The Stanford Daily

News





Comments about "Paulson defends economic policies"


<< Back to Paulson defends economic policies

6 Comments on this article:

Report as: spam offensive Ted Rudow III,MA on 3/10/08 at 11am

This morning President Bush said each one of us would get a $600 check. Now, if we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China, if we spend it on computers, most of the money will go to Korea or India.

If we spend it on gasoline it will all go to the Arabs.....and none of these scenarios will help the American economy. We need to keep that money here in America .....so the only way to keep that money here at home is to drink beer, gamble, or spend it on prostitution. Currently it seems that these are the only businesses still left in the U.S.!
The American people have been making war and making money in their war jobs and their high salaries at the expenses of the poor Iraqis. In fact, almost all American industries, even non-war industries, are making money at the expense of the poor of other nations of the world.
No ungodly leader can solve the problem of having both peace and plenty without war. God is the only One Who can give them peace and plenty at the same time.--I mean all that they need. As long as a nation demands more than they need, in other words more than plenty, they demand absolute excess, extravagant luxury.--They have to rob the poor to get it, and to rob the poor to get it they have to wage war. America has been living in luxury at the world's expense while other nations are starving.
Ted Rudow III,MA

Report as: spam offensive Albert Franklin on 3/10/08 at 1pm

Both India and China owe their economy to the United States right? The only problem I see now is if the Democrats take the White House, as they then start talkin about lending billions to the United Kingdom who by then will have abandoned the British Pound for the European Union's Euro!
With more banks and lending instution coming under fire for defrauding homeowners in the mother of all scams, as was presently explained above, all that needs to be done to get the New Dollar on tract is to add to it what other nations invest in the stock market instead of limiting it to either United States citizens or businesses. Another key point would be to make a constitutional change which allows banking instititions, manufacturers and transportation to combine into a single corporate body, so that the enjoined mechanism creates a viable avenue bywhich to maintain while it continues to stimulate the economy.

Report as: spam offensive Skeptical on 3/10/08 at 7pm

I would have thought that the level of discourse on economic subjects, at least at Stanford, would have been higher. The Daily's article summarizes comments by the Secretary of the Treasury, who happens to be a former co-CEO of Goldman Sachs, on challenges facing our country today and policy choices made by the Administration. I would have expected that an academic community with Nobel laureates in Economics and former high government officials involved with economic policy on its faculty would have generated more than populist platitudes with little relevance to the real world.

Report as: spam offensive Julieo on 3/12/08 at 12pm

What stimulus does Bush think $600 is going to give. To save a life one continues CPR until the medics arrive and can offer more support. Bush's "resuscitation package" amounts to about one heartbeat. It will change nothing. Does he think we are so uneducated or unaware as citizens that we buy that line?

Report as: spam offensive Albert Franklin on 3/21/08 at 1pm

1. Term Securities Lending Facility

2. Term Auction Facility

3. Center for Repsonsible Lending

http://www.responsiblelending.org/

4. President's Working Group on Financial Markets

5. House Financial Services Committee

6. Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights

7. Primary Dealer Credit Facility

A majority came out of Bush's new stimulus package. Hope it answered your question Julieo!

Report as: spam offensive efto1 on 3/22/08 at 10am

Maybe this might clear up this matter, but then again, maybe not!

[in regards to federali reaction to Bear Stearns]

1. Financial markets would have frozen accounts.

2. Banks would have shut their doors.

3. Federals would have lacked capital to cover nattionwide
on credit and money.

4. Gold would be valued at $2000 per ounce, yet nobody
could either buy or sell it.

5. Federalis would have been forced to develop capital
control.

6. Printing Presses would have then cranked out inlated
dollars.

7. It would have caused a massive economic downshift.

8. Money, homes and businesses would have been deemed
worthless.




(Comments are meant to provide a constructive way for users to interact online. Please keep discussion civil, and refrain from using profanity, personal attacks, potentially libelous language, or hate speech. The Stanford Daily is not responsible for any content that appears in the comment section of its Web site. The Daily is not responsible for monitoring the board or removing comments that could be in violation of the policy. The editors of the non-profit newspaper support a free exchange of ideas, even if beliefs expressed are controversial, but The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation claims all rights and sole discretion to delete or not delete any post for any reason at any time. If something is posted in the comment section of the Web site, the expressed view should not be understood as an endorsement by The Daily or any of its agents. All comments must comply with the “Terms and Conditions For Use” as set out in the “About us” section of the Web site, or they may be removed. By posting a comment, you attest that the material is not copyrighted and that you are fully relinquishing all rights of ownership to said content exclusively to The Daily while maintaining full responsibility for what you write.)