Talk:Troubled Asset Relief Program

Making opening section cleaner and more objective.
The opening section seems like it would be cleaner and a better introduction to the topic if we moved the detailed references to what amounts were borrowed and paid back by the various companies. This information might be better suited to a separate section on 'TARP repayment'.

The opening section seems to be geared as a pre-emptive defense of the progamme itself, and the article would be improved by removing this pro-TARP bias. Specifically, there is bias in mentioning that 'there were fears' that the government would hold on to the companies for a period of years because the section that follows this statement seems to be trying to vindicate TARP in light of those fears. I have nothing against presenting this evidence in the article under 'controversies' or 'disgreements' but it does not seem right for the opening section.

A second specific instance of bias, it seems to me, is the comparison of the amount of GDP spend on TARP compared to the S&L crisis. Again, this seems to be a pre-emptive defense against charges that the TARP was excessive in scope and while this information is relevant to the controversies over TARP, it doesn't seem appropriate for the introductory section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.41.73 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * i agree. when i read the intro, both of those 'bias points' jumped out at me, as well.  they're still there, 4 1/2 years later.  i was going to leave it, but the decided to make changes.  this was brought up nearly 5 years ago, and not changed, addressed, or defended in all that time.  i moved the sentence with the comparison to the S&L crisis to the "Similar historical federal banking programs" section. i hid the sentence about the fear and the 'projected' corporate buybacks because its not only mildly biased but quite outdated (it talks about projections in 2010--well, what happened?).Colbey84 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Creative use of numbers
The third sentence of the article reads "The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion and was expected to cost the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion.", citing '"Measuring the Cost of the TARP" study by Brookings Institution on January 23, 2009, Retrieved January 18, 201". However the cited "study"'s mentions the 300 billion figure in only one sentence: "Consider the potential reaction to an estimate of $175 billion of expected losses with a chance it could rise to $300 billion in a very bad case, offset by a reasonable chance the ultimate cost would be lower than expected." Otherwise it just uses figures from a CBO report and it turns out that the said CBO report estimates the total cost of the TARP at 20.5 billion (, p 4-5). What should be done ? I think the best would be to give an estimate of the cost at the time the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was passed, but absent this, I would suggest to simply remove the totally misleading 300 billion figure. --Superzoulou (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Removed for now. --Superzoulou (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * i also question the use of "the total cost...would be $24 billion" in the Intro. first, this should be updated—it was an estimate made 3 1/2 years ago.  second, this is a "subsidy cost"—and that needs to be explained.  i'm not good at this accounting stuff; from what i can figure out, a subsidy cost is the difference between what one pays for something, and what its worth at the time of purchase.  but then there are a whole bunch of flimflam options bureaucratic and corporate (and government) types can use to obfuscate what it really means.  in simple terms, i buy a 1985 motorcycle and pay $1200 for it, even though its 'Blue Book' value is only $900. in this case, my reasoning might be that i can make repairs that will raise its value, or that if i hold on to it for long enough, its rarity will increase the value.  so, in this example, the subsidy cost is $300.  in the TARP case, its $24 billion 9and the government must have had their own reasoning).  that's my understanding of it, but its hard to figure out because all the figures given here are outdated, and the sources (and THEIR) figures are outdated.


 * really, this whole article needs to be updated. there is some updated info in the "Expenditures and commitments" section, but at least a summary should be in the Intro.  this article is written for the non-layperson.  it should be re-written in simpler terms; there should be a clear, concise overview of the entire program, and then the "higher-end" info can be placed after that for those who want more depth.  most of the sources used are either subscription only, outdated, or obtuse government tracts.


 * it would also be good if all the snide little biased remarks were removed. (ex.: "As of August 31st, 2015, TARP is projected to cost approximately $37.3 billion total - significantly less than the $700 billion originally authorized by Congress." - comparing apples to oranges to sneak in a bias.)Colbey84 (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

TARP was a LAW - passed by Congress, why no info on that?
Amazing. "George Bush signed it". Sure, true. But who passed the law and sent it to him. It's amazing to have a whole article about a law that says nothing about the circumstances or votes on enacting it. Almost like this is a cover-up.

It really needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 05:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I recall President Obama initiated TARP. Whether it was ratified by him...I don't know. 24.43.84.78 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Troubled Asset Relief Program. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-020609-report.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-010909-report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Replacement for broken external link "report on TARP repayments"?
The link for "The report on TARP repayments is available here" (http://www.sigtarp.gov/pages/reportsaudits.aspx) under "Further reading" is broken (404 NOT FOUND). And I do not see anything similar on the TARP reports page (https://www.sigtarp.gov/Pages/Reports-Testimony-Home.aspx)

Does anyone know of a simple, consolidated, report link to replace the existing one?

AGlassman (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect name?
The U.S. Treasury Department has a web page for the Troubled Assets Relief Program ([Https://home.treasury.gov/data/troubled-assets-relief-program https://home.treasury.gov/data/troubled-assets-relief-program]), which is spelled differently from the title of this article.

Should the title of this article be changed to agree with that name (Asset → Assets)? 2601:200:C000:1A0:E994:56BB:2E71:AC9E (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Treasury.gov link has moved
Hello. I'm new here. I'm not sure how any of this works. Anyways, link 59, ("Chrysler Repays Outstanding TARP Loans") currently links to:

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1189.aspx

And that link doesn't take you to the press release anymore. If you want to get to the press release cited, you have to go to:

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/tg1189

I have edited it to point to the bottom link now.

Resrreksean (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Community Development Capital Initiative into Troubled Asset Relief Program
This initiative can be covered within the scope of the wider program. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)