Date: 9/24/2008 9:18:49 PM
Author:strmrdr
My opinion is its a bunch of BS and not a dime of taxpayer money should be spent.
All the bail out is going to do is prolong the problem and tank the dollar.
Easy credit caused the problem it is not the solution.
My opinion of him has changed somewhat.Date: 9/24/2008 9:23:57 PM
Author: Linda W
Date: 9/24/2008 9:18:49 PM
Author:strmrdr
My opinion is its a bunch of BS and not a dime of taxpayer money should be spent.
All the bail out is going to do is prolong the problem and tank the dollar.
Easy credit caused the problem it is not the solution.
Karl, I have always thought he was an idiot. My opinion has not changed.
Linda
agree!!Date: 9/24/2008 9:18:49 PM
Author:strmrdr
My opinion is its a bunch of BS and not a dime of taxpayer money should be spent.
All the bail out is going to do is prolong the problem and tank the dollar.
Easy credit caused the problem it is not the solution.
Warning that 'a long and painful recession' could occur if Congress does not act quickly, Mr. Bush said the consequences could play out in 'a distressing scenario,' including potential bank failures, job losses and inability for ordinary Americans to borrow money to buy cars or send their children to college.
and i thought 9/11 gave him the the opportunity to do just what he wanted to do all along.Date: 9/24/2008 9:46:09 PM
Author: strmrdr
My opinion of him has changed somewhat.Date: 9/24/2008 9:23:57 PM
Author: Linda W
Date: 9/24/2008 9:18:49 PM
Author:strmrdr
My opinion is its a bunch of BS and not a dime of taxpayer money should be spent.
All the bail out is going to do is prolong the problem and tank the dollar.
Easy credit caused the problem it is not the solution.
Karl, I have always thought he was an idiot. My opinion has not changed.
Linda
I thought he was a decent guy who had anything he may have wanted to do for the country derailed by 9-11 and while not the best president he was far from the worst.
Tonight I feel he is much closer to the worst and this blunder will be right up there with the ones that Carter did.
C''mon Deborah, you know that personal responsibility is completely passe, especially for the very rich.Date: 9/24/2008 10:56:59 PM
Author: AGBF
I heard about the speech for the first time here, Karl. So I went to read about it at the website for, ''The New York Times''. Here is an excerpt from their lead article on the speech:
September 25, 2008
President Issues Warning to Americans
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
WASHINGTON —
''President Bush appealed to the nation Wednesday night to support a $700 billion plan to avert a financial meltdown on Wall Street, and he invited both major presidential candidates to join him and Congressional leaders at the White House on Thursday to forge a bipartisan compromise.
Warning that ''a long and painful recession'' could occur if Congress does not act quickly, Mr. Bush said the consequences could play out in ''a distressing scenario,'' including potential bank failures, job losses and inability for ordinary Americans to borrow money to buy cars or send their children to college.
''Fellow citizens, we must not let this happen,'' he said.''
I was stunned to read the president making such a speech. He has been running this economy! He came up with the strategy of tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens while spending like a drunken sailor! (At least he spent freely on wars that could provide lucrative contracts to Halliburton, not on social programs-including medical care for veterans or renovations at Walter Reed Army Hospital where patients had to trek around in the snow!) I mean, this economy has been under his care! Now he''s telling us that unless we support a rescue package for the big financial institutions that we will be unable to borrow money to buy cars or send our children to college because banks will fail? I mean, excuse me? Whose fault is this? Shouldn''t we be looking at the guy who was at the helm for the past eight years?
Deborah
He had also accumulated 3.23 million shares of Goldman''s common stock worth $492 million, plus restricted shares worth $75.2 million and options to purchase 680,474 shares, according to a Goldman regulatory filing on July 2, 2006.
Paulson wasn''t required to pay a 20 percent tax penalty on some of his compensation from Goldman under an Internal Revenue Service rule that waived the tax on executives forced to sell stock to comply with government ethics rules.
Hmm....there''s a theme here: the guillotine was dancing through my head as well. I''m feeling very FRRRRRRRENCH and very peasant-y at the moment...Date: 9/24/2008 11:23:20 PM
Author: movie zombie
ah, another very angry soul!
i''ve got the wood if you want to start building that wooden stock..........or maybe we should take a lesson from the french revolution: guillotine!
this bunch has pretty much said that they''re above it all and shouldn''t have to pay a price, much in the vein of sayiing let them eat cake.
