On Demand
The Senator from NY
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Hillary Clinton is back in Washington as a full-time US senator. She discusses the economic rescue package, the state of New York economy, and the home stretch of the Presidential campaign.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
I wanted to call Sen. Clinton's office yesterday morning and demand to know if she had read the letter from the 200 economists to Paulson and whether she had any thoughts about it and if she hadn't seen it, was she going to consider its suggestions.
I'm just not getting the impression that any of the elected officials understand any of the financial root causes because they don't seem to be addressing solutions to the root causes. They keep talking about Main Street and the big picture. I'm only a middle class homeowner with a city job but I read the NY Times financial articles and sometimes the WSJ and I've read many financial experts' proposals and they sound very rational, directed as they are to root causes.
It makes me angry that the electeds think we don't understand financial details so they won't bother us with them. it's so insulting. Also, the process is not transparent and I have no faith at all that the plan is going to work. This goes back to the root causes and spcific proposals to address the root causes. The expansion of the FDIC limits, or AMT do not deal with the root causes.
And could someone tell me where that 700m figure came from?
Paulson wanted a bazooka and he will get a bazooka if the bill passed by the Senate goes into effect. I don't believe the extra 431 pages of the proposal change that fact. Paulson still has free reign to spend hundreds of billions while Congress is out of session, before the election and before the next administration comes into office. How has this bill changed anything except the possibility of review after the money is spent?
Also, why can't we get the same deal Warren Buffet did?
Mary,
It's 700b with a "b" not 700m. And yes, why that number?
Also, the goal, we are told, is to unlock the credit markets. What is our assurance that this will do it?
wall st is blackmailing us
Please ask Senator Clinton to comment:
I have heard Senator Reid say that any member of congress could have written a better bill than the one that was passed. If that is the case then why didn't the Dems write a better bill?
This bill was ostensibly created to grease the credit markets for businesses. Why isin't this money used to directly make loans. With the current plan we run the risk of bailing out banks for risky (yet profitable) investments while not creating credit opportunities for borrowers.
Senator:
The rush to vote on the Bush-Paulson bailout, given the viable alternatives available, is an injustice to our democracy. This will give the Administration unprecedented powers, but many predict it will do little to alleviate the credit crisis.
Why not consider a more comprehensive bill that includes your excellent proposal for a Homeowners Mortgage Enterprise?
Thank you
I would like to know from Senator Clinton why she and other politicians have routinely characterized this situation as one caused by "wall street greed" and "fat cats." Is it not possible to have a rational discussion about the bigger picture and how we got here without this kind silly moralizing? The entire situation is so complex and I am disappointed that the politicians have been doing nothing to actually try to explain it to the American public. I guess it is not so easy to tell constituents what role they played in this and how they have benefitted from this in the past. I understand that people are truly hurting, but is simply targeting wall street a helpful thing to do? No wonder everyone is so upset about this bailout bill.
Why did the bill contain millions in tax cuts for Puerto Rican Rum producers? Who needed this inclusion in order to support the bill?
there is a lack of faith in the economy - it won't be fixed until we start to see accountability on ALL levels.
Can you read this to Hiollary and ask her for comment?
from Thomas Jefferson's letter to Treasury Secretary Albert Gallatin in
1802:
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties
than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to
control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by
deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the
banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children
wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing
power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom
it properly belongs.”
thanks
Brian - one commenter suggested that offshore entities that benefit from the bailout be required to repatriate their assets and pay taxes on them - is this in the bill, or has it been considered?
Brian
Please ask Sen Clinton what role the ramped up enforcement of the "Community Reinvestment Act" during the Clinton Adm. played in banks lending to credit unworthy clients under threat of Federal penalty! As an ACORN attorney Barack Obama sued Citibank to loan to inner city less than credit worthy minority clients.
Ask her why they want to destroy the dollar?...when that collapses then we have big problems...Nice way to waste 2 minutes of the 10 she graced us with to ask how she was....
Hillary laughs like she just foreclosed on an orphanage....
i fear the bailout but we have no choice.
but after we give CPR to the economy we need to look at the economy as a whole and ready it for the 21st century
rebuild it green.
