Romney: It was Bush and Hank Paulson, not Obama, who saved the economy with TARP

posted at 7:10 pm on March 21, 2012 by Allahpundit

Is it really “news” that he’s saying this? I’m going to argue yes, but purely for what it signals about the state of the race.

Hours after he secured the endorsement of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney credited his brother, President George W. Bush, with keeping the country from a great depression in 2008.

“I keep hearing the president say he’s responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression,” Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. “No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson.”

He’s been making that point for ages. It’s even in his book. From Time’s piece on Romney’s “No Apology” back in March 2010:

The Harvard MBA and venture capitalist is sharper when it comes to the economy, a topic squarely in his wheelhouse. The best way for government to stimulate the economy, he argues, is to promote a favorable climate for innovation and then get out of its way. But he’s not an absolutist when it comes to government meddling in the markets. Though he denounces the bailout of Detroit carmakers, Romney is a backer of TARP, though he couches his position with a caveat that protects his right flank. “Secretary Paulson’s TARP prevented a systemic collapse of the national financial system,” he writes. “Secretary Geithner’s TARP became an opaque, heavy-handed, expensive slush fund. It should be shut down.”

The DNC accused him of flip-flopping on TARP late last year and PolitiFact, after researching, gave him a clean bill of health — a bit of consistency worth noting on Etch-a-Sketch Day in the blogosphere. If you don’t believe them, believe your own eyes. Embedded below you’ll find Romney defending TARP at a GOP candidate roundtable in October. He praises Bush and Paulson at around 1:15. His position on this has, as far as I can tell, always been that (a) TARP was imperfectly designed, (b) it should have been ended long ago after it became a slush fund, (c) he doesn’t support bailing out any individual bank simply because its managers made dumb decisions, but (d) in the extraordinary scenario where you’re looking at a systemic collapse of the entire financial system, with one bank dragging down another and then another in a catastrophic domino effect, then you have to act. I’ve always been sympathetic to that argument even though it makes conservatives bristle and amounts to rank heresy among libertarians, so perhaps my view of what he said today is skewed but I don’t see what the big deal here is. He was on record about TARP over and over again before the first votes were cast in Iowa and he’s got the nomination all but cinched three months later. Obviously it’s not disqualifying for most Republicans.

What is a big deal, though, is that he feels safe running through this again even though it’s Etch-a-Sketch Day. Clearly he thinks he’s in a strong enough position electorally that he doesn’t have to worry about hitting the occasional conservative nerve with his rhetoric, even at a moment when grassroots righties are perked up about him lurching towards the center in the general. (This is also a pat on the back for the Bush family on the day he finally landed Jeb’s endorsement, of course.) More significantly, this might be his way of starting to pivot from a “the economy’s a hopeless disaster under Obama” message to a more daring “yeah, okay, the economy’s starting to come back — thanks to Bush” message. If so, that seems exceedingly unwise; I’ve written many times about polls showing that voters continue to blame Bush, not The One, for the recession. Just last month, a Quinnipiac survey indicated that 51 percent still blame Bush for the current condition of the economy compared to just 35 percent who blame O. Dubya’s numbers have barely budged on that in more than two years. Sustained Republican messaging will move the needle a bit but if we’re banking on spinning away a recovery by rehabilitating George W. Bush(!) and TARP(!!), we’re in for a long election night, my friends.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

And there are some geniuses on the far right who have 1/10 of 1% of Romney’s understanding of Finance but are nonetheless morally certain that TARP was not necessary.

Basilsbest on March 21, 2012 at 8:03 PM

We listened to the geniuses that shoved tarp down our throats creating the largest theft of public wealth in the history of the world. What do we have to show for it? A few trillion in debt and a zero interest rate policy both of which is raising the price of everything we consume in the course of living, from gas to food to building materials and clothes (just look at the corresponding commodities price performance since 01/09).

TARP was the tip of the iceberg, the bank bailouts go much further. The kick in the pants is it has done nothing. The banks are still insolvent and the only thing that changes that perception is the government gift of “mark to fantasy” and an inept media reporting all is well.

voiceofreason on March 21, 2012 at 8:14 PM

TARP as it was initially billed, was absolutely necessary. As it was used, though, was horrible.
crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 8:11 PM

You are surprised the government misused tax payers money?

I could have told you TARP will be a disaster before a single dollar was spent…

social-justice on March 21, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Why should he worry? All the TruCons have made it eminently clear that for hate’s sake they spit their last breath at Romney, so he no longer has anything to lose with that group. He could release a viral video of him and his sons lined up like the cast of Riverdance doing a jig on top of Reagan’s grave while burning a Gadsden flag, and it wouldn’t cost him any support.

Fabozz on March 21, 2012 at 7:36 PM

You’re right. This has been the establishment’s play forever. It will take a slew of lost elections before they give a conservative a try again. Bush fu–ed us with his compassionate conservatism crap. He had us believing he was different than Dole/McCain/Huntsman/Christie/Pataki/Bloomburg/Snowe/Whitman/Graham/Hatch/Romney…. He was a POS. So now, we are left to wait. But worry not, time is on our side.

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:15 PM

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 8:11 PM

You are surprised the government misused tax payers money?

I could have told you TARP will be a disaster before a single dollar was spent…

social-justice on March 21, 2012 at 8:15 PM

That anyone would be surprised that TARP was a disaster, or ignorant of its unconstitutionality, does not bode well for our republic.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:19 PM

loan is not the same thing as a gift. This is something which annoys me to no end about liberals and conservatives. TARP was a loan and most of it has been repaid.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 7:38 PM

Just what we want, Government as a banker for big business. They were so good at it, maybe they can do it full time. Oh, but that darn constitution…. Please, just go back Denmark or go eat pastry – just say away from here.

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:20 PM

bayam on March 21, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Do you know how much research went into Paulson’s “there will be tanks in the street” mantra?

Not one shred of research. Do you know how they came up with the dollar amount of tarp? It sounded like a big number.

No sale here. Paulson and his cronies were responsible for the meltdown and stood the most to gain from tarp. That is how tarp came to be.

voiceofreason on March 21, 2012 at 8:08 PM

I agree with your points about the ‘estimates’ and if you watched Too Big To Fail or read the book, these things are well documented. But no one really knew what would happen if the system collapsed. It’s easy to look back in hindsight without the absolute fear and terror that was gripping the financial system and leading to events that were clear threats to the very fabric of our capitalstic system.

