>

No.
If they exceeded their "profit estimates" then they did NOT have a "recession" the bank just didn't make as much as they wanted. And you know what that means? Fuck'em. They are doing just fine.
Honestly it feels like the best economic minds have been calling for a recession since we had that credit inversion (I think it was called) some years ago.  I don't necessarily doubt that their predictions are being made in good faith, but even so they're getting to be the boys and girls who cried wolf. 
Rain dances appear to work because the dancers keep dancing until the rain comes, maybe recession dancers are a thing, too? 
We will eventually have another recession, that seems to be just a part of the economic cycle, but I'm not convinced that anyone knows when it's going to happen. >

It sucks when you get older and realize that the finance/investment companies are fine with recessions. They'll get bailed out, we won't (remember "Too big to fail"). They get to swoop in and buy a bunch of distressed assets with shiny new bailout money and then we will all be fucked even harder. Free market my ass. >

I would note that US taxpayers made considerable profit from the bailouts. It’s not like it was free money. 2008 was a big L for the investment banks. >


I would note that US taxpayers made considerable profit from the bailouts

The government made a profit, it's not like the actual taxpayer saw any of that money >

It'll factor into national budgets, which factors into how much debt needs to be raised, and debt payments factor into tax increases. It's a tenuous connection, but that's equally true of the common narrative that US taxpayers personally carried this tremendous financial cost from the bailouts (when it had a net cost of -$15b). >

Yes but that's the government realizing that benefit. For the average tax payer no benefit was realized, their taxes didn't go down nor did it factor into any reduction of a tax increase.
I mean can you demonstrate the benefit you realized from these repayments? >

The government only has two sources of money, and one is financed by the other, so really one: taxpayers. In the counterfactual where the bailouts cost significant amounts of money, that money must come out of the taxpayer eventually.
$15b is $15b. The realized benefit is that tax increases since then would have been higher without them. >


The realized benefit is that tax increases since then would have been higher without them.

Or the government could have just borrowed less money the next year and not affected your taxes at all. You're mistaken to think that just because the government earned some additional revenue from the repayment of loans/grants that it means YOU are going to see some benefit from it. The government could do all kinds of things with that extra revenue while simultaneously keeping ita tax burden on you the same 
Can you quantify the benefit you as an individual tax payer received? >

If the government borrows less money, that directly has an impact on the taxes of the future. Every dollar that is borrowed will eventually be paid by tax dollars, plus interest. Borrowing allows for you to shift the money in a temporal sense but the chickens will come home to roost.

The government could do all kinds of things with that extra revenue while simultaneously keeping ita tax burden on you the same

Sure, and in the counterfactual they don't keep the tax burden the same, they increase it because they have the list of things they want to fund and are going to fund it. That sum of things is subtracted by $15b. Amortized over the US populace, that's about $50. Not counting interests from not borrowing an addition $15b, but with interest rates at that time it would have been near 0.
So about $50 less in net taxes. Negative $50 per person is not a bad price for economic stability. >


If the government borrows less money, that directly has an impact on the taxes of the future

You assume. Congress could decide to use extra revenue from the repayment of a loan to reduce taxes, or it could just not.
In our case, Congress did not reduce taxpayer burdens because of the extra revenue from these repayments.

So about $50 less in net taxes.

Where you given a tax rebate of $50s or saw your tax rate reduced in such a way to cause a net drop of $50 dollars? >

Thank God our banking overlords are okay. I was worried. >

Firing 3,800 people might have helped, lol. >

All that business with Epstein still paying dividends? >

Mild like taqueria salsa >

"people with all the money survive hardship."
Let me know when the FDIC pulls Wells Fargo's accreditation, that would be welcome news.