I like Shumer's idea: $150 Billion now, come back in Jan. 09 to reassess the situation

[99th_Monkey]

When President Obama and a solid Democratic Congressional majority is in place (not that he said that, but just sayin') ...

Pony up ONLY $150 billion now for a 3-4 months trial period, that the new administration and congress can evaluate how well
it went, whether new money is still needed or not, etc..

Shumer made it clear -- and Paulson & Bernanki agreed -- that they would only be using about $50,000 per
month anyway. Bernanki and Paulson just squirmed and stammered, and couldn't provide ANY, not one,
good reason to not dole it out incrementally on an "as needed" basis.

What do people think about this suggestion?

[Raven]

1. Perfect checkmate! If they balk, they will have to disclose the

real extent of the problem and they can't do that. Brilliant!

[clevbot]

35. good point!

[angstlessk]

2. it beats 700 b, seems reasonable!!!

[Redbear]

3. I think they wanted the 700 billion to send a signal

That there was big support for these companies.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Yes! nt

[TexasObserver]

5. The deal I favor: Bernacke and Poulson have five minutes to pack up their shit and leave.

[brentspeak]

9. I second that

[dhpgetsit]

24. All in favor say "aye". n/t

[chill_wind]

33. Aye!

eom

[dhpgetsit]

47. The "ayes" have it.

[onethatcares]

36. second

aye.

too bad we missed talk like a pirate day matey. :toast:

[99th_Monkey]

14. Yes, of course. ... hopefully while being perp-walked in handcuffs

...and other things about as likely as Pelosi putting Impeachment back on the table ...

Meanwhile back the so-called "real" world ...

[MichiganVote]

15. Heck of a job Bernacke. THROW THE BUMS OUT!!

[ShortnFiery]

6. Yes, that is more understandable than handing over ALL OUR TAX DOLLARS to them.

Hey Chuck Shumer, I'm pleasantly surprised. :thumbsup:

[brentspeak]

7. I don't like it at all

I would not trust this administration to responsibly handle one cent of the taxpayers' money. $150 billion is still a "mother of all bailouts". By making this sort of "compromise", it's even rewarding Paulson and Bernanke's efforts; they are essentially high-balling an obscene figure ($700 billion) to obtain a still-ridiculous amount of money -- money almost certainly to be wasted in their incompetent hands.

[tomp]

28. agreed. not one penny without commensurate oversight and public buy-in...

...to banking power. if people were defrauded in loan practices, help them. if they just made bad investments or misrepresented themselves in obtaining loans, back of the line.

i'm willing to be compassionate but not crazy.

[DJ13]

8. I like it, but I think Paulson wanted small, unmarked bills

[Graybeard]

10. Great idea. Let's see what they do with the first installment.

If it looks like another scam we pull the plug.

[Cronus Protagonist]

11. ONLY $150B? You are living in a dream world

Would you toss that much into a fire pit? You would get a better return on the money if you did. At least you might be warmed for a few minutes.

[99th_Monkey]

16. I'm not sure what you're saying

1) not one dime to the motherfuckers, OR
2) you've gotta be kidding $150 Billion is just a drop in the bucket, they need the whole enchilada NOW.

I could read it either way, so which is it?

[Cronus Protagonist]

18. Let's put it this way - would you toss $700B into a fire pit?

Neither would I, and therefore there was nothing ambiguous about my last post. The analogy was and is clear, IMHO, but I guess there's always one or two people who think tossing away or burning money is good, and I'm not one of them.

[99th_Monkey]

21. It was the "ONLY $150B? You are living in a dream world" part that threw me off.

thanks for clarifying :hi:

[Cronus Protagonist]

27. LOL - And I'm CERTAIN that once we start tossing money away like this, they will always want MORE

It's a bottomless fire pit, in other words.

[99th_Monkey]

37. I tend to agree, which is why i like Shumer's proposal.

coupled with diligent congressional oversight, on how the initial amount is used.

I'm not saying this is what I think is necessarily the best option, but it certainly
is much better than giving away $700 at front end that they themselves admit they don't
even need all at once.

[valerief]

12. That's what I was saying yesterday! I figure it's payoff money so

the criminals will go away and the Congress doesn't have to od on Cipro this time around.

[Bread and Circus]

13. Kicked and.....rated??

Actually I like the new rating system.... but I will kind of miss the K and R thing.

[tavalon]

53. You'll still need to kick them so that more people can see them on the separate pages

and the recommend is still there, it's just more nuanced. Dems love nuance!

[dakdirty]

17. Why don't we treat them the way other thieves are treated?

If any one of us had even attempted to pull off a theft a fraction of this magnitude, we would have gotten our doors kicked down, and hauled off to jail! This is like meeting the robber in your house, and only letting him have a little bit of your stuff.