I also agree that Paulson’s cronies were fully responsible for turning Wall Street into a casino-like environment where bankers systematically bet investor’s assets to maximize profits and bonuses, with little regard for the incredible leverage and corresponding risk that it entailed. As Jamie Diamond says early in Too Big To Fail, and right after the collapse of Bear Sterns, the end of capitalism as America knew it was within sight.

bayam on March 21, 2012 at 8:22 PM

More significantly, this might be his way of starting to pivot from a “the economy’s a hopeless disaster under Obama” message to a more daring “yeah, okay, the economy’s starting to come back — thanks to Bush” message. If so, that seems exceedingly unwise;

Why is it unwise to speak the truth? Would you rather Romney state the economy is not improving when it is, even if only slightly? Do you want him to be open to the charge that he’s such a partisan, or hack, that he denied the economy was recovering when in fact it was?

I’ve written many times about polls showing that voters continue to blame Bush, not The One, for the recession. Just last month, a Quinnipiac survey indicated that 51 percent still blame Bush for the current condition of the economy compared to just 35 percent who blame O. Dubya’s numbers have barely budged on that in more than two years.

The public – left and right – is misinformed about whether TARP was necessary and whether it worked. Why is it unwise to educate them?

Sustained Republican messaging will move the needle a bit but if we’re banking on spinning away a recovery by rehabilitating George W. Bush(!) and TARP(!!), we’re in for a long election night, my friends.

The recovery is tepid. Romney does not need to spin it away. He merely needs to explain to the economically illiterate why it is tepid and what is necessary to make it robust.

We are not in for a long election night. Romney will trounce Obama. The trouncing would be more devastating if we had a better class of pundit on our side.

Basilsbest on March 21, 2012 at 8:22 PM

And there are some geniuses on the far right who have 1/10 of 1% of Romney’s understanding of Finance but are nonetheless morally certain that TARP was not necessary.

Basilsbest on March 21, 2012 at 8:03 PM

I know what you mean. Like that company he owned that had huge profits and massive sales increases that he had no clue how it was happening. He is a total Financial Wizard. Maybe you missed the aspect of the education that Willard really used to gain his money, lawyer! You know, when an executive like Romney can oversee the largest in the nation’s history to that date defrauding of the medicare and medicaid system and not know anything about it, I am willing imagine, with strong conviction that he is either incapable or devious. I go for the devious, as he miraculously sold the company just weeks before the feds came down and stopped the theft.

Also, when his number one financial victory, the Olympics, comes out with $100M profit, but that profit discounted to 0% of value well in excess of $400M in government bailout funds, I can also question the person’s capability in spending money wisely.

Do I have his understanding of economics? I sure as hell do not, I am not a socialist.

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:22 PM

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:06 PM

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:09 PM

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Ideological purity, hows that workin’ out? Bless y’alls hearts.

Two of y’all bashed candidates more conservative than Romney because they weren’t to y’alls liking. Y’all whine because we are getting Romney as a candidate. Now you want to keep Obama because y’all think he will bring about a conservative savior.

Double bless y’alls hearts.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM

My god, is Romney on the Soros payroll?

BHO previously only dreamed that Romney would bring Bush back into the campaign, and here we go re-injecting this right when people are starting to focus on BHO’s job performance via gas prices.

Romney is a political blockhead.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on March 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Romney opposed that particular misuse of TARP and the wasted gazillions spent propping them up when they should have gone directly into bankruptcy (and re-emerged stronger and leaner).

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 7:41 PM

It’s nice to know that he’s wise enough to know when a cause is righteous to misue use the governemt and abuse his power.

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Give the voters a choice between a socialist and a Socialist, and they’ll pick the Socialist every time.

logis on March 21, 2012 at 8:24 PM

What will Mitt differentiate himself with, against Obama?

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Ideological purity, hows that workin’ out? Bless y’alls hearts.

Two of y’all bashed candidates more conservative than Romney because they weren’t to y’alls liking. Y’all whine because we are getting Romney as a candidate. Now you want to keep Obama because y’all think he will bring about a conservative savior.

Double bless y’alls hearts.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM

How is that going halfway and then halfway again and halfway again to the liberal progressive policy working out for you? You know, the one that caused the housing bubble, the one that has medicaid going bankrupt around 2017, Medicare around 2024, Social Security this side of 2032 and the entire nation somewhere south of the 2036? How is that working out for you?

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Romney opposed that particular misuse of TARP and the wasted gazillions spent propping them up when they should have gone directly into bankruptcy (and re-emerged stronger and leaner).

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 7:41 PM

None of the large banks could have been fixed through bankruptcy, you don’t seem to understand the difference between a regular business and bank failure.

We listened to the geniuses that shoved tarp down our throats creating the largest theft of public wealth in the history of the world

I don’t agree with the terms of TARP, but don’t you understand that the loans were repaid?

bayam on March 21, 2012 at 8:28 PM

crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 8:11 PM

You mentioned last night you no longer get this or that talk show because your local station does not carry them. You can listen to ANY show on your computer because most every show is streamed. You can start with something like streamingradioguide.com. You can get talk show, sports or music station. It had gone through some changes lately and the number of stations listed by show each hour had been cut down, but you can do “search show” or “search station” to locate the stream you wanted.

galtani on March 21, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Also, when his number one financial victory, the Olympics, comes out with $100M profit, but that profit discounted to 0% of value well in excess of $400M in government bailout funds, I can also question the person’s capability in spending money wisely.

Do I have his understanding of economics? I sure as hell do not, I am not a socialist.

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:22 PM

The federal government paid for security for an international event to which all the world was invited. Only a very dishonest hyper partisan idiot would describe that as a bailout.

Basilsbest on March 21, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Willard is unacceptable.

Many of you have trashed McCain for suspending his campaign to support the big bailout and TARP. And with good reason.

Now here is Willard defending fascist economics again. This is inexcusable. When you take risks in business, and they didn’t pan out, then you fail. That’s capitalism. But that’s not Willard’s peculiar country-club vision of economics, where Americans exist to pay inetrest to, and to bail out, the banks.

Willard is defending the right of plutocrats to have their bad investments magically bailed out.

Any chance that I had of supporting Willard against Obama, miniscule as it was, just went to zero.

Emperor Norton on March 21, 2012 at 7:56 PM

See you in constitutiontopia brother. So where over the rai…..

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Ideological purity, hows that workin’ out? Bless y’alls hearts.

