Newt Gingrich Says Fire Ben Bernanke - Mike Swanson (12/07/11)


Newt has a dozen thingies he will do, and immediately.

My view, from an investment view, the less the rocking of the boat, the better. I agree change is important, but just like your guy (Paul), change to some dramatic new platform is going to have huge secondary and tertiary implications. And, as well, these changes are not well thought out; probably impossible to forecast. Saying it and doing it, two different things.

I am being put into a position of being forced to vote for Newt. I don't especially like his loose baggage, where he's been, what he's done, how he's ended up.

Bernanke, my view, has done a good job keeping us afloat. I fear the repercussions of huge change, and all of these characters seem intent on going overboard with it. i would welcome some higher Republican control, but recognize the general incompetence there too.

Obama looks more and more like a shoe-in to me. I hate that much more than Newt and his "easy" talking solutions. I don't think anything is "easy" going forward. This country has slowly swung over to a liberal majority, and Obama is shoving it down our throats. Obamacare alone, this has huge socialist implications, is terribly thought out.

Just where is the America of old? The one where expectations included hard work and innovation? We didn't end up here through supporting present policy. We have several generations now of people with their hands out, doing nothing but asking.

I fear for the America of tomorrow./jimo

>We have several generations now of people with their hands out, doing nothing but asking

Jimo, entire generations of people doing nothing but asking? You make it sound as if 2/3 of the country is on welfare. Many people have lost their jobs in the last 3 years, and while there are always moochers who game the system, don't you think that most of the people who have their hands out now would prefer to have their jobs back?


I can see we aren't going to agree. I came up with more drivel, then decided to kiss it off.

No, 2/3rds of the country is not on welfare. 10% or so are, and they are the group now firmly in place, able to swing elections, able to achieve their desires. This group will impact America away from the old America going forward. And this, to the detriment of a quality tomorrow.

---Getting their jobs back? Perhaps they should consider a new job instead. There are plenty of them available around here. I realize there are two sides to most coins. With respect to jobs, mine always came up heads except when government interfered. I never wanted for a job, so I don't view that as a requisite. Especially from the government. I was always able to achieve that on my own, and without their help. My best to you./jimo

>Getting their jobs back? Perhaps they should consider a new job instead.

Easy to say, and no doubt they did/do. Relocating to oil/gas country could be a solution for some, but not for most. We're talking ~13 million people, male & female, many ages.

It'll probably be quite some time before the 10% will achieve their desires, those being to get back to making a reasonable salary and resuming something like their pre-2008 lifestyles.


"We have several generations now of people with their hands out, doing nothing but asking."

I would have to include in this category our entire federal government, as well as the the military/industrial complex and mega-corporations that pay little or no taxes.

The banksters and politicians, however, don't have their hands out: The former have bought the latter, and both are already busy picking our pockets.


I agree. Corruption is rampant. Trust, part of the fiber of old America, is gone. Replaced with a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers, some of whom run for public office./jimo

You're right about the moochers. Only you have the wrong target. Tarp 700B and a hidden 7.7 Trillion. We now have welfare for the super rich which dwarfs any programs for the poor and disadvantaged.Tax cuts for the rich? Where are the jobs. The Bush tax cuts created major job looses not job growth. Once again GOP Orwellian rhetoric. We are back to 1929 where we had robber barons controlling the country and we know how that ended. Only when we have had income equality has this country prospered. I don't blame the rich I blame the politicians that want only to keep their jobs. Like Newt they will say anything do anything to get elected. Newt went out in disgrace and he has not changed his attitude or his behavior.


I don't know what you mean by income equality. Is everyone supposed to get paid by some defined scale? If investors aren't able to "reduce" those obscene salaries at the top tier of their company investments, you want the government to do it for them? Wouldn't that come close to a pure form of Russian socialism?

Worse than private salaries by far is that of the so-called public servant of today. They, across the board, get benefits including salaries, that are far in excess of equivalence in the private sector. We, the American people have allowed this to happen. We accept comments from those rascals justifying their bloated sit at the desk and do nothing salaries.

I don't like Newt. But, I can't vote for the guy wearing the magic underwear. I don't like any of the choices. But, again, all save one, of them are better for tomorrow than our present leader.

President Obama came out of nowhere, floated upward rapidly through the ranks of Chicago slime, and suddenly became the single most powerful official in the world? And, overwhelmingly embraced by a majority of the American people? Based on what? What achievements? What happened to get him to where he is at? What credentials did he establish? Even college money, even Michell's huge (government sponsored job, eliminated after Obama got elected) salary before taking office? How did this happen? Better, WHO did this? WHO set this guy up years in advance of the last election? A lot of money came from somewhere to make this magic happen. ---no media head scratching here. A complete stonewall.

This guy has no credentials normally requisite for the highest office in the land. Newt, certainly not my choice for the same reason you outline, old baggage, at least he has credentials.

I worry about tomorrow. Much of this worry surrounds the huge push by the liberal element of society toward exactly some of the things you mention. Tomorrow is being re-defined based on a new view of government responsibility. All extremely socialist/controlling in nature./jimo

A lot of money from political action committees and wall street banks such as goldman sachs went to fund him and help create Obama in the last election. Its no coincidence that his last chief of staff William Daley was a banker for JP Morgan. Of course McCain's top contributors were wall street banks too.

Go to see the current list for the top presidential candidates and you'll see that it is clear that Mitt Romney is a complete wall street creature too:

Obama has been a bad president, but this alone guarantees that Romney would make the current mess into a total disaster. Anyone would be a better president, hopefully Newt can win the nomination.

You are right Obama did not have the experience to deal with a GOP that had as its only agenda his defeat, even if it meant tanking the republic. What has this country come to to think that we could put up for the highest office in the land a person that is so morally corrupt,so ethically devoid, to be censured and fined by members of his own party. Newt cares only about Newt. After 8 years of Bush policies that brought us to the brink of disaster are going to elect a person that will take us off the cliff? You talk about socialism, tell a big enough lie often enough and people will believe it, this is what the GOP has perfected. do you prefer the Oligarchy that we now have?

Mike: you say that Obama is a bad person how about John Boehner, Erick Cantor, Mitch McConnell and Newt. these are people that only care about their own self aggrandizement with no morals or scruples. Newt when he was speaker of the house knew that the only way to defeat the democrats was to create a deep division. This where we are today with fanatics on both sides of the isle and "a house divided against itself can not stand". Mike you are a student of history I would think that you would have learned something from it. Bad people make bad leaders with bad results.


* Join and receive the Two Fold Formula guide to picking stocks and combine tested fundamental valuation metrics with technical analysis.

*Align yourself with the big trends of the stock market and be alerted when these trends change.

*Receive free updates when we see an investment opportunity in an emerging sector before the crowd gets in.