Comments on Paulson

Read especially comments 37 - 47 (that's as far as I got!)


Post a Comment
Editors' Selections
RSSAll Comments - Oldest First
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
1 - 25 of 158Show:

Oldest First Newest First Readers' Recommendations Editors' Selections Replies
1.
November 17, 2008 8:47 pm
Link
I appreciate Mr. Paulson's efforts and flexibility. But I am still concerned that he is personally too close to the people who caused these problems to be effective in what he is trying to do.
— Steve, Austin, TX
Recommend Recommended by 74 Readers
2.
November 17, 2008 8:47 pm
Link
you have, and are in the process of making it even less predictable by increasing its complexity.I know that is your goal.
— p. stein, Hubbard, OH
Recommend Recommended by 18 Readers
3.
November 17, 2008 8:47 pm
Link
"and through them to increase the flow of mortgage credit, will promote mortgage lending"....Was not this the reason we got into this mess in the first place? Besides mortgage rates went down initially and now are higher now than they were before they announced the plan. This answer is just not satisfactory.
— Erik, NY
Recommend Recommended by 50 Readers
4.
November 17, 2008 8:54 pm
Link
I'm sure history will find fault in some the actions of Paulson and Bernanke. Nevertheless, I thank them for their tireless work in making difficult choices that, in most circumstances, would involve a year+ of due diligence. In this environment, events forced them to make decisions in a day or two. Thanks for being non-dogmatic and tirelessly working on behalf of the American economy.
— Chris, Chicago
Recommend Recommended by 13 Readers
5.
November 17, 2008 8:55 pm
Link
So, if people who couldn't afford their mortgage payments had kept on paying, oil prices would have stayed high, unemployment would have stayed relatively low, prices on everythingn would have continued to escalate, and bonuses would continue to flow on Wall Street, and all would have been right with the financial house of cards?
— working_for_change, hull, ma
Recommend Recommended by 130 Readers
6.
November 17, 2008 9:54 pm
Link
Amazing. Not one word about how we got into this mess and how it will be avoided in the future. Also Paulson did not address the current problem of banks who have benefited from this cash injection simply hording that wealth and not increasing lending.This article is a defense of his actions as being 'better than nothing' as opposed to offering a sober analysis of how short term remedies can support long term safeguards. The way it reads to me is that we have simply rewarded reckless lenders while leaving all home owners, reckless and otherwise, to twist in the wind. All in the hope of merely returning to the status quo that permitted this failure in the first place. In other words, Bush Economics 101.January 20th, 2009 can't come soon enough.
— Pier Giacalone, Doylestown, PA
Recommend Recommended by 146 Readers
7.
November 17, 2008 9:54 pm
Link
Secretary Paulson never answered question why he decided to liquidate Lehman and saved other players. Former CEO of Goldman knew he created financial Pearl Harbor to advance his bailout plan. In addition this play was done in the middle of Presidential election. The greatest financial manipulation in history of USA.
— JPS, NJ
Recommend Recommended by 65 Readers
8.
November 17, 2008 9:57 pm
Link
Sounds like a political stump speech to us Main Streeters. May be it's time for one since Congress is breathing down Paulson's back. After finding out he's acting in contravention to their bailout legislation, his better judgment is relying on a direct appeal to the public for support.I am sure Mr. Paulson will feel more relaxed when President-elect Obama nominates Larry Summers to the top treasury post. Since Mr. Summers has experience in in government deregulation, during the Clinton administration, he should fit prefectly in the money clip left behind by Mr. Paulson.Pay attention to another version of Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street verses Main Street. My money's on the former!
— bmarquis, Lanesborough, Massachusetts
Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers
9.
November 17, 2008 9:58 pm
Link
Yes, poster #1. Paulson shares the same ideology as the Wall Street titans, so he can't imagine a truly bold solution. We need someone whose head is wired differently. Thanks for trying Hank, but systems that are not based on integrity will not survive.
— Diana Collins, Charlotte, NC
Recommend Recommended by 76 Readers
10.
November 17, 2008 9:58 pm
Link
Having Paulson at the helm this crisis is like having a crack dealer guard the evidence room.
— Olaf, Los Angeles
Recommend Recommended by 95 Readers
11.
November 17, 2008 9:58 pm
Link
Mr Paulson, I know an 82 yr old man in Maine who pulled all his money out of stocks and securities 6 weeks before you informed us of the financial crisis. How is it he knew what was coming and you did'nt? Or did you? Perhaps the best thing for the country would be to put things on hold until the next administration takes office.
