EU: Serbian steel mill "must not receive govt. assistance"

Yea keep listening to your masters in Germany and soon u will have a Greek scenario. What kind of nonsense is this when a country can't even invest in its own industries.

The EU idea is a sick totalitarian project where a handful of unelected bureaucrats from Brussels get to dictate the day-to-day functioning of each "country". How sad that Serbia isn't even a member, but is subjugated to the demands of these lunatics. If the EU members are all provinces, then this makes Serbia a colony. How sad.

(icj1, 18 February 2015 22:14) i.e. they can't lower the prices of the products they manufacture by receiving government aid - that would be unfair competition. I'm not sure why your brain can't grasp such simple things

.....

Dear icj1 mate, do you grasp the concept of blatant hypocrisy and recognize billion dollar government bailouts to EU/US corporations that protect their own industries such as GM, Chrysler, AIG, RBS, BNP, among thousands of others?

(icj1, 19 February 2015 16:25) is free to do whatever it wants with GM, Chrysler or AIG and even provide them with an unfair advantage vs non-US companies, as long as these companies don't just waste taxpayers money (and overall they're not - overall they returned a profit to the taxpayers).

-----

Dear icj1 mate, please read the following article from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2013/12/09/taxpayers-dont-have-government-motors-to-kick-around-any-more/) that states US taxpayers lost 11.1 billion dollars on the GM bailout. The US taxpayer purchased 50.1 biilion dollars of GM stock and could only recoup 39 billion.

No use in my supplying examples of thousands of EU/US government bailouts when you lack basic logic and arithmetic skills and characterizes taxpayer losses as "returning profit".

This happens everywhere but it seems like it can't happen in Serbia.
(Peggy, 19 February 2015 10:28)

Like Greece, nobody trusts Serbia. Do you understand now!

(icj1, 19 February 2015 20:45) Sorry mate, you wrote a long post for nothing :) there is a word in my post that you missed: "overall". You are so predictable mate haha That word was put there to make your post useless in advance and sure enough you fell for it lol.

----

Mate, I'm not the one claiming that the 2008 financial meltdown was profitable for taxpayers.

Your claims that overall tax payers profited, based on 400 billion dollars worth of stock, completely ignores the entire rescue package which is in the range of 700 billion - 1 trillion dollars. The taxpayer was left with a hefty bill that added to the ballooning > 15 trillion dollar debt.

Indulge in your fantasy of how we all "fell" for assuming this was a major loss, and keep spinning the profitably line..... laughable.

Yea keep listening to your masters in Germany and soon u will have a Greek scenario. What kind of nonsense is this when a country can't even invest in its own industries.
(Serbian American, 18 February 2015 15:54)

Lol... It was because the Greek government did this for years (i.e. keeping up inefficient companies with taxpayers money) that Greece ended up where it is today. Serbia can choose that path if it wants and waste taxpayers' money in companies that are not efficient.

This is not a matter of "a country investing in its own industries". This is about a company that has a failed business model looking to waste even more taxpayers' money. That's investing good money, after bad money already lost to incompetent management.

Yea keep listening to your masters in Germany and soon u will have a Greek scenario. What kind of nonsense is this when a country can't even invest in its own industries.
(Serbian American, 18 February 2015 15:54)
===================================
Maybe there is someone else waiting in the wings to invest. We can't hinder this potential investor's right to own whatever they want.
One hint, it won't be anyone from Russia.

Dear icj1 mate, do you grasp the concept of blatant hypocrisy and recognize billion dollar government bailouts to EU/US corporations that protect their own industries such as GM, Chrysler, AIG, RBS, BNP, among thousands of others?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 09:59)
==========================
Let's not forget the American farmers. They too receive government subsidies which makes them more competitive.
This happens everywhere but it seems like it can't happen in Serbia.

Peggy, Peggy, Peggy. The US is not a member of the EU nor is it in any way trying to join, hence the rules Serbia is asked to live by to join the EU do not apply.
(Silly Peggy, 19 February 2015 11:58)
=============================
I am aware of that but I was referring to someone's post which touched on that. If you take my words out of context then it's you who is silly for you are not keeping up with what we are talking about.

(Silly Peggy, 19 February 2015 11:58)
=============================
One question for you. Is your first name Silly and surname Peggy or are you also called Peggy but just happen to be silly and that's what people call you?

