Did Bush's economic crisis speech impress you?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:36 AM GMT
    He is such a lost cause. He so misled the country on Iraq who is going to believe him on this? He doesnt have a clue what he is talking about. If all his people are so damn smart, why didnt they avoid this? Now they are going to tell us that they instantly have a solution.

    The crisis is only catastrophic because it involves financial institutions, their top jobs, and their golden parachutes.

    But of course if we try to cut exec salaries and parachutes, then they might not cooperate....hello? How catastrophic can it be, if they can choose not to participate?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Sep 25, 2008 7:15 AM GMT
    I am at the point now where I CANNOT stomach this man for more than a ten second News clip
    He is a liar .. a criminal of striking proportions on so many fronts now that seeing his face on camera makes my stomach turn
    This one man has caused such misery and death that it's no longer funny
    His lies have caused thousands of deaths in Iraq
    His inactivity ... mayhem in the markets and with Katrina
    and his juvenile antics have made us a laughing stock on a global order

    bush-merkel-grope1.jpg

    We SO need him out of office icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 7:19 AM GMT
    I like wanda sykes speech on the bailout and that Palin woman better ..

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 8:35 AM GMT
    I didn't watch it. I'll listen for the NPR recap and read the New York Times recap. I cannot watch or listen to him without getting angry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 12:03 PM GMT
    Wanda Sykes is an idiot and obviously doesn't understand the situation.

    I was impressed with the president's speech, it laid it all out there for us.

    Since the mainstreet sentiment closely resembles that of Wanda Sykes there will probably not be much done. Businesses are already beginning to scale back and thousands of jobs are being lost and mainstreet still doesn't understand that we're just as much a part of the problem as wall street and Washington.

    Senators Dodd and Frank are stalling on a problem they helped create and I'm left wondering if it's just the Democrats trying to sabotage the economy or are they trying to cover their asses. Fannie Mae paid them both off quite well.

    Check this out; http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080925/pl_politico/13889;_ylt=Av_HQobDjYHcapSshT_4Dz9h24cA

    In my opinon, if those who took out mortgages they couldn't afford shouldn't get to keep their homes when they default.






  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 12:10 PM GMT
    The President is an utterly clueless, lying, sack of shit...period

    Congress is being blackmailed by Wall Street (many members of which should be indicted for fraud and racketeering). Wall Street bailout HA! What crap (and I trade financial instruments for a living)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 2:27 PM GMT
    John43620
    In my opinon, if those who took out mortgages they couldn't afford shouldn't get to keep their homes when they default.


    Those banks who gave out loans, who knew those people couldn't afford the terms also shouldn't get a bail-out. Just as guilty....Why not have it both ways? So the banks don't have to be held accountable but the people do? Very strange.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 2:30 PM GMT
    ActiveAndFit saidI like wanda sykes speech on the bailout and that Palin woman better ..


    "oversight?....I want receipts" ... icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 2:50 PM GMT
    John43620 said
    Senators Dodd and Frank are stalling on a problem they helped create and I'm left wondering if it's just the Democrats trying to sabotage the economy or are they trying to cover their asses. Fannie Mae paid them both off quite well.

    You mean they paid and STILL DO influence McCain though his campaign manager ..

    McCain is also busy trying to figure out what to do with his campaign manager icon_eek.gif .. I don't blame him for wanting to skip the debates ..
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/160713
    Unsevered Ties?
    Regulatory filings indicate that McCain campaign chief Rick Davis remains an officer with his lobbying firm.


    Rick Davis, John McCain's campaign manager, has remained the treasurer and a corporate director of his lobbying firm this year, despite repeated statements by campaign officials that he had ended his relationship with the firm in 2006, according to corporate records.

    The McCain campaign this week criticized news stories disclosing that, since 2006, Davis's firm has been paid a $15,000-a-month consulting fee from Freddie Mac, the troubled mortgage giant recently put under federal conservatorship. The stories, published Tuesday by NEWSWEEK, The New York Times and Roll Call, reported that the consulting fees continued until last month even though, according to two sources familiar with the arrangement, neither Davis nor anybody else at his firm did any substantial work for the payments. .....

    There is nothing illegal about getting money from a PAC since it is just a group of grassroots people. On the other hand, if you talk about getting money from the actual people that have influence in a company .. that would be John McCain!! (see below). The big thing about the latest news is that McCains campaign manager STILL works as a lobbyist and gets money from Fannie Mae. This is a conflict of interest to be a politician and have a Fannie Mae lobbyist on your payroll - not good at all especially with the false claims of John McCain.

