it's just a joke in the white house. Tell the people anything but the truth, playing dumb as usual.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×