Two of y’all bashed candidates more conservative than Romney because they weren’t to y’alls liking. Y’all whine because we are getting Romney as a candidate. Now you want to keep Obama because y’all think he will bring about a conservative savior.

Double bless y’alls hearts.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Desiring our government to follow the constitution is not “ideological purity.” It’s following the law. And it’s the people that think the government is above the law, as you apparently do, that makes me believe we deserve four more years of Obama.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:31 PM

The federal government paid for security for an international event to which all the world was invited. Only a very dishonest hyper partisan idiot would describe that as a bailout.

Basilsbest on March 21, 2012 at 8:29 PM

So, you are saying that the Olympics is a federal function?

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:31 PM

You really have no idea what was going on at the time… and obviously never know anyone inside the financial industry close to the destruction. It’s funny that people actually believe that our country’s financial system is some kind of indestructible force. It’s nothing more than an edifice, built on trust, and could have easily collapsed in totality.

bayam on March 21, 2012 at 7:58 PM

Then the answer is to return to the gold standard – not trample the constituiton numbnuts.

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:32 PM

How is that going halfway and then halfway again and halfway again to the liberal progressive policy working out for you?

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Follow your own logic. Only going halfay will never get you to liberalville. As opposed to the likes of Obama which will take us there at light speed.

…as you apparently do, that makes me believe we deserve four more years of Obama.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:31 PM

So, I take it you are back to voting for Obama?

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:35 PM

loan is not the same thing as a gift. This is something which annoys me to no end about liberals and conservatives. TARP was a loan and most of it has been repaid.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 7:38 PM

People don’t remember the RTC solution for the S&Ls during the ’80s. We shall not mention who was the pres. during that time…rhymes with Bush.. but nonetheless the RTC was the best Govt sponsored solution for the problem-at that time.
The real gripe with TARP is that it was forced on banks that didn’t even need it – not optional. You think mandates are bad? I know 2 banks personally, BB&T did not need it, nor Mellon Bank- who is a custodial bank- and was at no risk investment-wise ever.

So what did the banks do with these free billions ? They made money off off it….lots of it. They did not risk a penny of it. Goldman made billions $ in quarterly nets during “The Great Recession of 2009″– Can you blame them ? Why do you think they call it a “Great” recession anyway -LOL

But, Yes the government ultimately sucks at oversight as well as resolution.

FlaMurph on March 21, 2012 at 8:35 PM

bayam on March 21, 2012 at 8:28 PM

Paid back like GM’s partial pay back? Taking taxpayer research and development grants (that they shouldn’t get) and put it towards bail out debt. All of these people are crooks and liars.

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 8:38 PM

So, I take it you are back to voting for Obama?

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Except that I never intended to. What part of “I believe we deserve Obama” implies that I intend to vote for him? The most extreme act of protest I could ever bring myself to engage in is staying home, and I’m not about to do that while our frontrunner still has over 580 delegates to win before the nomination is secure.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:39 PM

What will Mitt differentiate himself with, against Obama?

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2012 at 8:25 PM

.

He doesn’t have to. Herr Axeldouche will do that for you.

Aren’t you excited ?

FlaMurph on March 21, 2012 at 8:39 PM

TARP as it was initially billed, was absolutely necessary. As it was used, though, was horrible.
crosspatch on March 21, 2012 at 8:11 PM

If you can’t see the joke here, you need help.

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:40 PM

How is that going halfway and then halfway again and halfway again to the liberal progressive policy working out for you?

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Follow your own logic. Only going halfay will never get you to liberalville. As opposed to the likes of Obama which will take us there at light speed.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:35 PM

Purity keeps us away from liberalville we will call it point C, here is how liberals work it. They want you to go to point B today, you go halfway and are at point A along the path. A little while later they want to go to point C, and you you go halfway and you are point B, then they want to go to point D and you go halfway and you are at point C, also known as liberalville. They do not stop there, they then ask you to go to point E on the path and you end up going halfway which ends up being point D.

Exactly how far into the future are you able to visualize things happening based on what is going on? A pitcher throws a pitch and the only outcome you can ever imagine happening at that point is the ball that is headed towards the catcher will hit him square in mitt? Bet you are a real joke on the tic-tac-toe game. Have never won a game of checkers. Cannot contemplate how others are able to play chess. Must be a happy ignorant life you lead, everything is a surprise! OMG it is a yellow light, what is going to happen now!?!

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM

I mean, come on. I want our elected officials to follow the constitution, and I’m a “perfectionist?” I’m going for “ideological purity?” To want our government to abide by the foundational document on which its every action was and is supposed to be based?!

/WTGDF

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Not really, Folks like us are willing to sacrifice for 4 years in order to have a better future beyond that 4 years. People like you are willing to not suffer today at the expense of those in the future. There are lots of you out there, so do not feel alone. The people who refuse to give up Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, think 99 week unemployment benefits must go on because it might cause someone some discomfort for a little while as the finally get themselves to job interviews and away from their video game addiction. Cannot imagine a world where people who say “I do” actually follow through on their vows and are not granted a very easy divorce. Think that having a baby is a punishment. I know your kind.

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Perfectly put – you nailed the culture of these conservatives republicans that can abide a Romney.

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:44 PM

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:39 PM

That’s funny:

Peck, peck, peck. It’s almost like some people don’t want to beat Obama.
capitalist piglet on August 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM

I don’t, if it means electing a crony capitalist who would mandate STD vaccines and abuse eminent domain.
gryphon202 on August 18, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Not wanting to beat is quasi support.

Therefore, you implicitly support Obama. Even if you don’t actually pull the lever for Obama, you are actively working for him.

And y’all nutballs accuse me of being a lefty because I am OMG and ABO.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Not wanting to beat is quasi support.

Therefore, you implicitly support Obama. Even if you don’t actually pull the lever for Obama, you are actively working for him.

And y’all nutballs accuse me of being a lefty because I am OMG and ABO.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Still haven’t shown anyone here where I said I was going to go out and vote for Obama, douchebag. It’s getting a little old.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Not wanting to beat is quasi support.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:46 PM

Riiiight…just like “implied powers” in the constitution which are there because a judge said so. Get bent, douchebag.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Brayam is here spouting talking polnts as usual…… Hope the pay is good dupe.

