That was more a matter of partisan calculation with an election on the horizon and a nation under severe economic duress than it was a statement of principal on most Congresspeople’s parts. Taking the approach of your section of the Libertarian world (doing nothing at all) would have meant a repeat of Herbert Hoover’s mistakes in 1929-1930.
The blank-cheque bailout was extremely problematic in that there weren’t enough conditions attached to how the TARP funds could be applied (although as I recall, some of the Republicans voted against it because they felt there were too many conditions) and because they didn’t break up the banks, but letting all of them go down the drain at once would have been even worse (GM, in contrast, deserved to be left to die).
Throwing some high-profile banksters in the slammer as an example would have been nice, but adding new laws would have made a difference. For instance, in regard to what you discuss, re-instating a modern version of Glass-Steagall (which in essence would have also broken up the TBTF banks) and converting the bond-rating agencies into not-for-profits paid by buyers alone would have greatly reduced the possibility of a new housing bubble based on risky lending to speculators.
I’d allow that except for the fact that your arguments are generally as fallacious and specious as those of overgrown HS debate club members who legitmately score a 0 or 1 (e.g Gingrich and Cruz), and that you regularly portray anyone here who argues for things like single-payer universal healthcare as scoring an 8 or 9. That’s why you’re regarded here as being closer to the lunatic fringe than you might be in reality.
