Gingrich: ‘Final collapse of the Bush administration’

[Janett_Reno]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...008-09-29.html

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said the Wall Street bailout plan pushed by President Bush signaled the “final collapse” of the current administration.

“The Bush administration has now provided three case studies in arrogance, isolation and destructiveness: Michael Brown during Hurricane Katrina, Ambassador Jerry Bremer in Baghdad and Secretary [Henry] Paulson at Treasury,” Gingrich said. “It is a tragic and very expensive legacy. No conservative and no Republican should doubt how much it has hurt our cause and our party.”

The former Speaker reiterated his call for the resignation of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

“As long as Secretary Paulson is in charge, it is impossible to get a creative or significantly better solution,” Gingrich stated, adding that the Treasury chief was “an even greater obstacle to a good bill than the liberal Democrats who run the House and Senate.”

Despite his objections, the former Speaker changed his position on the measure and said he “would reluctantly and sadly vote for the bailout were I still in office.” However, he added that he “understand[s] and sympathize[s] with any member who votes ‘no.' ”

His statement was issued before the bill was defeated in the House.

Gingrich predicted that the economy would “limp along and there will be a grave danger of yet another bailout next year,” unless Congress passes an economic growth and an energy bill.

[mcsluggo]

Ginrich is not helping things much right now....

But all of the fartfaces that are still on the hill are killing me. I realize it is very inconvenient to have a true crisis this close to election time... but there you are. We have it. The partisan whining and bickering while rome burns is a flaming turd sandwich right now. Both sides failed, and failed big today, and we are going to pay through our assholes... and likely much more than the $250 billion initial pricetag of this bill.

Listing to the snarky gag-inducing rhetoric right now make me want to vomit right down the throats of both sides.



this is getting damn scary to me, and we could be in BIG trouble.

[kg_veteran]

Sounds to me like those voting against are just doing what their constituents want them to do.

[Janett_Reno]

My Friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ordae-NBf7c

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

My Friends

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ordae-NBf7c

How shocking that MoveOn.Org doesn't acknowledge the role of elected officials and government in pushing lenders to make risky "affirmative action" subprime loans or the role of home purchasers in taking on bigger mortgages than they could afford.

[Janett_Reno]

Both of you are right. First of all, both parties should get out here and explain to the public what this means and doesn't mean and how it will affect them. I know the Iraq war was wrong but we must figure out the mess and do what's best now. I know Bush threw us down the tubes but again as a people, both dems and reps must get together and do what's best for the people. It is sickening to think of another 700 billion to bail out wall street and no i don't like it but if we don't do this or help someway, things are fixing to get alot worse.

So as bad as it is and i hate borrowing more money but the dems/reps must stop playing politics and getting this done. Our local banks and what if the gov puts a freeze on all banks and money you try to pull out. This is a time both parties better work together.

[Janett_Reno]

Are they suppose to get back together and try to get this bail out to go thru? If not, it is going to be bad.

[mary]

It'll go through.

Warren Buffett said so.

[kg_veteran]

I have no doubt that something will go through, eventually. Not unlike the Dubai ports deal, the immigration bill last year, etc., however, the people are making their voices heard and are impacting what Congress eventually does.

Good to see that, at least in some respect, the people still have a voice in government!

[Flacolaco]

Yes, the people are being heard. I wrote my Congressman, even though he's awesome and conservative, but I wrote him anyway....I wonder who reads those emails...

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Yes, the people are being heard. I wrote my Congressman, even though he's awesome and conservative, but I wrote him anyway....I wonder who reads those emails...

[alexamenos]

This is one of those rare ocassions when I'm not so certain that the republican party is completely littered with socialists.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

This is one of those rare ocassions when I'm not so certain that the republican party is completely littered with socialists.

Same thing with me.

[Mavdog]

this is one of those not so rare ocasions when our politicians in washington don't have the wherewithall to understand they were elected to be leaders.

this is an occasion where backbone and fortitude are needed and unfortunately that trait is indeed lacking.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

this is one of those not so rare ocasions when our politicians in washington don't have the wherewithall to understand they were elected to be leaders.

this is an occasion where backbone and fortitude are needed and unfortunately that trait is indeed lacking.

So you're saying that the elected officials should pass legislation that isn't supported by their constituents?

[Mavdog]

should the legislators do only what the vocal constituents advocate?

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

should the legislators do only what the vocal constituents advocate?

No, but I think it's clear that we're not just talking about the "vocal" constituents here. And you're leaving out the possibility that perhaps these legislators actually OPPOSE the bailout on principle as well.

