« Amid Sagging Polls, McCain Campaign Readies New Two-Part Obama Attack
Bill Kristol on FNS today: Free Sarah Palin! »



The Money Pit and Cat in the Well

September 28th, 2008
By ROBERT STEIN

Print Print

After pulling an all-nighter, the low-approval gang in Washington is ready to give us their new, improved version of the $700 billion gamble nobody understands but practically all are sure is needed to keep the sky from falling.

The 1980s Tom Hanks movie, “The Money Pit,” comes to mind as Congress and the Administration enthuse over the financial structure we’re buying with a $250 million down payment that may or may not stand up until their successors move in next January.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi congratulates the negotiators for “the great work they have done” to “insulate Main Street and everyday Americans from the crisis on Wall Street” while Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gets up off his knees to celebrate “a deal which will work and be effective in the marketplace.”

But as the happy couple prepare for the Housewarming, the grumpy former tenant Newt Gingrich stands outside bitching that “it’s probably impossible, without the president getting a new secretary of the treasury, to get to a good deal…We’re taking an immediate tummy ache, and we’re in danger of turning it into cancer.”

Read the rest of this entry.



This entry was posted on Sunday, September 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pm and is filed under USA, Corporations, Nancy Pelosi, Bush Administration, Capitalism, Wall Street, Republicans, Democrats, Politics, Money/Finance, Congress, Domestic Programs, Economy, Business. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 7 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Somehow I can't bring myself to worry about what Gingrich is saying. I'd rather pay attention to people who weren't involved in destroying a functioning legislative body in the name of getting his party in power.
    • ^
    • v
    From one of the linked articles:

    "Gingrich said:

    “They may have to, in the end, tolerate some of this. Because in the end, you have the Democrats desperate for socialism now. You have an administration which, in my judgment, has lost its mind. That gives you two big elements. And you have Senate Republicans desperate to go along. I’m just being truly candid. Because I think the country ought to know what the pressures really are like.

    “And you’ve got the House Republicans and John McCain prepared to stand on as much principle [as possible] — but in the end, I don’t think they’re going to be prepared to do nothing. Because they understand that next week, as long as the current situation….stays the way it is, you’re going to have a genuine credit crisis.”'

    Other than Newt saying that Democrats were desperate for socialism and his comment about House Republicans and McCain standing on principle, I agree with Newt.

    As far as Newt believing the Dems want socialism... please... spare me... that's just politics. There are tons of Dems in Congress who are capitalists and who (or their spouses) have built vast fortunes based on capitalism. The motivation of the Dems to get this passed is that they've been railroaded by a Republican White House and other Republicans (and former Wall Street types, whose firms are potentially facing problems due to poor management decision) into the belief that this drastic bill needs to be passed "within days" or else our whole economy will collapse.

    While I do believe that overhaul needs to take place I don't think this bill is the way to go about it. The Dems are only responding to GOP pressure. Remember it is the GOP who proposed it to begin with. The Dems (mostly) are not interested in Socialism any more than Gingrich. The economy is heading further south and if the Dems hadn't taken any action the GOP would be all over them even if the economy went just a little south (the GOP would have said, "If the Dems had taken action, any action, then we could have avoided a recession".

    As far as Newt; statement that the House Republicans and McCain want to stand on principle as much as possible... that's politics too. Who doesn't want to stand on principle? And if someone doesn't stand on principle and can blame someone else for one's own failure to stand on one's own principle, then that's just being a hypocrite.

