NPR Interview with Gingrich on bailout

[Tully365]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...71&ft=1&f=1001


This $700 billion bailout plan, this potential 20-year mess that you're talking about, comes from a Republican administration, comes from your own party. What's happened to Republican faith in small government and free markets?

Well, I think you have a Goldman Sachs chief of staff to the president and the Goldman Sachs secretary of the Treasury. And they convinced the president that the American people ought to send $700 billion to Wall Street, which I think is a very, very bad idea, and I would argue is a very un-Republican idea. I don't understand what they think they're doing.

Do you feel betrayed by the Bush administration and by the president?

Well, betrayed is too strong a word. I think what they're doing is just wrong. And I think that it's likely to fail, and it's likely to make the situation worse over time. And I think that [U.S. Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson has shown almost no understanding of how a democracy operates. His initial draft would have given him $700 billion of your tax money with no oversight, no judicial review, no accountability. I mean, we're not a dictatorship.

But the idea, obviously, is that this goes to Congress and that provisions are written in — and that's just what they're doing now. Are you not reassured by what the debate is in Congress right now?

Well, the last time we were promised they were going to save us, it was $300 billion; it was a housing bill. Now we have brand-new liberal Democrats, many of whom — for example [Connecticut Sen.] Chris Dodd — was the largest single recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he is the chairman of the Banking Committee. So the guy who got the most money is now going to write a bill to give taxpayers' money to the people who gave him money. Somehow, I am not reassured.

But Mr. Gingrich, a lot of the Republicans in Congress seem to be saying this needs to go forward.

Well, I think they're just wrong. I think we need to slow down, take a deep breath, hold public hearings, have experts testify, understand exactly what the agreement would be, where the money would go, how we would account for it. I don't think the taxpayers should be socked for $700 billion for welfare for Wall Street. I think it's fundamentally wrong, and I think that it is very likely to create a bureaucratic control of our financial system in a way that will cripple us for 20 years.

You know, when congressional leaders met on Thursday night with Secretary Paulson and with the Fed chair, Ben Bernanke, the message was dire. You heard Sen. Chris Dodd saying they were told we are maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system. Don't you think that there's an imminent crisis here, that if they were to wait, there could be really drastic results?

To be honest, I don't know. Secretary Paulson has been consistently wrong for a year-and-a-half. He told us for a year-and-a-half this wasn't a dire crisis; this wasn't going to happen. So the very people who told us for a long time not to worry about it are — I know they're panicked. Whether that means that we should be panicked, I'm not sure. And I think the purpose of the Congress, the purpose of the House and Senate, is to be a check and balance on the executive branch, not to automatically write blank checks.

What if you're wrong?

Well, if I'm wrong, then we're going to have a significant problem. And if I'm right, we're going to have a bigger problem. So I think part of the question is, why can't this be done out in an open debate, have an openly marked-up bill, have the American people know what's being asked of them?

I was just reading an analysis by a very sophisticated person who said that there's been at least one leak from a congressional staff briefing by Secretary Paulson, in which he clearly indicated he intended to buy assets at above their market value. And that — why should the taxpayer do that? I mean, why are we not saying, 'We'll provide enough capital to avoid collapse, but we're not going to provide enough capital to guarantee the profits of Wall Street people' — who, after all, last year, at Goldman Sachs alone had three people each earning $73 million a year. Now, why should we bail them out?

What are you saying the incentive would be for, say, Secretary Paulson or Ben Bernanke to be rushing something through if it weren't urgently needed? What would their motivation be for that?

A couple of things — first of all, they're probably genuinely panicked. And I think that's real. I think they're tired; I think they've been consistently wrong, and now they're looking at a precipice that's very frightening. I think, second, that they have a very Wall Street-centric view of the world. And I think that rather than saying, 'What are the big, profound changes we need to fix America?,' they are saying, 'What are the immediate quick fixes for Wall Street?' — which I think, in the long run, just makes us weaker and sicker.

