Fw: Re: [Peace-discuss] No

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think it'll be like their demanding a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq -- a smokescreen. I think the proper response is, "No."  --CGE


---- Original message ----
>Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 12:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Jenifer Cartwright <jencart13 at yahoo.com>  
>Subject: Fw: Re: [Peace-discuss] No  
>To: Peace- Discuss <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>
>The Dems are demanding millions more to further cover homeowners AND 
>more regulatory oversight and transparency before agreeing. Don't    
>bet the farm...                                                      
> --Jenifer                                                           
>                                                                     
>--- On Sun, 9/21/08, John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> wrote:            
>                                                                     
>  From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com>                                
>  Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] No                                    
>  To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>                      
>  Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>                   
>  Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008, 5:10 AM                          
>                                                                     
>  On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 11:05 PM, C. G. Estabrook                  
>  <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:                                     
>                                                                     
>      No                                                             
>      By: emptywheel                                                 
>      Saturday September 20, 2008 12:16 pm                           
>                                                                     
>    CR has posted the "bailout plan," as it currently stands:        
>    http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-proposal.html 
>                                                                     
>    Glenn Greenwald has an important response, as does gjohnsit over 
>    at DKos.                                                         
>                                                                     
>    But here's all you need to know. Hank Paulson is asking for      
>    $700,000,000,000. That's $2,333 from every man, woman, and child 
>    in the United States.                                            
>                                                                     
>  It's also only 1,000 times Paulson's personal net worth of         
>  $700,000,000, which he "earned" by being a WALL STREET INVESTMENT  
>  BANKER not unlike those who helped get our economy into this       
>  mess.  (I see the author mentions that below.)  If he and 999 of   
>  his similarly-situated buddies would repay the money they          
>  essentially stole, then the problem would be solved without        
>  involving the rest of us.                                          
>                                                                     
>                                                                     
>                                                                     
>    In exchange for that money, Paulson is unwilling to accept any   
>    demands to make markets more transparent, limit executive        
>    compensation, or assist homeowners fighting foreclosure. The     
>    sole purpose of that $700,000,000,000 is to bail out Wall Street 
>    and only Wall Street, but not to fix it, or our larger economy.  
>                                                                     
>    He is asking to be absolutely unbound by any law when he spends  
>    that money.                                                      
>                                                                     
>     "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this   
>    Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and   
>    may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative    
>    agency."                                                         
>                                                                     
>    The only "string" attached is a semi-annual Congressional report 
>    -- one in which they would have zero leverage to influence his   
>    choices.                                                         
>                                                                     
>     "Within three months of the first exercise of the authority     
>    granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the        
>    Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget,          
>    Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of           
>    Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and   
>    Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect   
>    to the authorities exercised under this Act and the              
>    considerations required by section 3."                           
>                                                                     
>    Paulson didn't even have the class to call this a "review" --    
>    which underscores the degree to which he wants to be unbound by  
>    any and all review, legal, congressional, or anything else.      
>                                                                     
>    Hank Paulson -- one of the CEOs who got us into this mess -- is  
>    asking each and every American to give him $2,333 to do with as  
>    he sees fit, with absolutely no strings attached.                
>                                                                     
>    No.                                                              
>                                                                     
>    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/                               
>