Riiight, that's why Serbia has foreign investment while "Kosova" has foreign aid.
(Peggy, 19 February 2015 23:57)

You were the one crying about why Serbia gets no foreign investment. Face it, Serbia is an economic basket case.
Who would be foolish enough to invest in Serbia.

(icj1, 20 February 2015 16:50) Hahaha... Your timeline just shows snapshots of debt amounts at a point in time and fails to show what happened, for example, between 2008 and 2009.... Let me provide you a simpler math example so that your brain can grasp it.
....

No, let me provide you with simpler math that you apparently have trouble grasping:
11.9 trillion (debt 2009) > $10 trillion (debt in 2008)
11.9 rotten widgets is more than 10 rotten widgets.
Lower number of rotten widgets is better than higher number of rotten widgets.

Do you need anymore help?

The EU idea is a sick totalitarian project where a handful of unelected bureaucrats from Brussels get to dictate the day-to-day functioning of each "country". How sad that Serbia isn't even a member, but is subjugated to the demands of these lunatics. If the EU members are all provinces, then this makes Serbia a colony. How sad.
(Ari Gold, 18 February 2015 18:03)

You missed the "Serbia took on this obligation by signing the Stabilization and Association Agreement" part mate :) It is Serbia that committed to do that; it was not told to do so and now it has to honor its commitments.

And there is a reason for that. If Serbia wants to benefit by being part of the EU market, Serbian companies have to play fairly; i.e. they can't lower the prices of the products they manufacture by receiving government aid - that would be unfair competition. I'm not sure why your brain can't grasp such simple things but goes immediately to conspiracy theories.

"Let's not forget the American farmers. They too receive government subsidies which makes them more competitive.
This happens everywhere but it seems like it can't happen in Serbia.
(Peggy, 19 February 2015 10:28) "

Peggy, Peggy, Peggy. The US is not a member of the EU nor is it in any way trying to join, hence the rules Serbia is asked to live by to join the EU do not apply.

Dear icj1 mate, please read the following article from Forbes ([link]/) that states US taxpayers lost 11.1 billion dollars on the GM bailout. The US taxpayer purchased 50.1 biilion dollars of GM stock and could only recoup 39 billion.

No use in my supplying examples of thousands of EU/US government bailouts when you lack basic logic and arithmetic skills and characterizes taxpayer losses as "returning profit".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 17:00)

A.M. The Forbes article, you're refering to, is one and a half years old.
In the most recent quarter, GM was wildly profitable!

Like Greece, nobody trusts Serbia. Do you understand now!
(The Count of Kosova, 19 February 2015 21:16)
---------------------------------
Riiight, that's why Serbia has foreign investment while "Kosova" has foreign aid.

(icj1, 20 February 2015 01:08) Wrong! You're relying on myths. The bailout has actually reduced the debt as shown above.
-------

Fact, not myth:
US debt in billions:
2014 $17,824
2013 $16,738
2012 $16,066
2011 $14,790
2010 $13,562
2009 $11,910
2008 $10,025

Laughable that your logic and arithmetic concludes a reduction at any point in this timeline. Although your voodoo math is not taught on Main Street schools, it is apparently consistent with Wall Street's.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 14:45)

Hahaha... Your timeline just shows snapshots of debt amounts at a point in time and fails to show what happened, for example, between 2008 and 2009. There were many transactions in between, some of which reduced the debt and others that increased it. Let me provide you a simpler math example so that your brain can grasp it.

Assume that in 2009 there is X (bailout) with a profit of 5 and there is Y (whatever) with a loss of 10.

Debt balance on 31/12/2008 100
X (bailout) during 2009 - 5
Y (whatever) during 2009 +10
---------------------------------
Debt balance on 31/12/2009 105

So, X reduced the debt and Y increased it. So, yes, debt increased but not because of X. That's where you usually fail miserably; i.e. on cause-effect logical thinking. Does your brain grasp it now or is it still busy with processing conspiracy theories about Wall Street apologists lol

(icj1, 20 February 2015 16:20)Please provide your new "definition" or(sic) bailout and where did taxpayers loose money?

---

There is no "new" definition of bailout. In response to your plea for help with the definition of bailout. Please note:
bail·out
ˈbāˌlout/
noun informal
an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse.

