Newt Gingrich: Kill the Paulson Plan. Hard.

Bailout for Wallstreet

Interestingly enough, my senator,Bob Corcker office is so busy that it cannot be reached, as is Lamar Alexander. If this message could be passed on to the representives of both houses from TN. Newt's plan certainly sounds better than anything Paulson and his grey bearded sidekick could possibly ever imagine. I would imagine because they are truly dems and are extremely short sighted. Why you backed out on us, I will never understand.

D. Allen of TN @ Sep 30, 2008 13:05:45 PM

Love it

It's the only smart thing to do. How do we get McCain to present it and come on board??

Jennifer Thorstens of IL @ Sep 30, 2008 07:04:02 AM

slowdown in lending

The idea that lending will dry up in the long term is absurd. There is tons of cash on the sidelines waiting for opportunity. For selfish reasons, people/institutions with cash will always look for credit worthy people/institutions to lend it to. It's been that way since the invention of currency.

JM of IL @ Sep 29, 2008 19:13:46 PM

NEWT GINGRICH FOR PRESIDENT

I have always been a fan of Newton F. Gingrich since he had the guts to do what others politicians in DC were afraid to do - STAND UP TO CLINTON #I. He was then not afraid to tell the voters where it was at, and he is not afraid now to tell us the truth!

NEWT, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

Robert Littlejohn of IL @ Sep 29, 2008 17:25:04 PM

What to do...

It seems like a lot people are forgetting the fact that it would take OVERWHELMING Congressional approval to allow use of the entire $700 billion. Only about 1/3 of that amount can be utilized by the administration, and Bush (as inept as he is) proclaimed that they would only need 1/3 to implement a bailout.

The rest of that money would be reserved for emergency use, and extremely difficult to access with Congressional watchdogs keeping tabs. The plan definitely has its benefits, despite pressure on taxpayers to essentially bail out Wall Street. If it doesn't pass (and the House is mainly opposed to it) they would require some other form of action or Wall Street would become a giant question mark.

To investors, a giant question mark is not a good sign. The world already views the American grip on global markets with barely veiled resentment; imagine if their tentative confidence in global investments with the US was severely diminished, especially with aspiring nations like China. The shift in world power would be slow, yes, but inevitable.

BG Vision of NV @ Sep 29, 2008 15:13:14 PM

Get Americans to Understand this is a Democratic pLAN !

If Americans are so against this bailout, when they are made to understand what it was origanally going to be, how can they possibly vote for a democrat?

If it weren't for Republicans stopping it and trying to get changes, and the Democrats had been allowed to railroad this through with Pelosi's best efforts to do so, Where would we be?God save America. Christians, stand up and be counted.

Judith Cookson of MO @ Sep 28, 2008 15:38:58 PM

Bailout

In no way would I support a bailout, Let them go down with the ship Thank You Virgil

Virgil Basgall of NV @ Sep 28, 2008 12:26:01 PM

A Proposed Sequence

Consequence and Moral Hazard

If a system’s goal is to accommodate expansion and prosperity throughout regions, then we need to consider the broad effect all the way to a participant from a disadvantaged or emerging market. How long will they or for that matter the global society, be set back?

The un-checked “innovative” market had a boomerang effect—it turned right back onto itself. We could easily contemplate game theory and whether or not states of equilibrium or optimal solutions or various dilemmas were conceived or played-out by different actors. Moreover, we could continue describing quite succinctly, these “occurrences”. But in the end, about the best we can say, is that it was a very unkind act.

Issues of moral hazard aren’t necessarily difficult, just hazardous. Central Banks by their nature are compelled to act toward the greater societal good. Pressure alleviating actions are expected to occur with great speed and execution—no margin for error. Some actors or institutions will survive, some will not.

The true moral hazard in this sense really deals with not assigning responsibility to correct sources and thus by corollary, validating non-optimal acts. However, the first order of business is still to contain systemic pressures. Later through regulation whether legal, procedural or prudential, responsibilities and consequences can be assigned.

SRG of TX @ Sep 28, 2008 11:12:01 AM