[Mavdog]

do you believe that the voters who want the feds to act were vocal about their desire? second, if the electorate is for a cause, even when that cause is in error, the legislators should follow rather than lead?

my belief is that in today's political environment politicans have very little backbone.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

do you believe that the voters who want the feds to act were vocal about their desire? second, if the electorate is for a cause, even when that cause is in error, the legislators should follow rather than lead?

my belief is that in today's political environment politicans have very little backbone.

Actually, I think those that opposed this bill showed quite a bit of backbone. They faced tremendous pressure from party leaders and from the White House to act, but they showed courage and actually represented their constituencies -- what a novel concept!

As for whether the cause is in error, I think you're begging the question there.

As for whether those in favor of the bailout plan were vocal about their desire, I can only say that if they weren't they have only themselves to blame.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Actually, I think those that opposed this bill showed quite a bit of backbone. They faced tremendous pressure from party leaders and from the White House to act, but they showed courage and actually represented their constituencies -- what a novel concept!

As for whether the cause is in error, I think you're begging the question there.

As for whether those in favor of the bailout plan were vocal about their desire, I can only say that if they weren't they have only themselves to blame.

it did not take much "backbone" to vote no, to do nothing is much easier than doing something. the vote that won today was to do nothing.

again, are they doing a good job of representing their constituents if their votes prove to be on the wrong side of the issue?

no, not at all.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it did not take much "backbone" to vote no, to do nothing is much easier than doing something. the vote that won today was to do nothing.

The incorrect assumption you're making is that they want to do nothing.

again, are they doing a good job of representing their constituents if their votes prove to be on the wrong side of the issue?

no, not at all.

And, conversely, if they prove to be on the right side of the issue?

Look, you keep trying to place those that voted against the bill in this false "all or nothing" position. It is far better, IMO, to do nothing at the moment than to pass bad legislation.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The incorrect assumption you're making is that they want to do nothing.

so where is a counterproposal? the bill that was submitted had the concessions to the bloc included.

nope, just disagree with your assertion, this vote today was a "do nothing" vote.

And, conversely, if they prove to be on the right side of the issue?

Look, you keep trying to place those that voted against the bill in this false "all or nothing" position. It is far better, IMO, to do nothing at the moment than to pass bad legislation.

well, a look at the markets says they were on the wrong side. the bill is about liquidity and confidence, and both took a big hit today.

just what was "bad" about this piece of legisation?

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

The incorrect assumption you're making is that they want to do nothing.

What is it they want to do?

[chumdawg]

Why are Republicans voting against the plan? I thought Bush and McCain were all for it. In fact, I thought McCain actually made it happen.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Why are Republicans voting against the plan? I thought Bush and McCain were all for it. In fact, I thought McCain actually made it happen.

Obama was for it, too, and 95 Democrats voted against it. It's called exercising independent thought and representing their constituents.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Obama was for it, too, and 95 Democrats voted against it. It's called exercising independent thought and representing their constituents.

Does that mean that leadership in this situation is neither wanted nor even welcome?

Why did Mac suspend his campaign and call on Bush to invite both him and Obama for a summit on the issue?

There are things that just don't add up.

[jefelump]

Just in reading up on this thread, I have to agree with kg. The members of the House who were voting on this bill were elected to represent us. If their constituents voice loud opposition to a bill, and those congressmen vote for the bill anyways, then they have not represented us. They have opposed us. I find it very interesting that many of the congressmen who opposed the bill are facing difficult challenges already in their re-elections. (Heard it on the radio, don't have a link, refute it if you want) They were clearly afraid of losing their jobs if they chose to oppose their constituents and try to be "leaders" in spite of those they were elected to represent.

[chumdawg]

So what's the deal? Does the bulk of America want the bailout or not want the bailout?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

So what's the deal? Does the bulk of America want the bailout or not want the bailout?

I guess we'll find out on Nov. 4. I certainly didn't like the bill, so I'm happy it failed.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

I guess we'll find out on Nov. 4. I certainly didn't like the bill, so I'm happy it failed.

How will we find out on Nov 4? Obama is for it, right? We all know Mac is for action. He suspended his campaign so that he could come back to Washington and address the emergency.

Candidly, I have no idea what you mean.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How will we find out on Nov 4? Obama is for it, right? We all know Mac is for action. He suspended his campaign so that he could come back to Washington and address the emergency.

Candidly, I have no idea what you mean.

Dude, focus. I wasn't talking only about Obama and McCain. We all know they both supported the bill. I'm talking about EVERYONE who is up for election in Nov., which includes every single member of the House of Reps. It will be interesting to see how many of them are re-elected, who voted Yes on this bill. I'm sure a great many will be returning to the House in the next Congress, but I'm curious to see how many are unelected because of this vote, if any. It seems to follow that if the incumbent pisses off enough of their electorate, then they won't be back in January. This vote came a little too close to Nov. 4 to pass by and be forgotten.