Bailout covers all modes of financial assistance and is not limited by TARP, ARRA, CBLS, TAF or any other acronynm.

Regarding the loss of US taxpayer money: I refer you again to the debt in 2008 ($10 trillion) and the debt in 2009 ($11.9 trillion), 2010 ($$13.6 trillion) , 2011 ($14.8 trillion), 2012 ($16 trillion), 2013 ($16.7 trillion) and 2014 ($17 trillion). Please clarify, which year do you claim a "profit" for the US taxpayer?

Dear icj1 mate, do you grasp the concept of blatant hypocrisy and recognize billion dollar government bailouts to EU/US corporations that protect their own industries such as GM, Chrysler, AIG, RBS, BNP, among thousands of others?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 09:59)

Of course, nobody can grasp it except for you because the US has not signed an SAA for EU admission and therefore is free to do whatever it wants with GM, Chrysler or AIG and even provide them with an unfair advantage vs non-US companies, as long as these companies don't just waste taxpayers money (and overall they're not - overall they returned a profit to the taxpayers).

As for RBS, the EU Commission approved the bailout on the condition that RBS offloads British branches and its insurance, transaction management and commodity trading operations to raise funds and compensate for the competitive advantage given by the bailout and allow other competitors to get stronger and challenge RBS's market position.

As for BNP, again the EU Commission approved the bailout, but only after forcing France to raise the fees it charged to the banks plus other strict safeguards to ensure that they did not get an unfair advantage from state aid and to make state aid unattractive enough so that those banks had an incentive to return to private markets for funding as soon as possible.

Any other examples, mate?

Again, Serbia undertook a commitment when it signed the SAA; it must honor it now.

(icj1, 19 February 2015 16:25) is free to do whatever it wants with GM, Chrysler or AIG and even provide them with an unfair advantage vs non-US companies, as long as these companies don't just waste taxpayers money (and overall they're not - overall they returned a profit to the taxpayers). 

----- 

Dear icj1 mate, please read the following article from Forbes ([link]/) that states US taxpayers lost 11.1 billion dollars on the GM bailout. The US taxpayer purchased 50.1 biilion dollars of GM stock and could only recoup 39 billion. 

No use in my supplying examples of thousands of EU/US government bailouts when you lack basic logic and arithmetic skills and characterizes taxpayer losses as "returning profit".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 17:00)

Sorry mate, you wrote a long post for nothing :) there is a word in my post that you missed: "overall". You are so predictable mate haha That word was put there to make your post useless in advance and sure enough you fell for it lol

Mate, I'm not the one claiming that the 2008 financial meltdown was profitable for taxpayers.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 22:19)

I did not claim that and I did not claim that you claimed that the 2008 financial meltdown was profitable for taxpayers. So again you are making a useless post about something that nobody claimed :)
-------

Your claims that overall tax payers profited, based on 400 billion dollars worth of stock, completely ignores the entire rescue package which is in the range of 700 billion - 1 trillion dollars.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 22:19)

Yes, the rescue package (aka TARP Program) authorized initially 700 billion in 2008, but your information is outdated because the authorization was reduced to 475 billion in 2010. Out of that, 427 billion were actually disbursed and the US treasury has got 442 billion back (so far) in repayments, interest and dividends. That's a profit of 15 billion (and counting).
-------

The taxpayer was left with a hefty bill that added to the ballooning > 15 trillion dollar debt.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 22:19)

Wrong! You're relying on myths. The bailout has actually reduced the debt as shown above.
-------

Indulge in your fantasy of how we all "fell" for assuming this was a major loss, and keep spinning the profitably line..... laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 22:19)

Not "all", just "you". You being ignorant of facts does not mean that "all" are like you.

(icj1, 20 February 2015 01:08) Yes, the rescue package (aka TARP Program) authorized initially 700 billion in 2008, but your information is outdated because the authorization was reduced to 475 billion in 2010. Out of that, 427 billion were actually disbursed and the US treasury has got 442 billion back (so far) in repayments, interest and dividends. That's a profit of 15 billion (and counting).
-------

The fact is TARP was only a small fraction of tax payer funded government bailout. Obama also enacted ARRA (America Recovery and Reinvestment Act), which had funding of 787 billion at time of passage. The simple math on tax payer costs for ONLY these two programs 787 + 475 is >1.5 trillion dollars.

