Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. was not warmly received at today’s bailout hearing when he stared down an angry and disenchanted Senate Banking Committee. Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, who appeared with Mr. Paulson, warned that unless Congress gave Mr. Paulson $700 billion that “inaction could lead to a recession.” Oooh, they said the “R” word….
The New York Times says:
But one after another, senators from both parties said that, while they were prepared to move fast, they were far from ready to give the administration everything it wanted in its proposed $700 billion plan to buy up and hopefully resell troubled mortgages.
…
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Senate banking panel, called the Treasury proposal “stunning and unprecedented in its scope and lack of detail.”Asserting that the plan would allow Mr. Paulson to act with “absolute impunity,” Senator Dodd said, “After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not only our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well.”
Another expression of disgust came from Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, who said the plan would “take Wall Street’s pain and spread it to the taxpayers.”
“It’s financial socialism, and it’s un-American,” Mr. Bunning said.
Paulson responded that he was “angry” at Wall Street and that he needed the bailout not for the fat cats who bet badly and lost, but for you, the taxpayer.
“This is all about the taxpayers. That is all we are about,” said Paulson, who was formerly the CEO of Goldman Sachs for 7 years before becoming Secretary of the Treasury in 2006.
Finance Officials Face Wary Lawmakers [NYT]
(Photo:Andrew Councill for The New York Times)
More From Consumerist
-
ACLU Agrees To Defend KKK’s Bid To Adopt Stretch Of Georgia Highway
-
If One Woman Flies On An Expired Passport With No One Noticing, How Many Others Are Doing The Same?
-
Report: Cops Want Wireless Carriers To Save Text Messages, You Know, Just In Case
-
Treasury Department: Yeah, About That $1 Trillion Platinum Coin? Not Gonna Happen
-
Couple Says Church Wouldn't Let Them Buy Mansion For Fear They'd Turn It Into Gay Wedding Site
So my 401k has tanked, my home value has tanked, and now they want a blank check? That whole stimulus thing worked out so well, sure let’s try this.
We the taxpayers are being mugged. Hand over your wallets. It’s for the good of the country. Let’s remember, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO MONEY OF ITS OWN.
Congress has been impotent for years, but if they let this thing pass, may God have mercy on us all.
This stuff wasn’t supposed to happen until December. You know – after John (Mr. Deregulation) McCain got elected. The $700B is just the first installment, to make sure the fatcats don’t have to sell one of their houses to pay their yacht crews. After the election, The real bailing-out begins, so they can all buy their own countries and realize their dream of reviving slavery.
This completely and utterly infuriates me. If something like this ever goes through, I’m moving to Canada or something. On a lighter note, the picture made me spew my drink all over my desk. Thanks, guys… both sarcastically and literally.
wow check this out
From [www.newsnet5.com]
What’s wrong with this plan? We bail out the companies, we get a cut of the profits (if they start becoming profitable again). We give them something, we get something in return. IMO, it’s a lot more palatable than just giving them money with nothing in return, and would prevent the armageddon that Paulson is predicting.
@MayorBee is getting what plants crave: What if they don’t make a profit? The people who created this situation still get the money and we still get left holding the bag.
@tricky69: Actually, I was thinking about selling my $2,300 in stock right away.
So since we would be bailing them out, then of course we receive a cut of profit from the bad debts if they turn profitable? Right?? Right?? No? Damn.
I just hope a good amount of this disgust is made loud enough our congressmen hear it. I’ll cast my first vote this November, but by the time I do that I may have already contacted my representatives multiple times.
I understand the concept behind the bailout, but the question is which is worse, the colapse of financial institutions who were stupid enough $1,000,000 loans to people earning $30,000 per year, or penalizing the taxpayers, the majority of who are smart enough to live within their means (or at least close to their means) by plunging the government deeper into debt which will force cutbacks in critical services and/or increase taxes just to hand money over to the corporations that made the mistakes.
People make mistakes, I understand that, but hopefully there are consequences for those mistakes, and lessons to be learned. In this situation, a mistake was made, and the government will bail the financial institutions out which will only encourage the financial institutions to make the same mistakes over and over again.
The money might be better spent helping out the people at the bottom and not those at the top of the economy. Stop the forclosures and set up a way that those who could lose their homes can stay and this will help the communities and the tax base they represent. Wall st. might need help, but there also needs to be consequenses for their behavior. Money should be move from the top, by this I mean that the people who most benefited from the financial madness should help fix it. Some should to jail with no two hundred dollars. I don’t trust anything that is supported by the Bush admin. Sen. Berny Sanders has some good ideas on what is to be done. Check it out.
@Mfalconieri: Yes, I would update your comment that you did not mean that you would shoot the president. Remember the general rule, even joking about it gets you a visit from the Secret Service.
Wow, seems pretty unanimous across the board: THIS IS A DUMB IDEA. We need to inform our congressmen ASAP that WE DO NOT WANT THEM TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION!!!!