I called Sen. Clinton's office yesterday to urge her to vote against the Paulson Fix (Is In), even the new and improved version! with more expenditures! and some actually important legislation. I had read her statement which indicated she would support it for the good of jobs in NYC and NYS.
I was impressed with her call weeks ago to devise a 21st Century version of FDR's HOLC (If it's pronounced "hulk," it brings to mind The Incredible Hulk and creates a lasting image in people's minds. Plus the green color references the color of money...and it's strong enough to get at the root of the problem.) I think this is a very necessary component of getting to the bottom of the Big Me$$ created by the Big Bankster Boiz trying to make money using legerdemain instead of actual loans with repayments, of using leverage up to uminmaginable heights!
I urged her to work for a bill which gave Paulson et al only limited billions to gamble with. Paulson or Bernanke testified that $150B could take them to January. So, limit their gambling to that amount of maybe $250B, then hold hearings to get views of those outside the administration/Wall Street insiders, all those economists who called the Big Me$$ accuratesly. I fear gambling with $700B to a $Trillion of taxpayer backed money
Senator:
I have basically the same question as Lee Karon.
Why are we buying toxic mortgages? Couldn't we have used the same amount of money to strengthen banks on the other end, as in: why are we buying up worthless paper (which many economists say will accomplish nothing, if not make the situation worse in the long run), rather than infusing banks with those funds and taking some control over what they actually do with our money?
It's an estimated $800 billion (not $700 billion) now.
Why tax breaks (eg AMT) when this Senate bill effectively means a new tax??? Isn't this just another Washington gimmick?
ps who heard buffet on charlie rose last night?
Brian, please ask senator clinton what her opinion is on sahar palin, and to please tell senator Biden to please just be nice smile alot not say to much and Gov. Palin will show her own inabilities. Thanks
A 21st Century HOLC will also be a jobs program for so many bank and accounting professionals losing their jobs, as reviewing and adjusting mortgages is a retail operation, requiring individual contacts and work.
HOLC employed up to 20,000 people back in the FDR era, so it would create work.
Re: Paulson being short timer--They've blown through close to a $Trillion already--we actually don't know how has been laid out to bail out and protect. Now, he has access to another $700B.
An analysts on Bloomberg said this could take up to $5 Trillion using the approach of feeding the Bankster Beast and letting it trickle down.
I'm afraid I'm going to hear the same backpedaling in 2 years about the $700 Billion from the Senator that I heard about her Iraq war vote.
Tell HC to clear off the office voice mail so other people can leave rants for her.
I'd love to ask Senator Clinton why Gretchen Morgenson's excellent suggestion (when she was on Terry Gross' Fresh Air) that there be retroactive financial PENALTIES for those who profited by their actions which helped to cause this financial collapse --why this isn't in this 'bailout bill'.
Thank you.
**Please ask** -- Any chance the bailout bill will include an extension of unemployment benefits?
Brian
Instead of buying the mortages, why not just buy all the homes and real estate?
Then let the people live there as renters? or rent to owners??
The (we) own actual real real estater as collateral instead of potentially worthless paper.
doctor david in Manhattan
Did she just say that if it wasn't pork for NYC you wouldn't have supported the $700 Billion?!
Just submitted this but might have gotten lost in the "Submit":POSSIBLE CORRECTION of Brian's statement at top of show with Andrea Bernstein in which he reported Senator McCain's having done better with women after debates and that flattening out now.....CORRECTION: morning after the debate NPR Morning Edition cited a morning after poll showing Obama polling 59% with women, McCain at 31%.(which certainly confirmed this woman's sense of an overall-contemptuous tone from Senator McCain during that debate)NPR further reported that morning that this response had been a prime objective of the Obama campaign going into the debate.
Brian, please ask Senator Clinton what is her opinion on Gov. Sarah Palin, and to please tell Senator Biden to please just be nice and smile alot and please not say to much and Gov. Palin will show her own inabilities. Thanks
Could you ask Senator Clinton why isn't the senate concerned about the value of the dollar, and if pumping 700 billion dollars into the economy mean that we are basically killing the dollar as a global currency?
I was for this bill and now I am against. There was no need for this additional $100 billion now. It can be done later, whoever is president.
