Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 11/3/2009
EmailTAPPER: Working on good governance and anti-corruption (in Afghanistan) are — are — those are — those are general goals. What are some specific things that you guys would be looking for?
GIBBS: Again, I'm not going to get into discussing publicly the compact that's — that the embassy is working through with the Afghan government.
TAPPER: The CIT bankruptcy, do you guys have any response to that? It's $2.3 billion of taxpayer money that I guess is just going to vanish into thin air.
GIBBS: Obviously, CIT received, as you mentioned, several billion dollars of assistance in December of 2008. They have come back a couple of times looking for additional assistance. They've had a year to restructure, which they are now in a process that is now ongoing. We are heartened by the fact that they will continue to lend to important small-business customers, and we will continue to seek ways to stabilize the financial system.
TAPPER: Are the taxpayers just out that money?
GIBBS: Well, there's obviously a process that's now — that will now be ongoing in terms of their planned bankruptcy. And, obviously, we have a stake in — in how that comes out as to — as to — taxpayers have invested that money.
**
TAPPER: On the election — are you asserting that the voters who go to the polls today who are feeling economic anxiety, feel the country's on the wrong track, that Democrats who are not enthusiastic today as they were a year ago, none of that has any bearing on the president's performance at all?
GIBBS: No, I — I don't — I'm not sure exactly what some of that is — what some of what you're premising your question on is based off of. I'm not suggesting there's not economic anxiety. I'm not suggesting that there's not frustration with Washington's inability to deal with fundamental problems in our society. That's exactly what the president's working on each and every day, to make health care more affordable, to create good-paying jobs, to create a new foundation for economic recovery through jobs in the 21st century. I'm not saying there's not economic anxiety in this country, but, again, if you look at what — if you look at — I'm just — I'm just reading what was written about the poll by the people conducting the poll who talked to the voters about what they're saying and what they're feeling.
TAPPER: What about voter enthusiasm and the fact that it seems, at least anecdotally — we'll — we'll know it more at the end…
GIBBS: Let's — let's discuss when we have something to base it more on than anecdote.
-jpt
Santorum Clarifies Concerns on Women in Combat 
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America?
Jake: I love it when you say “you guys.” Here you are in the WH (or wherever) talking about the most powerful men in the country (or something) and you refer to them as “you guys.” It’s very charming.
GIBBS: Again, I’m not going to get into discussing publicly the compact that’s — that the embassy is working through with the Afghan government.
What does that even mean? I know it’s unresponsive per se, but good gravy. Where’s McCain and his “Staright Talk Express?” ;-)
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 3, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
” Where’s McCain and his “Staright Talk Express?”
____________________________________
“The fundamentals of the economy are strong.”
Posted by: tierra | November 3, 2009, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
“Are the taxpayers just out that money?”
Yes. Not all the $700 billion of the TARP money will be returned, although a majority will be. But the taxpayer will NOT be out the additional bailout that CIT asked for in July and was denied. Our government is FAR from perfect, but it made the right call to recognize sunk costs and let CIT fail.
The banking system has been stabilized through extraordinary measures – it had to be done to prevent a depression, but it is entirely appropriate that the government is pulling back and allowing the market’s ‘creative destruction’ to reassert itself.
Posted by: jhw539 | November 3, 2009, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm
GIBBS: Well, there’s obviously a process that’s now — that will now be ongoing in terms of their planned bankruptcy. And, obviously, we have a stake in — in how that comes out as to — as to — taxpayers have invested that money.
Bond holders get 70% in bankruptcy. Taxpayers get nothing. Heckuva job Timmy.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 3, 2009, 3:16 pm 3:16 pm
” Where’s McCain and his “Staright Talk Express?”
____________________
“The fundamentals of the economy are strong.”
Missing the point completely, of course.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 3, 2009, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm
” Where’s McCain and his “Staright Talk Express?”
_____________________
“The fundamentals of the economy are strong.”
Posted by: tierra | Nov 3, 2009 3:03:55 PM
“We’re also in a era of fiscal constraint”
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 3, 2009, 3:19 pm 3:19 pm
The banking system has been stabilized
Posted by: jhw539 | Nov 3, 2009 3:09:57 PM
Except for Lehman Bros. of course. What’s important here is that Goldman Sachs flourished, uh, I mean survived.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 3, 2009, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
“We’re also in a era of fiscal constraint”
__________________________
It’s unfortunate the Bush administration – after promising ‘small government’ – rang up an average of $500 BILLION dollars EVERY year on the national debt. This during the ‘good times’.