I think, third, they know that if they don't rush it through, it has no hope, because as the American people learn the details, they're just going to scream at their House and Senate members.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I was just reading an analysis by a very sophisticated person who said that there's been at least one leak from a congressional staff briefing by Secretary Paulson, in which he clearly indicated he intended to buy assets at above their market value.And that — why should the taxpayer do that? I mean, why are we not saying, 'We'll provide enough capital to avoid collapse, but we're not going to provide enough capital to guarantee the profits of Wall Street people' — who, after all, last year, at Goldman Sachs alone had three people each earning $73 million a year. Now, why should we bail them out?

That is such bull .

[101A]

Newt is the person most responsible for checking govt. spending in the 90's. Clinton should thank him for his legacy.

He speaks sense now.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Newt is the person most responsible for checking govt. spending in the 90's. Clinton should thank him for his legacy.

He speaks sense now.

Every time I've heard him speak this year about our financial problems, government spending, etc. he's been on point.

Sad he isn't more involved in the political process than he is.

[ChumpDumper]

Newt is best when he is out of government.

[romad_20]

I've read through this plan Dodd has, and it goes against everything our government should be doing.

Why haven't people been listening to Ron Paul, and tons of others about the economy? Some of his ideas might be out there, but he's had the forsight for a long time about the state of the dollar and our economy.

[DarkReign]

Every time I've heard him speak this year about our financial problems, government spending, etc. he's been on point.

Sad he isn't more involved in the political process than he is.

Agreed. There are obviously mechanisms in our government that prevent common sense approaches to problems, because clearly Newt's approach to this matter seems to be the most prudent (the open-to-the-public legislation approach, that is).

[Anti.Hero]

Newt. That dude would be owning so many people in government right now, getting done like he did in the past, but the asshole had to cheat on his wife.

Obama during a debate? Newt would ing crush him with no prep necessary.


Instead we have McDoofus. Die republican party die.




Like AHF said, Newt was the one that handled during Clinton's so called legacy.

[ChumpDumper]

Newt's downfall was the impeachment fiasco. His affair was merely the hypocritical icing on the cake.

[Bartleby]

Newt's downfall was the impeachment fiasco. His affair was merely the hypocritical icing on the cake.

That, and overplaying his hand with the govt. shutdown in 95.

[Shastafarian]

Newt. That dude would be owning so many people in government right now, getting done like he did in the past, but the asshole had to cheat on his wife.

Like what? And I mean besides handing his wife divorce papers as she lay on a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery.

[Anti.Hero]

Like what? And I mean besides handing his wife divorce papers as she lay on a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery.

To even ask this question means you are sadly ill-informed of history.

Crack open a book good sir.

[Shastafarian]

To even ask this question means you are sadly ill-informed of history.

Crack open a book good sir.

That's an interesting statement considering I read that in a book good sir.

And here's CNN to confirm:

Gingrich's first marriage ended after he discussed the details of the divorce with his wife while she was recovering from cancer surgery.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/...der/index.html

[/liberal "propaganda"]

[DarkReign]

Like what? And I mean besides handing his wife divorce papers as she lay on a hospital bed recovering from cancer surgery.

I am completely unconcerned with politicians personal lives, unless it somehow affects their ability to govern.

So, hes a horrible person and a derelict husband....so is McCain, so is Clinton, so was JFK....the only difference is Clinton and JFK are still married...but that was for political reasons, not chivalry or good conscience.

What he was on Capitol Hill in the 90s may be different than what he is today, I was too young to really know ( i was 12-18 when he was House Speaker).

But just taking him at his word in the above interview, he at least wants to practice restraint in becoming the single greatest subsidized housing project in the history of the world.

And that is enough for me to agree with him. Its impartiality, with a dash of patience and acceptance.

[Shastafarian]

I am completely unconcerned with politicians personal lives, unless it somehow affects their ability to govern.

So, hes a horrible person and a derelict husband....so is McCain, so is Clinton, so was JFK....the only difference is Clinton and JFK are still married...but that was for political reasons, not chivalry or good conscience.

What he was on Capitol Hill in the 90s may be different than what he is today, I was too young to really know ( i was 12-18 when he was House Speaker).

