> 1. Why is it that the Bush administration declared "crisis" suddenly appeared during the final two weeks when Congress would be in session before the election?
Bush&Co were in their typical "you're doing a great job Brownie" self-denial. They are idiots and couldn't fathom how quickly everything they touched turned to shit. They've been spending the past several months throwing everything they had, including the kitchen sink, at this crisis trying to keep it corked up. But then, on September 17th, the inconceivable happened. The Federal Reserve Bank went broke. Let that sink in for a second. The FEDERAL RESERVE BANK went BROKE. They had no more money to keep the charade up. So, in a desperate act, the US Treasury lent the Federal Reserve Forty Billion Dollars. But the Treasury cannot lend money to the Federal Reserve indefinitely and without authorization, so the game was up, and Congress had to get involved.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/treasury-provide-cash-fed-market-liquidity/story.aspx?guid={4CE4C5D0-57A8-4EB0-85F7-E346035085AE}&dist=hplatest
> 2. If this is such a sudden crisis, why is it that the Bush administration was drawing up the plan for this bill for months beforehand?
Simplest answer: They are lying. This plan wasn't written months ago. The first draft of this plan that the Treasury department wrote read like an intern had slapped it together after an all-nighter. The frigging thing didn't even have a name for crap's sake. If this administration had written this months ago it would have had some spiffy name like the "GOD BLESS AMERICA ACT". The first draft was so awful that the only thing that motivated them to accept the shame of claiming it was written well in advance was trying to avoid the shame of admitting they had no fucking idea what they were doing and that they had fiddled while Rome burned (surprise! surprise!)
> 3. Why is it that Congress is supposed to bail out many banks and firms that are actually quite successful and profitable right now, and not just those that are failing?
Because they are STILL lying. Most of those banks are "dead men walking" unless someone does something. But there is no way in hell that the government can admit how screwed up things are without causing wide panic. Let me give you an example of how screwed up things are. Let's look at the situation of just one bank - Washington Mutual. Not too long ago their stock was at $40, today it is at $2:
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/2y/w/wmWashington Mutual bonds have been downgraded to "junk" status by all three ratings agency.
Washington Mutual is holding about $180 Billion in consumer deposits. The FDIC, the insurer of ALL consumer deposits for ALL banks in the United States has $45 Billion to cover failed banks. Think about that - the failure of ONE bank, Washington Mutual, could completely wipe out the reserves of the FDIC, which is supposed to protect ALL banks.
> 4. Why is Paulson blatantly lying to Congress about oversight?
"Why", you ask? Because he is a liar, as I already pointed out in my answers to #2 and #3. Ok, ok, maybe that is a little harsh. Maybe he isn't a liar, in which case the only possible explanation is that he is incompetent. Take your choice.
> 5. Where did the $700 billion figure come from?
They made it up. They just couldn't imagine asking for more. Besides, the real total is $1.8 Trillion, but for some reason everybody keeps focusing on the $700 billion number. $700 Billion is just a balance sheet number. Here's how it would work:
Paulson: Hey, Goldman-Sachs, sell me a pile of shit for $700B.
GS: Sure Henry, here you go.
(The Balance sheet is now $700B, the total debt is $700B).
Paulson: Hey, Goldman-Sachs, buy back this pile of shit for $1B
GS: Sure Henry, here you go.
(The Balance sheet is now $0, but the total debt is $699B)
Paulson: Hey, GS, let me have that pile of shit again, here's another $700B.
GS: You sure are a genius Henry!
(The Balance sheet is now $700B, but the total debt is now $1399B)
-REPEAT AS NEEDED-
> 6. Why is Paulson urging that debate on the matter be held after the legislation is passed?
Uhm, because he was hoping nobody would notice what an incredibly stupid plan it was until it was too late?
> The burden of proof should always be placed on those who are demanding a huge government bailout, not upon those who are skeptical that one is needed. And yet the questions keep mounting, with no answers in sight.
I saw this crisis coming two years ago and did the best I could to prepare myself. I was watching when it started unfolding last August, and I've been staring slack-jawed at the unprecedented level of fuckery these people have been up to for the past few months. Believe me - THERE IS A CRISIS. But this plan is not a solution for the crisis. This plan is a naked attempt by the Bush Administration to give the taxpayer one last reaming, and give the country one last screwing over, and to slip $1.8T into the pockets of Bush and Paulson's friends, all before the wheels fall completely off the bus. But believe me you, if we waste this $1.8T now, we are going to wish to hell we still had it to spend come January.