The Answer is Still No

Monday, October 06, 2008

Scott Garrett, U.S. Congressman (NJ-5th), talks about why he voted no -again - on the bailout proposal.


Congressman Scott Garrett
News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [9]


BORED -- believe it or not some patriots believe that the government is not required to solve every problem. IE -- no plan. Hard to believe for Dems and GOPs it seems.

Oct. 06 2008 01:53 PM

So what's his plan?

Oct. 06 2008 10:47 AM
Jay F. from manhattan

Bravo, Congressman. Good for you.

Oct. 06 2008 10:46 AM
Joe Corrao from Brooklyn

Ya...we needed to bring back the slogan 'Just Say NO!"

Oct. 06 2008 10:43 AM
KC from NYC

Good for you, Congressman! I have no doubt that we need government intervention here, but this was a terrible bill, and it's not going to solve much of anything (for a mere $700 billion, thanks very much).

Thank you.

Oct. 06 2008 10:42 AM
Leonardo Andres

I am a little concerned that the house just changed their minds based on things that were unrelated to the original bill.

They changed their minds because they added incentives, so please explain to me how is this looking out for the people? if they added another 110 billion dollars to a bill that the majority of americans opposed.

Oct. 06 2008 10:42 AM
Inquiring Minds

Thank You!

We need transparency and accountability. "Make them famous", Scott!

[Garrett is a Republican, for those interested -- I am not sure if the omission of party affiliation was accidental or deliberate by the WNYC staff; there appears to be no standard, as the Oct. 2 show gives the party affiliation for Nadler, Democrat. A frequent claim of media bias is made: That Democrat affiliation is omitted on negative stories about Democrats and positive stories about Republicans omit the Republican affiliation.]

Oct. 06 2008 10:24 AM
Chris from NYC

I have heard that the superior course of action would have been a stock injection (I think that's what is was called) and it makes sense. It would be basically taking an equity postion rather than just buying up the junk and taking owvership of only that.

I have also heard that, while many of us *thought* we were getting an equity position, the banking lobby is VERY stron and the final bill supposedly did not include that provision, but it now appears that somehow that option was, in fact, inserted into the signed bill. Is that true? Is it a good thing? will the next preadident be able to move the government actions in that direction and somewhat right the boat, so to speak?

Oct. 06 2008 10:20 AM
michaelw from INWOOD

Scott Garrett is a true American!

Bail out NO NO NO!

Good for you.

I wish I could vote for you!

Oct. 06 2008 10:08 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.