[damntexdem]

19. Good idea -- but still with strong oversight.

I don't trust them with a "mere" $150 billion, either.

[99th_Monkey]

23. Agreed!!!! ~nt~

[dhpgetsit]

20. I still think it's throwing good money after bad.

I say it's time for some tough love.

Democrats will make sure the little guys can survive. Let the Wall Street Titans fall.

[99th_Monkey]

22. ya, but "tough love" for whom? is the question.

most seem to agree there would be LOTS of "collateral" corpses on main street.

[Poseidan]

25. ..

Anyone else think it odd they plan to charge every American the same amount? The rich pay $2,000 just like the poor?

If there will be any bail-out, it should be more like the 150 amount, fixing the system while the money is being used. If the system cannot be fixed by the time the initial amount runs out, go with a second round. Without question though, these bail-out taxes should come overwhelmingly from the rich. They fucked it up, they fix it.

[WePurrsevere]

26. Well... at least this is a better idea then just handing over a blank check. n/t

[barbtries]

29. i think paulson's got to go

before they do anything.

[99th_Monkey]

38. Conflict of interest? do ya think? ~nt~

[barbtries]

41. i do n/t

[Junkdrawer]

30. Start out with a $50 Billion program...Let's see how much "profit"...

the program makes.

Hell, maybe they can fund the whole program with profits.

[onethatcares]

31. I like it.

sounds like an actual thought out plan. Has someone put lsd in the washington water supply or something?:bounce:

[Pisces]

32. I agree. We can not give a blank check.

[pinto]

34. Makes sense to go gradual, if that's feasible. We've been rushed to

"midnight" or emotionally laden decisions recently. To poor outcomes.

[kaygore]

39. I don't! Examine what Norway and Sweden did in similar situation and

apply that approach. I don't trust the Republican Party or this administration with $1 billion, let alone $150 billion...especially since Paulson's remedy is the opposite of what Sweden and Norway did.

[99th_Monkey]

40. I'm all for better alternatives, like Kucinich's proposal. Just sayin'

that i like Shumer's idea MUCH MUCH better than this $700 billion crap, and that
AT THE VERY LEAST this should be the Dems line in the sand if we can't get support
for a better proposal that can be passed into law in a fairly timely manner, so
Dems can't be berated for "stalling" ..

it's the old half a loaf thing i guess, if we can't get anything better.

[Wednesdays]

42. Kicked & "Must Readed"

:kick:

[grannylib]

43. Good thinking. I agree...no need to give them more that they can

just abscond with. Let's be prudent about this.

[moondust]

44. Absolutely the wise way.

But I wonder if Wall Street would throw a tantrum and drive the markets way down if their boy Hank doesn't get exactly what they demand in the terms of the extortion. Isn't that the real deterrent to opposition?

[Bjorn Against]

45. I might accept $150 billion if and only if it included oversight and complete transparancy

If the bill does not include complete transparency and court oversight needs to be rejected regardless of the cost.

[99th_Monkey]

50. I agree. ... but I'd accept congressional (bipartisan, appointed by Reid/Pelosi) oversight

instead of court oversight ... plus removing that stupid "this cannot be reviewed by anyone, ever" language.

[Bjorn Against]

56. The Constitution requires court oversight.

I would like bipartisan oversight as well, but it is clearly unconstitutional to say the courts can have no role in oversight. This goes against the seperation of powers, no branch of government has the right to eliminate another branch of government's authority.

[kirby]

46. No way... They have already done $285 with Freddie/Fannie and AIG.

The market is where it was when Bush took office. Is that really a crisis? Housing prices are still much higher than they should be, they need to fall more... Until the market corrects and the housing prices come back down to earth, we just delay the inevitable.

[roamer65]

48. Nah, let's go for the real cost of $2T to $3T right now.

Debt monetize it ALL and let hyperinflation sort it out.:evilgrin:

[spanone]

49. keep cheney's hands off the rest of it....i like it

[yurbud]

51. better idea: boot in the ass of Paulson to be followed by indictments and re-regulation of Wall St.

[OakCliffDem]

52. He is right. We need to slow down this spending

Great masses of money encourage waste and theft

[Faux pas]

54. I like my idea better. $0 now and we'll talk about it after

Obama takes office.

[judasdisney]

55. ZERO trust for Charles Schumer

He has shown ZERO judgement, and even though this idea sounds reasonable on the face of it, I'll bet my right hand Schumer has loaded some DLC giveaway into the details.

"Absolute power for Paulson for 4 months"? Is that the trick, spider Schumer?

Thanks again for Mukasey, Chuck.

[shadowknows69]

57. I don't like Schumer but this was one of the better points made yesterday

And Paulson couldn't give any good reason why they couldn't work with less if they weren't planning on using it all right away anyway. He even hinted that the companies in question might not "go along with" the plan if it wasn't for the full amount. Fine! Give them nothing.