Furthermore, Wall street apologists want you to believe that TARP = bailout.

TO reiterate, TARP was only a small part of the Wall Street bailout. Most of the bailout was accomplished through the Federal Reserve.

Figures for the bailout up to 2012 show the US federal reserve had transferred 29.5 trillion dollars to the US treasury. Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF— accounted for the lion’s share — 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22.8 trillion).

(icj1, 20 February 2015 01:08) Wrong! You're relying on myths. The bailout has actually reduced the debt as shown above.
-------

Fact, not myth:
US debt in billions:
2014 $17,824
2013 $16,738
2012 $16,066
2011 $14,790
2010 $13,562
2009 $11,910
2008 $10,025

Laughable that your logic and arithmetic concludes a reduction at any point in this timeline. Although your voodoo math is not taught on Main Street schools, it is apparently consistent with Wall Street's.

Do you need anymore help?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 17:40)
# Comment link

Help for what mate?! Not sure what you wrote had to do with anything I wrote:) You talked about GM, Chrysler and AIG bailout. That was the TARP Program which returned a profit to the US taxpayers and therefore reduced the US debt.

Now, if you're trying to say that other stuff (different from the TARP Program) increased the debt, well, yeah, nobody disputed that.

Bailout covers all modes of financial assistance and is not limited by TARP, ARRA, CBLS, TAF or any other acronynm.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 17:19)

OK, good you clarified your definition. So now back to your original post regarding the GM, Chrysler and AIG bailout which was the TARP...
----------

Please clarify, which year do you claim a "profit" for the US taxpayer?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 17:19)

The TARP you referred to in regards to GM, Chrysler and AIG bailout has returned a profit to the US taxpayers of about 14.8 billion from 2008 to 2014 and counting.

(icj1, 21 February 2015 00:39) The TARP you referred to in regards to GM, Chrysler and AIG bailout has returned a profit

----

icj1 mate, YOU have been myopically obsessed with TARP, which I hope that we've now corrected. My original comments used the term bailout and referred to broader bailouts that included RBS, BNP, "among thousands" of others.

LOL, so many conspiracy theorists here. People, the amount of money in the buget is what it is. It is only a question of how to spend it wisely. Remember, the money is paid by Serbian taxpayers and it should go back to them in some form or another. E.g., some of that money is there because of the pension cuts a few months ago in Serbia. If you want to spend that money (TAKEN FROM THE ELDERLY) on a failed steel mill, just to keep that mill artificially afloat, rather than for services to those elderly, or infrastructure improvements or anti-corruption services, it is your own business. The EU people are just reminding you that Serbia promised to be smarter when it came to these things.

Amnesty Yugo.
You didn't mention the fate of the YUGO, one of your "success" stories!
They are used as ash trays and flower pots in the U.S.A.

In your comment concerning GM, you conveniently forgot to mention:

But Akerson said a now-healthy GM is focused on the future. “Continued investments, innovation, and job creation are just some of the “returns” of a healthy GM and domestic auto industry. Our work continues uninterrupted, and we will keep our sights squarely on our customers and transforming the way we do business.”

The fact is TARP was only a small fraction of tax payer funded government bailout.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 14:17)

Not sure what you mean by "bailout", but you were wrong on TARP; so case closed.
------

Obama also enacted ARRA (America Recovery and Reinvestment Act), which had funding of 787 billion at time of passage. The simple math on tax payer costs for ONLY these two programs 787 + 475 is >1.5 trillion dollars.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 14:17)

Sure, there are many other programs. But not sure whom did ARRA "bail out" lol
------

Furthermore, Wall street apologists want you to believe that TARP = bailout.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 14:17)

It was you who referred to the GM, Chrysler and AIG bailout and that was the TARP Program. Simple as that. As for the conspiracy theories I'm sure you are right as you are good at them. The good news is that US economic decisions are not made based on emotions or hate for Wall Street. Even though it sounded outrageous in 2008, the TARP bailout was one of the most successful things that Bush did.
------

Figures for the bailout up to 2012 show the US federal reserve had transferred 29.5 trillion dollars to the US treasury. Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF— accounted for the lion’s share — 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22.8 trillion).
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 14:17)

Please provide your new "definition" or bailout and where did taxpayers loose money?

