Originally Posted by
DakarM
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.
Here's Paluson saying that we need to act quickly or else we'll head into recession:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/bu.../24fannie.html , and apparently, according to the radio this morning, Paulson urged Democrats in a conference call when the bailout was proposed to enact this within 24 hours when it was initially suggested, without provisions or controls, to save the economy.
In response though:
1) According to what I heard from Sen Boxer, the new revision of the bill does have some congressional oversight, which I will want to look into. But, we MUST have oversight, even if it hinders or slows down the process. The country and administration has proven to be hasty and incompetent when there is no oversight.
2) The tax cut would be based on how much of your income went into the bailout. If the poor, say, used $50 of their tax dollars per year to resolve this, then they should get a $50 tax break once returns are realized. If someone put a million dollars a year into this, they quid pro quo they should also receive a 1 mil tax break once the money comes back. The tax you paid in should come back to you, and not be used in any other perverse way, and I would like to have seen a provision like this.
3) Normally, if they're a private company, they should only answer to the laws of the land and their stockholders when it comes to compensation. I have no beef with private organizations paying whatever they see fit. When companies are positioned to accept millions of taxpayer dollars to save their business, they should be affected by the taxpayer's interest. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as the Gov't comes in to buy your poorly acquired toxic assets, then the gov't, and the taxpayer, has a greater economic interest in the company. In these situations, I do believe executive compensation should be cut in companies that accept this, and by corporate expenditures, I also mean things like this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5973452&page=1