Had he exercised some ‘fiscal restraint’ and paid down some debt during the good times, rather than doubling the national debt – we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.
Posted by: tierra | November 3, 2009, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm
The banking system has been stabilized
jhw539 | Nov 3, 2009 3:09:57 PM
Except for Lehman Bros. of course. What’s important here is that Goldman Sachs flourished, uh, I mean survived.
Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 3, 2009 3:24:50 PM
I don’t fault the Bush administration for letting Lehman go under, and it served the critical purpose of clearly demonstrating that these unregulated institutions could not be left to just chaotically fall. I seriously doubt we will see anything like the credit freeze that occured after Lehamn following CIT’s bankruptcy.
I am liberal, but I believe that properly regulated free markets should be the default mechanism. The crisis has passed thanks to the combined work of the Bush and Obama administrations and it is appropriate that the market is rapidly being returned to normal function.
Posted by: jhw539 | November 3, 2009, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
It’s unfortunate the Bush administration – after promising ‘small government’ – rang up an average of $500 BILLION dollars EVERY year on the national debt. This during the ‘good times’.
Had he exercised some ‘fiscal restraint’ and paid down some debt during the good times, rather than doubling the national debt – we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 3, 2009 3:34:39 PM
Yep, and if people had used good judgement and not bought homes, cars, vacations, clothes, etc. that they COULD NOT AFFORD, maybe they could have paid down their debt during the good times-then THEY wouldn’t be in the mess they’re in today. Personal responsibility has to come in to play at some point and time. And, please, don’t give me the same tired argument that people were enticed to get loans and spend money (credit cards) on things they couldn’t afford. Anybody with 1/2 a brain knows if you don’t make a certain amount of money, then you don’t need to spend ungodly amounts on “stuff”. Not to mention the banks and other lending institutions were being forced to give loans out to high risk individuals or face the consequences of penalties.
What’s really unfortunate is that even though Bush built up an incredible deficit, certain people in this country decided to vote in a new president who was guaranteeing to make it even BIGGER while he was still on the campaign trail. So, instead of having 8 years of Republican leadership, then the next 4 Democrat, we will end up with 12 years of liberal, big spending, big govenment leadership. I’m not so sure there’s a difference anymore when it comes to the financial reasoning in DC.
Posted by: Shoe | November 3, 2009, 3:55 pm 3:55 pm
“Yep, and if people had used good judgement and not bought homes, cars, vacations, clothes, etc. that they COULD NOT AFFORD, maybe they could have paid down their debt during the good times-then THEY wouldn’t be in the mess they’re in today.”
__________________________________
I agree, and the Bush administration set a terrible example.
Posted by: tierra | November 3, 2009, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
Had he exercised some ‘fiscal restraint’ and paid down some debt during the good times, rather than doubling the national debt – we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today.
Posted by: tierra |
Since when do liberal democrats care about fiscal restraint?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 3, 2009, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
“Since when do liberal democrats care about fiscal restraint?”
__________________________________
Like all Americans, liberals became very concerned about fiscal restraint when the national debt doubled under the Bush administration – leaving the country in an extraordinarily weak position to deal with the economic collapse that also happened to take place under the same administration.
Posted by: tierra | November 3, 2009, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
I don’t fault the Bush administration for letting Lehman go under, and it served the critical purpose of clearly demonstrating that these unregulated institutions could not be left to just chaotically fall.
Posted by: jhw539 | Nov 3, 2009 3:37:19 PM
With the added benefit of eliminating GS competition. But I’m sure it was just bad luck on Lehman’s part…
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 3, 2009, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
“We’re also in a era of fiscal constraint”
__________________________
It’s unfortunate the Bush administration
Posted by: tierra | Nov 3, 2009 3:34:39 PM
Which of course has nothing to do with Obama, Pelosi and Reid spending like crazy on HC, C&T and who knows what else while Obama announces with a straight face “we’re in an era of fiscal restraint.”