CW on March 21, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Still haven’t shown anyone here where I said I was going to go out and vote for Obama, douchebag. It’s getting a little old.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:48 PM

I don’t feel like doing the research…again. What you have written in just this thread shows your support for Obama Mr. fifth column.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Purity keeps us away from liberalville we will call it point C, here is how liberals work it. They want you to go to point B today, you go halfway and are at point A along the path. A little while later they want to go to point C, and you you go halfway and you are point B, then they want to go to point D and you go halfway and you are at point C, also known as liberalville. They do not stop there, they then ask you to go to point E on the path and you end up going halfway which ends up being point D.

Exactly how far into the future are you able to visualize things happening based on what is going on? A pitcher throws a pitch and the only outcome you can ever imagine happening at that point is the ball that is headed towards the catcher will hit him square in mitt? Bet you are a real joke on the tic-tac-toe game. Have never won a game of checkers. Cannot contemplate how others are able to play chess. Must be a happy ignorant life you lead, everything is a surprise! OMG it is a yellow light, what is going to happen now!?!

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Touche astonerii, well done.

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM

I don’t feel like doing the research…again. What you have written in just this thread shows your support for Obama Mr. fifth column.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:51 PM

No, what I’ve written in this thread is no more or less than expressing I’m not excited about replacing him. If not feeling a certain way is implicit support for Obama, then you’ve got a beef with a lot more voters than just myself. Maybe you should be less worried about how I feel and more worried about what I actually plan to do on the first Tuesday of November.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM

It does my heart good to see conservatives here finally taking Romney to task for his support of the government theft known as TARP. I have long viewed this as the big hanging curveball that the other candidates strangely ignored like it didn’t really matter to the average GOP primary voter. Besides Romneycare, this is really Exhibit A for Romney’s lack of conservatism…I’m sorry, severe conservatism.

My goodness, if he thinks it’s ok for the government to run healthcare and to bail out private banks, where exactly does he draw the line? I have seen ZERO evidence in his record to suggest that he is a conservative or will govern like one.

iwasbornwithit on March 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM

…and more worried about what I actually plan to do on the first Tuesday of November.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Why, you plan on doing something other than helping Obama get reelected?

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 8:42 PM

You can torture your own logic all you want, it still doesn’t change the physics you yourself relied on in your original rant.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM

You can torture your own logic all you want, it still doesn’t change the physics you yourself relied on in your original rant.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Ideology is not physics. You assume too much. You really have no argument in your favor, so you change the goal post.

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I’ve made my intentions clear here and elsewhere. I intend to do everything in my power to prevent Mitt from securing the nomination. The way things look now, I’ll probably fail in my efforts. Okay. Then I will move on and do everything I can to prevent Barack Hussein Soetoro-Obama from securing another four years in the White House. I may fail at that too, but no one, and I do mean NO ONE will be able to accuse me of not having tried. To accuse me of being a softy, or some kind of closet Obama supporter because I do not fear Obama is douchebag sophistry of the highest order. I loath him with every fiber of my being. But I am hanging fire on the ABO until it comes time to actually vote against Obama. Between now and the convention, we have a nomination to settle. As much as I’m less and less convinced that who we replace Obama with will matter, I’m going to continue to behave as though it does. We’ll know if there’s anything left of America worth saving come November…though somehow I doubt it.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Why, you plan on doing something other than helping Obama get reelected?

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:57 PM

You make it sound like I’ve gone back-and-forth and waffled like a third-rate IHOP franchisee.

I’ll refer you to my post upthread:

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:00 PM

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Double bless y’alls hearts.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Y’all should spend a little time reading the Constitution. And a little bit of history of the fate of the Tories wouldn’t hurt y’all, neither.

james23 on March 21, 2012 at 9:08 PM

You make it sound like I’ve gone back-and-forth and waffled like a third-rate IHOP franchisee.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:01 PM

You have.

Peck, peck, peck. It’s almost like some people don’t want to beat Obama.
capitalist piglet on August 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM

I don’t, if it means electing a crony capitalist who would mandate STD vaccines and abuse eminent domain.
gryphon202 on August 18, 2011 at 11:06 AM

I’ll refer you to my post upthread:

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:00 PM

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Where you write you will do everything in your power to keep Romney from being the nominee. And have written many times that you prefer Obama to a nominee you don’t want. You flip-flop more than Romney.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I don’t feel like doing the research…again. What you have written in just this thread shows your support for Obama Mr. fifth column.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 8:51 PM

Says the socialist healthcare lovin, planned parenthood funding, gun grabbin, Wall Street bailout butt boy.

james23 on March 21, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Where you write you will do everything in your power to keep Romney from being the nominee. And have written many times that you prefer Obama to a nominee you don’t want. You flip-flop more than Romney.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 9:10 PM

No. I have never said that I prefer Obama. I said I don’t care if he wins. And I do stand by that, to say that I wouldn’t shed a single tear. I know that I don’t deserve another four years of Obama. And that alone is enough reason for me to vote against him. But keeping Romney from being the nominee, once again (and it can’t be said enough) is an entirely separate issue to me than defeating Obama, especially since the “inevitability” and “electability” memes are and always have been pure unadulterated bullshit, as far as I’m concerned. You are, of course, free to think whatever you want in terms of Romney’s suitability to face Obama in the general election. We’ll always have a difference of opinion over that, especially since Romney is not getting one thin pinched nickel from me before or after the convention. What we agree on is that Obama has to go, and in that aspect, I don’t care who the Republican nominee is. I’m still voting against Obama. If that’s really not good enough for you, I wonder what other stupid shit you lose sleep over?

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:17 PM

I don’t feel like doing the research

Translated:

I just have the one quote, and I have to twist it to make my point.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Says the socialist healthcare lovin, planned parenthood funding, gun grabbin, Wall Street bailout butt boy.

james23 on March 21, 2012 at 9:11 PM

Heh, you stick with that.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:27 PM

No, you were smart enough to back down last time. And you have contradicted yourself enough in this thread that I don’t need to look farther. Besides, you being you, you will do this same nutball stunt again soon.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 9:38 PM

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Heh, I ain’t the one flip-floppin’ all over the place. I suppose we are stuck with Romney because nutballs like you did your best to destroy the other candidates.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 9:41 PM

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I’m not flip-flopping. Your beef is with how I feel. Not anything I have said I would or wouldn’t do. And on both counts I have been impeccably consistent.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:43 PM

I’m not flip-flopping.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Geeze dude, at least wait for the page to change before you go denying stuff you wrote.

that makes me believe we deserve four more years of Obama.

gryphon202 on March 21, 2012 at 8:31 PM

Peck, peck, peck. It’s almost like some people don’t want to beat Obama.
capitalist piglet on August 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM

I don’t, if it means electing a crony capitalist who would mandate STD vaccines and abuse eminent domain.
gryphon202 on August 18, 2011 at 11:06 AM

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Well, I had hoped Romney wouldn’t pull this off in the end.

