
Dr. Rivolo, you use some pretty strong language. You used the word 'reprehensible.' You used the word 'disingenuous' to describe the Marine Corps management of this project and this particular aircraft.
On the public record
Every politician on the site, every statement on file. Search, filter, and read the public record.
21,600+·quotes on file

Dr. Rivolo, you use some pretty strong language. You used the word 'reprehensible.' You used the word 'disingenuous' to describe the Marine Corps management of this project and this particular aircraft.

How are we going to pay for building a high-speed rail system in this country? I think, two ways.

I suggest that we create a national infrastructure bank, staffed by professionals... and rank projects on a cost-benefit analysis.

We can't make this effort building 100-mile-an-hour train systems, or else we're truly consigning ourselves to be a second-class Nation.

But Dr. Romer, you don't have any study that says, hey, that is the one variable that somehow would get our handles around the cost of rising health care?

We cannot put a price on a child's life; however, we can recognize that it is far more cost effective to proactively treat the symptoms of appendicitis rather than treat the results of a burst appendix.

The human face of health care reform is real; it is 46 million Americans and rising without any health insurance.

It is the fact that a child with appendicitis is five times more likely to die without health insurance, than if he or she was covered.

To begin with, in terms of health care costs you outlined the President's goals.

I urge you to come up with a number that reminds the American people of what that would be if we in fact do not have health care reform.

I think the other way that the two go together is just in a practical sense, that at a time when you are thinking about doing an expansion of care to the millions of Americans that are not covered now, that is a very natural time to do the…

There are some important signs of stability, some important signs of healing in the financial sector.

I am also concerned that if we fully fund that on the front end, though, with these major institutions, that pot of money could be too tempting for diversion for other purposes.

I actually believe systemic risk ought to be put in a council that would include the Fed, that would include the Treasury Secretary, that would include the prudential regulators, including the SEC, with an independent Chair and a staff…

I am also concerned about a resolution authority funding cost for nonfinancial institutions that then might be allocated against the banking industry.

I think we realize the responsibility that we have got to get it right; that if we mess this up, the unintended consequences to not only our economic recovery but the overall long-term financial stability for the world is really at stake.

I share a lot of my colleagues' concerns about this expansion of authority within the Fed.