Originally Posted by
Epoch
AFAIK, Bush, Paulson, and several key people all said that we were at the brink of economic situation and we would have to act immediately to resolve this issue. I listened to Paulson's testimony, and yeah, there was an air of "Immediate problem, give me money, don't ask questions."
We can't, and shouldn't offset the entire toxic debt. BUT, my oppositions to the plan are as follows (This is all AFAIK):
1) There's still no oversight committee, review process, or public inquiry into how Paulson doles out the money (My biggest complaint)
2) There is no specific tax provision to establish that all funds "earned" through taking these toxic debts to be provided back to the taxpayers as tax cuts.
3) I don't think the limits on the corporate spending of companies that receive this bailout go far enough.
it sounds to me like you read into what he was saying and got what you wanted to hear.
1) there shouldn't be one! it will prevent paulson from doing his job.
2) i don't believe this should be the case, there is no way to only reward those who made the right decision (such as myself and yourself) why should those that got loans that they couldn't pay be rewarded?
3) limits on corporate spending? are you talking about executive compensation? because i'm not sure what you're referring to. if you are talking about the executive compensation, why should there be a limit? it's contract between the private citizen and the corporate entity. if that is what they agreed on when who are we to say nope you can't have what was contracted.
I'm also not saying some of those executives shouldn't have their packages slashed greatly but think of what your saying.