Posted on 03/04/2010 2:59:47 PM PST by pissant
Daniel Larison catches Mitt Romney trying to have it both ways on the $700 billion bank bailout: Romney says he was for Henry Paulson's good TARP but he's against Tim Geithner's bad TARP. Conveniently, this allows Romney to position himself as effectively anti-TARP under Obama while he was a supporter under Bush.
Larison correctly argues, "One can either recognize that the original TARP was always potentially an opaque slush fund to be used for whatever purpose the executive branch wanted, and it was therefore an outrageous measure that ought to have been defeated, or one can accept the abuses of the TARP that inevitably followed from the absurd way it was designed." He continues, "Supporters of a policy or piece of legislation do not get to receive credit for the supposed benefits and avoid blame for the negative consequences."
Well, if the policy or legislation in question is either Romneycare or TARP, apparently you do.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I guess if you spend as much time in Massachusetts as Romney has, you just cannot get it all off of you. He continues to destroy his credibility.
Yet another reason why this RINO needs to go.
Alan Combes on his radio program last night also pointed out the flip flop. And that’s from a man who detests Palin.
Typical RINO behavior - trying to be all things to all people in order to claim all things.
The original intent of the TARP funds was to shore up banks, wasn’t it? Obama has now been using the funds for his own purposes, i.e. GM and Chrysler bailouts, and now that some of the money is coming back, the dems want to spend it for other purposes.
Just say NO -—to Mitt Romney.
I raise my right hand and say right now that if Republicans pick him as their party candidate, I will be an Independent the next day.
I feel the same way. I think TARP was necessary but now that the banks are paying the money back I disagree with Geihtner trying to use the funds for other uses. This author is either disingenuous or clueless. This article just plays to the simpletons.
TARP was and is worthless. They never bought the toxic assets they said they would. Not Paulson, not Geithner
I’m fine with that line. It may have not been necessary and it can’t be proved that it was. I’m just saying that it worked and now the money isn’t being put back in the Treasury like it was intended.
Like I keep sayin....Romney is not trustworthy.
“he was for Henry Paulson’s good TARP but he’s against Tim Geithner’s bad TARP”
They were both bad and this should be an issue in the next two elections. The ones that didn’t immediately fall in line on TARP were rolled and I heard “it’s a terrible bill but we have no choice” until I wanted to vomit.
I also keep hearing that TARP averted financial disaster but I have two questions on this. Who was responsible for the financial crisis and was their plan stimied or did they achieve exactly what they wanted.
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.