movie zombie
Not defending lack of personal responsibility, but given the proper marketing and inducement, almost anyone can be fleeced. We don''t get all PO''d at the elderly when they are trusting. Why are we so angry at those people who were genuinely too dumb to know what was going on? The people selling these hideously complex and opaque loans were CON MEN no matter what nice mortgage company or bank they worked for, in many instances marketing HARD, selling the American dream to people who probably never had a hope of every having anything let alone a home, many of them. Those con men...companies...did not do even the lightest due diligence to make sure these people could afford the loans - - why should they? They didn''t have to actually KEEP any part of them! I even read of one guy who worked for Countrywide, who tried to do that very thing - to tell his bosses that hey! this or that guy can''t afford this loan! He was FIRED. Heck, some of them got loans with no income whatsoever. When one party is stupid or deceived, and the other party is amoral or just plain evil, who bears the greater burden? The person with the greater knowledge in my book.Date: 9/24/2008 11:24:56 PM
Author: diamondfan
I think that ship has sailed. I doubt many would look at Bush''s legacy with admiration, but the issue is he is leaving office and leaving this on our doorstep. Finger pointing is not of use, we need to stop the free fall and make sure whoever wins in November this is a huge priority. Sadly, neither candidate is a great economic strategist so hey, it is really going to be interesting.
I get looking at Bush and scratching your head, he steered the ship into the rocks and is now jumping ship and complaining about the state of it, when he is the cause on many levels. But he also was not the one spending each person''s money and people were able to buy homes when they really could not afford them and run up huge bills, which is not his fault totally. Yes, making it easy breezy to do it does not help those with no fiscal discipline, but again, we cannot always be thinking about those who might not be able to handle paying their loans back etc. Personal responsibility does come into play here too. If you cannot afford it, do not buy it.
ah, diamond, you have hit the nail on the head!Date: 9/25/2008 12:44:14 AM
Author: diamondfan
...... it is simply a huge cluster.
Deborah, that''s all I could think when I heard him talking. I got so angry listening to him in the car that every other word that came out of my mouth needed to be censored. I can''t believe this crap.Date: 9/24/2008 10:56:59 PM
Author: AGBF
I was stunned to read the president making such a speech. He has been running this economy! He came up with the strategy of tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens while spending like a drunken sailor! (At least he spent freely on wars that could provide lucrative contracts to Halliburton, not on social programs-including medical care for veterans or renovations at Walter Reed Army Hospital where patients had to trek around in the snow!) I mean, this economy has been under his care! Now he''s telling us that unless we support a rescue package for the big financial institutions that we will be unable to borrow money to buy cars or send our children to college because banks will fail? I mean, excuse me? Whose fault is this? Shouldn''t we be looking at the guy who was at the helm for the past eight years?
Deborah
When I was doing consumer law, there were cases where the CON MEN lied about the person''s salary without their knowledge in order to make sure they were approved for loans they obviously could not afford. Ugh, it all makes me so sick.Date: 9/24/2008 11:41:35 PM
Author: ksinger
Not defending lack of personal responsibility, but given the proper marketing and inducement, almost anyone can be fleeced. We don''t get all PO''d at the elderly when they are trusting. Why are we so angry at those people who were genuinely too dumb to know what was going on? The people selling these hideously complex and opaque loans were CON MEN no matter what nice mortgage company or bank they worked for, in many instances marketing HARD, selling the American dream to people who probably never had a hope of every having anything let alone a home, many of them. Those con men...companies...did not do even the lightest due diligence to make sure these people could afford the loans - - why should they? They didn''t have to actually KEEP any part of them! I even read of one guy who worked for Countrywide, who tried to do that very thing - to tell his bosses that hey! this or that guy can''t afford this loan! He was FIRED. Heck, some of them got loans with no income whatsoever. When one party is stupid or deceived, and the other party is amoral or just plain evil, who bears the greater burden? The person with the greater knowledge in my book.Date: 9/24/2008 11:24:56 PM
Author: diamondfan
I think that ship has sailed. I doubt many would look at Bush''s legacy with admiration, but the issue is he is leaving office and leaving this on our doorstep. Finger pointing is not of use, we need to stop the free fall and make sure whoever wins in November this is a huge priority. Sadly, neither candidate is a great economic strategist so hey, it is really going to be interesting.
I get looking at Bush and scratching your head, he steered the ship into the rocks and is now jumping ship and complaining about the state of it, when he is the cause on many levels. But he also was not the one spending each person''s money and people were able to buy homes when they really could not afford them and run up huge bills, which is not his fault totally. Yes, making it easy breezy to do it does not help those with no fiscal discipline, but again, we cannot always be thinking about those who might not be able to handle paying their loans back etc. Personal responsibility does come into play here too. If you cannot afford it, do not buy it.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&artnum=1&issue=20080918Date: 9/25/2008 12:44:14 AM
Author: diamondfan
K, it is simply a huge cluster. This begat that and here we are. Who would not want to be a home owner, and all it takes is unscrupulous con artists to put the plan into motion. I am not saying who is all to blame, it took two to be in that dance. But I agree that the cons took total advantage of people perhaps being naive and gullible.
