Yes we have, and when you repeatedly say things like: "TARP was necessary to stop the bleeding. I didn't like it, but it was necessary at the time." you are making a statement as if your opinion was a fact. More correctly it would be: "I think/believe TARP was necessary to stop the bleeding."
Well, yeah, that, and logic and reason and facts. But we won't let those cloud the discussion.
In my opinion it was necessary. That opinion is based on the facts available to me. This includes the sheer amount of toxic debt (estimated to be at least $1 Trillion) and number of firms and banks saying they were about to go bankrupt, would have trouble funding their daily operations shortly (even healthy companies with other, non-financial product lines of business, such as GE), or foresaw a strong possibility of one or more of those. Additionally, a wide array of financial analysts and professionals (governmental and private sector) were predicting the wholesale collapse of the financial system from said toxic debt. When one looks at how over leveraged and intertwined the system was and is, this is not hard to understand. AIG, for example, was involved in everything. We had funds that were insured, with the insurers themselves being reinsured by firms like the aforementioned AIG. The problem (well, one of them) is that there was no backboard for those reinsurers, who were (and are) woven through the entire economy.
Your position, if I understand it, is that we don't know any of that would have happened, and that the industry (and government) did not prove to your satisfaction that such action was needed. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion, though I don't agree with it. However, given your rejection of essentially any government involvement with the economy whatsoever (and well, all government itself), I think it's also reasonable to surmise that no amount of evidence would convince you.
I do take issue with your comment about lack of logic and reason and facts. The collapse scenario is entirely logical and reasoned, as I spelled out. What it is not is proven. Ultimately, we have reached different conclusions here, which is fine. But don't go spouting off about my position being illogical or unreasonable, all while offering no factual or logical basis for your own position. Doing so is somewhat absurd.