But just taking him at his word in the above interview, he at least wants to practice restraint in becoming the single greatest subsidized housing project in the history of the world.

And that is enough for me to agree with him. Its impartiality, with a dash of patience and acceptance.

I agree with everything you said. But I also am too young to remember exactly what he did as Speaker. That's why I asked what he accomplished. So I added a little zinger about what a huge asshole he really is...so what? It's all in good fun.

[johnsmith]

That's about right. Dude uses more logic and common sense then anyone. He is more qualified to be Pres. then either of the assclowns running. He helped lead a very good economic decade. And the libs go after his personal life.................



Pot, meet kettle.

[johnsmith]

I agree with everything you said. But I also am too young to remember exactly what he did as Speaker. That's why I asked what he accomplished. So I added a little zinger about what a huge asshole he really is...so what? It's all in good fun.

It's not all in good fun..............it's what our country has turned into. A bunch of gossipy bags that would rather watch TMZ then learn about issues.

[Shastafarian]

That's about right. Dude uses more logic and common sense then anyone. He is more qualified to be Pres. then either of the assclowns running. He helped lead a very good economic decade. And the libs go after his personal life.................



Pot, meet kettle.

Is that why he took a $4.5 million dollar advance on his book when he became speaker only to give it back because of the public backlash? I could be wrong but I thought he did everything he could to oppose Clinton on his economic policies.

[johnsmith]

Is that why he took a $4.5 million dollar advance on his book when he became speaker only to give it back because of the public backlash? I could be wrong but I thought he did everything he could to oppose Clinton on his economic policies.

Which is why worked in the 90's.

Checks and balances are a good thing.

[Shastafarian]

It's not all in good fun..............it's what our country has turned into. A bunch of gossipy bags that would rather watch TMZ then learn about issues.

So you find no problem with a man who leads an investigation into the President's personal life, but when we do it we're "a bunch of gossipy bags that would rather watch TMZ then learn about the issues".


Pot, meet kettle

[johnsmith]

So you find no problem with a man who leads an investigation into the President's personal life, but when we do it we're "a bunch of gossipy bags that would rather watch TMZ then learn about the issues".


Pot, meet kettle

You don't get how this works do you? When I clearly recognize one side for doing the same thing to the other in a previous post, there is no need to counter with "see, you do it to".


, now I know how Obama and McCain must feel.

[johnsmith]

So you find no problem with a man who leads an investigation into the President's personal life, but when we do it we're "a bunch of gossipy bags that would rather watch TMZ then learn about the issues".


Pot, meet kettle

Don't be mad if you base your opinions on how solid a politicians marriage is. To each their own.

[Shastafarian]

You don't get how this works do you? When I clearly recognize one side for doing the same thing to the other in a previous post, there is no need to counter with "see, you do it to".


, now I know how Obama and McCain must feel.

Ok let's see if I can explain. You just said

It's not all in good fun..............it's what our country has turned into. A bunch of gossipy bags that would rather watch TMZ then learn about issues.

You also said

That's about right. Dude uses more logic and common sense then anyone. He is more qualified to be Pres. then either of the assclowns running. He helped lead a very good economic decade

So which is it? Is Gingrich himself a gossipy bag or is he the most qualified to be president out of the current people running?

[Oh, Gee!!]

don't bother, shasta. john is so obviously above the fray.

[DarkReign]

So I added a little zinger about what a huge asshole he really is...so what? It's all in good fun.

Maybe I am a fatalist, or bit too oversensitive at the moment...

But I do not find our predicament as a nation "fun" in any sense of the word, even in some unimportant veneue like ST.

This may be the start of the next Great Depression, the collapse of the US Dollar forever or the start of an Orwellian Police State, all three or none of the above.

But if I were to weigh the cir stances and look at history and even current governments operating in the world, I am pessimistic by nature and nuture, my bet is the collapse/nationalization of our economic system is just a
precursor to more upheaval in the very near future.

...and people have the gall to ask me why I dont have children. Look around you ing lemmings, then ask that dumbass question again.