'This Week' Transcript: Stimulus Debate

GRAHAM: A $1.1 trillion debt passed onto the next generation is something to quibble about. The tax provisions that would have created jobs were gutted. The Isakson amendment was gutted. It was a $15,000 refundable tax credit...

SCHUMER: You didn't vote for the bill.




SCHUMER: He didn't vote for the bill when it was in there.

GRAHAM: ... so you punish the taxpayer? You punish the person trying to buy a home?

SCHUMER: No, no, we're going to get a better provision.

GRAHAM: The carry loss back provision for business was $67 billion in the Senate. The compromise version was $4 billion. The tax provisions that would have created jobs were replaced by spending. Four hundred dollar checks goes to the consumer. It's about $8 in a check -- in a pay period. We tried this last year. That's not going to create any jobs.

WATERS: That's only one portion of this bill.

GRAHAM: That's most of the tax cuts.

WATERS: No, it's not all of the tax cuts.


SCHUMER: And let me say one other thing.

GRAHAM: You gutted the tax provisions for business.

SCHUMER: On the floor of the Senate -- where there was an open process, Peter -- but on the floor of the Senate, I heard over and over again, "This is a trillion dollars that we're not paying for it." I never heard that mentioned when it came to the Iraq war, which is $1 trillion which we're not paying for. I never heard it mentioned when George Bush changed a surplus of $300 billion into a deficit of over $800 billion.


SCHUMER: So -- so all of a sudden, all of a sudden...


SCHUMER: ... the reason to be against this is deficit spending. But when it was Iraq war or tax cuts for the highest-income people, we never heard it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I think we heard a lot of different reasons to be against it (ph), and I want to move on to the banks.


KING: ... Iraq war, too, Chuck.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to the banks, because this is the next big issue coming.

GRAHAM: This is a big issue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And, you know, what we're seeing is many more economists that -- as I talked about, Secretary Geithner's plan had several different elements, setting up a new public-private partnership to buy these toxic assets, new capital injections to the bank, didn't say how much money would be required, a new stress test for the banks, but we all saw that reaction in the markets.

Now, they may have reacted about it because they didn't get what they were hoping for, which was a big bailout. But a lot of economists now are saying that what is really -- what could be needed, is, bite the bullet, nationalization.

Nouriel Roubini, one of the men who saw the -- the crisis coming, said nationalization is the answer in today's Washington Post. President Obama says no.


OBAMA: Sweden has a different set of cultures in terms of how the government relates to markets, you know, and -- and America's different. And we want to retain a strong sense of private capital fulfilling the core investment needs of this country.


STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Congresswoman Waters, Mr. Roubini and others say we're all Swedes now, that we should just do what they did when they faced their crisis. They nationalized the banks, and they came out of it OK.

Join the Discussion
blog comments powered by Disqus
You Might Also Like...