Cue the laugh track.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 3, 2009, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm
I’m not so sure there’s a difference anymore when it comes to the financial reasoning in DC.
Posted by: Shoe | Nov 3, 2009 3:55:06 PM
I’m sure. Right now? There isn’t.
But while personal debt is going down, govt debt is still going up. With HC and C&T, they aren’t putting on the brakes at all. It’s full steam ahead while we announce “fiscal restraint.”
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 3, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
Like all Americans, liberals became very concerned about fiscal restraint when the national debt doubled under the Bush administration…
Yeah we get it. When Bush was spending it. Seems you got over it though. And yeah we know, ya gotta spend it now cause of what Bush did. Snore.
Why don’t you go back to attacking W for his Afghanistan dithering?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 3, 2009, 4:33 pm 4:33 pm
On his third trip to the polls, a Hoffman supporter and poll watcher had his tires slashed this afternoon. He had a Hoffman sign in his back window.
__________________________________
Of course. And Republicans are “the haters.”
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | November 3, 2009, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
Gibbs is on the same stellar plane of intellectual prowess as Joe Biden.
Keep it up Jake.
You are the only one asking real questions.
Please start asking a lot more for the sake of the country.
Posted by: Lincoln | November 3, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
“Yep, and if people had used good judgement and not bought homes, cars, vacations, clothes, etc. that they COULD NOT AFFORD, maybe they could have paid down their debt during the good times-then THEY wouldn’t be in the mess they’re in today.”
__________________________________
I agree, and the Bush administration set a terrible example.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 3, 2009 4:03:20 PM
Tierra, I get that you want to keep pushing the argument about the Bush administration. But how do you describe what this CURRENT administration is doing? We’ve seen the numbers of what our deficit will be in the next 5-10 years, and not all of that is directly connected to Bush’s decision making.
I mentioned in the post that you posted above another important sentence. Banks and lending institutions were forced to give loans to high risk individuals or face penalties. That line of reasoning began LONG before Bush was in office. It began with the Clinton administration. I’m all for people being able to have a decent life, place to live, auto (if necessary), etc. but the problem was (and is) excessiveness. It wasn’t JUST the banks, lenders, CEO’s and so on. It was EVERYONE involved.
So, the question remains, will this current administration follow the lead of lending to high risk individuals (usually based on minority status), and run the risk of meltdown again, or will Obama say enough is enough…if you don’t have the money to repay, you don’t get the loan, no matter who you are. And how much influence will Reid and Pelosi, et al have on THAT decision? What about the black community, the Hispanic community, young singles or couples just starting out? Hitting the higher ups at these banks/lenders looks good politically, but what about the “other side” of this dilemma? It bothers me because I see that everyday I go to work, pay my taxes, and try to stay low-debt if not debt free, is just another day to prop up someone else who didn’t want to play by the rules. That, in and of itself is enough to make anyone angry.
Posted by: Shoe | November 3, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
“Yeah we get it. When Bush was spending it.”
____________________________________
That is correct.
The national debt doubled under the Bush administration. During the ‘good times’ he left the country $10 Trillion in debt – and in very poor shape to meet the economic crash that also happened during his administration.
Posted by: tierra | November 3, 2009, 4:48 pm 4:48 pm
With the added benefit of eliminating GS competition. But I’m sure it was just bad luck on Lehman’s part…
Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 3, 2009 4:19:55 PM
Just to make sure I’m following, you’re proposing that the Bush administration and Obama administration were -what exactly? In league with GS? Mere pawns of the shadow banker conspiracy? Do the black helicopters belong to Goldman Sachs now? At least you’re a bipartisan nutter.
Posted by: jhw539 | November 3, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
Yeah we get it. When Bush was spending it. Seems you got over it though. And yeah we know, ya gotta spend it now cause of what Bush did. Snore.
Foghorn Leghorn | Nov 3, 2009 4:33:17 PM
Most people understand that if you buy a house with a leaky roof caused by the prior tenant shooting holes in it, yeah you should repair the roof even before the mortgage is paid off. Not hard logic here.
Posted by: jhw539 | November 3, 2009, 4:50 pm 4:50 pm
“Banks and lending institutions were forced to give loans to high risk individuals or face penalties.”
_____________________________________
Shoe would you be able to give me a source and date for this information please.
