Political Insider

By Bryce Stewart

September 29, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

memo to Uncle Sam: Keep your hands out of my pockets.

This bailout sets a dangerous precedent. Imagine what the founding fathers would have said. The Boston tea party was a response to taxation that wasn’t nearly as oppressive.

This bailout cost each and every taxpayer 6K.

By Robert

September 29, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

“were I still in office.”

And thanks to God, you are not, you poisonous toad.

To your Republican brethren, gee, thanks for the fiscal responsibility you’ve been touting for decades. See you in the soup line.

By Manny

September 29, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

The bailout situation doesn’t look like it’s going to pass.

By DW

September 29, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

Hey, Newt! Welcome to life as a minority!

By The Alpha Male

September 29, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this

I think the vitriol evident in some of the more sophomoric comments (you poisonous toad?) show how deeply divided this country is. I think it’s sad that two political parties and ideologies have become so blatantly bent on destroying each other that civility and interest in the common good are cast aside without a thought.

Closer to the topic….Socialism is not the answer.

By KP

September 29, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Go to hell Newt. Learn how the system works.

By findog

September 29, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this

Got to love Newt: he was against it before he was for it.

By #21=Top 50,1stBallot

September 29, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

It funny that everyone wants to see the CEO’s, wall street types, et al lose their investments, jobs, assets and many assuredly will. But what people fail to realize is that they are already rich and will not be as impacted as the country’s moral outrage would like to suppose. They are not personally held responsible for the failures, because by-in-large they conducted business legally, though admittedly with exceptional avarice.

What the government seems to be trying to do is stop the bleeding before the blood channels from “wall street to main street” (anyone else tired of that phrase?). Many of the same people who favor trickledown economics seem to be missing this point. Once the credit crisis reaches Joe public in very real terms of no re-financing, car, tuition, etc, more outrage will ensue- guranteed. I’m not a fan of the bill per se, nor the circumstances leading up to it, but something MUST be done and the government seems to be recognizing this, trying to ebb the tide of financial troubles.

Personal accountability it paramount to fiscal solvency, but at what point do the actions of the many affect the few (or vice versa)? Furthermore shouldn’t a government err on the side of caution to protect said “many” (again or few)? That seems why the or a bill is necessary from many lawmakers points of view.

By Aaron Burr V. Mexico

September 29, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this

Speaking as someone who has vitriolic feelings, I too once tried the peaceful way.

I further understand that independents and undecideds (what there are at this point) are turned away by it. But at the same time, the vitriol from the right cannot be allowed to go unchallenged or they will shout out the truth.

Furthermore, Capitalism and Socialism are both concepts invented by human beings in the last few centuries. Both have failings, but capitalism has been shown to require regulation. “Unlimited Freemarkets” have now been scientifically proven to be a myth in a modern society. When the information outpaces the ability of the individual members to make decisions, markets cannot function via the invisible hand.

Pure Socialism doesn’t function because people must have a motivation to work.

Pure Capitalism doesn’t work because it is too easy to manipulate it and people are inherently stupid.

Furthermore, as has been demonstrated by the last 8 years; modern propoganda techniques have succeeded to the point that people can construct their own ideological realities, thus mandating a continual and never ending vigil against one side or the other dominating lest we spiral out of control.

The seventies showed what happens when socialism becomes too dominant.

The dot com crash and this current situation show what happens when capitalism becomes too dominant.

(And to those who blame the current situation on the Clintons, you prove my point about the need for vitriol and the fact that the danger of artificially constructed realities based on ideology rather than reason.)

By findog

September 29, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Robert @1:45

Poisonous Toads everywhere DEMAND an apology…

Alpha Male @2:02

Did you happen to buy one of Newt’s GOPAC packages for running as a Republican? His inability to present an alternative, nor any statement that does not label a DNC leader liberal, is how the great man fell. That and cheating [again] on his wife while trying to impeach the elected president, so why didn’t he add that failure to pass the measure and save the economy would rest squarely on BILL CLINTON’s head?

By The Truth

September 29, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

I give Newt Gingrich about as much credence as I would roadkill. The Republicans have had majorities in both houses since midway through the 90’s and have absolutely run this country in the ground. Newt himself, started a lot of this highly public partisanship in front of the media during his early days when he went after the Speaker Jim Wright.

