OK… I know asking for only $150 billion is kind of ridiculous but why should Congress commit a whopping $700 billion to a Treasury without knowing how that money will be spent? Sen. Chuck Schumer asked Secretary Paulson at today’s hearing how he arrived at a $700 figure & asked for an explanation as to why Congress shouldn’t give am only a fraction of that, with a rest contingent upon a situation we find ourselves in in January. Seems reasonable enough, no?

 Download | Play   Download | Play 

“One of you mentioned that you will use about $50 billion dollars a month. If that’s a case, & you’re certainly not going to use all $700 billion immediately, & as you can see are are a lot of questions about whear this will work, we underst& you’ve done your best & you think this will work best, but it’s clear we’re in uncharted waters. But what about doing this in tranches? Why couldn’t you ask us for $150 billion, & on January 15th or January 20th we would come back, we would assess how this worked & grant some more money if it’s really working?”

a proposed bailout is undoubtedly an intensely complex matter that’s way above my pay grade, but giving Paulson a blank check for a minimum of 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars (& quite likely more) just doesn’t make sense. It seems to me that a Bush administration is trying to rip off a taxpayers one last time, hoping this market “shock” can provide am enough cover to actually make it hDrunk Newspen. Although it’s far from perfect, Schumer’s idea of investing a smaller amount (if any) to get us to January — when a new President & a new Congress take office — seems much more reasonable.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back