— James, East Hampton NY
Recommend Recommended by 63 Readers
12.
November 17, 2008 9:59 pm
Link
A ridiculous essay in which Mr. Paulson is playing the victim.He has shed absolutely no light on this topic.How do we know the system is now stabilized?How do we know where OUR money has gone?Congress had better step in and demand accountability, transparency and call for an immediate halt to these giveaways to phantoms and ghosts, whoever they are or whatever they are.NO bailout for the auto industry, we've been fleeced too often by this administration. Let the automakers file for bankruptcy, restructure and let the survival of the fittest reinvent themselves.Mr. Paulson: Any road will get you there if you don't know where you're going.
— joanne, boston, MA
Recommend Recommended by 97 Readers
13.
November 17, 2008 10:00 pm
Link
I have only one question for the Secretary; why is it that there was "no playbook?" With all the computers and algorithms which have allowed you and your buddies to make millions using specious speculation, didn't anyone ever think to ask one poor programmer to do a little "what if" coding?Of course, perhaps I should address this question to the Administration in general. Is it possible that not one person, in one shabby corner of the Federal bureaucracy, was ever "tasked" with looking into this?Oh, wait. This is the Bush administration.....
— Clyde Wynant, Pittsburgh, PA
Recommend Recommended by 123 Readers
14.
November 17, 2008 10:00 pm
Link
I think most people believe that Secretary Paulson is telling the truth, but a lot of us think he should have known better about the possible turn of events. I am not concerned about the money going to the banks and the insurance companies to increase their capital ratio. What I want to know is what constructive steps have been taken to make sure (1) that all the money will return to the the public, and (2) what has been done to prevent the bad guys on Wall Street from continuing to steal and get overcompensated at the country's expenses.Krish
— Krish S, New York
Recommend Recommended by 34 Readers
15.
November 17, 2008 10:05 pm
Link
Sec. Paulson seems clueless, reacting to the continuing bad news. Of course, he has to deal with the accumulated missteps of President Bush, the previous treasury secretary and Chairman Greenspan.
— Arthur, NYC
Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers
16.
November 17, 2008 10:05 pm
Link
I'd like to remind everyone that Paulson is a Republican. One isn't born into a political party, and clearly a party of "trickle down," "some are humans and deserve health care and some are not humans and don't deserve health care" suits him. I am pretty sure that "humanity" starts for him somewhere at 100 million.
— Anna, New York
Recommend Recommended by 62 Readers
17.
November 17, 2008 10:05 pm
Link
All I can say is, "Ho hum"!!!
— albertus magnus, guatemala
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
18.
November 17, 2008 10:26 pm
Link
Mr. Paulson,Based on everything I've read, I cannot figure out how your bailout plan is anything more than a fancily-worded idea that involves the following two steps: Step 1: print lots of extra money; and Step 2: give said lots of extra money to people/institutions of your choosing. I wish someone would explain, in relatively plain English, why I am wrong about my characterization of your plan. Because, I would really, really like to be wrong, and really, REALLY hate to be right.
— chris, New York, NY
Recommend Recommended by 66 Readers
19.
November 17, 2008 10:28 pm
Link
You say the decline in the housing market is at the root of the economic downturn and our financial market stress. Have you thought why the decline? It is very well apparent that people can’t afford housing any more. Your solution appears to keep pumping debt to buy more and more houses as was done during the past few years hoping the economy would be corrected. How are people going to pay back this debt? Haven’t you thought of the importance of job creation to reverse the current situation?
— Don, Long Island, NY
Recommend Recommended by 39 Readers
20.
November 17, 2008 11:32 pm
Link
The fox is hired to fix the henhouse door. It was Paulson's skill and craft, and those in Goldman and its sister institutions that milked the economy and jerked the strings of the legislators and the SEC for every drop of profit they could extract. Perhaps you hire a thief to catch a thief, as I think FDR said (or to fix a broken hatch on the henhouse door), but we owe Paulson and Bush and their ilk no thanks. They knew what they doing when they were extracting their pound of flesh and cash out of the system, and ultimately the American middle class. And as far as I can see, Paulson is still self-dealing. If not, why favor the investment bankers first over the auto-makers (or anyone else who actually produces something real) in the bail-out scheme. It's likely that history will show him to be just a new robber baron along with the rest of those now packing their bags for the Caymans or Crawford.