The Democrats are at fault too due to the fact they have been grandstanding as well searching for every media bite they can. We are not liberals or conservative folks, we are Americans. If this is not a perfect case for having term limits, I do not know what is. Yet reluctantly, we will have to vote for this bailout to help put the market back together or face massive consequences. So goes another day under the worst President in our 200 years plus of history. So sad…….

By Mary

September 29, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

I wish someone would bail me and my husband out of the mess we are in and let the taxpayers pay for it…The rich keep getting richer and the middle class are loosing everything….

By No How No Way No McCain

September 29, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

Make up your mind, Newty, then STFU. You’re irrelevant. Politicans flip flop more than fish out of water.

By Robert

September 29, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

The Alpha Male: “ideologies have become so blatantly bent on destroying each other that civility and interest in the common good are cast aside without a thought.”

Thank you for summarizing the career of Mr. Gingrich so precisely. He is the most divisive and, yes, poisonous politician of our era.

He is an abject failure.

By Robert

September 29, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this

The Alpha Male: “ideologies have become so blatantly bent on destroying each other that civility and interest in the common good are cast aside without a thought.”

Thank you for summarizing the career of Mr. Gingrich so precisely. He is the most divisive and, yes, poisonous politician of our era.

He is an abject failure.

By Reverende

September 29, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

You asked for four more years and you got it… We are worse off than we’ve ever been with the Bush-Cheney regime. They made their millions and we are now see the results of their maladministration. Keep it up and we’ll be sailing in the same boat as third world countries.

By DIVERDOWN

September 29, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this

I dont think the problem is with the bailout as much as it is the means by how it is done.

First off, anyone wanting to place blame on one side or another needs to take a look at the balanced budget law and how long our representatives have ingnored their responcibilites in that area. Even to the effect of granting themselves raises as well as great health benifites during this time frame. Where did the concept of representing the people was considered to be a priviledge and not a career leave this cournty’s focus.

Secondly, the bailout, imo, will need to be accomplished. The question in my mind is the means by which it will be accomplished. The current bill before the house today included the following provisions that I object to. The first was not limiting Executive compensation to a cap 500K is fine by me… They way it was written was a company would not recieve any tax benifit for compensation paid over that amount. I say limit it to a max dollor figure not to exceed, including bonuses and stock options. The counter argument may be we need to attact competent people and this may be needed… Well it failed the first time and we the people should not positively reward negative socail behavior.

My second beef was with grandfathering in the golden parachutes for those existing in the corporations that recieve the help and only forgoing these golden parachutes for new executivies. Bah…. Again see above… these executives failed and dont deservice the money.

Now the question is who and how much and not as much of taxpayer burden. Believe me folks it will fall to us in the long run…. WE FUND THE GOVERNMENT. Lets take it back by voting out our poor leaders which by the way needs to include the people in congress. Dont just focus on the President and his staff. Lets vote and show them we the people mean business and change the our Government from a Goverment of the Parties, For the Parties, by the Parities back to a Goverment of the PEOPLE, For the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE.

By Craig

September 29, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this

Hey Truth. Your being willfully ignorant about the economy. First. The dems have been in power for 2 years.

Second: The current finacial fiasco is a direct result of government interference in the capital markets starting with Carter and ballooning under Bill Clinton and George Bush. It was Government interference that came up with the Community Reinvestment Act which started much of the mortgage mess we are in by letting banks lend money to people who would not normally qualify, and then packaging the loans to sell in the open market and guaranteed by Freddie & Fanny. Now its biting us in the fanny and everybody’s b*** about it being those “greedy wall street capitalists who took advantage of those poor folk who got forclosed on”. Please. the government forced private business to lower credit standards and thats why we are where we are. All government is to blame.

By DH

September 29, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

This guy Newt is so double standard. In his first interview on news he didn’t back the plan and then I guess when he heard about Wachovia over the weekend he wants to favor the bailout and then criticizes both parties. So the hell with what this guy says and now with no bailout in the future the financial markets are going to be in worse shape. If there is anyone who know finance, with layoffs its mostly from is why there is so much “mortgage debt” thats the main issue. Remember, someone has to pay off these loans eventually or its just money lost.

By DIVERDOWN

September 29, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this

I dont think the problem is with the bailout as much as it is the means by how it is done.

First off, anyone wanting to place blame on one side or another needs to take a look at the balanced budget law and how long our representatives have ingnored their responcibilites in that area. Even to the effect of granting themselves raises as well as great health benifites during this time frame. Where did the concept of representing the people was considered to be a priviledge and not a career leave this cournty’s focus.