The EU idea is a sick totalitarian project where a handful of unelected bureaucrats from Brussels get to dictate the day-to-day functioning of each "country". How sad that Serbia isn't even a member, but is subjugated to the demands of these lunatics. If the EU members are all provinces, then this makes Serbia a colony. How sad.

Yea keep listening to your masters in Germany and soon u will have a Greek scenario. What kind of nonsense is this when a country can't even invest in its own industries.

Yea keep listening to your masters in Germany and soon u will have a Greek scenario. What kind of nonsense is this when a country can't even invest in its own industries.
(Serbian American, 18 February 2015 15:54)

Lol... It was because the Greek government did this for years (i.e. keeping up inefficient companies with taxpayers money) that Greece ended up where it is today. Serbia can choose that path if it wants and waste taxpayers' money in companies that are not efficient.

This is not a matter of "a country investing in its own industries". This is about a company that has a failed business model looking to waste even more taxpayers' money. That's investing good money, after bad money already lost to incompetent management.

(icj1, 19 February 2015 16:25) is free to do whatever it wants with GM, Chrysler or AIG and even provide them with an unfair advantage vs non-US companies, as long as these companies don't just waste taxpayers money (and overall they're not - overall they returned a profit to the taxpayers). 

----- 

Dear icj1 mate, please read the following article from Forbes ([link]/) that states US taxpayers lost 11.1 billion dollars on the GM bailout. The US taxpayer purchased 50.1 biilion dollars of GM stock and could only recoup 39 billion. 

No use in my supplying examples of thousands of EU/US government bailouts when you lack basic logic and arithmetic skills and characterizes taxpayer losses as "returning profit".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 17:00)

Sorry mate, you wrote a long post for nothing :) there is a word in my post that you missed: "overall". You are so predictable mate haha That word was put there to make your post useless in advance and sure enough you fell for it lol

Amnesty Yugo.
You didn't mention the fate of the YUGO, one of your "success" stories!
They are used as ash trays and flower pots in the U.S.A.

In your comment concerning GM, you conveniently forgot to mention:

But Akerson said a now-healthy GM is focused on the future. “Continued investments, innovation, and job creation are just some of the “returns” of a healthy GM and domestic auto industry. Our work continues uninterrupted, and we will keep our sights squarely on our customers and transforming the way we do business.”

This happens everywhere but it seems like it can't happen in Serbia.
(Peggy, 19 February 2015 10:28)

Like Greece, nobody trusts Serbia. Do you understand now!

The EU idea is a sick totalitarian project where a handful of unelected bureaucrats from Brussels get to dictate the day-to-day functioning of each "country". How sad that Serbia isn't even a member, but is subjugated to the demands of these lunatics. If the EU members are all provinces, then this makes Serbia a colony. How sad.
(Ari Gold, 18 February 2015 18:03)

You missed the "Serbia took on this obligation by signing the Stabilization and Association Agreement" part mate :) It is Serbia that committed to do that; it was not told to do so and now it has to honor its commitments.

And there is a reason for that. If Serbia wants to benefit by being part of the EU market, Serbian companies have to play fairly; i.e. they can't lower the prices of the products they manufacture by receiving government aid - that would be unfair competition. I'm not sure why your brain can't grasp such simple things but goes immediately to conspiracy theories.

Dear icj1 mate, do you grasp the concept of blatant hypocrisy and recognize billion dollar government bailouts to EU/US corporations that protect their own industries such as GM, Chrysler, AIG, RBS, BNP, among thousands of others?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 09:59)

Of course, nobody can grasp it except for you because the US has not signed an SAA for EU admission and therefore is free to do whatever it wants with GM, Chrysler or AIG and even provide them with an unfair advantage vs non-US companies, as long as these companies don't just waste taxpayers money (and overall they're not - overall they returned a profit to the taxpayers).

As for RBS, the EU Commission approved the bailout on the condition that RBS offloads British branches and its insurance, transaction management and commodity trading operations to raise funds and compensate for the competitive advantage given by the bailout and allow other competitors to get stronger and challenge RBS's market position.

As for BNP, again the EU Commission approved the bailout, but only after forcing France to raise the fees it charged to the banks plus other strict safeguards to ensure that they did not get an unfair advantage from state aid and to make state aid unattractive enough so that those banks had an incentive to return to private markets for funding as soon as possible.