    But I will say the House GOP's idea of government insurance be added to the plan to help limit the losses is one of the best ideas that either the Dems or Republicans came up with. It's a shame that the other great idea (Dems), giving bankruptcy judges the ability to restructure mortgage payments so people can actually stay in their homes, was scuttled by the Republicans. That is a provision which really would have helped Main St. Maybe not all of Main St. because it would (obviously) have applied to people declaring bankruptcy, but it would have kept a lot of these people in their homes.
    • ^
    • v
    Newt : "you have the Democrats desperate for socialism now"

    Stale rhetoric. Our most socialistic actions in recent history have been precipitated by republican policies - namely the Iraq war, and the Wall St. failures. It's truly disgusting when you think about all the taxpayer money that's going to prop up immoral and failed capitalistic ventures (including the war), when that money could have been put to good work in social causes such as healthcare, infrastructure, environment, energy - all the things that would have made our country stronger, but will now have their progress slowed. Don't people like Gingrich and Krystol ever look in the mirror? Conscience deficit.
    • ^
    • v
    The bottom line, and the moral of the current crises is:

    Accept some small measure of socialism so that your entire country doesn't HAVE TO become socialist. And I mean that from the mildest to the most horrific of potential scenarios..

    If we had a socialized health plan for our workers, American companies could afford them. That would've kept jobs home, mortgages paid, the economy strong and our capitalistic free market thriving like no other. If we had not allowed insurance companies to lobby our country into the dirt and keep health care private (and of course, pricey), we would not be in the mess we're in today.

    And if we'd not let BigOil lobby to stonewall our changeover to alternatives, that could've started 30 years ago in large measure, we would not be in the mess we are today. If BigOil hadn't coerced GM into gestapo-style recalls of the Volt in 2000, in favor of the collosal guzzler the "Hummer", we would be world leaders in production of electric and hybrid cars. Now we're bailing out car companies to be able to afford to stay in business long enough (hopefully) to quickly mass-produce cars that will undoubtedly have 8 years of bugs we already would've worked out to compete globally..

    Lobbiests/bribery and greed are the evil garden from where forced socialism springs. They are the ones who sewed the seeds forcing us to buy the companies they work for in a socialist bailout. They get the profits from all those years of corruption and they get to walk away with more cream just for good measure.

    Congress is making a mistake if they allot one US dollar to any of them!

    "Here you go bad dog, here's a bisquit for biting me TWICE".

    We need to reform lobbying laws. I say, make all lobbying illegal. Lobbying is nothing but bribery. Congress can and will work way more effetively if there aren't forceful distractions and coercion going on 24/7 on Capitol Hill. We are a nation of people FIRST and healthy capitalism a close second. The two cannot be separated in fact because the entire premise of capitalism lies on the productivity and well-being of the lowly worker and his family.
    • ^
    • v
    AMEN!!!
    • ^
    • v
    There is nothing inherently evil with lobbying.

    It is the bundling of campaign cash, tons of cash, from lobbying clients which is obscene.

    I personally routinely lobby state legislatures about an obscure business which raises money for charities. The legislatures don't even know what their existing laws mean.

    I explain them to them ini face to face meetings and I put them in contact with charities which can explain what they use the proceeds for. It is basically education.

    I don't even take these folks to lunch but I often make a $1000 contribution to ensure they will receive me and recognize me. I make the same donation to Ds and Rs. I only make the donations after I have met with them.
    • ^
    • v
    Really good companies provide health care insurance to their employees. They don't need the government to provide health insurance.

    My company provides health, life, dental, glasses insurance as well as a wellness program (get paid to exercise), 401K, cafeteria 125 plan, ESOP, discounted stock purchase plan, emergency loan program at no interest and education assistance.

    The CEO lets the employees form an insurance committee to solicit, review and recommend the insurance carrier on an annual basis. He pays 85% and the employees pay 15%. Everybody has skin in the game.

    We have 14 holidays, 2-5 weeks annual vacation and 5 sick days a year. If you don't use your sick days, you get paid for them.

    Oh, yeah, we have zero turnover.

    We only have 45 employees and we are very profitable. That's the key --- a company has to be able to afford its compensation program.

    I am afraid that if Obama is elected and enacts his tax increases on small businesses and corporations --- our benefits will be reduced.

