wtf: Mitt Romney: George W. Bush And Henry Paulson Saved Country From Depression

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Free Thinker, Mar 21, 2012.

  1. OK, sure Mr. Mitt. How in heck did he get that stretch of anything remotely accurate?

    I'm past Bush, and think we should all get over it. I didn't dislike the man or the office, just his wars primarily. But I think even Mr. Bush would chuckle at this one.

  2. Max E.

    Max E.

    Surely the two of you know that TARP was passed under Bush, and Paulson dont you?

    The bank bailout was what really saved the economy from completely collapsing, not that piece of shit stimulus.
  3. Conservatives in nature opposed TARP and bailing out the banks - that's the reason why they don't trust Romney and support Santorum. Romney has no idea what he's saying half the time and the other half he's playing "etch-a-sketch."
  4. Etch a Sketch, watching that on TV now, pretty funny.

  5. Max E.

    Max E.

    Please Mr. Centrist, can you please tell us which of Obama's pro growth policies saved us from a depression?

    Was it Obamacare? That one was so good for business that Obama has now granted 2000 waivers and counting, mostly to businesses that are politically connected to him.

    Maybe it was Dodd-Frank, all that added paper work for the banks must have created a ton of jobs.....

    Maybe if only the evil republicans had let him get Cap and Trade through, we would have seen a monster boom in the economy, the likes of which hadnt been seen since the 90's.

    Maybe it was the keystone pipeline he blocked, that was a brilliant job creating move on his part....

    Exactly which one of Obamas "Pro Growth" policies do you credit for saving the economy from depression??? And dont tell me the Stimulus, because the economy was already adding jobs before a single dime of the stimulus went out the door.

    The fact of the matter is that almost every policy Obama has taken has been anti business, so giving him credit for saving the economy is laughable, the economy would have fixed itself by now if Obama wasnt standing in the way, and hanging one gigantic new regulation after another on it.

  6. Just saw it.
    I always thought Romney would be the gift that keeps on giving, but he's got a deep bench too, it looks like.
  7. Bush also saved GM by bridging them a loan until Obama came in with his crony deal.
  8. Whatever it is, I think looking at any 4 year running period, financially speaking, the majority has done far far better under Bush than Obama.

    These are simply the facts.

    But what the hell..Obama is going to win the next election anyway.

    I just chalk it down to a period of bad luck in our lives, nothing lasts forever, not bad times, not Obama.

    When he leaves in 2016 hopefully the right policies enacted by his successor will cause prosperity to return.
  9. Arnie


    The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is a program of the United States government to purchase assets and equity from financial institutions to strengthen its financial sector that was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It was a component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis.

    The TARP program originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion and was expected to cost the U.S. taxpayers as much as $300 billion.[1] The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act reduced the amount authorized to $475 billion. By March 3, 2011, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) stated that total disbursements would be $432 billion and estimated the total cost would be $19 billion.[2] This is significantly less than the taxpayers' cost of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s but does not include the cost of other "bailout" programs (such as the Federal Reserve's Maiden Lane Transactions and the Federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The cost of the former crisis amounted to 3.2 percent of GDP during the Reagan/Bush era, while the GDP percentage of the latter crisis' cost is estimated at less than 1 percent.[3] While it was once feared the government would be holding companies like GM, AIG and Citigroup for several years, those companies are preparing to buy back the Treasury's stake and emerge from TARP within a year.[3] Of the $245 billion handed to U.S. and foreign banks, over $169 billion has been paid back, including $13.7 billion in dividends, interest and other income, along with $4 billion in warrant proceeds as of April 2010[update]. AIG is considered "on track" to pay back $51 billion from divestitures of two units and another $32 billion in securities.[3]

    The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Division A of Pub.L. 110-343, 122 Stat. 3765, enacted October 3, 2008, commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law enacted in response to the subprime mortgage crisis authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to US$700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and give cash directly to banks (however, the plan to purchase distressed assets has been abandoned).[1][2] Both foreign and domestic banks are included in the program. The Federal Reserve also extended help to American Express, whose bank-holding application it recently approved.[3] The Act was proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the global financial crisis of 2008.

    The original proposal was submitted to the United States House of Representatives, with the purpose of purchasing bad assets, reducing uncertainty regarding the worth of the remaining assets, and restoring confidence in the credit markets. The bill was then expanded and put forth as an amendment to H.R. 3997.[4] The amendment was rejected via a vote of the House of Representatives on September 29, 2008, voting 205–228.[5]

    On October 1, 2008, the Senate debated and voted on an amendment to H.R. 1424, which substituted a newly revised version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 for the language of H.R. 1424.[6][7] The Senate accepted the amendment and passed the entire amended bill, voting 74–25.[8] Additional unrelated provisions added an estimated $150 billion to the cost of the package and increased the length of the bill to 451 pages.[9][10] (See Public Law 110-343 for details on the added provisions.) The amended version of H.R. 1424 was sent to the House for consideration, and on October 3, the House voted 263-171 to enact the bill into law.[6][11][12] President George W. Bush signed the bill into law within hours of its congressional enactment, creating the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to purchase failing bank assets.[13]

    Supporters of the plan argued that the market intervention called for by the plan was vital to prevent further erosion of confidence in the U.S. credit markets and that failure to act could lead to an economic depression. Opponents objected to the plan's cost and rapidity, pointing to polls that showed little support among the public for "bailing out" Wall Street investment banks,[14] claimed that better alternatives were not considered,[15] and that the Senate forced passage of the unpopular version through the opposing house by "sweetening" the bailout package.[16]

    Businessman and commentator Peter Schiff argued that since the problems of the American economy were created by excess credit and debt, a massive infusion of credit and debt into the economy only exacerbates the problems.[17] This argument has been opposed by both supporters and critics of the program.[18][19]

    All in all, it looks like what Romney said is pretty accurate.
    #10     Mar 22, 2012