Replies

Fair point. But here's why I give Herman a pass on that, and it's also why many conservatives went along with TARP. The reason was that in the short-run, there was no other choice that would not virtually guarantee a Democrat victory in 2008. Of course, it happened anyway.

In the long run, it would have been better to let the offending institutions fail, let the markets collapse, and rebuild. The short-term effect would have been massive economic dislocation, meaning Depression-level unemployment, huge financial losses, foreclosures, runs on banks, perhaps even violence.

The hard truth is that those things are still going to happen to some extent, no matter what. As Obama would have it: it's just "math". We just kicked the can down the road. But I'd far rather have a conservative President who understands that reducing taxes, ending regulatory fascism, policing our borders, and encouraging new American industry will help to greatly mitigate the effects of the international banking collapse (that will still happen).

I believe the current regime will use such a "crisis" instead to consolidate their power and control, and to complete their fundamental transformation of America into a liberal social democracy.

“But Cain did agree with TARP...”

There’s only one person who agrees with me 100% on every issue, and that’s me - and I ain’t runnin’.

I don’t expect Cain to be perfect, but he’s pretty darn good compared to the rest of the field, and in a completely different (and much better) universe compared to the moron currently in office.

Besides, wasn’t most of TARP paid back? It’s Stimulus I, II, etc. that was money almost entirely flushed down the toilet of donkey influence peddling.

I saw an interview with Cain on YouTube (can’t find t right now) where he explained the tarp thing.

In the first few days, *everybody* agreed with tarp. (Including Glenn Beck) Once the details started coming out, the alarm went out. At that time, Cain changed his position.