If Bush is the "Bartender", Paulson could very well be the guy that slipped something in your drink.
If this situation is as dire as its being painted (which as a non-economist, I guess I believe it is), and the future of our Universe is dependent upon the $700 billion requested, shouldn't we know a bit more about who is asking for it, and why has Paulson waited till the ship was sinking to tell anyone they were on a boat???
As Paul Krugman has pointed out, for the plan to help insolvent institutions, the Treasury would have to overpay for these assets. Yves Smith unearths an account that Secretary Paulson has acknowledged this fact in private, although he won't cop to it on the Sunday talk shows. It is almost old-fashioned to raise questions about whether or not the former Wall Street banker will offer sweetheart deals to his industry (an industry that has harmed the American economy more deeply than most people realize). Just as big lies boldly asserted can trump plausible untruths nervously defended, overt corruption on a massive scale (but "in the public interest") might leave a lot of naysayers dumbstruck. It becomes the way we do business. Of course, none of Dean Baker's progressive conditions, none of Brad DeLong's dealbreakers, not even my plea for a little transparency are incorporated into the proposal.
http://www.financialarmageddon.com/
From Dean Baker:
At every point along the way, Secretary Paulson has failed to see the extent of the crisis resulting from the collapse of the housing bubble. This raises serious questions about his judgment. Reporters should be discussing Paulson't track record in the context of this bailout proposal.
http://www.prospect.org/...