Right now, they could have raised the FDIC limit from 100k to 250K and then twist a few arms. I think that one change, coupled with the stsggering market after the last failure to pass the bill would have been enough.
Once again, we're getting screwed
could we ask Senator Clinton her opinion about the lack of participation of third party candidates in the debates - for example they are all against the bailout package, arguably the most important issue of the day and there's no real discussion on the issue when both MaCain and Obama agree on the need for it - the debate is corporate sponsored and organized by a corporation owned by the democrats and republicans (not an uninterested party such as the League of women voters)
thank you
I want to address the comments (not on here today, yet) to the effect that Ms. Clinton is secretly hoping that the GOP will win the election. I sincerely doubt this is true. While I am and have been a strong Obama supporter, and I certainly don't agree with many of her positions, I believe that Hillary Clinton is a sincere Democrat. Saying this, one can still hear that she's still hurting from her defeat in the primaries.
One of the problems with the Paulson Fix (Is In) is that the SEC is going to allow the banksters (a term FDR used) to set the value of their toxic waste "financial instruments."
If the banks know that other banks are setting the value, and they think it's inaccurate, why will the suddenly trust the credit worthiness of those banks and feel comfortable loaning to them?
Would you readers loan to someone who could make up values of thier collateral??
Mark-to-Market is now Mark-to-Make Believe.
Sound like Congress, with Dems leading the way, are enabling the very Merry Banksters who got us into this Me$$.
Sarah Palin could not possibly have given the interview that Hillary Clinton just gave.
McCain should be ashamed of himself.
Good call Leonardo!...I am with ya brother.
What did Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama discuss on the floor of the Senate last night? The NY Times reported that they had a long conversation.
We should not let the horse out of the barn then hope we can manage it. Our representatives have already demonstrated many times over that they cannot or will not manage Wall Street. This 700 billion will be gone for good.
Didn't the federal reserve pump 600 billion dollars into the economy this week? i would like to know how exactly the senate is planning on paying for all of this? Why are we sacrificing the wealthfare of its citizens to save banks and their ceo's?
Infrastructure? Healthcare? all those programs are now down the toilet.
Hillary, it is trickle down economics--and the Dems are embracing it!
Re: healthcare. If there were problems before getting UHC (which Obama has never said he supports), we are in quicksand now and the more progressives and liberals fight for UHC, the farther down this bailout mess will suck us down.
UHC would help entrepreurs start new businesses and not have to worry about paying for employee health care. It would help workes take jobs with start ups and not worry about health care coverage should be business not make it. It's one thing to gamble with a job, especially if the worker feels he or she can get another; it's quite another to gamble with your health and your family's health.
How is she watching as a New Yorker?...now people from up state are New Yorkers?
The Paulson Fix (Is In) is scary to me--on Charlie Rose this week, Marty Feldstein said it most likely would not work, that what was needed was to pub a floor under foreclosures.
Then, Andrew Sorkin and Mort Zukerman came on and were for passage of The Fix. HOWEVER, they didn't think it would actually work, had no certainty it would. BUT, they were willing to take a flyer on it.
Wow! $700B to $1 Trillion flyer? I realize Wall Street types have to learn how to lose as well as win. But this is other people's money, not theirs.
Oh, yeah, that's right. That's how Paulson and his Merry Banksters worked their gigs on Wall Street....
I strongly support Hillary's proposals.
I don't have faith Obama does. Only hope.
Joe Corrao,
Isn't the state called New York as well?
I wanted to respond to the idea that as a Hilary supporter, if I choose not to vote for Barack it is because of racism. How silly! And how convenient! I will vote for Barack, as a matter of pragmatism, but I would like to suggest a few reasons why some others might not:
his lack of experience; I personally don't find him to be an eloquent speaker; I deeply resent his decision not to put Senator Clinton on the ticket, and I think it highlights some character flaws, such as a certain hubris and inflated sense of his personal power, and also an inability to let bygones be bygones (I found an echo of this in the way he dealt with the Rev Wright---as long as the Reverend was only insulting Jews and white people, he stood by him, but as soon as he insulted Obama personally, he renounced him, and the sense of personal affront clearly audible in Obama's voice). Finally, I think it is really annoying that it is ok to vote FOR Obama because of his blackness, but it is not okay to vote AGAINST him for the same reason. Both positions are equally racist.
