AHC: Have TARP rejected in 2008

A major grassroots movement starting with the dawn of the recession that combines the libertarian anti-government aspects of the Tea Party with the anti-Wall Street aspects of the Occupy movement, and attach it to enough Congressional candidates that incumbents are scared shitless that they will be voted out if they vote in favor of it.
 
A major grassroots movement starting with the dawn of the recession that combines the libertarian anti-government aspects of the Tea Party with the anti-Wall Street aspects of the Occupy movement, and attach it to enough Congressional candidates that incumbents are scared shitless that they will be voted out if they vote in favor of it.

That made me thinking. If the recession happened in 2007 or late 2006 instead of 2008, could this have happened?
 
Have John Kerry be elected President by a big margin in 2004, enough to flip the House and Senate, then have an earlier Tea Party equivalent in 2006 hold a majority in both houses.
 
The problem is TARP was pretty much needed to prevent escalating fear and anxiety with the public. People didn't realize the problems up until things got stable.

People weren't thinking straight... they were panicking over everything at the time. The alternate would be if someone managed to force an alternate solution (hold the banks repsonsible and such) for this, though given the influence on both parties, it would require some serious chutzpah and or support from the voters.
 
As the title says, have TARP fail to pass in the House and Senate in 2008.

Have the Dow *not* go down 777.68 (which was −6.98% at the time...) when the House first rejects it. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=5912806

As I have said here in the past: people get this wrong because they remember that there was a populist backlash against banks and bailouts--and forget that this largely came about later, after the situation was relatively stabilized. In September 2008, the predominant reaction was not anger but fear.
 
Very difficult. TARP was widely supported, because people were panicking. In addition, Bernanke, Bush, and most in congress wanted to pass it.
 
Very difficult. TARP was widely supported, because people were panicking. In addition, Bernanke, Bush, and most in congress wanted to pass it.
Was TARP actually widely supported, or widely supported by those who have stocks? Most Americans don't. If instead of TARP, a program is started to give that amount of money directly to members of the public as an economic stimulant, it would have gained immediate support from many more Americans than TARP did.
 
Was TARP actually widely supported, or widely supported by those who have stocks? Most Americans don't. If instead of TARP, a program is started to give that amount of money directly to members of the public as an economic stimulant, it would have gained immediate support from many more Americans than TARP did.

TARP was supported by people intiitally because it did something to provide them a sense of stability. It was only months after did people realize it was just done to bail out the big members.

For TARP ntot o happen, you'd have to have most politicians not be bribed by the banks or rather have them be coerced (or even forced) to do hold the banks accountable for what happened as well as some form of relief plan.
 
Was TARP actually widely supported, or widely supported by those who have stocks? Most Americans don't. If instead of TARP, a program is started to give that amount of money directly to members of the public as an economic stimulant, it would have gained immediate support from many more Americans than TARP did.

TARP would be much more likely to pass than a stimulus package, since it had the support of the Fed. A stimulus package, in conjunction with TARP could pass, although that did happen in OTL.
 
TARP would be much more likely to pass than a stimulus package, since it had the support of the Fed. A stimulus package, in conjunction with TARP could pass, although that did happen in OTL.

My terminology may have been incorrect. I recall seeing an article stating that for the amount of money given to the banks, the govt. could have issued a check to each mortgage holder in the US and paid off our houses, with money left over.
 
Was TARP actually widely supported, or widely supported by those who have stocks? Most Americans don't. If instead of TARP, a program is started to give that amount of money directly to members of the public as an economic stimulant, it would have gained immediate support from many more Americans than TARP did.

Up until AIG collapses, removing over a $1 Trillion from the economy and thrusting us into the Second Great Depression.
 
My terminology may have been incorrect. I recall seeing an article stating that for the amount of money given to the banks, the govt. could have issued a check to each mortgage holder in the US and paid off our houses, with money left over.
That article wouldn't be correct. The total dispursed by TARP over six years was $426 billion. Spreading that among all 300-odd million citizens would give each about $1,400. Not insignificant, but nothing near "pay off a house plus extra". Even using the originally authorized total of $700 billion would only raise it to about $2,300.
 
My terminology may have been incorrect. I recall seeing an article stating that for the amount of money given to the banks, the govt. could have issued a check to each mortgage holder in the US and paid off our houses, with money left over.

Yeah, as has been already said, this couldn't happen. First, we didn't have the money to pay off everyone's mortgages. Second, the Fed wouldn't support it because, if the financial system collapsed we would be plunged into a recession as bad as the Great Depression. We know this, because that is what caused the actual Great Depression.
 
Top