Everyone knows that almost every member of Congress has received money from Freddie & Frannie at some point in their careers, that's how these organizations operate within the federal government. However, it very clear that this mess was not started by Republicans, namely, Bush, although it has not been stopped by them. Hopefully the next President will do something to make sure this doesn't happen again - I bet Congress is listening now.Date: 9/25/2008 10:43:49 AM
Author: MoonWater
I smell a rat too, it's called lack of details: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
Maybe I need to re-read this thread but I don't recall anyone claiming it was started by Republicans. The point is HOW the survey was done, meaning if the same was done for my firm, it would appear that they donated to Obama through me, an individual citizen. It seems more than a little ridiculous to report "such n such recieved this amount from X corporation" as if it was PACs or something equally influential. It is especially silly with someone who has recieved such an enormous amount of donations that it pales in comparison with the corporation in question.Date: 9/25/2008 10:57:22 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
Everyone knows that almost every member of Congress has received money from Freddie & Frannie at some point in their careers, that's how these organizations operate within the federal government. However, it very clear that this mess was not started by Republicans, namely, Bush, although it has not been stopped by them. Hopefully the next President will do something to make sure this doesn't happen again - I bet Congress is listening now.Date: 9/25/2008 10:43:49 AM
Author: MoonWater
I smell a rat too, it's called lack of details: http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
Yeah, I would suggest scrolling up a few posts to where people claim that Bush is the reason for the crisis because he was the one "running" the economy (that's why I said "namely, Bush" was not the target to blame. Everyone knows that the state of the economy doesn't just happen overnight (even if it seems that way) and it hasn't even been happening only in the last eight years - this has been brewing since Carter. Good intentions? Sure, but lousy execution. It's your opinion that the numbers are insignificant, but if you combine the number of contributions given to people specifically linked to supporting increased loans to highly unqualified poor people and fighting against regulation of F&F it is quite telling IMHO.Date: 9/25/2008 11:00:38 AM
Author: MoonWater
Maybe I need to re-read this thread but I don't recall anyone claiming it was started by Republicans. The point is HOW the survey was done, meaning if the same was done for my firm, it would appear that they donated to Obama through me, an individual citizen. It seems more than a little ridiculous to report 'such n such recieved this amount from X corporation' as if it was PACs or something equally influential. It is especially silly with someone who has recieved such an enormous amount of donations that it pales in comparison with the corporation in question.
Interesting, I must have missed a few words in Deborah''s post because what I got out of it was how ridiculous his urgency appears to be considering he was the leader of the nation for the last 8 years. If he saw all of this happening, he could have pulled this stunt BEFORE it happened instead of telling us all that now, after the crap hit the fan, that we need to pay attention and chip in our tax dollars. If he knew all of this was happening, he should NOT have given out those tax breaks which benefited the wealthest of us (seriously, that $600 was great but I would not have missed it knowing our country needed it), while also spending billions on a war that never should have been started. So pardon if some of us are highly annoyed at his urgency now as if this happened all of a sudden.Date: 9/25/2008 11:19:15 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
Yeah, I would suggest scrolling up a few posts to where people claim that Bush is the reason for the crisis because he was the one ''running'' the economy (that''s why I said ''namely, Bush'' was not the target to blame. Everyone knows that the state of the economy doesn''t just happen overnight (even if it seems that way) and it hasn''t even been happening only in the last eight years - this has been brewing since Carter. Good intentions? Sure, but lousy execution. It''s your opinion that the numbers are insignificant, but if you combine the number of contributions given to people specifically linked to supporting increased loans to highly unqualified poor people and fighting against regulation of F&F it is quite telling IMHO.Date: 9/25/2008 11:00:38 AM
Author: MoonWater
Maybe I need to re-read this thread but I don''t recall anyone claiming it was started by Republicans. The point is HOW the survey was done, meaning if the same was done for my firm, it would appear that they donated to Obama through me, an individual citizen. It seems more than a little ridiculous to report ''such n such recieved this amount from X corporation'' as if it was PACs or something equally influential. It is especially silly with someone who has recieved such an enormous amount of donations that it pales in comparison with the corporation in question.
Anyway, again, I agree with Karl that credit needs to be taken AWAY, not increased. Giving people too much leeway/money was the problem to begin with.
More transparency.Date: 9/25/2008 11:23:13 AM
Author: Starset Princess
How do we make people and companies and government accountable? Just because you can doesn''t mean you should...
