It’s not exactly the same thing as second-guessing a coach’s decision to go for it on fourth down, but Monday morning quarterbacking the government’s intervention during the financial crisis can be just as fun.

While the ramifications behind the government’s decision last week not to save CIT Group won’t be known for months, or years, it’s clear some of the government’s decisions a year ago helped prevent an all-out collapse of the financial system, while others may have just made things worse.

“We came very close to going into the abyss a year ago. They’ve had to do some very unusual things and some of them will have later costs, but they still were the right thing to do,” billionaire investor Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, recently told FOX Business.

To be sure, these controversial decisions were made at a time of great uncertainty, and even greater fear.

“We’re in unprecedented territory and I certainly don’t envy these people’s jobs,” said Gus Faucher, director of macroeconomics at Moody’s Economy.com.

No Brainer: Insuring Money Markets

One of the smartest moves by officials during the financial crisis is also one of the least talked about: insuring money market accounts.

In a sign of the fear ripping through the markets, the Primary Fund, one of the original money market funds, “broke the buck” in September 2008 amid huge withdrawals. The nearly-unprecedented occurrence threatened to cause an all-out run on money market funds, which are considered one of the safest investments. 

So, the government stepped in to insure all money market funds, making it nearly pointless to withdraw cash.

“I think it was done by the book and was done extremely effectively. The proof of that is you haven’t heard about money market funds since then,” said Adolfo Laurenti, senior economist at Mesirow Financial.

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, echoed that sentiment, saying, “That’s how you stem a panic. If everyone knows their money is insured, no one is going to try to get it out.”

Lehman Brothers vs. Bear Stearns

Regulators may have prevented the financial crisis from starting six months earlier than it did by helping sell crippled investment bank Bear Stearns to JPMorgan Chase (JPM) in March 2008. While some protest the way the government acted, it seems it was a wise decision to prevent the investment bank from collapsing.

But while the Bear rescue likely prevented the start of the crisis, officials appeared to be ill-prepared for the next shoe to drop in September, in the form of Lehman Brothers. When Lehman was allowed to fail, it sent shudders through the financial system.

“In retrospect they probably would have saved Lehman, because that made the financial crisis a lot worse,” said Faucher.

But others argue officials needed to set a precedent so as to signal that not everyone would be bailed out. “At that point in time, whatever they decided would have been a mistake because of a lack of preparation,” said Laurenti.

About That Toxic Asset Plan…

One of the other decisions that in hindsight looks wise is also one of the least popular: handing hundreds of banks nearly $1 trillion of taxpayer cash. While he’s been criticized for allegedly misleading Congress, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s decision to scrap his plan to buy banks’ toxic assets and instead inject them with cash helped prevent a financial apocalypse.

“It dealt with the real issue. Buying up the assets never really made any sense,” said Baker, who added it was “outrageous” how officials “scared and intimidated” lawmakers into approving the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Today, TARP is derided as a government handout to banks and it helped fuel a public backlash against bonuses and bailouts.

“The public’s not very happy about it but we were in a very difficult situation there,” said Faucher. “I think they did a decent job. It was necessary to save the financial system.”

What Plan?

One of the low points of President Barack Obama’s presidency thus far has to be when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged 382 points in February after Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner rushed out his “bad bank” plan before it was ready. By trumping up the plan and unveiling it too soon, the administration raised the bar and sorely disappointed the markets.

“That was a mistake. In retrospect, they would have been better off if they said, ‘We’re still putting the finishing touches on this,’” said Faucher. “I think that hurt his credibility a little bit.”

Underscoring how much the markets were relying on this plan, which ultimately became known as the Public Private Investment Program, the Dow soared 497 points on March 23 after Geithner revealed new details about the rescue.

‘Helicopter Ben’ Was Right?

Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, was criticized by many for cutting interest rates in 2007 even before the recession began, and subsequently slashing them. Given the depths of the recession, it appears it was a wise decision.

“I think it was gutsy. I was a critic at the time. Maybe I was wrong,” said Laurenti.

Bernanke was even more aggressive than his European counterparts, eventually cutting rates to their lowest levels on record.

“We’re going to see a much stronger recovery than they are in Europe and that’s a major reason why,” said Faucher. “He is a student of the Great Depression. He saw what the game was and so he moved very quickly.”

Inflation hawks say Bernanke may have created a huge problem down the road by hurting the U.S. dollar and potentially sparking a wave of inflation that will slow the economy. Thus far, inflation doesn’t appear to be a near-term threat, however.

“Cutting interest rates is the easy part to do. The tough part is bringing that to normal. On that, the jury is still out,” said Laurenti.