Any other examples, mate?

Again, Serbia undertook a commitment when it signed the SAA; it must honor it now.

Dear icj1 mate, please read the following article from Forbes ([link]/) that states US taxpayers lost 11.1 billion dollars on the GM bailout. The US taxpayer purchased 50.1 biilion dollars of GM stock and could only recoup 39 billion.

No use in my supplying examples of thousands of EU/US government bailouts when you lack basic logic and arithmetic skills and characterizes taxpayer losses as "returning profit".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 17:00)

A.M. The Forbes article, you're refering to, is one and a half years old.
In the most recent quarter, GM was wildly profitable!

(Silly Peggy, 19 February 2015 11:58)
=============================
One question for you. Is your first name Silly and surname Peggy or are you also called Peggy but just happen to be silly and that's what people call you?

Riiight, that's why Serbia has foreign investment while "Kosova" has foreign aid.
(Peggy, 19 February 2015 23:57)

You were the one crying about why Serbia gets no foreign investment. Face it, Serbia is an economic basket case.
Who would be foolish enough to invest in Serbia.

Yea keep listening to your masters in Germany and soon u will have a Greek scenario. What kind of nonsense is this when a country can't even invest in its own industries.
(Serbian American, 18 February 2015 15:54)
===================================
Maybe there is someone else waiting in the wings to invest. We can't hinder this potential investor's right to own whatever they want.
One hint, it won't be anyone from Russia.

"Let's not forget the American farmers. They too receive government subsidies which makes them more competitive.
This happens everywhere but it seems like it can't happen in Serbia.
(Peggy, 19 February 2015 10:28) "

Peggy, Peggy, Peggy. The US is not a member of the EU nor is it in any way trying to join, hence the rules Serbia is asked to live by to join the EU do not apply.

LOL, so many conspiracy theorists here. People, the amount of money in the buget is what it is. It is only a question of how to spend it wisely. Remember, the money is paid by Serbian taxpayers and it should go back to them in some form or another. E.g., some of that money is there because of the pension cuts a few months ago in Serbia. If you want to spend that money (TAKEN FROM THE ELDERLY) on a failed steel mill, just to keep that mill artificially afloat, rather than for services to those elderly, or infrastructure improvements or anti-corruption services, it is your own business. The EU people are just reminding you that Serbia promised to be smarter when it came to these things.

Like Greece, nobody trusts Serbia. Do you understand now!
(The Count of Kosova, 19 February 2015 21:16)
---------------------------------
Riiight, that's why Serbia has foreign investment while "Kosova" has foreign aid.

Mate, I'm not the one claiming that the 2008 financial meltdown was profitable for taxpayers.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 22:19)

I did not claim that and I did not claim that you claimed that the 2008 financial meltdown was profitable for taxpayers. So again you are making a useless post about something that nobody claimed :)
-------

Your claims that overall tax payers profited, based on 400 billion dollars worth of stock, completely ignores the entire rescue package which is in the range of 700 billion - 1 trillion dollars.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 22:19)

Yes, the rescue package (aka TARP Program) authorized initially 700 billion in 2008, but your information is outdated because the authorization was reduced to 475 billion in 2010. Out of that, 427 billion were actually disbursed and the US treasury has got 442 billion back (so far) in repayments, interest and dividends. That's a profit of 15 billion (and counting).
-------

The taxpayer was left with a hefty bill that added to the ballooning > 15 trillion dollar debt.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 22:19)

Wrong! You're relying on myths. The bailout has actually reduced the debt as shown above.
-------

Indulge in your fantasy of how we all "fell" for assuming this was a major loss, and keep spinning the profitably line..... laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 22:19)

Not "all", just "you". You being ignorant of facts does not mean that "all" are like you.

