C'mon. He said it was Paulson's request for the "centralization of power that is totally un-American." He even said he would vote for the bailout if he was still in office.
C'mon. He said it was Paulson's request for the "centralization of power that is totally un-American." He even said he would vote for the bailout if he was still in office.
In the quote I read, he says it is the request that is un-American. Specifically, "You have the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs asking for 700 billion dollars, and in his initial request, asking for it in such an un-American way."
In other words, the request for $700 billion to deal with this crisis is "un-American." Any criticisms of the bailout should be rooted not in something as opaque and ridiculous as whether it's American, but whether the benefits of the plan exceed the costs. This is simply not the time nor the situation to make such meaningless accusations.
Besides, why should heritage be normative in the first place? Lots of things were American in the past and we changed them. So I don't even see the value of this kind of comment. Point is, there is a very real, extremely high probability that not taking such an action as this will result in a catastrophic recession, and those effects will be generally felt across the United States and the world. I can't help but feel that these kinds of criticisms are mainly rooted in ignorance and ideology.
I didn't mean to defend the spirit of Gingrich's quote, but to clarify what he was attacking. The use of "un-American" is almost always wrong, or at least silly.
The only place I read the quote was in the article you linked to, and he didn't appear (to me) to be referencing the plan itself as "un-American", as much as Paulson's request for power. As for the necessity of the bailout, Gingrich said he would vote for it if he were in office, so obviously he sees that.
He was definitely being over the top, and his comments probably didn't add a lot to the discussion. But your comment seemed to imply that he would prefer the Great Depression over the bailout, and I doubt he would have voted for 1929 again.
Of course he doesn't want 1929 again. No decent human being wants that. But if you recommend a course of action that puts you on that path with some high probability, then it doesn't matter what your intentions are.
5 comments:
C'mon. He said it was Paulson's request for the "centralization of power that is totally un-American." He even said he would vote for the bailout if he was still in office.
C'mon. He said it was Paulson's request for the "centralization of power that is totally un-American." He even said he would vote for the bailout if he was still in office.
In the quote I read, he says it is the request that is un-American. Specifically, "You have the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs asking for 700 billion dollars, and in his initial request, asking for it in such an un-American way."
In other words, the request for $700 billion to deal with this crisis is "un-American." Any criticisms of the bailout should be rooted not in something as opaque and ridiculous as whether it's American, but whether the benefits of the plan exceed the costs. This is simply not the time nor the situation to make such meaningless accusations.
Besides, why should heritage be normative in the first place? Lots of things were American in the past and we changed them. So I don't even see the value of this kind of comment. Point is, there is a very real, extremely high probability that not taking such an action as this will result in a catastrophic recession, and those effects will be generally felt across the United States and the world. I can't help but feel that these kinds of criticisms are mainly rooted in ignorance and ideology.
I didn't mean to defend the spirit of Gingrich's quote, but to clarify what he was attacking. The use of "un-American" is almost always wrong, or at least silly.
The only place I read the quote was in the article you linked to, and he didn't appear (to me) to be referencing the plan itself as "un-American", as much as Paulson's request for power. As for the necessity of the bailout, Gingrich said he would vote for it if he were in office, so obviously he sees that.
He was definitely being over the top, and his comments probably didn't add a lot to the discussion. But your comment seemed to imply that he would prefer the Great Depression over the bailout, and I doubt he would have voted for 1929 again.
Of course he doesn't want 1929 again. No decent human being wants that. But if you recommend a course of action that puts you on that path with some high probability, then it doesn't matter what your intentions are.
Post a Comment