« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Can “Newtmentum” Lead to a Win in Florida?

By: Brad Jackson (Diary)  |  January 23rd, 2012 at 10:02 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech discuss Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina, what his victory means for Florida’s upcoming primary, and whether or not the GOP could have a brokered convention.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Ben: Why Newt?
Newt Gingrich Wins. What It Means.
Some thoughts on the South Carolina results

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • tailfins1959

    The trade-off is that Romney has a compelling family story, but Gingrich is effective at expressing ideas. I also respect that Gingrich has had the kitchen sink thrown at him and is still standing.

  • elayman

    We’ll see what the tax and Freddie Mac forms have to tell. Already there are allegations of Medicare tax evasion that won’t go well in Florida.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/01/22/gingrich-used-payroll-tax-ploy-often-attacked-by-irs/

    • Juggernaut

      forms as if he has a clue. There are articles out there proving Newt was advising over issues the gop favored. Remember the Bush tried to reform banking twice while Newt was advising over breaking up GSE banks.

      If there were anything there the establish failures would have thrown it out there by now. Anti-capitalist Romney still wants Newt to give back his fees…dumb.

      As for Sub Chapter S, lots of people avoid medicare taxes but I don’t expect congress to change the loopholes anytime soon. Not too many favor sub s’s as much as they did in the past. Romney may have the same issue since it looks like most of his income is scrubbed through Bain after coming from the Cayman’s……..big red meat for Obama. As is the medicare scam Bain never resolved.

      http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/16/news/la-pn-gingrich-freddie-scrutiny-20111116
      The campaign statement also called for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be broken up into smaller entities and asserted that while Gingrich is in favor of increasing home ownership in America, he ?believes it has to be within a context of learning how to budget and save in a responsible way, the opposite of the lending practices that led to the financial crisis.?

      • elayman

        And the in September when Congress was debating the first bailout, without disclosing himself as a former pitchman, went on Fox News to decry how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had so ?many politicians beholden to them? that no one would step up to protect American taxpayers and to argue the bailout should be rejected unless it expressly forbade companies receiving federal money from hiring lobbyists.

        Freddie Mac executives clearly hired him to speak positively about the company and its business model and to identify political friends on Capitol Hill who would help the firm.. He was there to give Freddie Mac advice on how to keep Congress as a financial ally, for his advice to clients on how to start new businesses to get more Federal dollars. He played the Washington, DC insiders game and was trading on his past as Speaker of the House.

        Gingrich is simply willing to put everything on the line, and fear nothing in the scorched earth of politics. That may be what makes him unbeatable.

  • tpnoga1

    The GOP and the USA are DOA. Newt is hated by a vast majority of Americans. We will be doomed. Dang it Pawlenty, why did you drop out so early?

    • elayman

      I’m also still in mourning for my guy Huntsman that got out a week early ! There is a small chance for Americans Elect or as Newt’s running mate (maybe).

      • Juggernaut

        is that campaign models show 3rd party could garner 30% to 40% of the vote with a strong candidate. Electoral college votes would go to dem or gop candidates……its rigged that way just to prevent 3rd party.

        • tailfins1959

          Who wants policy determined by a minority? There should zero or two political parties.

    • tailfins1959

      I had serious doubts about Newt. However he has been beat up badly and is still standing. Almost any other candidate would have given up by now. He is proving himself to be a street fighter that can stand up to the community organizer.

  • porkandcheese

    About as pretty as a deep fried Mars bar. Or the Google search for Santorum. Just a hot sticky mess. Well, Moe Lane would probably eat it. Thank you, IA, NH and most importantly Redstate.

    Now that the field has narrowed laughably, the facts are coming out, and they aren’t pretty. Why didn’t anyone on the Republican side say a peep about fraud or corporate welfare the whole time we had this strawman discussion of capitalism? The Democrats will make the arguments real reform-minded Republicans would have made, and we will all know they won’t mean a word of it. But at least they will say it, and that will rightfully sway independents.

    http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/30/120130ta_talk_surowiecki

    • Juggernaut

      for government investment. Firms like KKR and Kleiner Perkins have revamped many successful companies despite what the Vulture Journalists at the New Yorker or the NY Treason Times care to admit.

      The gop never complains about corporate welfare because they love the campaign money and they love their jobs………ethanol subsidies comes to mind as quickly as big oil subsidies to billion dollar profit firms. Neither is needed and I’ve seen a few RS arguments for both, mostly the later. I don’t see either frontrunner being any different.

      • lizzie

        all week.

        You really have to read the whole analysis.

        For RedStaters who believe The New Yorker is too liberal?
        Yes, they have gone off the left end politically since Obama banned them in July 2008, but James Surowiecki is an iconoclastic financial writer ? and his ?Private Inequity? in the January 30 edition is linked at RealClearPolitics this morning because it is so clear on why the Leveraged Buyout model is NOT Free Market Capitalism.

        Here is the conclusion, which should resonate with some, followed by the actual URL for the entire piece:

        ??taxpayers are left on the hook. Interest payments on all that debt are tax-deductible; when pensions are dumped, a federal agency called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation picks up the tab; and the money that the dealmakers earn is taxed at a much lower rate than normal income would be, thanks to the so-called ?carried interest? loophole. The money that Mitt Romney made when he was at Bain Capital was compensation for his (apparently excellent) work, but, instead of being taxed as income, it was taxed as a capital gain. It?s a very cozy arrangement.

        If private-equity firms are as good at remaking companies as they claim, they don?t need tax loopholes to make money. If we capped the deductibility of corporate debt, and closed the carried-interest loophole, it would not prevent private-equity firms from buying companies or improving corporate performance. But it would reduce the incentives for financial gimmickry and save taxpayers billions every year. Private-equity firms are excellent at gaming the rules. Time to change them. ??

        http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/01/30/120130ta_talk_surowiecki

        I might add that the business writers at the New York Times (Gretchen Morgenson since Louis Uchitelle retired) have been merciless in critiquing Obama?s policies and exposing the bipartisan Wall Street to DC causes of the 2008 meltdown.
        NYT?s Great series ?The Reckoning? even had one column exposing Schumer as the Senator FOR Wall Street, protecting that carried interest loophole to suck enough campaign funds to buy that 2006 & 2008 Senate for the Dems.

        I assume the NYT Op-Ed writers avoid the NYT business writers to prevent physical injuries

        juggernaut is so ignorant that he does not understand that Kleiner Perkins is VENTURE Capital, and KKR is Private Equity Leveraged Buyout model. I got KKR’d twice in my career, never recovered from what KKR did to RJR Nabisco which was highly profitable, but undervalued on the NYSE. KKR paid too much – and by year 5, we all knew it – no way that extra debt was ever going to be paid down. Totally a waste of capital.
        Once we started the annual 10% head count reduction on Christmas Eve, it only took two years to realize that having ambulances screaming into take away the heart attack cases was a bad idea, so they hired McKinsey to craft the “disappear one-by-one” method.
        Pull you out of a meeting to a secret, underground room and sent home without any witnesses.

        I was there 1986-1996.
        Too much debt because KKR paid too much in a BSD bidding war.

        • porkandcheese

          Thank you for your reply, and I will read that NYT series you suggested.

        • Juggernaut

          both firms are engaged in both activities. RJR is still in business now isn’t it? Down sizing happens, it happened to me once too. Management is more to blame than investment advisors because they failed to reduce overhead while debt looms. Read up and then get back to me because both firms make money in more than one way as does Bain. You are also wrong about the New Yorker on private inequity, they as selling snake oil and they are excluding many successful turnarounds………that’s the liberal smear model, pretend all are failures by using broad generalizations.