Presidential Address Wed 9-24-08 2100

Chief Bones

Forums Grumpy Old Man
President Bush will be addressing the nation tonight ( 9-24-08 ) where he is supposed to address the economic meltdown/crisis facing the nation.

Besides addressing the economy, what would YOU like to see/hear him say??????
 
Last edited:
"I will resign effective noon tomorrow." :D

Really, at this point Bush talking just sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown TV shows....
 
President Bush will be addressing the nation tonight ( 9-24-08 ) where he is supposed to address the economic meltdown/crisis facing the nation.

Besides addressing the economy, what would YOU like to see/hear him say??????

To be honest I can't think of a thing I would like him to say because at best he is just the messenger and I am not sure that I really want to hear more political pontificating, I would be just as happy if he shut up and left those who can fix things to their work.
 
What can be said? If anyone is guilty for this mess: he is. He is the one who deregulated everything so that the pigs on Wall Street could play high stakes roulette with other people's money. A word about the $700 Billion. That Money would most certainly go into the pockets of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.

Capitalism will always be greedy and it will always try and do anything it can to make more money. Its the nature of the beast. That's why you need regulation to keep these people in check so their insatible greed doesn't sink the economic ship and take everybody else with them.

Which is precisely what has happened.

So now Bush wants Congress to hand over a whopping $700 Billion with absolutely no congressional oversight and no strings attached. Especially the string that allows congress to end or limit the CEO salaries and "golden parachutes". The really winners of this bailout are GS and BoA who stand to make a killing when they buy out the de-evaluated shares of these failed banks.

Which is really want this fight in Congress is about.

And once again Bush is asking us to do this on trust, a commodity he has been bankrupt on for sometime. After all the lies and manipulations would be an idiot to trust him on anything, and remember with only 3 months left he has nothing to lose, he is going to try and give his pals the best deals he can before he goes.

We DO need a bailout because the risk of doing nothing might be worse. Remember our History. This was Herbert Hoover's error in 1929 when the stock market crashed and Hoover refused to bail out the banks. The laisser-faire attitude triggered the Great Depression. Lets not make the same mistake again.

We need a economic bailout, but NOT on the terms Bush wants.
 
Well - we're just selling our nuclear industry to a French company. Quite unbelievable. French and German companies already have our power companies and are stuffing us increasingly. They obviously don't want our banks!
 
What can be said? If anyone is guilty for this mess: he is. He is the one who deregulated everything so that the pigs on Wall Street could play high stakes roulette with other people's money. A word about the $700 Billion. That Money would most certainly go into the pockets of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.

Capitalism will always be greedy and it will always try and do anything it can to make more money. Its the nature of the beast. That's why you need regulation to keep these people in check so their insatible greed doesn't sink the economic ship and take everybody else with them.

Which is precisely what has happened.

So now Bush wants Congress to hand over a whopping $700 Billion with absolutely no congressional oversight and no strings attached. Especially the string that allows congress to end or limit the CEO salaries and "golden parachutes". The really winners of this bailout are GS and BoA who stand to make a killing when they buy out the de-evaluated shares of these failed banks.

Which is really want this fight in Congress is about.

And once again Bush is asking us to do this on trust, a commodity he has been bankrupt on for sometime. After all the lies and manipulations would be an idiot to trust him on anything, and remember with only 3 months left he has nothing to lose, he is going to try and give his pals the best deals he can before he goes.

We DO need a bailout because the risk of doing nothing might be worse. Remember our History. This was Herbert Hoover's error in 1929 when the stock market crashed and Hoover refused to bail out the banks. The laisser-faire attitude triggered the Great Depression. Lets not make the same mistake again.

We need a economic bailout, but NOT on the terms Bush wants.

Actually this problem started back in the mid 70's when banks and lending institutions lobbied congress to remove the restrictions imposed on them that were there to prevent what were going through now.

you want to prevent this from happening in the future? Here's a hint, Don't base your entire economy on weather or not a person can buy a house, an weather or not the oil companies will line their pockets at your expense.
Another point of mine that nobody seems to fully understand, if you want to analyze what a president does, you have to wait 8-10 years until the policies he starts actually take place and affect more than just the rich people.
 
1)Actually this problem started back in the mid 70's when banks and lending institutions lobbied congress to remove the restrictions imposed on them that were there to prevent what were going through now.

2)you want to prevent this from happening in the future? Here's a hint, Don't base your entire economy on weather or not a person can buy a house, an weather or not the oil companies will line their pockets at your expense.
3)Another point of mine that nobody seems to fully understand, if you want to analyze what a president does, you have to wait 8-10 years until the policies he starts actually take place and affect more than just the rich people.
1-Yes, but no laws were actually overturned until the late 1990s, during a strong push by Phil Gramm. So while I agree it's unfair to blame it all on Bush, the blame doesn't leave the party.
2-right now our economy is based on banks, most of which have failed. And do remember what happens when supercorporations go under. Remember the market disaster following the Enron collapse? or what's happened since Bear Stearns fell just a couple of months ago? Or the Panic of 1893, when the big railroads ate themselves until the exploded? One line of businesses failing affects the whole economy.
3-Somehow I feel this is a ploy to blame it all on Clinton.
 