Secondly, the bailout, imo, will need to be accomplished. The question in my mind is the means by which it will be accomplished. The current bill before the house today included the following provisions that I object to. The first was not limiting Executive compensation to a cap 500K is fine by me… They way it was written was a company would not recieve any tax benifit for compensation paid over that amount. I say limit it to a max dollor figure not to exceed, including bonuses and stock options. The counter argument may be we need to attact competent people and this may be needed… Well it failed the first time and we the people should not positively reward negative socail behavior.

My second beef was with grandfathering in the golden parachutes for those existing in the corporations that recieve the help and only forgoing these golden parachutes for new executivies. Bah…. Again see above… these executives failed and dont deservice the money.

Now the question is who and how much and not as much of taxpayer burden. Believe me folks it will fall to us in the long run…. WE FUND THE GOVERNMENT. Lets take it back by voting out our poor leaders which by the way needs to include the people in congress. Dont just focus on the President and his staff. Lets vote and show them we the people mean business and change the our Government from a Goverment of the Parties, For the Parties, by the Parities back to a Goverment of the PEOPLE, For the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE.

By DIVERDOWN

September 29, 2008 2:56 PM | Link to this

I dont think the problem is with the bailout as much as it is the means by how it is done.

First off, anyone wanting to place blame on one side or another needs to take a look at the balanced budget law and how long our representatives have ingnored their responcibilites in that area. Even to the effect of granting themselves raises as well as great health benifites during this time frame. Where did the concept of representing the people was considered to be a priviledge and not a career leave this cournty’s focus.

Secondly, the bailout, imo, will need to be accomplished. The question in my mind is the means by which it will be accomplished. The current bill before the house today included the following provisions that I object to. The first was not limiting Executive compensation to a cap 500K is fine by me… They way it was written was a company would not recieve any tax benifit for compensation paid over that amount. I say limit it to a max dollor figure not to exceed, including bonuses and stock options. The counter argument may be we need to attact competent people and this may be needed… Well it failed the first time and we the people should not positively reward negative socail behavior.

My second beef was with grandfathering in the golden parachutes for those existing in the corporations that recieve the help and only forgoing these golden parachutes for new executivies. Bah…. Again see above… these executives failed and dont deservice the money.

Now the question is who and how much and not as much of taxpayer burden. Believe me folks it will fall to us in the long run…. WE FUND THE GOVERNMENT. Lets take it back by voting out our poor leaders which by the way needs to include the people in congress. Dont just focus on the President and his staff. Lets vote and show them we the people mean business and change the our Government from a Goverment of the Parties, For the Parties, by the Parities back to a Goverment of the PEOPLE, For the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE.

By James

September 29, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

Other than bombarding elected officials is there anything that we, the average American, can do?

By The Truth

September 29, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

Craig, you are being willfully ignorant of sarcasm. The Dems could not have possibly caused this mess in 19 months while the Republicans were in power for so long. Yet, the Dems did absolutely nothing when they had the chance to make any reforms.

The market has just dropped like a rock, everybody is blaming everybody else, the dollar is dropping against the euro again and it is the Democrats or Republicans fault? They should be all sent packing Craig so wake up. I just wish there was a legitimate third party that would give us a choice as the two offerings (Obama and McCain) leaves us all in a true mess.

By Aaron Burr V. Mexico

September 29, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this

Speaking of Vitriol….

Why look, ladeda, it’s Market Fanatics saying it’s Clinton’s fault because he insisted that they can’t deliberately skew bad rates to people just because they’re black.

Sorry folks, but the Republicans had all 3 branches of government for multiple years and never bothered to over turn this.

And as for balanced budgets, Clinton (absolute jerk that he is) actually balanced them.

Name a Republican president in the last FIFTY YEARS that has balanced the budget ONCE.

You won’t find one.

By nana

September 29, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Very good points DIVERDOWN. We need to vote out every congress man and woman who has supported and pushed through the community reinvestment act, (which lead to the NINJA loans)who has obtained pork barrel spending, who has received huge amounts of money from lobbyists, etc. The blame game is now going on in the Congress. Unbelieveable. Congress’ approval rating is lower than Bush’s. They have virtually done nothing “for the people” in the last 2 years. VOTE ALL OF THEM OUT. What about instituting term limits.

