« GOP Swinger-in-Chief regrets installing Boy King in 2000 | Daddy-O's Blog | "War crimes" become "policy disputes" between hawks and soft-on-terror liberals »
If you're going to report the news, please EXPLAIN it
Hey, that goes for you, too, Joshua Micah Marshall...
Here's a post and its accompanying link claiming that Paulson is considering asking for $350 billion allocated by Congress for the financial bailout.
Here's another post and its accompanying link, claiming that the Treasury has already spent $2.8 trillion, and plans to spend up to $7.4 trillion to address this financial crisis.
Why are these two items/requests/bailouts NOT THE SAME THING? Can anyone explain the difference between them to me? Or did I just not click the links and read every word, every page? I didn't, but...
It appears a bit ridiculous. It's almost sensationalist. Flogging the $350/$700 billion story seems like pennies compared with the several trillions of the other story. But, of course, NEITHER are pennies, and I just wish a brief explanation of how the Fed can dole out TRILLIONS without Congress's approval.
Or maybe, just MAYBE, the Paulson $350 billion post has no explanation, and THAT is its point. I can dig it.
Advertisement
The way I understand this... the trillions are being authorized by the Fed... they don't need congress to set monetary policy.
Paulson is a policital appointee that has used funds in an apparently partisan fashion and not kept his agreement with congress in how he used the first $350 billion.
Congress would have to be kooks to give the other half without a strict plan and oversight... I prefer that members of congress have to co-sign his financial expenditures.
It was suggested today that Paulson should resign and Bush should allow Obama's Economic team to move into place early. It may be an unusual move but it would be best for the sake of our economy.
I would not hand Paulson another dime unless it's written in stone exactly what he can spend it on or he may not use it and it just doesn't happen.
Paulson needs to go NOW... there is nothing in the constitution that says he can't resign or be removed as secretary of treasury. He has been a terrible steward of the treasury...
When he first asked for the bailout he said he had to wait for the situation to get this bad before he could ask for what he wanted... what a nutjob!!
November 25, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find it hard to believe that these billions need to be transferred/loaned at this exact time. I find it hard to believe that waiting until January 20, 2009 will be too late to act.
First, do no harm.
Thanks for responding to my post. 'ppreciate it!
November 26, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you happen to notice that the Bloomberg article has figures which don't add up?
Shoddy reporting everywhere.
As for the 2.8/7.4 trillion, my understanding is that that's mostly short-term paper much of which may not still be outstanding. It would be good to know how much if any of the collateral has had to be collected, or loans rolled over longer than their initial period.
Transparency is the latest joke.
November 25, 2008 3:30 AM | Reply | Permalink