Oh, and it's quite convenient for both Obama and McCain that this bill died in the House and never made it to the Senate. They don't have to go on the record now. Obama can't even vote Present.

[Janett_Reno]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Dude, focus. I wasn't talking only about Obama and McCain. We all know they both supported the bill. I'm talking about EVERYONE who is up for election in Nov., which includes every single member of the House of Reps. It will be interesting to see how many of them are re-elected, who voted Yes on this bill. I'm sure a great many will be returning to the House in the next Congress, but I'm curious to see how many are unelected because of this vote, if any. It seems to follow that if the incumbent pisses off enough of their electorate, then they won't be back in January. This vote came a little too close to Nov. 4 to pass by and be forgotten.

Oh, and it's quite convenient for both Obama and McCain that this bill died in the House and never made it to the Senate. They don't have to go on the record now. Obama can't even vote Present.

The American people are fed up with Bush and this adm. They don't trust them. So the American people probably think the fat cats are getting anoher 700 billon dollar credit card check to go out and party with. This whole thing is very sad. I do not blame the American people getting furious. Bush does not explain what it's for but a bailout. Just untill lately, some financial experts are explaining to the public, if nothing is done, you will have no more credit cards, done. You most likely won't have a house if you owe money and are struggling, you are not going to borrow any money for a car, house, go to college because you will not get to borrow any money from the banks. Your 401k and pensions will crash and already have started. We are going into recession regardless of the bailout or not.

What some have done is what Bush and none of his adm has done and told the public what all this means and just lately have a few reps and dems in congress came out and told us. We can do no bailout and let everything crash, alot of crime, people on the street, many banks and bussinesses going bankrupt and no money flow at all. No jobs and many will lose their jobs.

This bill is very unpopular. The American people are very much against it. They are tired of Bush credit cards and spending and the fat cats on wall street busting us and then asking for their money back. The bad, it effects us to. Now let's cut to the chase.

The dems and reps had a talk and both agreed to pass this bill but also both agreed, we want to let our people in close races vote NO, to say their political seat in congress. It was made up between the two parties that everyone in a close race and up for election, get to vote no. So the others on both sides, reps and dems wouldvote yes to get it passed. This bill came from George W Bush. It's not a good thing but it is the right thing and a moral thing. It is no good way to get out of what this adm has done to us. This adm has alot to do with what the fat cats have done to us.

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211. Now if you ask me, people that really stood up and voted for what they felt was right, i know it was one republican from az that voted yes to try to save us and they say he could very well get kicked to the curb and get beat because he tried to do the right thing. I know cnn mentioned another republican also and i forget where he was from but just because of his yes vote in a swing election, he might now lose. You must respect someone that tried to do right, even if they lose.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against. So the people that had nothing to worry about, they voted for it. It was a political stunt by both parties to try to save seats and pass the bill and it failed. It has come to where politics is more important than your country. On both sides for many. This isn't right.

The bill is going to fly thru the senate with hardly no one voting against it. Why? Because it is only about 8 to 10 seats in question that will have to play politics and vote no on it.

In the end, the bill will probably pass later this week and they might tweek it a lil. The public isn't going to like it. If you own your house, if you have money, if you don't need the banks to much to borrow, if you haven't got alot of money in 401k and pension plans or stocks, if you can pay high price for gas, food, and aford to keep your business going without any help of the banks and you are completely out of debt and you can hang on to the job you have, then it won't hurt you as bad if the bill doesn't pass. We are going into recession regardless. If the bill is not passed and you are on the other side of that fence, then most likely you will get busted without the bill. Your life is going to change. Banks would call in loans busting so many people. I am talking the small person. It has now trickled down from the fat cats and what this adm has done and they both have done a great job at bankrupting us.

Everything a republican says he stands for, Bush has busted them on it. Faith, what faith in politicians? Values? Any values the last 7 years? Morals. What a joke. A republican is suppose to stand for less restrictions on business and gov stay out of business. So this adm loosened everything on business from pollute the water and air if you want, we don't care. Loosen restrictions on all fat cats on wall street, banks, lenders, borrowers, and let it run wide open. I mean even casinos have more restrictions than our gov, as they took all restrictions off.

So now what is Bush asking for? For us to bail out the fat cats that went busted and all that are fixing to go bust. It is going to trickle down to your local banks. So now this adm is asking for gov to Run Businesses. In return make the tax payers pay for it. I have been told this is what republicans don't stand for and get furious about. If Bush didn't do anything, China, Saudi and Russia would buy up many more of our big fat cat financial big players, even with their debt companies. They are trying to take us over by money, us in debt to them, them buying our land and our big time companies, plus us importing trillons of dollars of things from them as we export nothing to them.