I’m convinced that he’s the one. Well, …that’s it.
I will be behind him. Anything to get Obama and Co. out.

Come on, Mitt Romney, please….step up to the plate and do a Great job. I’m not talking about campaigning. I’m talking about governing when you get there…

please, please, please, please, please,….feel like I’m hoping against hope.
ffs

bridgetown on March 21, 2012 at 10:01 PM

I have a question, and I am sincerely interested in an informed, well-reasoned answer. I am seeking information here, not trying to score a point in this primary game we’re all playing.

My question is: What experience does Mitt Romney have with respect to macroeconomic issues – vs microeconomic issues or finance – that would inform his performance as President? For example, what has he done that would give him any unique insight into monetary policy?

Given his resume it doesn’t seem like he has much such experience, but I am very willing to be convinced otherwise.

Just Sayin on March 21, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Only have time to respond to one comment, so it’s going to have to be this:

All these companies should have gone the way of Lehman brothers. The idea that you would defend the government meddling in the private economy tells me all I need to know
social-justice on March 21, 2012 at 7:43 PM

First, if all these companies went the way of Lehman Brothers there would have been a total collapse of our economy. Imagine every bank shut down. You think that would be cool, dude? Really?

Second, the government “meddles in the private economy” every day. That’s what’s known as “reality”. Ideally the meddling gets cut back to a bare minimum, but you’re on a different planet if you think we’re ever going to have a complete separation based on a true con purist’s ideology. Heck, even Alaska’s former governor “meddled in the private economy” and i.i.r.c., she was proud of what she did.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 10:04 PM

there would have been a total collapse of our economy. Imagine every bank shut down. You think that would be cool, dude? Really?

I don’t buy that this would have happened.

bridgetown on March 21, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Anyone who doesn’t understand the positive impact TARP had on our financial system, and what it prevented, is probably too ignorant to balance their own checkbook.

NoStoppingUs on March 21, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Anyone who doesn’t understand the positive impact TARP had on our financial system, and what it prevented, is probably too ignorant to balance their own checkbook.
NoStoppingUs on March 21, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Anyone who believes that TARP didn’t merely kick the can down the road a couple of years, and make the eventual collapse even worse than it would have been, and further enrich a bunch of crony crapitalists probably should be limited to cash purchases with whatever they have in their pockets.

LegendHasIt on March 21, 2012 at 10:44 PM

I can’t wait for Romney to formally clinch the nomination so I can start looking forward to not voting for him in November.

Crusty on March 21, 2012 at 10:45 PM

Second, the government “meddles in the private economy” every day. That’s what’s known as “reality”. Ideally the meddling gets cut back to a bare minimum, but you’re on a different planet if you think we’re ever going to have a complete separation based on a true con purist’s ideology. Heck, even Alaska’s former governor “meddled in the private economy” and i.i.r.c., she was proud of what she did.

Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 10:04 PM

It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Citigroup? Chrysler?

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 10:50 PM

The reasons why TARP was necessary could fill a history book, I think people need to do some research before simply dismissing it. I know memories are short but don’t people at least remember the run on banks and the frozen credit markets? It reached the point where companies couldn’t find lending to finance normal day to day operations.

tkyang99 on March 21, 2012 at 10:50 PM

there would have been a total collapse of our economy. Imagine every bank shut down. You think that would be cool, dude? Really? Buy Danish on March 21, 2012 at 10:04 PM

I don’t buy that this would have happened.

bridgetown on March 21, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Don’t pay attention. She or it is easily one of the most annoying posters on this board.

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Hey, fffsssweeeeet!!, Mitt! Look at me. It’s about freedom, like you said after winning Illinois. What makes America great is freedom. The freedom of individuals. The freedom of the market place. Remember? Did you mean what you said there? It is the freedom to DREAM, like you said. The freedom to develop those dreams and to attain financial success (and personal gratification) in doing so. Just like you, Mr. Moneybags. You’re richer than Midas! And good for you. But there is no freedom to succeed where there is no freedom to fail. NOBODY, and NO company is too big too fail. George W. Bush screwed up by succumbing to the bailout. John McCain destroyed his momentum in the 2008 campaign by lining up behind the bailout. Shortly thereafter, old Jug Ears hopped in too, along with every single Democrat congressman, but be (and they) took no hit on it — the MSM saw to that. The only people who DID stand up against the bailout was a sizable contingent of the GOP caucus. But it wasn’t enough. And the American people — who consistently opposed the bailout by a large margin — paid the price. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? Don’t you see this? Don’t you understand what capitalism is? Get a clue for crappsake! You need to fire some handlers and get some new ones who understand the pulse of this nation and her people.

minnesoter on March 21, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Anyone who doesn’t understand the positive impact TARP had on our financial system, and what it prevented, is probably too ignorant to balance their own checkbook.

NoStoppingUs on March 21, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Those who are unable to understand the long term detrimental effects of TARP are about a million times more destructive to this nation than those who weigh the positive effects you claim against the negative effects.

Positive effects:
After Paulson scared them to panic, it calmed down people.
It saved a few very large banks and a bunch of smaller speculative banks.
It kept many millionaire and billionaires who made tremendous amounts of money speculating and inflating the housing bubble millionaires and billionaires.
It made the crash happen at a slower rate, keeping some people employed a few extra months to maybe a year longer than they otherwise would have been.

Negative effects.
Too big to fail has led companies to create strategies that rely on nothing more than being too big to fail, and thus future bailout beneficiaries.
It made the recovery happen at a much slower pace, extending it years longer than it should have taken, and reducing the future productivity of the nation forever.
It has forced many millions of Americans to drop completely out of the job market and become dependents on government programs.
It created a new level of government intervention into our lives.
It boosted by a factor of 15 the price tag of every major government action overnight instead of over a period of decades. $850B became the new target for a government action. From Obamacare ($940B)to Stimuless ($840B).
It took McCain from a lead in the polls to a loss on election day.
It gave a slush fund worth hundreds of billions of dollars to Obama to use at his whim with no congressional oversight and laid the blame for it all on the Republicans who had the presidency at the time of passage.
All that extra spending has become effectively the new baseline for calculating increases or decreases in government spending.
It has destroyed the concept of private gains, private risk and converted it to private gains, public risk.
With the money being used to bail out the car companies, and Obama circumventing the rule of law and contracts with respect to bankruptcy it has stifled investment and made it impossible for investors in companies to determine their risk.
With all this change in the market, the safest place to put your money has become government savings bonds, fueling even more government growth and taking ever more money out of the marketplace for expansion and prosperity.