Thank you
we are a nation in transition
Well, typing fast does mean beaucoup typos for me! Apoligies to those trying to figure out what I was saying...
I was typing really fast hoping Brian would ask some questions based on my comments. LOL.
jawbone,
Re; typos, "Apoligies" lol.
I'm still a fan
Comment #1--Where did the $700B figure come from?
A spokesman at Treasury said they pulled it out of the air, feeling they needed A Really Big Figure to impress Congress and get this passed. In testimony, I have read second hand, Paulson or Bernanke said $150B could get them through to January.
That may also have been pulled out of the air.
However, on a closed conference call to financial insiders, prior to the Monday vote in the House, Treasury told the banksters that it would take a couple weeks to get any of the money out, they wanted to see how things settled out, etcc., based on the assumption the banks and markets would feel better after the bill passed.
Why should we continue to rely on private banks?
These banks are now engaged in what used to be called a "strike by capital", refusing to finance even healthy companies, as well as municipal bonds, until they coerce a massive swindle.
Why not take that $ 700 billion, which no one in Congress or mainstream media would previously have considered allocating, &:
A) Shuttle money through an enhanced Small Business Administration to assist companies with any credit needs. This could employ many qualified, competent financial service workers thrown out by the "banksters".
B) Invest in massive infrastructure which would provide much in government contracts to large & small business alike
C) Direct money to the states for necessary programs, so that they are not dependent on the private capital markets
Check out the real discussion occurring for the past week on the Huffington Post at dailybrief@huffingtonpost.com
Source for Treasury guessing at $700B figure (quote follows--Hey, WNYC, how about making HTML tags usable on this site?):
http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html
some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy.
"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."
Background on when the Paulson Fix was planned for, from WH spokesman. Rather interesting in light of Treasury saying figure a Big Guess.
Actual quote follows URL--
http://www.rollcall.com/news/28599-1.html?type=printer_friendly
Asked during a telephone briefing for reporters today whether Bush was speaking with lawmakers, White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said the president is aware of their concerns but that Paulson is the salesman.
...
Fratto said it would be “unthinkable” for Congress not to pass legislation this week, asserting the result would be a “very, very serious situation” for the U.S. economy.
“It shouldn’t take much analysis to remember what happened last week, which was a very serious freeze-up in our credit markets,” Fratto said. “Our financial markets right now do not need uncertainty, they need increased certainty as to how this rescue plan is going to go forward — and that they can be sure that there is a plan to go forward — and that will begin the correction in our financial markets.”
[THE QUOTE ABOUT PLANNING]
Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials. He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.
Correction, or, rather, update:
I can't find a direct citation for Paulson or Bernanke saying $150B could take them to January. What I did find is a statement to effect in a post by Ian Walsh, who has written some good anlysis and suggestions about this Bis Me$$:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/29/give-paulson-150-billion-and-come-back-in-january-and-do-it-right-and-heres-how-to-do-it-right/
I'll keep trying to find a more direct quote or source. Oooops.
.
Why not have a provision to bail out the
NYCHA?
I have never been a huge Hilary supporter but I thought she gave an intelligent and lucid interview. I wish there were more like her in Congress.
jennifer,
Not surprising given the press she usually gets. Maybe you'll pay more attention to her deeds and less to the hype.
I thought Pain was ludicrous. She spouted platitude after platitude regardless of the question. The only thing she accomplished was not imploding. That has got to be a new low for evaluating candidates for public office!
In terms of substance she was nothing but slogans and contradictions. Government and taxes are bad. We must stop those greedy Wall St. evildoers. Who does she think is going to do that and how is it paid for? I refer you to Jon Stewart's bit the other night comparing McCain to Gollum. It was hysterical and right on. Palin just puts her smarmy, mean girl face on the same BS.
As to the commentators, I watched on PBS. When I heard David Brooks practically giggle with delight over how good Palin's performance was, one can only think it's his gonads responding not his brain.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.