The Newster has bristled at questions over his Tiffany account. I rarely support Newt on much of anything. I think he is king of the hypocrites. However, do we have the right to know about his jewelry purchases?
Obviously, most of us don’t have a half-million dollar line of credit with the most recognizable jewelry store in America. What kind of special accounts do they have? Newt said it was a regular Tiffany non-interest account. Hmmmm…do I want one of those? Yes!!! Should I have one? Probably not. I could do real damage and those who know me know I love my jewelry almost to the point of gaudiness.
Should the Newster have answered the questions about his purchases? I say no. Is it any our our business? Not really. There have to be some secrets and privacy. There is enough out there to go after Newt for. Leave his diamond studded naval rings out of the mix. [Just kidding, Newt.]
Stephen Colbert probably said it best. He buys his engagement rings in bulk. Seriously though, I think we are overly snooping on this one. He is a grown man, his wife is a grown woman. As long as they aren’t cheating their other creditors, they can buy as much at Tiffany as they want, in my book. We need to allow some privacy to all presidential candidates.
Yes, we do have the right to know about his Tiffany account – the account was disclosed back in 2006/7, while the Mrs. Newt was working for the Agriculture Committee, hence, our right to know. It is really relevant – not really, but it is good fodder to see Newt defend his finances and act as if everyone spends half a million on jewelry.
He is the King of Doublespeak, and a big flip flopper, but he is also one of the most partisan people you will ever see in politics.
Anther rich, selfish a-hole.
Wait, so the claim is that TIF floated him half a million in credit at zero interest?
Right.
@Pat,
I don’t see where what he bought is any of our business. I suppose spending is our business. And it was funny to hear him sputtering.
If I were wealthy I would spend a half million on jewelry in a heartbeat. I would take it out daily and fondle it with my eyes also. However, in my mind, jewelry is wearable art.
@Cato,
Plenty of places float interest free accounts if you pay it off within a certain amount of time. I shop for those kinds of account, but not at TIF. TIF is a little above my pay grade for most items.
correction – It is really relevant – not really , should have been IS it really relevant – not really
@Moon-howler
Yes, but the time horizons are typically very short (one year) and the amounts somewhat smaller than half a million.
In sum I find it hard to believe that TIF gave that amount of credit to a guy with a history of writing bad checks under those terms.
@Cato, I was unaware of Newster’s check writing habits. I have several zero interest accounts that I am working now. It is a great incentive. Now, here’s my confession, it isn’t a half million. snicker. Newt threw out what he wanted us to know. Please don’t make me defend Newt. Too painful.
@Cato the Elder
I could see them floating a long term no/small interest account. Didn’t Countrywide run into some issues with a VIP program where some in Congress including those on the Financial committiees were giving low/no interest mortgages. IIRC they were no doc loans as well.
I could care less if Tiff’s gave him a sweetheart deal on purchases.
@marin, what’s the difference between TIF and countrywide?
The countrywide info is political fodder. For a free market person, isn’t it within that mortgage company’s right to have special rates for various reasons like exceptional credit, great wealth, return customer, etc?
Might as well call it out…you are referring to Chris Dodd’s wife.
@Moon-howler
Was it Dodd? I couldn’t remember and I thought it was more than just one person.
Free market person makes me say “I could care less if Tiff’s gave him a sweetheart deal on purchases.” but for people getting sweetheart deals on mortgages and those people are the same people that create laws/rules/regulations for those mortgage companies…. One of these things does not look like the other. 🙂
If Newt was writing regulations impacting Tiffany’s or appointed/elected into a position of trust where he could impact the business deals of Tiffany’s I’d sing a different tune. But, he’s not. So, what they have between them is not really any of my concern. Mind you that doesn’t mean the information can’t be disclosed. I’m ok with that. Let the voters weight it and decide.
@marinm
Shoot, if the want to blow a half a million bucks on baubles, let’m!
It’s no skin off my nose.
Personally, I couldn’t tell a real Rolex watch from a knock-off.
Same with those oversized, thousand dollar handbags.
People get mortgage deals for different reasons. I got one because I was a returning customer. Are you saying no one in congress should ever get a deal on credit?
@marin
@Moon-howler
It’s an interesting question you pose.
I guess it goes back to ethics. Because I am for better or worse an auditor I tend to maintain a distance from people to make my evaluations. Same when I was a soccer referee many moons ago. You can be cordial but you have to maintain impartiality and never allow for the spectre of impropriety.
In my judgement I view a person like Mr. Dodd who has wide influence over banking regulations getting a sweetheart deal from a bank as something that tends to tip the scales towards bad egg vs. a teacher that accepts an apple from a student. Now, if I were to give that same teacher an Apple iPad2 3G 64GB..maybe that’s something more to be frowned upon especially if I got an A in that course.
Perception speaks volumes.
@punchak, agreed. You could have fake diamonds in front of me or real ones. I couldn’t tell you the difference. My wife tells me that some handbags are more stylish than others.. :shrug: I’ve had the same wallet for years.
Heh, heh. #4 could be an idea for the ad agency with the Tiffany account: “Take me home and fondle me with your eyes.”
I feel that no one on Congress, or any elected official, should get any type of a deal that is not available to the general public. If a company wants to give reduced rates to celebrities – well, that is ok, but not to the same people that impose or enforce regulations.
I guess I think members of congress should get what everyone else gets. It is my understanding that the country wide loan was for a home Mrs. Dodd wanted to buy. I also think that the stink raised over it was an attempt to nail Chris Dodd
Marin, I tend to agree with you–an apple vs an ipad. Good analogies. There are degrees.
And the spectre of impropriety is critical and isn’t considered enough of the time.
there are enough issues with Newt that focusing on a Tiffany’s account seems pretty petty.
There’s more going on here than meets the eye: http://www.businessinsider.com/was-newt-gingrichs-500000-tiffanys-bill-actually-a-lobbying-gift-2011-5