Skip to comments.Mitt Romney is a Liberal, Part 1: Romney supported TARP (06/16/2011)
Posted on 04/09/2012 9:02:42 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
This is part 1 of an ongoing series exposing Mitt Romneys false claims of conservatism. There has been a lot of focus about RomneyCare and Mitt Romneys love for government mandates. Some are even calling Romney a RINO, but its much worse than that: Mitt Romney is a liberal.
You remember TARP, right? The $700 billion mortgage bailout turned bank bailout, auto bailout, turned everybody-bailout, turned government union slush fund. Yeah, that TARP, the big government crap sandwich that took the idea of too big to fail to new heights. Well, Governor Mitt Romney supported TARP, with gusto!
Here he is talking to Neil Cavuto on January 28, 2010:
By the way, did you also happen to catch that Romney supported the re-nomination of Ben Bernanke after the housing collapse. In case you dont have time to watch all 10 minutes of the video, heres one of the key quotes.
I think had President Bush and Secretary Paulson and Ben Bernanke not pushed for a TARP-type program, we were going to be in a free fall that would cause the collapse of not just a few banks on Wall Street, but banks all over the country, killing not only a few jobs, but all the jobs in the country. Thats what we were facing and the TARP program kept that from occurring.
Really? All the jobs in the country? Does Mitt Romney really believe that TARP saved every job in the country? If thats the case, then Romney has no reason to ever criticize Obama on jobs created or saved. After all, Obama supported and helped implement the bill that saved every job in the country.
Mitt Romney might claim to be simpatico with the Tea Partiers now, but he supported and continues to support one of the monstrosities that brought about the Tea Party protests in the first place. He is no conservative. Mitt Romney is a liberal.
|And the Un-Masking of Mitt Romney, the left-wing, Progressive Liberal, continues . . .|
|"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton|
That is why in some ways some of us have called him King Obama lite. Romney does not have any real plan to dump all the czars and Obamacare immediately. I have little faith that the Supreme Court will reverse all Obamacare. It will take years for him to get up to speed that Newt already had. Without both the Senate and House we are in trouble.
What is the point and what are we to do??? Romney is probably going to be the nominee, so what are we to do? If we don’t vote for him we get Obama for another 4 years, can we really risk that? I don’t like Romney anymore then you do, but having Obama re-elected just can’t happen. So what is your plan? Please tell us, continual bashing of the nominee isn’t helping our cause. If there were any chance anyone else could grab the nomination, I would be the first in line to help, but we have done all we can do and we still have Romney. It will be ABO for most everyone, but if we continue to bash what we have, then what. Please explain your reasoning for this. I feel lost in the woods in regards to this election, but front and foremost is not re-electing Obama.
TARP cost about 20 billion dollars and was partly responsible for preventing the collapse of the majority of the western world’s commercial banks. It would have been a nightmare for everyone.
The Fed’s liquidity loans probably accomplished more, but they were done behind the scenes. TARP allayed everyone’s fears...it was probably the greatest ROI in economic history.
Bush was right to do it, and Romney and Gingrich were right to support it.
Truth or not, what are we to do with this information if he is the guy left standing?
the fact that the malleable Mitt two face Romney is the republican front runner is just more proof that in the end the powerful elite establishment will get their way no matter what the people want, do or say about it
So are we then to vote for Obama?
It's a dirty, filthy ad.
I will never vote for Romney!
I will write in Sarah Palin instead. I don't care. I can't vote for him.
Has anyone actually averred otherwise?
You are correct.
The problem with TARP was not that it occurred, but that it was necessary. It should never have become necessary, but once the financing was needed, there was no choice but to do it.
Vote so which ever one wins, Romney or Obama, squeaks in with the most anemic plurality possible. REMEMBER that Clinton got in with a plurality of 43 percent, proving that the majority of voters REJECTED him and helping Republicans take back Congress to the degree that it was called the Republican Revolution. If Obama wins with 34-40 percent of the vote, it will be a huge blow to liberalism in BOTH PARTIES. If Romney wins with 34-40 percent of the vote, however, there'd be a powerful agent in the White House working to castrate conservatives in the Republican Party.
THAT is what we do: vote AGAINST LIBERALISM by voting third party, making the plurality victor as politically weak and vulnerable as possible.
This is why I made up the nickname Robamney for him.
Once again, the establishment globalists give us a false choice.
The etch-a-sketch comment has me really considering third-party. We’re screwed either way and I’m not sure I want to be a part of it.
And what I’ve been thinking about lately is whether Robamney wants to be president because he really wants to serve the country and fix the problems the liberals have created, or whether this is just another phase of his “success” story.
I suspect it is the latter, that he just wants another “letter” on his varsity jacket and that he will do whatever is necessary to limit controversy and to make his tenure just palatable at best.
TARP was wrong not because of the cost (more than 20 billion) but because it is the TBTF mentality of our banks because of our socialist banking system (central banking) has created.
Banks that have made mistakes need to fail. Recovering from those failures would have been far easier than recovering from the debt that has been added on with QE1 and QE2 and, yes QE3, because “operation twist” was nothing more than a deceptive means of pushing another round of QE into the markets again.
None of it can succeed. And the pretend fix is adding to the suffering we will be forced to endure when the system collapses.
Robamney is just another George W./Obammie the Commie big-government globalist who is in the pocket of the world central banks. None of them give a damn about American sovereignty and about truly fixing our economy and safeguarding our prosperity and liberty, which REQUIRES dismantling our central bank (the Federal Reserve) and returning to sound monetary policy.
My sentiment exactly.
It would have been the shareholders and the customers that would have shouldered the burden. The ones running the banks would simply have reemerged after the bankruptcies and started again.
Have you ever had a commercial loan? If so, you would have noticed a clause that allows the lender to call the note in with 30 days notice....how many firms would have collapsed when the banks, desperate for funds, had done just that?
The QE's had nothing to do with TARP or the banks. FWIW, I agree with you about them. All they have done is inflate the stock markets.
Like it or not, TARP was the right thing to do.
There is a good example of such behavior on this thread: OK, I'll Vote For Romney, But... (Yes, this is a Vanity)
So I guess we FReepers are not allowed to view past actions as evidence for purposes of who to vote for. And if you take such an idea to its logical conclusion it should be OK to vote for Obama if he proposes to start governing as a Conservative.