Schumer: Why Can't Bailout Money Be Given In Installments (to see if it even works)

[ByLoSellHi]

He asked Paulson "why not start with 100 or 150 billion, and see if it works? It's not as if you're going to spend the whole 700 billion in even three or four months, by your own words."


Paulson's asinine answer was "we need the whole sum upfront and don't want to come back to Congress again."


Isn't that lovely?

 

[sellingrich]

He has more money and financial experience and should be trusted completely. He should be given access to our wives and daughters too.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from sellingrich:

He has more money and financial experience and should be trusted completely. He should be given access to our wives and daughters too.

When Paulson and Bernanke can't even explain how the auction process would work, and trust me, they've admitted as much, they MUST BE OUT OF THEIR MINDS to even waste the Senate's time.

Every senator should kick them out and tell them to come back with some reasonable set of specifics.

 

[gnome]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

He asked Paulson "why not start with 100 or 150 billion, and see if it works? It's not as if you're going to spend the whole 700 billion in even three or four months, by your own words."


Paulson's asinine answer was "we need the whole sum upfront and don't want to come back to Congress again."


Isn't that lovely?

Yes... and we want to rush some legislation into law... QUICKLY, WHILE WE'RE STILL REELING*... before everybody understands just what it is they've committed to...

* Actually, we're NOT REELING... Paulson got on TV and TOLD US WE WERE... and CB-BS chimed in with, "Yeah, you're reeling... man the life boats"....

 

[S2007S]

Do you have ANY idea how worried they are right now, go back a year ago and see what paulson and bernanke had to say about this economy.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

Quote from S2007S:

Do you have ANY idea how worried they are right now, go back a year ago and see what paulson and bernanke had to say about this economy.

Go back to last week!

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://static.reuters.com/resources/flash/include_video.swf?edition=US&videoId=90719" width="422" height="346"><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.reuters.com/resources/flash/include_video.swf?edition=US&videoId=90719" /><embed src="http://www.reuters.com/resources/flash/include_video.swf?edition=US&videoId=90719" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="422" height="346"></embed></object>

 

[2ticks]

"this is not an expenditure"

Definitions of expenditure on the Web:

* outgo: money paid out; an amount spent
* expending: the act of spending money for goods or services
* consumption: the act of consuming something

HELLO!!!?!!!

What the definition of is is.

 

[Ticketwatcher]

In order for Santa to be Santa, he needs to have a BIG bag OVERFLOWING with gifts. Now, Santa cannot go around with measly 150 billion. It would do little to promote the Christmas spirit, whoops, I meant trust and confidence.

 

[lindq]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

He asked Paulson "why not start with 100 or 150 billion, and see if it works? It's not as if you're going to spend the whole 700 billion in even three or four months, by your own words."

Paulson's asinine answer was "we need the whole sum upfront and don't want to come back to Congress again."

What he left unsaid was "I have no idea at all what our exposure really is, and I need everything I can get right now."

 

[WaveStrider]

Not sure which was more disturbing - the money grab ($700B all at once) or the power grab (no review by the admin or courts).

But then, he does have 2 hands to grab with...