Rethinking the TARP

The recession of 2009 has been ongoing past August 2010 and into October. The event has been like a tsunami wave taking out weary citizens in its path, so if one family hasn’t felt the brunt of its force another has witnessed it. Those who have recovered may have forgotten about the turmoil of uncertainty for those who haven't since reporters are seldom speaking about the lives affected by such a financial collapse. But remnants of the chaos remain in the minds and experiences of the poor and those who were thrust on the streets due to the crisis. Many are still feeling the hammering waves of lost hope. As a result, Americans are questioning as to whether they had to encounter such an extreme financial death and whiplash when bankers seemingly have gotten away with more money than they need tucked away in their pockets. As early as 2007, Congress and President Bush were shown signs of the huge wave of economic disaster, thus warranted a new law to be written: the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and was signed into law in 2008 before Obama took office.

Benchmarks occurring before 2007 and hurling into 2009 became signs of a recession or economic slow down. In hindsight, the formation of economic collapse mounted upon and after 9/11/2001, which included one fiasco after another: destruction of the World Trade Center, Hurricane Katrina, high energy costs, depletion of the housing boom due to people being overcharged on inflated property assessments and variable interest rates that would soon sky rocket and wipe a family out of house and home. Other examples: Bernie Madoff duping the system and ripping stockholders off, and businesses filing for bankruptcy one after another which led to companies going out of business and employees losing their jobs. With all this calamity, the banks needed a huge breath of life called the TARP or the $700 billion bail out, and the U.S. government was left balancing the wavering shreds of business in one hand and delicate American lives in the other.

The enormous weight of American lives had tipped the scales to a 180 degree angle. President Obama vowed to keep money in the pockets of Americans using unemployment insurance funds and to make a way for Americans to refinance their homes. Restarting the stalled economy by creating jobs, fixing the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission, boosting GM, AIG, and other companies out of a jam would prove to be a great undertaking. An undertaking that consisted of more than just bail out money, but $4500 rebate for a person trading in his/her gas guzzler and buying a new car, and filtering money into the banks so the U.S. would not collapse financially and economically, and offering up to $8000 rebate for first time home buyers. Of course anyone having a job during this time or having money in the bank could only benefit from these rebates. The rest of America looked on only wishing they could, too.

Amidst the surge of money, many Americans wonder whether the criteria for administering large sums of money to such entities in the event of such an economic storm could have been written to include their pocket books, too? Americans are saying, "if the money could have been given directly to the people, the bills would have been paid, companies would have been started and jump started, and people would not have lost their homes or their jobs. From all the payouts by the people, the banks would have gotten their money, the car companies would have made some money, and the financial and insurance companies would have recouped their losses, also, thus creating a faster upstart to our economy."

America is asking, could the criteria of the TARP law have been written to include the pocket books of the American people? Explain with some detail. Or perhaps you would prefer to answer the following question: Would you have liked for the TARP bill to have included the pocket books of the average American, how much, and what would you have done with your share?