Same Banks, different bailouts.
What a startling video. In 1995, they used the identical "the sky will fall" tactic to explain a taxpayer bailout of the bankers.
Also shows why the Establishment came after Buchanan so hard in 1996.
And, of course, how Gingrich is as deep inside the bankers' pockets as Mittrack Obamney.
Cos Cob, CT
Two sides of the same bail-out coin.
true conservative, morally upright, America first Newt Gingrich?
IF the voters truly choose him (meaning the election is not rigged) they will reap what they sow.
The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution
Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul
WE will also reap what THEY sow.
Is that just?
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
If Newt is the GOP nominee, and RP doesn't run 3rd Party, I will have a very tough decision to make between writing in RP, and voting for Obama. There could be a strong case made, that Newt has been instumental in the destruction of this nation. He will NEVER receive a vote from me, as he is more dangerous than the baffoon we have in office now.
I'd like to see Ron say something like this (or a shortened version):
Newt, you blame the media for attacking you, and you're right. They do a bad job and focus far too much time on tabloid stuff. My criticism of the media is that they ignore the real issues (since none of their attacks on me stick and I focus on real issues, that might be why they tend to ignore me). But let's talk about a really important economic issue that has so far been ignored: that issue is the idea of a moral hazard.
Newt, you claim to be a historian. Well, you certainly have a history of bailing out Wall Street and risking American taxpayer dollars. We all know you supported TARP, but we have to look at the history. TARP was a perfect example of moral hazard where the banks engaged in risky behavior (in this case subprime lending) because they knew they could make risky bets and privatize the profits for themselves until there's a problem, then the loss is socialized to the taxpayers through a government bailout. You, Newt, set the example for this kind of moral hazard. Back in 1995 you supported a $40 billion bailout of Wall Street bankers who had made bad investments in Mexico. Today that seems like a drop in the bucket, but you set the standard. There are old C-Span videos of you standing next to Al Gore and going against other Republican House members in supporting this 1995 bailout. After that 1995 bailout, the big banks knew they could continue to count on the taxpayer and former Goldman Sachs employees working in government to take care of their losses on risky loans. Next was the Long-term Capital Management bailout in 1998, and finally the subprime mortgage bailout. While I was warning people about these and the media was ignoring me, you were siding with big bankers and Al Gore to help create these moral hazards.
Newt might say something like "those loans were repaid and the government made money"
Ron's answer would be "that's not the point. The point is that you, just like Bush and just like Obama, are in favor of risking US tax dollars for big banks. $40B then, $700B a few years ago, what if you're president and the next bailout has to be $5T? What if it doesn't paper over the problem for a few years and instead costs us trillions? It's not your money to risk. You shouldn't manipulate the market and choose winners and losers. Besides, from my point of view it's very easy to make these decisions. It's not allowed by the Constitution so the federal government has no business doing it!"
Though John Randolph wasn't referring to Newt, his description of a contemporary aptly applies here.
"He is a man of splendid abilities, but utterly corrupt. He shines and stinks like rotten mackerel by moonlight."
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality. - John Randolph of Roanoke