What can be said? If anyone is guilty for this mess: he is. He is the one who deregulated everything so that the pigs on Wall Street could play high stakes roulette with other people's money. A word about the $700 Billion. That Money would most certainly go into the pockets of Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.

Capitalism will always be greedy and it will always try and do anything it can to make more money. Its the nature of the beast. That's why you need regulation to keep these people in check so their insatible greed doesn't sink the economic ship and take everybody else with them.

Which is precisely what has happened.

So now Bush wants Congress to hand over a whopping $700 Billion with absolutely no congressional oversight and no strings attached. Especially the string that allows congress to end or limit the CEO salaries and "golden parachutes". The really winners of this bailout are GS and BoA who stand to make a killing when they buy out the de-evaluated shares of these failed banks.

Which is really want this fight in Congress is about.

And once again Bush is asking us to do this on trust, a commodity he has been bankrupt on for sometime. After all the lies and manipulations would be an idiot to trust him on anything, and remember with only 3 months left he has nothing to lose, he is going to try and give his pals the best deals he can before he goes.

We DO need a bailout because the risk of doing nothing might be worse. Remember our History. This was Herbert Hoover's error in 1929 when the stock market crashed and Hoover refused to bail out the banks. The laisser-faire attitude triggered the Great Depression. Lets not make the same mistake again.

We need a economic bailout, but NOT on the terms Bush wants.

I agree we need the bailout. I also agree that the CEO's and other executives within the companies need to be told that, yeah this bailout does not include your salary. You guys are on your own.It was your greed and mismanagement that caused it. You live with the results.
 
I agree we need the bailout. I also agree that the CEO's and other executives within the companies need to be told that, yeah this bailout does not include your salary. You guys are on your own.It was your greed and mismanagement that caused it. You live with the results.

My sentiments exactly.
Another thing; what do you tell all the hard-working stiffs across America burdened with mortgages and loans for their kids tuition, etc. Oh, go to the back of the line, we have to take care of the rich people first?

They ought to throw all the jerks who got us into this mess with their greed, in jail and throw away the keys!
 
No don't throw em Jail. Make em get a job like the workin stiffs they screwed over. Let them figure out which bills are most important and let them shop at wally world, let them lose their tax loopholes.
 
Wolfen

OTG said it best. The roots of the problem does go back to the 70s, but what really changed was that in 1999 Phil Gramm (who will be most likely be US Secretary of Treasury if McCain wins) repealed the 1930 Glass-Steagall act which forbade Banks from owning securities or insurence firms. That was the trigger. Banks, securities, and insurence used to be seperated by law, it only took 10 years to remember why the law was enacted by FDR in the first place.

We didnt base our economy on the mortgage situation. Basically what happened that the Banks discovered that they could increase their profits by holding as many mortgages as they could. It didnt matter if the mortgage holder couldnt pay the debt back the banks would make money as long as the Real Estate Market continued to Climb. Unfortunatly the Real Estate bubble popped and the banks found themselves with debtors who couldnt pay the fixed mortgage rates which went up 400x.

Then came Bush's order not to regulate the financial markets too much, and voila Banks with too much power and no watchdog.

Lastly, thats true. BUT if you are a total nerd like I am and actually read the legislation you can pretty accurate see where the future lies with a President. Bush is not going to be a Harry Truman who policies that were aimed at the future but that the public only caught on 10 year later. Bush isnt that subtle, and History is going to hit him with a sledgehammer.

Tomtom

The problem is the 'working stiffs' with mortgages and loans was never invited into the government handout line in the first place. The Bush Economic Policies have been nothing but a pig feeding through for the extremely wealthy, the Financial insitutions, and Major Corporations. When John Q Citizen was finally invited at the end of this pig feast the taxpayer was given a shovel and told to clean up the mess.
 
1-Yes, but no laws were actually overturned until the late 1990s, during a strong push by Phil Gramm. So while I agree it's unfair to blame it all on Bush, the blame doesn't leave the party.
2-right now our economy is based on banks, most of which have failed. And do remember what happens when supercorporations go under. Remember the market disaster following the Enron collapse? or what's happened since Bear Stearns fell just a couple of months ago? Or the Panic of 1893, when the big railroads ate themselves until the exploded? One line of businesses failing affects the whole economy.
3-Somehow I feel this is a ploy to blame it all on Clinton.

