| 00:00:00 | WANTS TO TIE UP THE MONEY THAT IS NECESSARY, AND THEY ARE GOOD PEOPLE, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THIS WITHOUT THE ISSUES THAT WE SAW IN THE LAST FALL, WHEN THERE WERE A LOT OF PROVISIONS, AND THEY WERE VOTING THIS DOWN THE FIRST TIME. |
| 00:00:19 | DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD GIVE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE AUTHORITY TO COMMIT OVER A TRILLION DOLLARS, TO BAIL OUT THE IMPORTANT FIRMS, IN A TIME OF CRISIS, WITHOUT FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL. |
| 00:00:45 | >> IF YOU ARE IN THE EYE OF THE HURRICANE, YOU FIND YOURSELF DOWN BY TRADITIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. |
| 00:00:52 | >> DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE CONSTITUTION? |
| 00:00:56 | THE STORE LOYALTY TO WALL STREET MORE THAN YOUR LOYALTY TO -- TO THE CONSTITUTION? |
| 00:01:02 | IS YOUR LOYALTY TO WALL STREET > YOUR LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION. |
| 00:01:09 | >> EVERYTHING -- NOTHING IN MY PUBLIC LIFE WOULD LEAD PEOPLE TO THAT CONCLUSION. |
| 00:01:16 | >> DOES THIS SAY THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS SHOULD BE MADE TO CONGRESS AND THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT GIVE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO, STAND 1 TRILLION OR THREE TRILLION DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY WITHOUT ANY CONGRESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT? |
| 00:01:33 | DOES THIS BOTHER YOU AS AN AMERICAN? |
| 00:01:36 | >> CONGRESS HAS BEEN INTIMATELY INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. |
| 00:01:40 | OR WE WOULD NOT BE HERE. |
| 00:01:45 | >> BRIEFING A FEW CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS IS CONSTITUTIONALLY IRRELEVANT. |
| 00:01:50 | THE CONSTITUTION CALLS FOR VOTING ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS. |
| 00:01:55 | WHERE EVEN BALD PEOPLE FROM CALIFORNIA GET TO VOTE ON THIS. |
| 00:02:00 | FOR YOU TO SAY THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION ARE ACHIEVED BECAUSE A FEW CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS ARE BRIEFED -- >> YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. |
| 00:02:14 | >> THEN PERHAPS YOU SHOULD SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. |
| 00:02:17 | >> YOU ARE MISINTERPRETING -- I DO NOT KNOW THAT THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE FORUM TO ARGUE ABOUT CONSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT, FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL VALUE. |
| 00:02:31 | I BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS. |
| 00:02:35 | >> LET ME MOVE ON. |
| 00:02:38 | THERE IS AN ARGUMENT THAT THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE AN INSTITUTION THAT IS TOO BIG TO FAIL, IS TO HAVE A SYSTEM FOR BAILING THEM OUT IF THEY FAIL, AND THE HIGHER CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS. |
| 00:02:51 | THE OTHER APPROACH IS TOO LARGE TO EXIST. |
| 00:02:54 | WE COULD HAVE A RULE THAT SAYS, THAT NO COMPANY CAN ENTER INTO A CONTRACT THAT CAUSES THEM TO BE LIABLE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, FOR 1% OF THE GDP. |
| 00:03:07 | THIS COULD BE BINDING ON THE FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC FIRMS. |
| 00:03:11 | IF THE FIRM IS APPROACHING THIS LIMIT, THEY MAY CHOOSE TO BREAK UP, OR THEY CANNOT ENTER INTO A NEW CONTRACT WHICH OBLIGATED THEM. |
| 00:03:22 | IS IT BETTER TO HAVE A SYSTEM OF LARGER AND LARGER FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHERE PEOPLE KNOW THAT IF YOU ARE IN THE TOP FIVE YOU HAVE A 50% CHANCE OF A BAILOUT, OR IS IT BETTER TO SAY THAT YOU ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL AND THIS IS TOO BIG TO EXIST. |
| 00:03:44 | >> TOO BIG TO FAIL IS TOO BIG TO EXIST. |
| 00:03:48 | >> I WILL ASK HIM ABOUT THIS. |
| 00:03:53 | >> I AM NERVOUS ABOUT ANSWERING. |
| 00:03:57 | GIVEN WHAT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. |
| 00:03:59 | MY FEELING IS THAT IN THEORY, IT WOULD BE NICE TO SAY, IF YOU ARE TOO BIG |
Loading...