    Our boss is a rich guy and he does not need to be in business to make a living. He made it all in real estate and buying troubled businesses and turning them around. A rags to riches guy who got educated on the GI Bill. I am worried what happens to the business (and me and the other employees) if his tax rate goes up.

    I have never gotten a good job from a poor guy.
 
close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

« Amid Sagging Polls, McCain Campaign Readies New Two-Part Obama Attack
Bill Kristol on FNS today: Free Sarah Palin! »


By posting comments on The Moderate Voice you are acknowledging and agreeing to the following general comments policy:

(1) The Moderate Voice's comments are hosted by Disqus (http://disqus.com). If your comment doesn't appear immediately, please be patient since it is an off-site system.

(2) All e-mail received from readers by The Moderate Voice is considered intended for publication unless otherwise indicated in the initial message from the writer. Please do not send us attachments unless you contact us and we agree to it.

(3)The Moderate Voice reserves the right to edit all e-mail and posted comments for content, clarity, and length.

(4) Our comment space is reserved for comments that relate to a post's topic. You should not reprint lengthy text from your own works or those of others, including news articles. You MAY link to them.

(5) Comments that are abusive, offensive, contain profane or racist material or violate the terms of service for this blog's host provider will be removed and the author(s) banned from future comments. Such comments also violate the very SPIRIT of this site -- which was created to encourage thoughtful and vigorous discussion among readers who may share differing viewpoints.

(6) All points of view are welcome on The Moderate Voice, with the following exceptions:

(a) Comments posted several times a day with the intent of dominating, re-directing or hijacking the thread by turning a discussion into the equivalent of a bitter shouting match.

(b) Comments posted several times a day that insult or call other commenters or blog writers names or repeatedly make the same point with the effect of or clear intent to annoy other commenters or blog writers.

(7) Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by The Moderate Voice will NOT be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice. In some cases a comment may be deleted and the writer will be given another chance. Commenters who virtually ASK The Moderate Voice to ban them by ignoring any warnings or daring TMV to ban them will quickly get their wish.

(8) Anonymous commenters should identify themselves with the same moniker, so readers know their comments are coming from a single individual. If they don't, they are subject to a banning.

(9)If we have problems with inappropriate or inflammatory comments from a commenter who it turns out gave a fake email address that person is subject to immediate banning.

(10) Quotes from material appearing on The Moderate Voice with attribution are allowed. Reprints are allowed only by permission from The Moderate Voice. You may request permission by e-mail.

(11) The Moderate Voice is a personal site. It is not the Government. It is NOT aligned with any political party. It is NOT promoting any specific candidate for office. It is not a public institution or a media organization. It is not a neutral site. It is intended to express and disseminate the authors' varying points of views. Writers on this weblog WILL take positions. It reserves the right to limit comments to those that, in its view, comport with its stated comment policy. Comments that do not comply are subject to deletion and banning of the author's ISP.

Disclaimer:

--Reading and posting comments at The Moderate Voice constitutes acknowledgment of and agreement to the terms outlined in this comment policy. This comment policy may be revised in part or in full at any time.

--All comments must comport with applicable state and federal laws. The Moderate Voice has no obigation to monitor, edit, censor, or take responsibility for comments. It may or may not act upon a violation of its comment policy once a suspected violation has been brought to its attention. Therefore, commenters are solely responsible for the content of their comments and should ensure that that their comments are lawful and fall within the stated guidelines of both The Moderate Voice and its hosting company.

--The Moderate Voice is not be responsible for injury or liability to any reader or commenter resulting from its own communications or those of commenters, that may be offensive, misleading, inaccurate, illegal, or otherwise unsuitable in the view of the reader. Readers and commenters further agree to indemnify and hold harmless The Moderate Voice from claims resulting from the use of any material appearing on The Moderate Voice which damages the reader, commenter or any other party.

--The Moderate Voice is not responsible for and might disagree with material posted in the comments section. While we strive for accuracy in our posts and DO correct errors, material posted by The Moderate Voice in its posts -- or those left by others in the comments section -- may or m