I dunno, I think I would have been willing to live in an America where a few banks collapsed, a few companies went out of business and we suffered for a few years and rebuilt the nation the way we have in all other past downturns, bigger and better than before. Where the government is living much closer to its means. Contracts have meaning. Where $50B is a large government bill. Where companies size themselves based on economy of scale and good business practices rather than too big to fail. Where more Americans would be working. I dunno, call me old fashioned, I guess I am, I am a conservative, but I think it is better to accept responsibility, take on the consequences above board, and get on with your tasks. I am not one of those people who prefers to take the easy way out when I know that the long term is going to be harder because I did.

astonerii on March 21, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Well, it’s not as much like saying Nixon cured inflation with price controls as some other things might be.

But it’s still pretty close.

J.E. Dyer on March 21, 2012 at 11:16 PM

NoStoppingUs on March 21, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Well that’s hardly a leap at all!

Cindy Munford on March 21, 2012 at 11:17 PM

Just remember that you guys now own TARP…the good and the bad. 700B on 3 pages in 1 week….yeah, go ahead…OWN IT!

Obama will turn around and say the stimulus was his and that’s what created jobs because that’s when the jobs numbers started getting positive and that TARP, although necessary (he was lobbying Bush for it remember??) did not “save and created” jobs.

i’m sure The W has a grand plan with this…or it’s just another one of his dumb flip flops and couldn’t remember where he really stood on the issue.

I’m starting to think that the reason Obama is not getting big money is because donors don’t think he’ll need it….

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on March 22, 2012 at 12:06 AM

TARP was very successful in that we suffered a drop rather than a complete collapse. Unfortunately, have not followed up with real reform of the finance industry to tackle the root problems that led to the collapse in the first place.

lexhamfox on March 22, 2012 at 12:11 AM

TARP was necessary. The Democrats forced banks to make bad loans in the name of “diversity” for years and it finally came time to collect. Banks should pay for their derivatives trading, but not for the Fannie/Freddie debacle.

scotash on March 22, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Well, it’s not as much like saying Nixon cured inflation with price controls as some other things might be.

But it’s still pretty close.

J.E. Dyer on March 21, 2012 at 11:16 PM

*sigh*

And I’m the traitorous scum for thinking that America may be beyond hope or help.

gryphon202 on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 AM

I hear Romney drowns kittens and shoots puppies….

sandee on March 21, 2012 at 7:19 PM

No. What he does is worse.

I can forgive a man that drowns kittens and shoots puppies.

I can’t forgive a statist that imposed communist health care on his serfs, and gutted the 2nd amendment in his state. Someone that kills cute animals deserves derision. Someone that turned his people into serfs deserves to be shown the most patriotic use of a street light.

SilverDeth on March 22, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Nowdays, the Romney hatin’ nutballs are just background noise.

What I don’t miss are the sycophantic Romney fluffin’ nutballs. Some are still here, but I guess they got a clue.

cozmo on March 21, 2012 at 7:36 PM

Glad you think so – you’ll have to win without us. cause we won’t carry your sack of s*&^ across the finish line this time. And make no mistake, Mitt Romney is a chunk of fetid human garbage that is not fit to lick the dirt off my shoes.

No.

The statist is not fit to lick the dirt off the bottom of THAT dirt.

F*&( him, and the tools who support him.

SilverDeth on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 AM

It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world…

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Tell that to the Rombots

SilverDeth on March 22, 2012 at 2:15 AM

i wish you guys would wake the eff up and keep your eyes on the prize.

reliapundit on March 21, 2012 at 7:47 PM

We are not the ones that have sold out ALL OF OUR GODDAMNED PRINCIPLES TO THROW OUR LOT IN WITH THE GOLDEN CALF FROM MASS!

We ARE looking at the endgame you dribbling sack of S*&^ – we are watching people compromising all of their principles so their political mascot can win a game. And in doing so, loose the war.

I will die before I will vote for Willard Fillmoure Romneycare. I will use every resource at my disposal to defeat him if he wins the primary. And they are considerable in my family, my community and my church. Not to mention what were once very substantial money donations. Always had 10 head of steers that were considered “political donations” in past years. That sure as hell won’t happen if they stuff this democrat down our throat.

You keep incentivising the republicans to give you piles of human garbage like Willard with your votes, and they will happily keep giving you sub-human trash every single time.

Once Romney looses, it’s time to start a new party.

SilverDeth on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 AM

This is why Mitt will lose the general election. He basically has said Obama’s economy is getting better. He can “spin it” how ever he wants but he is in left field. The economy has sucked for the last 5 years. Bush and Paulson sent this economy into an iceberg with their TARP crap and Obama made sure the the ship of state’s holes were not repaired. the economy isn’t imporving. It is stagnet. It simply doesn’t suck as much. that isn’t an improving economy. Mitt will never attack Obama nor the mess he and Bush created because Mitt believes what they believe. Mitt would have done the same things Obama and Bush did. Mitt is a pale imitation of both Bush and Obama and thus he will lose the general.

Mitt took gas prices off the table the other week. he takes Obamacare off the table, now he is taking the economy off the table. Tell me mitt what reason is there left to vote for you?

Mitt makes Obama look good and that is just sad.

unseen on March 22, 2012 at 4:00 AM

Etch-a-Sketch day. How cute.

I suppose that then when you’re as small as AP a molehill does indeed look mountainous.

MJBrutus on March 22, 2012 at 4:43 AM

The One, for the recession. Just last month, a Quinnipiac survey indicated that 51 percent still blame Bush for the current condition of the economy compared to just 35 percent who blame O. Dubya’s numbers have barely budged on that in more than two years. Sustained Republican messaging will move the needle a bit but if we’re banking on spinning away a recovery by rehabilitating George W. Bush(!) and TARP(!!), we’re in for a long election night, my friends.

.

True Allahpundit, all too true on any number of counts.
.

