By Edward Niedermeyer
November 19, 2008
Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) spoke with NPR earlier today, and within a single question the bailout’s biggest backer was already undercutting his $25b pet project. “We don’t think it would be enough,” admits Frank, “If, on March 31, the president does not believe that this is going to get them the viability with energy efficiency cars, they have to repay the loan; they get no more money. If they can show by March 31 a plausible way to go forward, then we would consider giving more money, again, under equally stringent conditions.” NPR’s Steve Inskeep spends the rest of the interview trying to get Frank to make some sense… in vain. The best Frank ever offers is the cold comfort that his bailout plan is not as bad as the AIG bailout or the Iraq War. So, the bar’s clearly set pretty high.
Subscribe to New Content Alerts4 Comments on “ Rep. Barney Frank: “$25b Not Enough” ”
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BlinkList
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Furl
Google
Live
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
POWERED
November 19th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Barney Frank knows a lot about helping prostitutes sort out their business plans…
but helping the auto industry? not so much.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I’d be royally pissed if I was one of Barney’s constituents. This man has no moral center. He’s taking from those that run businesses well and giving to the incompetents.
Unless you diectly represent the auto workers that will be impacted by layoffs, I don’t see how you can make a cohesive argument for a bailout of companies that refused to bail themselves out of this mess.
Esp, when it’s the taxpayers you supposedly represent that will foot the bill.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:32 am
The U.S. government is nothing more than a well-organized extortion scam, backed up by men in suits with badges, sidearms, and a tax court.
November 20th, 2008 at 10:48 am
“If they can show by March 31 a plausible way to go forward, then we would consider giving more money, again, under equally stringent conditions.”
Under equally stringent conditions? What conditions are those? Don’t blow it all on booze, drugs, and women? Oh, wait, that really isn’t a condition for getting the money.