But I think the idea is not to outright admit the trick, right?

The God's of American Finance see otherwise, and you must adapt to their new contrived reality. You see, the present is all that matters, and reality is whatever they say it is. This is change, my friend; get with it.

/snark

So does this raise the total commitment to $11.2 Trillion, or is this already figured in in to that $9.7T figure I saw yesterday?

I mean, if we're going to be Argentina, we might as well cast Hillary as Evita, right?
_
Basically, all of Geithner's plans benefit the wealthiest 20% of Americans, who hold 90% of the nation's financial wealth. His plan aims to keep the financial institutions public --- butressing the values of the stocks controlled by that 20%. And his plan is aimed at attracting "investors" by offering deals that are highly favorable to those investors -- again, we're talking about subsidizing the wealthy.
_
this is madness. Nationalize the bad banks yesterday, pay off the insured depositors, and let the healthy banks that didn't take stupid risk take over their business. Then go on a full scale assault on consumer credit -- not just mortgage modification that includes significant reductions in principle to reflect current housing prices, but pass usury laws that tie credit card interest rates to the Fed rate. With banks being charged close to 0% interest on money from the Fed, there is no excuse for credit card interest rates to be well into the double digits. A forced reduction of these rates would reduce the burden on American consumers, and increase their willingness to make new purchases.

to guarantee repayment of all those Treasuries China has bought...

Is this an "Uh oh!" moment for the administration? Or just something the Chinese want out there for Hillary to address?

China should seek guarantees that its $682 billion holdings of U.S. government debt won’t be eroded by “reckless policies,” said Yu Yongding, a former adviser to the central bank.
SNIP
Benchmark 10-year Treasury yields climbed above 3 percent this week on speculation the government will increase borrowing as President Barack Obama pushes his $838 billion stimulus package through Congress. Premier Wen Jiabao said last month his government’s strategy for investing would focus on safeguarding the value of China’s $1.95 trillion foreign reserves.

China may voice its concerns over U.S. government finances and the potential for a weaker dollar when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visits China on Feb. 20, according to He Zhicheng, an economist at Agricultural Bank of China, the nation’s third-largest lender by assets. A People’s Bank of China official, who didn’t wish to be identified, declined to comment on the telephone.

view of the current economic mess has a similar view of the Obama-Geithner TARP II or TALF or BARF:

Has Barack Obama’s presidency already failed? In normal times, this would be a ludicrous question. But these are not normal times. They are times of great danger. Today, the new US administration can disown responsibility for its inheritance; tomorrow, it will own it. Today, it can offer solutions; tomorrow it will have become the problem. Today, it is in control of events; tomorrow, events will take control of it. Doing too little is now far riskier than doing too much. If he fails to act decisively, the president risks being overwhelmed, like his predecessor. The costs to the US and the world of another failed presidency do not bear contemplating.

What is needed? The answer is: focus and ferocity. If Mr Obama does not fix this crisis, all he hopes from his presidency will be lost. If he does, he can reshape the agenda. Hoping for the best is foolish. He should expect the worst and act accordingly.
SNIP
The banking programme seems to be yet another child of the failed interventions of the past one and a half years: optimistic and indecisive. If this “progeny of the troubled asset relief programme” fails, Mr Obama’s credibility will be ruined. Now is the time for action that seems close to certain to resolve the problem; this, however, does not seem to be it.

Wolf fears the Obama administration is stuck on hoping for the best and not facing the awful reality of the situation.

...it also seems it has set itself the wrong question. It has not asked what needs to be done to be sure of a solution. It has asked itself, instead, what is the best it can do given three arbitrary, self-imposed constraints: no nationalisation; no losses for bondholders; and no more money from Congress. Yet why does a new administration, confronting a huge crisis, not try to change the terms of debate? This timidity is depressing. Trying to make up for this mistake by imposing pettifogging conditions on assisted institutions is more likely to compound the error than to reduce it.

(Worth quoting just for the use of "pettifogging.")

The entire piece is worth the read , plus linky richness.

Here's the link for Wolf on Charlie Rose.

I can't help but think of the money that was squandered in the war with Iraq. Billions went to that country and we have nothing to show for the effort except dead patriots. I also think of the trillions that were spent that went to other countries for manufacturing tanks, aircraft and other weaponry . Am I the only one that took economics in the 80s that remembers the Guns vs Butter debate? The problem is spending it on guns doesn't help us if the guns aren't made here.

Don't cry for us Bush and Cheney
The truth is you made millions off of us
All through your administration
The war with Iraq and embracing of China
You spent all our trillions
There was nothing more that could be squeezed from us....