Date: 9/25/2008 11:19:15 AM
Author: IndyGirl22
Yeah, I would suggest scrolling up a few posts to where people claim that Bush is the reason for the crisis because he was the one 'running' the economy (that's why I said 'namely, Bush' was not the target to blame. Everyone knows that the state of the economy doesn't just happen overnight (even if it seems that way) and it hasn't even been happening only in the last eight years -
...
but if you combine the number of contributions given to people specifically linked to... fighting against regulation....
"THE Federal Reserve chairman and senior economic officials of the Bush administration solemnly filed into the large conference room of the Treasury Department. There was a sense of urgency, an understanding that drastic action — restructuring the financial landscape of corporate America — was desperately needed.
Last week? Last night, as the president and his advisers prepared for his address to the nation? Hardly. It was Feb. 22, 2002. The officials were President Bush’s original economic team, including the Securities and Exchange Commission’s chairman, Harvey Pitt; Glenn Hubbard, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers; and the senior White House economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey. The Federal Reserve chairman, of course, was Alan Greenspan.
The crisis of that moment was the implosion of Enron, Global Crossing and other companies. Along with conflicts of interest and criminally creative bookkeeping, the culprit was often a combination of financial complexity and insanely expensive compensation packages.
(snip)
The meeting, recounted to me by Paul O’Neill, Mr. Bush’s first Treasury secretary, and several other participants, was something of a showdown. Everyone came armed for battle, none more than Mr. Greenspan and Mr. O’Neill, who railed that day like a pair of blue-suited Jeremiahs. Their colloquy on economic policy and corporate practice, which began when they were senior officials in the Ford administration, had evolved over three decades.
To the surprise of many younger men in the room, the duo opened by reminiscing about a bygone era when the value of a company’s stock was assessed by how strong a dividend was paid. It was a standard that demanded tough, tangible choices. Everything, of course, came out of the same pot of cash, from executive compensation and capital improvements to the dividend — which could be spent by a shareholder or reinvested in more company stock as a show of support.
In contrast to dividends, Mr. Greenspan intoned, 'Earnings are a very dubious measure' of corporate health. 'Asset values are, after all, just based on a forecast,' he said, and a chief executive can 'craft' an earnings statement in misleading ways.
Speaking with a hard-edged frankness rarely heard in public — and seeing that those assembled were not sharing his outrage — Mr. Greenspan slapped the table. 'There’s been too much gaming of the system,' he thundered. 'Capitalism is not working! There’s been a corrupting of the system of capitalism.'
Mr. O’Neill, for his part, pushed to alter the threshold for action against chief executives from 'recklessness' — where a difficult finding of willful malfeasance would be necessary for action against a corporate chief — to negligence. That is, if a company went south, the boss could face a hard-eyed appraisal from government auditors and be subject to heavy fines and other penalties. By matching upside rewards with downside consequences — a bracing idea for the corner office — Messrs. O’Neill and Greenspan hoped fear would compel the titans of business to enforce financial discipline, full public disclosure and probity down the corporate ranks.
But they were in the minority. Mr. Pitt, the S.E.C. chairman, voiced concern that creation of a new entity to assess negligence by corporate honchos might draw power away from his agency. Lawrence Lindsey said, “There’s always the option of doing nothing,” that the markets are “already discounting the stocks in companies that show accounting irregularities.”
An article about the meeting appeared a few days later in The Wall Street Journal. The next day, Mr. O’Neill was in Florida addressing chief executives of America’s top 20 financial services companies. They piled on. One told the Treasury secretary that he’d 'rather resign' than be held accountable for 'what’s going on in my company.' A phalanx of outraged financial industry chiefs, many of them large Republican contributors, called the White House. Real reform was a political dead letter.
A presidential speech that followed was toothless, mostly recommending that chief executives personally certify their companies’ financial statements. Earnings per share remained the gold standard. The Sarbanes-Oxley bill, signed into law a few months later, largely focused on the auditors, and actually increased the complexity of reporting practices. As for lawsuits? Not to worry. No significant rise.
At issue, of course, were those twins, transparency and accountability. The years since have shown that the first one is meaningless without the second. With a world financial crisis upon us, the president and his economic team are forced again to talk about accountability. Let’s hope this time they mean it.
Ron Suskind is the author of 'The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill' and 'The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism.'"
Yeah, there is a bunch of blame to go around. I say that it's not all the Republicans' fault and then I get a reply saying that no one is saying that but then right after someone says exactly that! Haha classic.Date: 9/25/2008 3:54:08 PM
Author: mrssalvo
I think there is enough blame to go around. From Bush to Barney Frank. If Bush didn't start the mess he sure didn't do anything to stop it and is making a worse mess of it now. and I voted for him. I'm disappointed to say the least. I honestly don't agree with Obama or McCain either on the bailout