    Everyone knows that campaign donations did not sink the economy. For that matter McCain is the recipient of 10 times more campaign donations than Obama when it comes to the top CEO's. The bulk of Obama's campaign money came from grassroots individuals. In this case EMPLOYEES of those companies donated more to Obama BUT the people who run the company (directors, lobbyists, etc) gave more to McCain. Here are "truer words"
    Fact Check: Did Obama 'profit' from Fannie and Freddie?
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-did-obama-profit-from-fannie-and-freddie/The New York Times has published a separate list looking at contributions from "directors, officers, and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" for the 2008 campaign cycle. That list — using figures from the Federal Election Commission — shows McCain receiving $169,000, while Obama received only $16,000.

    VERDICT
    Partially true, but misleading. Donations don't come from companies. A list of employee contributions puts Obama second, but a different list including lobbyists and directors shows McCain getting more.

    Also
    Not that it is wrong to receive campaign contributions and granted Obama has never claimed not to take contributions, but McCain received 10 times as much contributions from top CEO's as Obama ..
    http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/top-ceos-give-10-times-more-to-mccain-than-to-obama-2008-08-15.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:04 PM GMT
    What could possibly have said that would impress?
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Sep 25, 2008 3:09 PM GMT
    The reality is this: With an approval rating of 30% and the kind of bias in the country that we have now, Bush probably couldn't "impress" many in the country about a topic, even if he did have a grasp. His credibility was used up long ago with many in this country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:13 PM GMT
    Active and Fit, You think you really have a point there don't you? Well Lobbyists are like attorneys, they're hired to do a job. They get hired because they know what they're doing.

    That isn't the point though, the point is, the character of the individual we elect into a given office. So when Chris Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, and Barrack Obama, Democrat from Illinois take PAC money from Fannie Mae to the tune of $186,000.00 for Dodd, and Barrack Obama $102,000.00 it says a lot about their character. We aren't electing the lobbyist, we're electing the candidates. Fannie Mae isn't a grass roots organization and you're right, there's nothing illegal about getting PAC money. But it was the duty of Senator Dodd to keep tabs on Fannie Mae's business practices and Fannie Mae wasn't above board. What does that say about Senator Dodd, or Senator Obama?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:14 PM GMT
    ucla_matta saidWhat could possibly have said that would impress?


    Hi, I'm George and I'm an alcoholic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:16 PM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidThe reality is this: With an approval rating of 30% and the kind of bias in the country that we have now, Bush probably couldn't "impress" many in the country about a topic, even if he did have a grasp. His credibility was used up long ago with many in this country.
    And in view of all his bad ratings, he is still trying to subvert justice by trying to put the bailout out of reach of the courts .. terms of the bailout
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty-secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294.htmlDecisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
    It is amazing .. Bush is just crazy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:19 PM GMT
    This whole thing is a joke. Nobody wants to lend their own money (banks, brokers, investors, etc). So they want the government to give them some MORE (Trillions by the time they are done). WTF. Criminal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:20 PM GMT
    I watched the whole thing. Here are my thoughts:

    * The language was designed to scare people. To make them afraid to not support the cause. I didn't like the tactic.

    * The wording of his "how did everything end up this way" portion of the speech was carefully clinical, so as to avoid all political blame. It was like watching a person describe a murder scene in totally generic terms... leaving out the fact that the speaker was actually the person who was holding the bloody knife!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:20 PM GMT
    McGay said
    ucla_matta saidWhat could possibly have said that would impress?


    Hi, I'm George and I'm an alcoholic.




    Haha, shock/awe v. impressing are two entirely different entities ...

    But either way, no shock here on that statement
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:23 PM GMT
    FitExecutive said * The language was designed to scare people. To make them afraid to not support the cause. I didn't like the tactic.
    I guess the scare tactic has worked for bush many times .. but yeah Journalists are labeling it the "cry wolf" syndrome.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:26 PM GMT
    Fit Executive said:

    "The language was designed to scare people. To make them afraid to not support the cause. I didn't like the tactic"

    AKA: BLACKMAIL
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Sep 25, 2008 3:36 PM GMT
    Personally, I have a creepy feeling about the whole thing. I think part of the problem is that the average American just doesn't understand this whole debacle and all the implications that go with it. I also can't for the life of me wrap my mind around the "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency" part of the bailout deal. It just SCREAMS shady to me. Why should we, or anyone, agree to this? They can't be reviewed by anybody???? WTF?!?! Then everyone's trying to make us all think this is the worst thing since The Great Depression, and that this has to get passed immediately or it's like the end of the world economy as we know it so they can railroad this thing through to the tune of $700 Trillion??? WTF!?!? I'm glad they are taking their time and hammering out some of the specifics because what I heard early on sent nothing but RED FLAGS and a really queezy feeling about this.

    533.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 25, 2008 3:59 PM GMT
    John43620 saidWanda Sykes is an idiot and obviously doesn't understand the situation.

    I was impressed with the president's speech, it laid it all out there for us.