It comes to a time and point where you try to love and save your country and not sell it out. To care and even work with a guy and adm that hardly anyone likes, Bush. Yes he is a puppet and he is a big reason we are where we are now but atleast he tried to do something and no he doesn't know how to sell anything or tell what it's for and no i don't like it at all but i know it's the right thing to do, to try to save our country.

In the end, you and i will like a check from the usa than China. We will both like going to the bank and borrowing money from someone who speaks English and not having to worry we will be thrown in jail if we walk in a public place and forget we have a bible in our pocket. We have to save the USA and put it back in the hands of Americans. The fat cats and people that abuse our system, like Enron, then they need to go after them and put them in the pen. Not loosen restrictions on the fat cats. We have found out, the fat cats don't like it tricklin' down.

In the end, this bail out bill is about many congressmen trying to save their jobs and voting the way they are suppose to to get re elected. Both reps and dems. Neither party is gonna take blame, so both parties want it a 50/50, where no one loses their job. Politics isn't pretty and it isn't nice.

[Mavdog]

so the proposal is to have the government assume the risk by insuring against a loss?

wow, that worked so well for aig.......

the insurance proposal does not address the liquidity issues.

the insurance proposal leaves only the downside to the government for their trouble, there is no upside should the securities recover their value.

so who gets the most (the upside) out of the republican insurance proposal? the holders of those securities.

that is the true definition of a bailout.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

so the proposal is to have the government assume the risk by insuring against a loss?

wow, that worked so well for aig.......

the insurance proposal does not address the liquidity issues.

the insurance proposal leaves only the downside to the government for their trouble, there is no upside should the securities recover their value.

so who gets the most (the upside) out of the republican insurance proposal? the holders of those securities.

that is the true definition of a bailout.

You asked where the counterproposal was, so I answered your question.

Here is the counterproposal I liked:

http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_ba...up_10887.htmlc

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by jefelump

You asked where the counterproposal was, so I answered your question.

Here is the counterproposal I liked:

http://www.daveramsey.com/etc/fed_ba...up_10887.htmlc

this is not the counterproposal of the republicans.

i support the suspension of mark-to-market accounting regs (irs code 475, which btw predated sarbanes-oxley) and here is a piece I read last week that explains its problems:

http://www.princeton.edu/~hsshin/www...tyLeverage.pdf

that will not by itself provide short term liquidity to the securities market tho. it will forestall the continued write downs by holders of these securities and the corresponding increase in capital it requires.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

this is not the counterproposal of the republicans.

i support the suspension of mark-to-market accounting regs (irs code 475, which btw predated sarbanes-oxley) and here is a piece I read last week that explains its problems:

http://www.princeton.edu/~hsshin/www...tyLeverage.pdf

that will not by itself provide short term liquidity to the securities market tho. it will forestall the continued write downs by holders of these securities and the corresponding increase in capital it requires.

I honestly never read the Repub's counterproposal, so I can't comment on whether or not it matches the site I linked to. But I never claimed they were the same.

[Mavdog]

ahh, so the "counterproposal" is a weak piece of crap, but hey! it's a "counterproposal"....

and according to you THAT'S leadership? vote against a substantive piece of legislation because you would rather vote for a poor piece of legislation?

like I said, these legislators who voted no wouldn't recognize leadership if it came and kissed them on the lips.

[kg_veteran]

I'll add more later, but I loved this quote from Jonah Goldberg:

Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has spent the last few years ridiculing Alan Greenspan, John McCain and others who sought more regulation for Fannie Mae's market-distorting schemes -- the fons et origo of this financial crisis. Now he says "the private sector got us into this mess." His partner in crime, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), a chief beneficiary of Fannie Mae lobbyists' largesse, claims this mess is the result of poor oversight -- without even hinting at the fact he is in charge of oversight of banks. They sound like pimps complaining about the prevalence of STDs among prostitutes.

[mary]

Can someone explain the alternative proposal to me? Some of you guys do a much better job than the media of explaining things.

I understand that it would offer FDIC-type insurance. That actually sounds like a pretty good idea.

But I'm a little confused here. We already know the assets are bad.

Wouldn't this be like offering life insurance to a person with a gaping head wound?

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by mary

Can someone explain the alternative proposal to me? Some of you guys do a much better job than the media of explaining things.

I understand that it would offer FDIC-type insurance. That actually sounds like a pretty good idea.

But I'm a little confused here. We already know the assets are bad.

Wouldn't this be like offering life insurance to a person with a gaping head wound?

I think the difference is that the bailout as proposed before is like just giving the money away for the funeral of the guy with the gaping head wound even though he's not dead yet, and the insurance based plan is more of a wait and see thing. If there's a chance the money doesn't need to be spent, then it's better to wait and be sure.

That's what it sounds like to me...but then I can barely tie my shoes.