some people in the marketplace, especially some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, like to believe that it is still in existence.

The subsidy is coming because of market expectations that the government would bail out these firms if they failed, period. Those expectations are incorrect.

What I am saying is that by a more gradual approach but with more cuts in the longer term achieves both objectives, not slowing the recovery by too much, but on the other hand addressing these long-term issues.

I think that is probably the worst advice that is out there.

Is there a line item with that title?

I think that I would say that it is a difficult program to administer under the rules that it is structured under.

we don't want it to be here, it is not here.

Be prepared to get a request from me later on to try to do that quantification.

the law currently as drafted, after Dodd-Frank and after all of the things we have been through, today we do not have the tools that we used to implement too-big-to-fail as it was in 2008.

You said yesterday, and you will say today, that you believe the short-term benefits of the current loose monetary policy exceed the longer-term risks.

And this is precisely why I believe it is imperative that we fully implement the regulatory reforms within the Wall Street Reform Act in order to ensure that we never again experience a crisis like the one that occurred in 2008.