[legolas2412]

If only I could be in so much debt and the govt gives me a loan with such generous terms.

The government undoubtedly provided its backing to the banks. That "profit" is not commensurate to the risk that the govt took on.

[Aunche]

Last I checked, loans with generous terms given to people were called to be cancelled because they were "exploitative." For ordinary people, it makes much more sense for aid to come from a more direct means.

> That "profit" is not commensurate to the risk that the govt took on.

That's because the bailouts was intended to stabilize the economy rather than to turn a profit.

[no_wizard]

>Last I checked, loans with generous terms given to people were called to be cancelled because they were "exploitative."

What do you mean by this exactly? I don't know what this is in reference to.

Never mind the case, the biggest problem with TARP isn't the money per se, its the lack of substantially increased regulation and teeth to enforce it. Executives and boardrooms should have been bankrupted as the government should have clawed back pay, personal assets, and bonuses to pay for the damage that was done. In another words, boardrooms and c-suites should have been humiliated and fired en masse, with prison time for those culpable.

That would have been a good start. TARP funds were handed out with no teeth. The senate hearings largely ended up being for show, and only a few executives were held feet to the fire and even so, it was brief.

Not to mention, how the heck are these people still allowed to work in finance at all.

[tmaly]

that is not a bad idea. Imagine qualified homeowners or car owners being able to refinance at the 30 year treasury bond rate?

[JumpCrisscross]

> only I could be in so much debt and the govt gives me a loan with such generous terms

This was the CARES Act.