However, what Pres. Bush and team did accomplish was to was to do what neither Pres. Hoover nor FDR accomplished. Pres. Bush and team, with great political courage and no little competence, prevented a second worldwide Great Depression. Pres. Bush and team put the US economy back in a place where it was positioned for robust recovery, an opportunity for recovery that Pres. Obama squandered.
.

Pres. Bush and team also implemented a TARP program which within two years returned almost all expenditures the Bush team made back to the US Treasury. Net cost to the US Treasury? Vary little as intended.
.

What did the Democrats and their MSM allies do? They created a populous framed for the crisis and accused Pres. Bush and team of greatly increasing deficit spending, which by the way was primary responsibility of Team Peloisi and Reed.
.

What did too many small government conservatives and Librarians do? They bought into the DNC and MSM framing hook-line-&-sinker. They panicked and abandoned the Republican Party and gave filibuster proof control of the Senate to the Democratic party along with a larger House majority for Democrats along with a Obama presidency.
.

And what did we all get? A predictable nightmare which will almost certainly end in national bankruptcy and widespread poverty.
.

And far to many continue even now to buy into the DNC and MSM framing, too many continue to be manipulated and too many offer nonsense such as:

We listened to the geniuses that shoved tarp down our throats creating the largest theft of public wealth in the history of the world. What do we have to show for it?…

voiceofreason on March 21, 2012 at 8:14 PM

.

I could have told you TARP will be a disaster before a single dollar was spent…

social-justice on March 21, 2012 at 8:15 PM

.

Bush fu–ed us with his compassionate conservatism crap. He had us believing he was different than Dole/McCain/Huntsman/Christie/Pataki/Bloomburg/Snowe/Whitman/Graham/Hatch/Romney…. He was a POS. So now, we are left to wait. But worry not, time is on our side.

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:15 PM

.

Nope, what happened was Bush and team, with great political courage and no little competence, prevented a second worldwide Great Depression. What happened was too many small government conservatives and Librarians bought into the 2008 DNC and MSM framing hook-line-&-sinker. Now it is all coming to tears because too many small government conservatives and Librarians panicked and abandoned the Republican Party.

.

Mike OMalley on March 22, 2012 at 7:04 AM

The One, for the recession. Just last month, a Quinnipiac survey indicated that 51 percent still blame Bush for the current condition of the economy compared to just 35 percent who blame O. Dubya’s numbers have barely budged on that in more than two years. Sustained Republican messaging will move the needle a bit but if we’re banking on spinning away a recovery by rehabilitating George W. Bush(!) and TARP(!!), we’re in for a long election night, my friends.

.

True Allahpundit, all too true on any number of counts.
.

However, what Pres. Bush and team did accomplish was to was to do what neither Pres. Hoover nor FDR accomplished. Pres. Bush and team, with great political courage and no little competence, prevented a second worldwide Great Depression. Pres. Bush and team put the US economy back in a place where it was positioned for robust recovery, an opportunity for recovery that Pres. Obama squandered.
.

Pres. Bush and team also implemented a TARP program which within two years returned almost all expenditures the Bush team made back to the US Treasury. Net cost to the US Treasury over time? Very little as intended.
.

What did the Democrats and their MSM allies do? They created a populous media framing for the crisis and accused Pres. Bush and team of greatly increasing deficit spending, which by the way was primary responsibility of Team Peloisi and Reed.
.

What did too many small government conservatives and Librarians do? They bought into the DNC and MSM framing hook-line-&-sinker. They panicked and abandoned the Republican Party and gave filibuster proof control of the Senate to the Democratic Party along with a larger House majority for Democrats along with a Obama presidency.
.

And what did we all get? A predictable nightmare which will almost certainly end in national bankruptcy and widespread poverty.
.

And far to many continue even now to buy into the DNC and MSM framing, too many continue to be manipulated and too many offer nonsense such as:

We listened to the geniuses that shoved tarp down our throats creating the largest theft of public wealth in the history of the world. What do we have to show for it?…

voiceofreason on March 21, 2012 at 8:14 PM

.

I could have told you TARP will be a disaster before a single dollar was spent…

social-justice on March 21, 2012 at 8:15 PM

.

Bush fu–ed us with his compassionate conservatism crap. He had us believing he was different than Dole/McCain/Huntsman/Christie/Pataki/Bloomburg/Snowe/Whitman/Graham/Hatch/Romney…. He was a POS. So now, we are left to wait. But worry not, time is on our side.

noeastern on March 21, 2012 at 8:15 PM

.

Nope, what happened was Bush and team, with great political courage and no little competence, prevented a second worldwide Great Depression. What happened was too many small government conservatives and Librarians bought into the 2008 DNC and MSM framing hook-line-&-sinker. Now it is all coming to tears because too many small government conservatives and Librarians panicked and abandoned the Republican Party.

.

Mike OMalley on March 22, 2012 at 7:10 AM

Glad you think so – you’ll have to win without us. cause we won’t carry your sack of s*&^ across the finish line this time. And make no mistake, Mitt Romney is a chunk of fetid human garbage that is not fit to lick the dirt off my shoes.

No.

The statist is not fit to lick the dirt off the bottom of THAT dirt.

F*&( him, and the tools who support him.

SilverDeth on March 22, 2012 at 2:13 AM

Hey you Romney fluffin’ nutballs that whine every time I smack y’all around for your stupid attacks on Santorum or Gingrich.. This is me defending your boy.

The Romney fluffers and Romney haters deserve each other.

The Romney hatin’ nutballs gave us Romney by working so hard to destroy the not-Romneys. In spite of all the hard work of the Romney fluffin’ nutballs to drive potential supporters away from Romney.

Now the Romney hation’ nutballs will work to reelect Obama while the Romney-bots will continue to try to drive supporters away. Obama could not have done a better job if he had created y’all himself. Even though he will take credit fro y’all if y’all are successful in getting Obama reelected.

cozmo on March 22, 2012 at 8:40 AM

We are not the ones that have sold out ALL OF OUR GODDAMNED PRINCIPLES TO THROW OUR LOT IN WITH THE GOLDEN CALF FROM MASS!

We ARE looking at the endgame you dribbling sack of S*&^ – we are watching people compromising all of their principles so their political mascot can win a game. And in doing so, loose the war.

I will die before I will vote for Willard Fillmoure Romneycare. I will use every resource at my disposal to defeat him if he wins the primary. And they are considerable in my family, my community and my church. Not to mention what were once very substantial money donations. Always had 10 head of steers that were considered “political donations” in past years. That sure as hell won’t happen if they stuff this democrat down our throat.

