http://financialservices.house.gov/e...by-section.pdf look at the last word in PAGE 1!!!! I KNEW IT ALL ALONG!!!!!

 

:lmao:

ibifobamawinshegetspraisedforfixingeconomy

ibifmccainwinsdemsstillpraiseobama

 

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

 

this is what you said before


this is what you're saying now.

what paulson said was that the economy would be put at risk, which it is and was. what you said before was a vast exaggeration of the facts which is what I had issue with.

also of course he would urge quick action, he knew the effects of the bail out would not be felt for months, thus delays would delay the effect felt.

lastly i would suggest instead of listening to what the democrats said or what the republicans said, listen to the actual experts in the matter. not politicians.