Posted on 11/09/2010 11:36:40 AM PST by Starman417
Most conservatives just slapped their heads and groaned in consternation over the above statement; and probably also wanted to slap silly the president they've otherwise supported and defended for the last nigh 8 years in office.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program was heavily criticized by many conservatives. In light of the stimulus spendings and expansion of government under the current PotUS, some Americans even forget that TARP was initiated under Bush and Paulson's leadership, not Obama's (although he did support it, as a U.S. senator).
2 years later, in handling the 2008 financial crisis in the twilight of his presidency, was Bush right?
When the bill was being voted upon 2 years ago, I nervously and unconfidently wrote this:
Republicans who stand opposed do so for ideological reasons: Let the free market run its course, and those who made bad decisions suffer the consequences of having made bad decisions. Democrats oppose the bill for ideological reasons as well, thinking this is a bail-out for Wall Street. Caught in the cross-fire of this mess, is all of the rest of us. If we simply stand aside and allow financial institutions to fail on free market principle, we will all suffer together for the mistakes of others.
"Today":
[VIDEO AT SITE]
Medved writes:
"Two years after it began, the controversial TARP program—the bailout of the financial system—concludes operations with much-better-than expected results. Most money invested in the rescue has been repaid, often with interest: of the $700 billion originally authorized, taxpayers remain on the hook for less than $66 billion, according to the Treasury Department.This shows the Bush Bailout starkly contrasting with Obama's Stimulus, which authorized $864 billion in spending, with no pay back. The stimulus permanently shifted money from private sector to government, while TARP temporarily transferred funds from public to private sector. TARP was also bipartisan: most Congressional Republicans supported it, while the stimulus drew united GOP opposition from 214 of 217 Republicans then in Congress.
Short term loans to save private businesses may be debatable but long-term explosions of spending to grow government are always disastrous."
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
Nope.
This argument has been raging since mid October of 2008.
Medved also was a huge McCain and Amnesty fan. His opinions mean little to conservatives.
No.
The problems are still their and the problem makers are not bankrupt or jailed (after a fair trial of course) which means we’ll see the problem again.
No.
I’ll don the nomex and say yes, I think it was. Every decision has to be evaluated in the context of the time, and just like a decision made in the heat of battle, not every one will look the same through the prism of history. I know, from a friend who has taken part in seminars with some of the same people who advised the Bush administration at the time, they honestly felt that TARP was essential to avoiding a full-scale economic collapse. In the end, I think the tax payers will get their money back out of TARP - not so with the porkulus and the rest of the crap. But TARP, as an emergency measure taken in the fog of economic war, was the right call at the time in my opinion.
I see. So we are to assess people's factual claims on ideological, rather than factual grounds.
And you call yourself a conservative?
I can confidently say this: Bush was wrong for pushing freddie mac and other forms of debt to people who couldn’t afford it.
The original idea of an ownership society (based on the principles of the Contract with America) was that instead of giving the poor a welfare check to spend on what they wanted, that we would push them to get job skills, to actually get a job and that they would actually own something (such as a private SS retirement account) and that would lead them on the road to the middle class.
Bush thought that if the poor bought houses, then that would be another asset they’d own and be responsible for. The problem was that houses are expensive so instead of promoting ownership, Bush promoted indebtitude.
No. Capitalism includes the freedom to fail as well as the freedom to succeed.
We also didn’t have a good alternative to TARP. The leading House GOP alternative didn’t make much sense and TARP was the only viable alternative.
Was it worth it?
Someone will have to explain to me (quantify) what was saved. Because we’re out $66B. Which translates to almost $1400 out of my family’s pocket (my share of the taxes to pay for this).
No
TARP and the nomination of Paulson for SOT shall be the mill stone around Bush's legacy.
It was a scare tactic scheme to enrich Wall St. and Globalists players. IMHO
It was timed so Bush could try and escape blame for TARP’s huge negative consequences.
IF you like cherry picked “facts” to bolster invading the private sector like a euro-socialist, that’s your problem.
Dodd on TARP: ‘I’ll go to my grave believing we did the right thing’
Others supporting TARP: Obama, Pelosi, McCain, Reid, Barney Fag, Schumer, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Palin.....
Barney Frank rakes in $40G from bailed out banks
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1290601
IRS Turns TARP Into the Theft that Keeps on Thieving
http://stevescomments.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/irs-turns-tarp-into-the-theft-that-keeps-on-thieving/
Another TARP recipient goes under as bank failures for 2010 surpass last year’s total
http://bailoutsleuth.com/news/2010/11/another-tarp-bank-goes-under/
Troubled TARP
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10304/1099094-373.stm
TARP Report Reveals Deficiencies According To Inspector General
Many banks sit tight on TARP infusions
http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20101101/SUB1/311019989
Obama Administration Shows Phony Tarp Profit Through Tax Trick
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=7989
Opposing TARP? DeMint, Hunter, Pence, Bachmann, Hensarling, Poe, Inhofe, Sessions, Limbaugh, Malkin, Levin, Heritage, etc etc...
No, no and no again!
Sure the loans have been repaid with interest but thanks to the fact that collateral was worthless having not been marked to market so these banks are actually still insolvent.
So now we’re still stuck with a trillion in bad assets on the books of the Fed and the banks still aren’t lending the way they should, even though Bernanke is trying to get the money flowing by knocking our dollar into the gutter. He won’t get anywhere because the REAL assets of the big banks are crap.
Furthermore, none of the bad paper has been flushed and now we find that it wasn’t even properly transfered so many foreclosures are illegal.
The result is that instead of entering a sharp but brief depression, we’ll have a 15 to 20-year recession. The banks should have been forced into receivership, their assets siezed and the bondholders paid. Then all this bad paper would be audited and sorted out.
Because that’s not what happened, all that bad paper, trillions worth is still on the bank’s books and because we’re idiots, on the books of the Fed. The recession will only end when all that bad paper sees the light of day.
Yes, it would have meant pain in the short term, probably with much higher unemployment for a while. But by now, we’d be emerging from the fall.
Study the Great Depression of 1920 and see what Harding did. Never heard of the 1920 depression? Guess why? Because it started and ended within two years and didn’t involve government intervention!
Contrast that to the FDR model which Obama and Bernanke are following and you’ll note that it was a total FUBAR clusterf**k.
We need to let these businesses fail when they screw up and regulate all forms of usury. That will always work. What we’ve done will never work.
If you like to base your decisions on ideology, comrade, you're free to do so.
But when you presume to tell me to think a certain way, because of your ideology... I'll tell you to go to hell.
You need to get your head straight.
No. Bush was conned. FDIC went on a hiring spree in the spring before the elections because it planned that many banks would be taken down after the election. If the govt knew banks were going to fail 6 months in advance then was there really a sudden crisis that called for Tarp?
Eliminating hindsight what would you have done?
And is stubborn refusal to admit it, shows a deep misunderstanding of the free market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.