You keep incentivising the republicans to give you piles of human garbage like Willard with your votes, and they will happily keep giving you sub-human trash every single time.

Once Romney looses, it’s time to start a new party.

SilverDeth on March 22, 2012 at 2:23 AM

Who are these people? Why is this so difficult to understand? Who the f–k were their parents? Teachers? How is it possible to raise such a vacuous lot?

noeastern on March 22, 2012 at 10:28 AM

What will Mitt differentiate himself with, against Obama?

Schadenfreude on March 21, 2012 at 8:25 PM

Exactly! I’m about to vote for Obama and dems on the under ticket with the hope of giving him Congress again. At least that way, we can arrive at the “end game” during my lifetime. What the hay, call me a purist. If I’m faced with voting for dem or dem lite, I’ll go for the real thing.

We have one leftist party made up of two halves. That consists of the way left dems and the slightly less left gop.

voiceofreason on March 22, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Pres. Bush and team also implemented a TARP program which within two years returned almost all expenditures the Bush team made back to the US Treasury. Net cost to the US Treasury over time? Very little as intended.

Mike OMalley on March 22, 2012 at 7:10 AM

Actually, the Great Depression was self repairing with no help from the government. At that point it was a depression, what made it great was government interference with the recovery. Very much like is happening now.

While it is true most of the originating money has been returned to the treasury, something that you are missing is that those massive expenditures reset to a much higher number the baseline budgeting. It created a whole new level in what it meant to pass a big bill. Previously, a $50 billion dollar bill was huge, now $850B is the normal.

You argue that TARP is what saved the nation and the world from collapse, but you seem to ignore the fact that TARP ended up being a tiny portion of the actually monetary help that the fed gave to banks and quasi banks, and that there was absolutely no need at all for there to have been a TARP bill in the first place to do everything that they did. They already had authority to do everything that TARP did for saving banks. They loaned out in excess of $7T ($7,000B), the original TARP funds expended in saving the banks was about $290B and of that more than half was shoved down the throats of unwilling banks that did not need the money and did not want the stigma of having received the money. In the end, I think it was $75B for the insurance company, and $100B for the big banks that really needed the money to survive that was used from TARP, or in other words, TARP amounted to a real 2.5% of the entire loans made to banks in the effort to save the nation from collapse. I find it extremely difficult to imagine that the fed could not have just made up out of whole cloth, like the did for the other $7,000B an extra $175B or even if they needed it made there grand total of making it up out of whole cloth $7,700B. Do you?

astonerii on March 22, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Actually, the Great Depression was self repairing with no help from the government. At that point it was a depression, what made it great was government interference with the recovery. Very much like is happening now.

.

Thank you Mr. Astonerii, there is much to agree with in your opening paragraph. It is my understanding that the US economy would have begun to recover in the later half of 1935 if not for FDR’s destructive economic malfeasance. Nonetheless such self-repair would have arrived after a half a decade or so of the Great Depression’s devastating impact on virtually every country in the world. The Great Depression magnified the impact of Soviet economic mismanagement and was a contributing factor to Holodomor, the Ukrainian Genocide, in 1932 and 1933. If not for the Great Depression the Nazi’s would not have gained totalitarian power in Germany in 1933. One could go on. Far better it would have been to have prevented the Great Depression to start with. Give credit where due Mr. Astonerii. Pres. Bush and his economic team accomplished what Hoover and FDR failed to do.
.

You argue that TARP is what saved the nation and the world from collapse, but you seem to ignore the fact that TARP ended up being a tiny portion of the actually monetary help that the fed gave to banks and quasi banks, and that there was absolutely no need at all for there to have been a TARP bill in the first place to do everything that they did.

.

No I do not so argue. The Wall Street Journal has often reported that there is a consensus among professional economists that the Bush Administration used various successful stratagems including TARP to indeed save the nation and the world from economic collapse.
.

something that you are missing is that those massive expenditures reset to a much higher number the baseline budgeting. It created a whole new level in what it meant to pass a big bill. Previously, a $50 billion dollar bill was huge, now $850B is the normal.

.

I disagree. That “baseline” is only meaningful because too many small government conservatives and Libertarians panicked and abandoned the Republican Party in 2008 and gave filibuster proof control of the Senate to the Democratic Party along with a larger House majority for Democrats together with an Obama presidency.

BTW: even $850 billion is dwarfed by the magnitude of the real problem, a long-term project unfunded Federal deficit of $211 trillion.

A National Debt Of $14 Trillion? Try $211 Trillion

Mike OMalley on March 22, 2012 at 9:42 PM

It was not the original purpose or intention that TARP funds would later be used to bail out General Motors. But the money was just sitting there, Obama had just been sworn in, and the temptation to spend that money was just too great. After all, they needed to do something big for the United Auto Workers. So the UAW got billions in free federal money.

J Baustian on March 22, 2012 at 11:59 PM

It was not the original purpose or intention that TARP funds would later be used to bail out General Motors. But the money was just sitting there, Obama had just been sworn in, and the temptation to spend that money was just too great. After all, they needed to do something big for the United Auto Workers. So the UAW got billions in free federal money.

J Baustian on March 22, 2012 at 11:59 PM

.

And that was an easily foreseeable consequence of electing a Socialist former New Party candidate to the White House. Whose fault is the post election misuse of the TARP funds to bailout the UAW? It is the fault ultimately of the American electorate. Elections have consequences.
.

More pointedly it is the fault of many small government conservatives and Libertarians who either panicked or strategically chose to abandoned the Republican Party in 2008 and gave filibuster proof control of the Senate to the Democratic Party along with a larger House majority for Democrats together with an Obama presidency.
.

Don’t forget no few small government conservatives and Libertarians made it quite clear in 2008 that they were abandoning the Republican Party in 2008 because they wanted the GOP ticket to go down to defeat in 2008. They made it quite clear that they expected that GOP losses in 2008 would chasten the GOP and cause it to be return to a more fiscally conservative agenda after suffering major election loses in 2008. They helped give filibuster proof control of the Senate to the Democratic Party along with a larger House majority for Democrats together with an Obama presidency.
.

If any of you Hot Air readers were among those small government conservatives and Libertarians who strategically abandoned to GOP in 2008 because the GOP wasn’t pure enough during the Bush years and you wanted to teach the GOP a lesson; I have a question:
.
How is it working out for you?
.
.

Mike OMalley on March 23, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 2