Posted by: tierra | November 3, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
According to Gibbs, (by every 5th word is utters) everything is so “obviously” clear, I’m not sure why you guys even bother asking questions.
Posted by: jennifert7 | November 3, 2009, 4:59 pm 4:59 pm
Google it tierra. It’s very easy to find.
Posted by: jennifert7 | November 3, 2009, 5:01 pm 5:01 pm
Mere pawns of the shadow banker conspiracy? Do the black helicopters belong to Goldman Sachs now? At least you’re a bipartisan nutter.
Posted by: jhw539 |
Are you so far in the tank for Washington now that the Dems are in power that you can’t see any potential issues that might arrise if Bernanke, Geithner, Paulsen and a few bankers and hedge fund managers get in a room and cut deals with literally 100′s of billions of free taxpayer money.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 3, 2009, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
“Banks and lending institutions were forced to give loans to high risk individuals or face penalties.”
_____________________________________
Shoe would you be able to give me a source and date for this information please.
Posted by: tierra | November 3, 2009, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm
”
On his third trip to the polls, a Hoffman supporter and poll watcher had his tires slashed this afternoon. He had a Hoffman sign in his back window.
__________________________________
Of course. And Republicans are “the haters.”
Rest of the story
“Local police are not willing to confirm it was a tire slashing and say it could be that the poll watcher ran over a bottle.”
Shades of Lou Dobbs claiming a stray bullet during deer season hitting his 3rd floor attic was an attack on him.
Posted by: Ryan C | November 3, 2009, 5:14 pm 5:14 pm
“Are you so far in the tank for Washington now that the Dems are in power that you can’t see any potential issues that might arrise if Bernanke, Geithner, Paulsen and a few bankers and hedge fund managers get in a room and cut deals with literally 100′s of billions of free taxpayer money.”
So what works better, tin foil or aluminum foil?
Posted by: Ryan C | November 3, 2009, 5:15 pm 5:15 pm
So what works better, tin foil or aluminum foil?
Posted by: Ryan C |
Reception issues?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 3, 2009, 5:20 pm 5:20 pm
“Banks and lending institutions were forced to give loans to high risk individuals or face penalties.”
_____________________________________
Shoe would you be able to give me a source and date for this information please.
Posted by: tierra | Nov 3, 2009 5:04:42 PM
I read a rather long but very interesting article at this address
Posted by: Shoe | November 3, 2009, 6:29 pm 6:29 pm
“It wasn’t JUST the banks, lenders, CEO’s and so on. It was EVERYONE involved.”
So, the question remains, will this current administration follow the lead of lending to high risk individuals (usually based on minority status), and run the risk of meltdown again…”
You don’t see the contradiction here? If it was EVERYONE then these high risk individuals you refer to couldn’t really be a ‘minority’ could they? They would be a majority. Considering the size and scope of the housing bubble, it’s silly to argue that it was caused by writing mortgages so minorities and lower income people could afford to buy homes [the key word is afford here. Those mortgages were written so lower income people COULD pay for them] even though there is obviously an incentive to deny special mortgages to these people so right-wingers can rent them homes instead, and pass off the blame for the economic meltdown. If everyone was getting risky mortgages because bank and lenders were ignoring standards and repackaging them as securities instead it was because the Federal Reserve was asleep at the wheel.
Posted by: Skip | November 3, 2009, 7:24 pm 7:24 pm
Early returns indicate that the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia are administering a savage, richly-deserved and unambiguous drubbing to the Democratic party tonight.
In other news, Harry Reid has signaled that healthcare legislation may not be ready until after the first of the year. This is a stinging setback for the president, who wanted it all done before the August recess. But that was before his polls went into a nosedive.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 3, 2009, 8:06 pm 8:06 pm
Breaking:
Gallup approval of Obama (adults): 50.0%.
That’s 50, as in “fifty.” Gallup. Adults.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | November 3, 2009, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm
If everyone was getting risky mortgages because bank and lenders were ignoring standards and repackaging them as securities instead it was because the Federal Reserve was asleep at the wheel.
Posted by: Skip |
What do you mean if? The financial institutions would buy ANY mortgage regardless of the quality.
And the regulators WERE asleep at the wheel and were financially incentivized to slumber.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | November 3, 2009, 9:20 pm 9:20 pm