The fact is TARP was only a small fraction of tax payer funded government bailout.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 14:17)

Not sure what you mean by "bailout", but you were wrong on TARP; so case closed.
------

Obama also enacted ARRA (America Recovery and Reinvestment Act), which had funding of 787 billion at time of passage. The simple math on tax payer costs for ONLY these two programs 787 + 475 is >1.5 trillion dollars.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 14:17)

Sure, there are many other programs. But not sure whom did ARRA "bail out" lol
------

Furthermore, Wall street apologists want you to believe that TARP = bailout.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 14:17)

It was you who referred to the GM, Chrysler and AIG bailout and that was the TARP Program. Simple as that. As for the conspiracy theories I'm sure you are right as you are good at them. The good news is that US economic decisions are not made based on emotions or hate for Wall Street. Even though it sounded outrageous in 2008, the TARP bailout was one of the most successful things that Bush did.
------

Figures for the bailout up to 2012 show the US federal reserve had transferred 29.5 trillion dollars to the US treasury. Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF— accounted for the lion’s share — 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22.8 trillion).
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 14:17)

Please provide your new "definition" or bailout and where did taxpayers loose money?

(icj1, 20 February 2015 01:08) Wrong! You're relying on myths. The bailout has actually reduced the debt as shown above.
-------

Fact, not myth:
US debt in billions:
2014 $17,824
2013 $16,738
2012 $16,066
2011 $14,790
2010 $13,562
2009 $11,910
2008 $10,025

Laughable that your logic and arithmetic concludes a reduction at any point in this timeline. Although your voodoo math is not taught on Main Street schools, it is apparently consistent with Wall Street's.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 14:45)

Hahaha... Your timeline just shows snapshots of debt amounts at a point in time and fails to show what happened, for example, between 2008 and 2009. There were many transactions in between, some of which reduced the debt and others that increased it. Let me provide you a simpler math example so that your brain can grasp it.

Assume that in 2009 there is X (bailout) with a profit of 5 and there is Y (whatever) with a loss of 10.

Debt balance on 31/12/2008 100
X (bailout) during 2009 - 5
Y (whatever) during 2009 +10
---------------------------------
Debt balance on 31/12/2009 105

So, X reduced the debt and Y increased it. So, yes, debt increased but not because of X. That's where you usually fail miserably; i.e. on cause-effect logical thinking. Does your brain grasp it now or is it still busy with processing conspiracy theories about Wall Street apologists lol

(icj1, 20 February 2015 16:50) Hahaha... Your timeline just shows snapshots of debt amounts at a point in time and fails to show what happened, for example, between 2008 and 2009.... Let me provide you a simpler math example so that your brain can grasp it.
....

No, let me provide you with simpler math that you apparently have trouble grasping:
11.9 trillion (debt 2009) > $10 trillion (debt in 2008)
11.9 rotten widgets is more than 10 rotten widgets.
Lower number of rotten widgets is better than higher number of rotten widgets.

Do you need anymore help?

(icj1, 18 February 2015 22:14) i.e. they can't lower the prices of the products they manufacture by receiving government aid - that would be unfair competition. I'm not sure why your brain can't grasp such simple things

.....

Dear icj1 mate, do you grasp the concept of blatant hypocrisy and recognize billion dollar government bailouts to EU/US corporations that protect their own industries such as GM, Chrysler, AIG, RBS, BNP, among thousands of others?

Dear icj1 mate, do you grasp the concept of blatant hypocrisy and recognize billion dollar government bailouts to EU/US corporations that protect their own industries such as GM, Chrysler, AIG, RBS, BNP, among thousands of others?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 February 2015 09:59)
==========================
Let's not forget the American farmers. They too receive government subsidies which makes them more competitive.
This happens everywhere but it seems like it can't happen in Serbia.

(icj1, 19 February 2015 16:25) is free to do whatever it wants with GM, Chrysler or AIG and even provide them with an unfair advantage vs non-US companies, as long as these companies don't just waste taxpayers money (and overall they're not - overall they returned a profit to the taxpayers).

-----

Dear icj1 mate, please read the following article from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2013/12/09/taxpayers-dont-have-government-motors-to-kick-around-any-more/) that states US taxpayers lost 11.1 billion dollars on the GM bailout. The US taxpayer purchased 50.1 biilion dollars of GM stock and could only recoup 39 billion.

No use in my supplying examples of thousands of EU/US government bailouts when you lack basic logic and arithmetic skills and characterizes taxpayer losses as "returning profit".

(icj1, 19 February 2015 20:45) Sorry mate, you wrote a long post for nothing :) there is a word in my post that you missed: "overall". You are so predictable mate haha That word was put there to make your post useless in advance and sure enough you fell for it lol.

----

Mate, I'm not the one claiming that the 2008 financial meltdown was profitable for taxpayers.

