Iggy, the bailout, as I posted a linked article for about 2 months ago, showed that the TARP bailout was fully paid off.
I opposed it until I saw that it was paid off, with interest.
So Romney supports something that worked.
As opposed to a series of huge stimulus bills, that demonstrably cost hundreds, if not millions per (temporary) job created, and do nothing to spark long-term growth. They print trillions of dollars, and WASTE those dollars, as they drive us closer and closer to collapse of the dollar. How could you possibly support this kind of suicidal policy, and demonize Romney as somehow equal or worse, just because they both got donations from Wall Street firms?
I find it interesting that both you and Pro are spreading the same talking points as David Axelrod and other cronies of Obama.
They attacked Romney as a fat cat, and that didn't work.
They attacked Romney on his record, and that didn't work.
Now they're attacking Romney as a whore of Wall Street and that won't work either, because as I demonstrated, Obama was the largest recipient and did Wall Street's bidding more so than any other president. (As Carney phrases it, when Obama was elected "lobbyists thought they'd died and gone to heaven.")
There are ultimately two choices in November, and barring a major cataqclysm, that choice will be between Obama and Romney. I think your support of Obama --whose policies have clearly not worked, and racked up more debt than any president (or presidents combined) in history-- is irrational, if not partisan.
I agree that skepticism of Romney is reasonable, and pointing out his record and donations also reasonable. But you seem to be giving Obama a preference, and are wildly speculative on facts about Romney that were selectively ignored about Obama. Facts about Obama's Wall Street contributions and whoring that have still never, years later, been reported outside the conservative media.
