home

Bush Talks

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:02:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Recently, President George Bush had been doing a Greta Garbo imitation. Personally I would love to leave George Bush alone, if he would leave the country alone. But alas, that is not to be just yet.

Tonight at 9:00 pm, Bush emerges from seclusion to tell the country how important it is that we do something about the Wall Street crisis. I assume he won't be asking for the "clean bill" Treasury Secretary Paulson proposed this weekend. But maybe he will - the man is insane.

In any event. any time we see Bush, it is good for Democrats politically. So welcome back President Bush. We'd like to see more of you the next 40 days. After that, I assure you, we will let you alone.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< If McCain Can't Debate, How Come He Can Appear At Clinton's Global Initiative? | Bush and McCain In Sync : Henny Penny and Chicken Little >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bush Talks | 87 comments (87 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    McCain should have rushed to (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:29:50 PM EST
    D.C. earlier, armed w/duct tape.  After that "house of cards" analogy, McCain shouldn't let Bush anywhere near a mic or a reporter.

    The GOP might want to lose this election. (3.66 / 3) (#3)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:38:28 PM EST
    The GOP will throw rotten veggies at the Dems from the sidelines as our side attempts to diligently figure a way to save capitalism and lose the next election in 2012.

    Parent
    Merca.... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:36:24 PM EST
    ...hand ovah yer monay to thee CEos that ran their corporations into the ground.  God Bless You all.

    new stuff (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:40:16 PM EST
    Bush just invited Obama to DC to work on the bailout tommorrow and Obama accepted.

    Playing the Apocalypse Card (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:42:00 PM EST
    Be afraid!

    Be very afraid!

    DO EXACTLY WHAT WE TELL YOU AND NO ONE WILL GET HURT.

    No, but really.

    We mean that.

    Seriously.

    Yup.

    Too late. A lot of hurt out there (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:24:40 PM EST
    when in my city today, we read that we had to lend money to students at our technical school to not get kicked out of school.  They had been promised student loans -- not much, as the school is cheap, but these are people without much at all.

    Why didn't they get their student loans before this?

    The bank -- a big, national company in the student-loan business -- couldn't beg or borrow the money to cut the checks.

    It's too late for jokes.  The hurt is here.  

    Parent

    Directive to slash .5 billion from (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:30:17 PM EST
    this years budget and 1 billion for next year's came down yesterday. property taxes going back up the 7% that was recently cut. And this after Bloomberg has been putting money aside just in case . . .

    Parent
    Not to put too fine a point on it. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:33:14 PM EST
    But we're doomed.

    Parent
    Yeah, looks like he saw a rainy day (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:40:27 PM EST
    but we may get a hurricane instead. I feel bad for the schools. I'm guessing the ASPCA will help out the city shelter as they have in the past, but I'll be looking to see where they need help along with the schools. Least I can do.

    Parent
    Don't worry about the dogs. . . (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:51:38 PM EST
    Leona Helmsley left them eight billion dollars.

    The schools, you can can worry about.

    Parent

    It's the students (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:58:05 PM EST
    even more than the schools.  It's not just teachers and buildings, it's the future.

    College enrollments went up in the Great Depression.  Up.  Because the government helped them, because we knew then that the more we give to education, the more that students will give back -- but especially if they get to graduation.

    When students close to graduation, to getting better incomes to pay more taxes, are stopped -- that's the largest loss in our the most important investment we can make.

    Let's have every one of these bank CEOS with the big paychecks pull out their personal checkbooks and cut a student's loan check, since these bank CEOs screwed up so much that they're not cutting student loan checks.

    Parent

    They'll be dead before a drop of that (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:03:36 PM EST
    is ever distributed. And it will most likely go to national orgs and only a portion of what she wanted.

    I'm thinking about starting an adopt a classroom program in my 'hood. We have a lot of schools around me. It's sad because they have all been getting overhauls and things were looking up. The one across from me has gone from dangerous to productive. Hate to see that interrupted.

    Parent

    I have two daughters in (none / 0) (#57)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:05:32 PM EST
    public school in Harlem.

    I believe as long as Bloomberg is there that the schools will be protected from the worst of it (education is his legacy).  But he's not there that much longer.

    Long article on the Helmsley bequest in this week's New Yorker, I think you may be able to read it on line.