Your claims that overall tax payers profited, based on 400 billion dollars worth of stock, completely ignores the entire rescue package which is in the range of 700 billion - 1 trillion dollars. The taxpayer was left with a hefty bill that added to the ballooning > 15 trillion dollar debt.

Indulge in your fantasy of how we all "fell" for assuming this was a major loss, and keep spinning the profitably line..... laughable.

Peggy, Peggy, Peggy. The US is not a member of the EU nor is it in any way trying to join, hence the rules Serbia is asked to live by to join the EU do not apply.
(Silly Peggy, 19 February 2015 11:58)
=============================
I am aware of that but I was referring to someone's post which touched on that. If you take my words out of context then it's you who is silly for you are not keeping up with what we are talking about.

(icj1, 20 February 2015 01:08) Yes, the rescue package (aka TARP Program) authorized initially 700 billion in 2008, but your information is outdated because the authorization was reduced to 475 billion in 2010. Out of that, 427 billion were actually disbursed and the US treasury has got 442 billion back (so far) in repayments, interest and dividends. That's a profit of 15 billion (and counting).
-------

The fact is TARP was only a small fraction of tax payer funded government bailout. Obama also enacted ARRA (America Recovery and Reinvestment Act), which had funding of 787 billion at time of passage. The simple math on tax payer costs for ONLY these two programs 787 + 475 is >1.5 trillion dollars.

Furthermore, Wall street apologists want you to believe that TARP = bailout.

TO reiterate, TARP was only a small part of the Wall Street bailout. Most of the bailout was accomplished through the Federal Reserve.

Figures for the bailout up to 2012 show the US federal reserve had transferred 29.5 trillion dollars to the US treasury. Three facilities—CBLS, PDCF, and TAF— accounted for the lion’s share — 71.1% of all Federal Reserve assistance ($22.8 trillion).

(icj1, 20 February 2015 01:08) Wrong! You're relying on myths. The bailout has actually reduced the debt as shown above.
-------

Fact, not myth:
US debt in billions:
2014 $17,824
2013 $16,738
2012 $16,066
2011 $14,790
2010 $13,562
2009 $11,910
2008 $10,025

Laughable that your logic and arithmetic concludes a reduction at any point in this timeline. Although your voodoo math is not taught on Main Street schools, it is apparently consistent with Wall Street's.

(icj1, 20 February 2015 16:20)Please provide your new "definition" or(sic) bailout and where did taxpayers loose money?

---

There is no "new" definition of bailout. In response to your plea for help with the definition of bailout. Please note:
bail·out
ˈbāˌlout/
noun informal
an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse.

Bailout covers all modes of financial assistance and is not limited by TARP, ARRA, CBLS, TAF or any other acronynm.

Regarding the loss of US taxpayer money: I refer you again to the debt in 2008 ($10 trillion) and the debt in 2009 ($11.9 trillion), 2010 ($$13.6 trillion) , 2011 ($14.8 trillion), 2012 ($16 trillion), 2013 ($16.7 trillion) and 2014 ($17 trillion). Please clarify, which year do you claim a "profit" for the US taxpayer?

Do you need anymore help?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 17:40)
# Comment link

Help for what mate?! Not sure what you wrote had to do with anything I wrote:) You talked about GM, Chrysler and AIG bailout. That was the TARP Program which returned a profit to the US taxpayers and therefore reduced the US debt.

Now, if you're trying to say that other stuff (different from the TARP Program) increased the debt, well, yeah, nobody disputed that.

Bailout covers all modes of financial assistance and is not limited by TARP, ARRA, CBLS, TAF or any other acronynm.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 17:19)

OK, good you clarified your definition. So now back to your original post regarding the GM, Chrysler and AIG bailout which was the TARP...
----------

Please clarify, which year do you claim a "profit" for the US taxpayer?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 20 February 2015 17:19)

The TARP you referred to in regards to GM, Chrysler and AIG bailout has returned a profit to the US taxpayers of about 14.8 billion from 2008 to 2014 and counting.

(icj1, 21 February 2015 00:39) The TARP you referred to in regards to GM, Chrysler and AIG bailout has returned a profit

----

icj1 mate, YOU have been myopically obsessed with TARP, which I hope that we've now corrected. My original comments used the term bailout and referred to broader bailouts that included RBS, BNP, "among thousands" of others.