I was in the Navy when Clinton was pres. I tend to believe that he cared more about screwing over the military than the country
 
I was in the Navy when Clinton was pres. I tend to believe that he cared more about screwing over the military than the country

But looking at McCains voting record on the military and veterans it is hardly very pro-military and you would elect him.

(I am a bit iffy on some of the links but I am assuming that the ones linking government sites directly are accurate)

In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.

September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.

July 2007: McCain voted against a plan to drawdown troop levels in Iraq. At the time, an ABC poll found that 63% thought the invasion was not worth it, and a CBS News poll found that 72% of respondents wanted troops out within 2 years.
March 2007: McCain was too busy to vote on a bill that would require the start of a drawdown in troop levels within 120 days with a goal of withdrawing nearly all combat troops within one year. Around this time, an NBC News poll found that 55% of respondents indicated that the US goal of achieving victory in Iraq is not possible. This number has not moved significantly since then.

February 2007: For such a strong supporter of the escalation, McCain didn’t even bother to show up and vote against a resolution condemning it. However, at the time a CNN poll found that only 16% of respondents wanted to send more troops to Iraq (that number has since declined to around 10%), while 60% said that some or all should be withdrawn. This number has since gone up to around 70%.

June 2006: McCain voted against a resolution that Bush start withdrawing troops but with no timeline to do so.

May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.

April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.

March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.

March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes. Jeez, McCain really loves those tax loopholes for corporations, since he voted for them over our veterans' needs.

October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000. To his credit, he also voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which he now supports making permanent, despite the dire financial condition this country is in, and despite the fact that he indicated in 2001 that these tax cuts unfairly benefited the very wealthy at the expense of the middle class.


I find it particularly odd that people push the argument that Democrats screw over the military and then argue for guys that are no better.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why Obama let McCain slide on his claim of helping vets during the debate. I found this on a comment about the debate online. Not sure how much is true but I know a lot of vets aren't happy with McCain. (I bolded the comment regarding eye contact - I noticed the same thing.)

Time and time again McCain keep serving up veteran's issues and how he supported them. Really??


Straight Talk & McCain's Support For the Military
McCain has repeatedly voted against amendments in the Senate that would have covered such important services as improving care at veterans hospitals, providing mental health services to soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse problems:
  • In 2006, McCain voted against the Kerry amendment that would eliminate increased fees and co-payments for veterans in the TRICARE health care program by raising the discretionary spending limit by approximately $10 billion. The provisions would have been fully offset by eliminating creating corporate tax breaks. [2006 Senate Vote #67, 3/16/2006]
  • McCain was one of only 13 Republicans to vote against an amendment that added over $400 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [2006 Senate Vote #98, 4/26/2006]
  • McCain voted against increasing funding for veterans health care by $2.8 billion in 2006. [2005 Senate Vote #55, 3/16/2005]
  • "The only thing missing was Obama calling McSame what he is flat out...''''''''a liar''''''''. "
We should be honest - McCain is a lying scumbag not just a liar... notice how he could not come up with a straight answer, never looked at his audience or Obama, and even at the end when Obama shook his hand and tried to look him in the eye, McCain could not make eye contact.


That IS the GOP mantra...8 recent years of proof there.
  • McCain joined his Republican Senate cohorts in opposing exempting all military personnel and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy cases. [2005 Senate Vote #13, 3/1/2005]
  • McCain opposed an amendment that would reduce from 60 to 55 the age at which certain members of the National Guard and Army reserves could receive retirement benefits. [2004 Senate Vote #136, 6/23/2004]
  • Senator McCain opposed $322 million in funding for "battlefield clearance and safety equipment for U.S. troops in Iraq." A reduction in Iraqi reconstruction funds would have funded the additional protection for troops in the battlefield. [2003 Senate Vote #376, 10/2/2003]
  • McCain voted against an amendment that would increase spending on the veterans health care program TRICARE by $20.3 billion over 10 years to members of the National Guard and Reserves. The increase would be offset by a reduction in tax cuts. [2003 Senate Vote #81, 3/25/2003]
  • McCain opposed an amendment that would have increased veterans spending by $13 billion from 1997-2002 to be offset by closing corporate tax preferences and reinstating expired taxes. [1996 Senate Vote #115, 5/16/1996]
And YES I am pissed that Obama did not mention this.


How about a trip down memory lane:
It is NOT difficult to find information as to McCain's voting record when he is dealing with military matters. Even a surface look at the record, puts the lie to his assertion he wholly supports military members (active and retired).

McCAIN IS NOT REALLY THE MILITARY'S BEST FRIEND.
 
Well I suppose I should play devils advocate here and ask is Obama any better?

It is all very fine to point the finger at one side or the other and say they liars (its a given they are politicians its in the job description) but it is only really relevant if one side is significantly different to the other, in any other case its just the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Last edited:
After reading about both of them, all I can say is this:

Obama = 6 of one.
McCain = half a dozen of another.
 
Back
Top