I never once considered that it was appropriate to put taxpayer money on the line in resolving Lehman Brothers.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There's something called, 'resolution authority,' which gives the government the power to takeover a failing bank - something they didn't have pre-Lehman Brothers.
I often say to entrepreneurs, 'If Lehman Brothers were Lehman Brothers & Sisters, it wouldn't have gone into bankruptcy.'
A Fed loan to Lehman Brothers would not have prevented a bankruptcy.
For some reason, it never crossed any mind in this administration to ask for the money back.
The failure of Lehman may have allowed the government to do more to prop up the economy than it otherwise could.
No one suggested Lehman deserved to be saved. But the argument has been made that the crisis might have been less severe if it had been saved, because Lehman's failure created remarkable uncertainty in the market as investors became confused about the role of the government and whether it was picking winners and losers.
Sequestration was not designed to be anyone's ideal method for getting our hands around government spending, and it certainly isn't mine.
I never sought to privatize Social Security.
I had learned many years ago in private business never to take responsibility without adequate authority; and the new Secretary of Defense, as budgets were sharply cut, quickly found that out.
Our overriding goal in restructuring our financial architecture should be that taxpayers never again have to save a failing financial institution.
No opposing quotes found.