By Justin Thyme

September 29, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

If this thing ever passes it better have a paycut for the senate and the house, I think they should take at least a 10% paycut to show us what sacrifice is about. If we are to sacrifice our future to take on the burden of bad debts that wall street profited on, then Congress must sacrifice too and Wall Street as well. An immediate 70% tax on the salaries of everyone above 200,000.00 dollars, that would help pay this thing off fast. - or we could use the money to rebuild our infrastructure and manufacturing base, starting with a highspeed electric rail system, to replace most flights, and improve air quality. A manhattan style project to find replacements/alternative to contemporary fuels namely gasoline/diesel/kerosene as is shown to be needed by our current gasoline shortage across the southeast.

We need a lot of things in this country and the wealthy have gamed the system for too long. Taking what they want and not putting anything back. Its time for a change or the system will collapse, it is becoming more evident every day. We can’t even supply gasoline, to our own citizens or even get public officials to take notice and act.

By Taxpayer

September 29, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this

Yet, what does Newt bring to the table.

By ccbysouth

September 29, 2008 10:04 PM | Link to this

I’m glad the bill failed. I’m angry the bill failed. I think that this is truly how all of us feel regardless of our level of understanding of this whole big mess.

How could the richest country fall to such lows. How could it not save itself. How could our leaders allow this to come to such devastation.

We have no choice but to choose, and no matter what we choose it is going to be very costly. We have changed so much of our basics that we are failing to see on the front end the effects and the true cost of the choices we are making. We are a nation that has lost it’s focus, the essence of our core values, and could be loosing our way. Rather than the few minutes we’ve all spent blogging our opinions, Pray.

Pray that the eyes of this nation’s leaders are opened! Pray that nothing changes but that God allow them to see what is REALLY going on and show them their responsibility to us. Trust me, I would not want to be a congressman or senator in these united states right now and saddled with voting on this mess. Not without the guidance of God.

By james

September 30, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this

takt that money and spend it on the roads, school and such you will make jobs that is the only way to change the ecomicie. not the bail out

By Stephen Emmert

October 1, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

This started with Jimmy Carter and the Democrats in 1977 ’ the Community Reinvestment Act. Then in 1995 Bill Clinton and the Democrats added massive new provisions to it that FORCED banks to issue 1 trillion dollars in new ‘subprime’ loans and created subrime mortgage securities( Bear Stearns and Fannie Mae et al.) Barack Hussein Obama made his living as an attorney suing banks for not issuing enough sub prime loans. Housing prices soared causing the bubble destined to collapse. They say it is not important how this happened? Bull. The Democrats ran this economy into the sewer and people should know so that they can make the educated choice in November and vote for the man who tried to turn this around in 2005 but was blocked by the Democrats, Senator John McCain. There was another attempt to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2007 but Senators Chris Dodd and Barack Hussein Obama fought it. Later Obama brought Jim Johnson CEO of Fannie Mae ( who recieved a golden parachute of 21 million dollars for tanking Fannie) on board in a key campaign position. He gave the maximum donation to Barack Obama $4600. He is now a very wealthy banker who sits on the board of Goldman Saks who has donated $700,000 to Barack and raised an additional $500,000 in ‘bundled money.

One parting thought Secretary Paulson SHOULD immediately resign. He is blocking the path to a solid plan more than house Democrats ever could.

By Stephen Emmert

October 1, 2008 10:12 AM | Link to this

This started with Jimmy Carter and the Democrats in 1977 ’ the Community Reinvestment Act. Then in 1995 Bill Clinton and the Democrats added massive new provisions to it that FORCED banks to issue 1 trillion dollars in new ‘subprime’ loans and created subrime mortgage securities( Bear Stearns and Fannie Mae et al.) Barack Hussein Obama made his living as an attorney suing banks for not issuing enough sub prime loans. Housing prices soared causing the bubble destined to collapse. They say it is not important how this happened? Bull. The Democrats ran this economy into the sewer and people should know so that they can make the educated choice in November and vote for the man who tried to turn this around in 2005 but was blocked by the Democrats, Senator John McCain. There was another attempt to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2007 but Senators Chris Dodd and Barack Hussein Obama fought it. Later Obama brought Jim Johnson CEO of Fannie Mae ( who recieved a golden parachute of 21 million dollars for tanking Fannie) on board in a key campaign position. He gave the maximum donation to Barack Obama $4600. He is now a very wealthy banker who sits on the board of Goldman Saks who has donated $700,000 to Barack and raised an additional $500,000 in ‘bundled money.

One parting thought Secretary Paulson SHOULD immediately resign. He is blocking the path to a solid plan more than house Democrats ever could.