— Fred, RI
Recommend Recommended by 58 Readers
21.
November 17, 2008 11:36 pm
Link
Good attempt. However, you did not address the enrichment of a limited group of others at the expense of taxpayers in general. That is what is making people angry. Nor did you address how we got into this latest round of disaster capitalism. Did it come from nowhere? Was there poor regulation? The Administration had nothing to do with it?Then you finished with the empty reassurance of this line:"I am confident of success, because our economy is flexible and resilient, rooted in the entrepreneurial spirit and productivity of the American people."In normal times that would have been a nice morale booster. The trouble is that it comes from an Administration that has lost all credibility in the US and everywhere else. Jan 20 cannot come soon enough.
— Alan Smith, Sydney, Australia
Recommend Recommended by 42 Readers
22.
November 17, 2008 11:36 pm
Link
Where are the simulations, the stop signs, the worst case scenario´s, the exit doors,... ? Mr. Paulson´s admission not to posses of a playbook for the financial turmoil indicates 2 things :1) a blind , "titanical" - trust in supply-side solutions;2) the bankcrupcy of this model;How can Mr.Paulson justify his (administrations) unpreparedness by the fact to have never witnessed such financial turmoil ?What about the financial turmoil in Japan,Thailand,Russia,Brasil,Argentina over the last 15 years ?Dire lessons could have been drawn;1) Act, or be acted upon;2) be prepared;A sincere "mea culpa" would be at its place for this matter, and truely make path for the necessary policy shift.Markets are waiting anxiously...
— gerardo, sao paulo
Recommend Recommended by 17 Readers
23.
November 17, 2008 11:36 pm
Link
Secretary Paulson doesn’t seem to understand that he is now a public servant. This means an obligation to explain to citizens what he doing with the extraordinary amounts of taxpayer monies he asked for, and why he made the choices he made — an explanation with more detail than “we’re working to stabilize the financial system.” Taxpayers deserve more specifics, especially when AIG and other beneficiaries of his largesse aren’t doing what he perhaps hoped (e.g., making loans, cutting back executive compensation) but did not require.
— Carol in NYC, New York, New York
Recommend Recommended by 42 Readers
24.
November 18, 2008 2:02 am
Link
Mr. Paulson is correct in stating that there is no playbook to address the current problem. The fact that initial actions taken have not been adequate and the situation has worsened is understandable and his mid-course correction is admirable. However, there are some glaring shortcoming:The financial system is not run by the government but my tens of thousands of independent privately owned businesses. Thus, in order to satbilize the national (and international) financial system, it is in fact stabilizing the losses of these private businesses. Therefore it must have a full cooperation of the parties it is trying to save, and the parties must behave rationally that they want to be saved. What upsets the taxpayers like me is that these independent businesses are still bent on giving year end bonuses. Mr. Paulson, you need to tell these guys that the bonuses are rewards for great work, not a part of regular annual income for holding a position. And since the institution has not done well, it cannot afford to pay bonuses. It would not make sense that while 75000 CITI employees are losing their jobs (and may be their hoes, etc), its remaining employees should be able to live with reduced income by foregoing the bonuses. It is heartening to note that the 7 top executives of Goldman Sachs have agreed not to receive any bonuses. The question is , why should anyone at Goldman Sachs receive a bonus? And that applies to all institutions that are helped by the TARP program. Your earlier argument was that it was necessary to attract their participation. However, if they don't want to participate and risk going under, we should let them go under and also let them have their bonuses.Secondly, it was reported that your department made "SMALL" modification to the tax code that would save some banks for a total of $140 billion. It apparently applied to banks taking over other banks. Two question: Was Well Fargo Bank aware of this provision when it agreed to buy Wachvia? And why did Treasury bring this provision to Citibanks attention (if it was unaware) so it could have taken over Wachovia? Your department stated that Wachovia offer would not require any government subsidy like Citibank would. That's a bunch of buu and a blatant lie. It will cost the people the taxes foregone and claimed by Wells Fargo.while you overall position has been admired as honest, these two events has led to loss of faith in your integrity. Be honest and show leadership to the financial industry. Is that too much to ask?
— Technosceptic, Potomac, Maryland
Recommend Recommended by 7 Readers
25.
November 18, 2008 2:02 am
Link
Thanks Hank, keep up the good work.
— Peter, Maryland
Recommend Recommended by 0 Readers
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
1 - 25 of 158