That's not a full accounting, but at a macro level shows treasury is still way behind on bailout recovery (100s of billions.
I linked the summary page. Please note that you actually can drill down into the specifics of each individual part of the program. It may not be enough to satisfy your curiosities, but there is data there if you look. Here's an example, the is the nitty gritty for AIG:http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/entities/8-aig
Second, be very careful not to lump the Fannie/Freddie bailout into TARP. They are two separate things. Treasury is "behind" overall, but it's because of the drag from F/F. In terms of TARP, they are probably ahead.
The loss/gain thing is just a straw man. No one has said that. Question is should the Fed Gov't be taking action to save banks in other nations.
People actually have said that. It's not a straw-man, it's weasel wording. Which is something that I actually despise, but it's tolerated around here, and so I thought to nip that argument in the bud before anyone had a chance to vocalize it.
And the answer to that question is "yes". The Federal government is responsible for well-being of the country that it represents. It was recognized fairly early on that contagion in Europe would spread here, in one way or another. We are too interconnected in the 21st century for it to be otherwise.
Just saying "credit would have dried up and that's bad" doesn't make you right. Sure its bad - but so is gov't action that's unpredictable. Instead of credit drying up in the financial sector, it dried up in the business sector, businesses said **** and sat on their hands for a couple of years - a big part of the jobs not created.
It's six of one, half dozen of the other. There was no liquidity problem -- thanks to TARP and the Fed, there was plenty of cheap money available -- there was a lending problem: nobody was doing it.
You might argue that it was due to uncertainty/unpredictability caused by the government, but that's not an argument that I can take seriously, given the force with which they responded to the crisis. You might argue that business were scared to invest, and I'd agree with that: but only to the extent that they had no profitable investments to make, largely due to slack demand as a result of the crisis (and the massive unemployment from people cutting payroll to protect themselves).
Quick google link - Forbes article from last year about why TARP was a negative:
My response to that article is the old Axelrod yarn: the nice thing about having no responsibility, is that you can say irresponsible things. The article references "raising private capital", which is a tell that the author doesn't really remember how bad things were back in 2008.
The same thing happens again and again when folks complain about the auto bailouts: should have gone through normal bankruptcy, raised money from private investors, sold off assets, yadda yadda yadda, ignores the fact that nobody was stepping up to do any of this. Uncle Sam was looking pretty hard, too.
I find it kind of frustrating.