    Since the mainstreet sentiment closely resembles that of Wanda Sykes there will probably not be much done. Businesses are already beginning to scale back and thousands of jobs are being lost and mainstreet still doesn't understand that we're just as much a part of the problem as wall street and Washington.

    Senators Dodd and Frank are stalling on a problem they helped create and I'm left wondering if it's just the Democrats trying to sabotage the economy or are they trying to cover their asses. Fannie Mae paid them both off quite well.

    Check this out; http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080925/pl_politico/13889;_ylt=Av_HQobDjYHcapSshT_4Dz9h24cA

    In my opinon, if those who took out mortgages they couldn't afford shouldn't get to keep their homes when they default.





    It is stupid idiots like you that make me sick to my stomach. How can you be gay and Republican. That is like oil and water. GWB is the one who does not understand the problem. You Republican act as if Dems are the only one who take money from Lobbyist. Republicans play the blame game to distract people attention away from what they themselves are doing.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 26, 2008 6:17 AM GMT
    AzstreakerThat's how I feel exactly. I was sick of hearing the speach and turned it off. More lies. The bail out is really to save the investments of all the big boys....W. Buffet is one of them along with many others like Pulson himself who has vast holdings in the company that W. Buffet just put 5 billion in...drop dead~...LET THEM FAIL BOYS!!!


    Sure let them fail. But you know what you are suggesting? Do you really think that Wall Street is that isolated from the rest of the economy. Do you think that Wall Street got here alone? Who bought those houses and who took out those mortgages that are now going defunct? Yeah, maybe people were connived into taking them, but the aren't innocent. The guilt goes up and down the food chain, we all are collectively responsible, and we will be collectively responsible to get out of this mess -- I know that goes against the individual responsibility many or most feel, and feel themselves responsible, but that is not how society works. As a society we are collectively responsible for decisions, wrong ones, we made and wrong ones we allowed government to make or let use make, and wrong ones we let government and Wall Street make. And now we have to pay the uncomfortable price for all that easy credit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 26, 2008 6:43 AM GMT
    I think the average American does understand what has gone on. I think you should give them more credit than that.

    They understand only too well that this looks like these bankers are going to be given a blank cheque with no controls over what's done with it.

    That's why people are getting angry. And this deal will not help the poor little homeowners who took on loans they couldn't afford to pay back. They will still be forced out of their properties.

    The more this goes on the more I think these companies should be allowed to fail and go to the wall.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 26, 2008 6:51 AM GMT
    AzstreakerI am prepaid for a Depression if we have one and we should to reset the balance and scale of economies.

    My Grandfather lived through it and did fine.

    I am not in debt--100% clear....I have a savings plan, I have stored enough food for 3 months or longer. I have a cash reserves and it seems to me if Americans do not have any money to spend I can always go to Mexico and/or Canada...better yet. UAE. They all have plenty. In fact one of my biggest clients is a Mexican Billionaire. Gosh.....LOL


    And where has the money for those three months come from, and do you really think that that is separate from the current financial system? Mexico? You think that that won't be affected by the current situation? Where do you think their workers go? Yes, but after the money runs out then what? Do you think they'll be giving jobs to foreigners? And what sort of influx of workers will they have? The UAE? How are they not connected with the global financial system? Do you think things there will be unscathed by an economic meltdown? Will oil be what it is worth now -- and remember they have diminishing reserves which is part of the reason they are intent on transforming themselves into a financial center for the Middle East.

    Your grandfather may have done fine, but that is not guarantee that you will, and the escape valves you listed are no sure bet in what would follow and economic meltdown. You delude yourself in thinking you'd, as one individual, would be safe from a collapse of the financial markets.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 26, 2008 7:20 AM GMT
    AzstreakerDude, That's just it. I will be fine. I can go for a long time. Our economy is nothing like the great depression. They want us to think it would be. Even then the depression was not bad for everyone.....


    Maybe, but maybe not, but obvioulsy you don't care for those who, fault or no fault of their own wouldn't be -- not exactly an endearing quality, or one that makes anyone partial to you. And you still haven't explained how've you come to be fine -- so have many executives you left the current situation before things exploded. There are many who have made money who got out before things went South. Are they innocent? Are they sovereign individuals? Are they exempt from what is going on for Americans as a whole.

    I think you delude yourself that you'd be fine if things collapsed -- I don't think they will, but that is a possibility. But obvioulsy you think you will be fine and don't give a damn what happen to the rest of the country, fine citizen that you are. Worrying only about self is not how a country works, or how any country got to where it is. You may argue that you are a sovereign individual, but that doesn't hold weight anywhere, as sovereign individuals can't depend on help or benefits from any country or any sector -- Americans aren't sovereign individuals, they are part of the American nation of have an interest in protecting the nation as a whole.