The evidence in financial markets rather suggest the interventions by UK, US, and EU member governments helped avoid a panic.
Now, do try to keep in mind that the Central Bank lending windows are part of standard operations (albeit rather extended), and not the bailout by your Treasury. They are providing emergency liquidity, part of their charter. The controversy here - the real controversy that is - is whether the Central Banks are taking on too much risk given the wider quality of collateral many have been accepting (notably the US Fed).
This is not “secret spending” so much as “widely extended Central Bank lending” off of its balance sheet. Unless one or more major banks borrowing go bankrupt, this does not touch the Treasury at all. Of course if another major bank goes down, you’ve got a bigger set of worries than whether your Treasury has to inject capital into the Central Bank.
Paulson said he was going to buy assets of these companies. Now it is cash infusions . Some of these banks are using the money for acquisitions. Some are paying bonuses. Some are sitting on it. We have no power to force them to start loaning. AIG is off on another party with tax payer money. Call the cops.
You do understand that the item referenced in the OP was Central Bank lending facilities, not the US Treasury plan, yes?
The 2 trillion includes Fannie ,Freddie ,AIG, numerous banks and financial institutions. We have spend 350 billion of the 700billion for the Paulson plan. There is a lot more to get to 2 trillion.
If I am correct, we’re talking about “Factors Affecting Reserve Balances of Depository Institutions”. Description and news. Data.
That’s $2.25 Trillion now and rising. But in Jan 2007, before the crisis, it was near $900 billion. So again, the OP refers to an extension of ordinary central bank operations, not the $350-700 billion special Treasury program.