    Parent

    Thanks for the heads up on the article! (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:23:56 PM EST
    Yeah, I do think Bloomberg will do his best to protect the schools. He still needs the budget cut though. I was thinking if we could rustle up donations for the school supplies (be it janitorial, student supplies or whatever else may get trimmed) it might help. I think when he leaves office, he'll still be involved in growing the schools forward along with all the green work he's doing.

    He's also been helpful with the city going no-kill on the shelter pet issue. The difference between him and Rudy is currently 20,000 more pets staying alive per year and moving forward. The shelters were just horrid when he took over. I would be on my way to pull dogs (Dalmatian rescue) and get calls not to bother, they had been killed. I had a file folder full of dogs that I was trying to save that were dead. It was insane and just downright wrong. And that was by far not the worst of it.

    Parent

    I always remember (none / 0) (#77)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:23:37 AM EST
    where the real fault lies - irresponsible pet owners for the vast majority of homeless pets.

    The economy is taking its toll though.  I'm looking at Anatolian shepherd puppies (purebred!) online who came from a household who couldn't afford to keep them.

    Parent

    There's a character in a show called (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:42:43 PM EST
    Dad's Army and there's this dour Scot Private called James Frazer (Coffin Maker)who's always saying:

    "we're Dooooooomed!" in a thick brogue. It's good stuff.

    Corporal Jone's balances it out by saying

    "don't PANIC!"

    John Le Mesurier is also an understated genius as the gentle Sergeant Wilson.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dad's_Army

    Parent

    As Ed Grimley used to say (none / 0) (#70)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:52:00 PM EST
    "we're doomed as doomed can be."

    Parent
    That's a nice directive for your city (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:31:25 PM EST
    but it's thousands of miles from mine -- which already is in trouble.  I was talking college loans, you're talking K-12 -- okay.  Property taxes soared here in recent years because we have had to pay for two public school systems, the usual one plus the private schools on the voucher system (which was started and seeded and pushed by the Ayers Foundation, btw, when Obama chaired it.  Fight vouchers, wherever you are, and tell Obama to change his stance on that, or you'll be paying double, too).

    We can't keep paying for both, so this week our city's school board voted to DISSOLVE the public school system in the 22nd largest city in this country.  Can Bloomberg come and help us, too?

    Parent

    How can you dissolve the PS system?! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:59:11 PM EST
    Maybe I'm naive, but that just sounds wrong.

    Yeah, I was talking K-12. I've been watching the schools evolve in my 'hood for the past several years under Bloomberg, so the budget cuts seem like a kick to the gut of the schools, teachers, parents, and most of all, the kids. And Bloomberg wasn't putting chump change aside for a rainy day.   I'd hate to think where we would be otherwise . . .

    Maybe Bloomberg will go national with schools (along with Gates and others already working on that goal) after he leaves office. I think like BC (and others), he's found his calling. On MTP, he made a comment that his money wasn't his, it was all charity. He has good ideas and thinks through. I think we were lucky to get him after Rudy and 9/11. And he only costs a dollar a year! A real NY bargain  ;)

    Parent

    I know. But imagine my shock and awe (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:59:53 PM EST
    at headlines some years ago that said your city, the largest, was going to just declare bankruptcy.  And some cities did.

    So you now understand our shock and awe here in the 22nd-largest city when we woke up a few days ago to this story:

    MPS to explore dissolving district
    Money pressure brings board's surprising vote

    The Milwaukee School Board voted Thursday night to begin looking into dissolving the Milwaukee Public Schools system. The completely unexpected 6-to-3 vote followed a gloomy assessment of the short- and long-term financial situation of MPS. . . .

    Basically, if Moses didn't bring it down from the mountain, it's a man-made institution, and what man hath wrought, man can tear asunder.  Or dissolve, whichever.  

    The gov is thinking about it, which is a real good idea, since he signed the legislation that saddled this city -- alone in the state -- with expanding the voucher system beyond our ability to support two school systems, the public one supported by this city's property taxes and the private one supported by vouchers supported by this city's property taxes.  And the private-school students (most of them religious schools, of course, which were going to close but now have built big shiny new additions, while public schools are wrecks) cost us more per student than the public school students, more than $1,000 more apiece.  And long-term studies now have been done that show that the results are . . . nil, nada.  Actually, public school students' parents spend more time with their kids on their homework, etc.

    And of course, the private schools refuse to take the really expensive students -- the ones with disabilities, emotional difficulties, etc.

    Thank the Ayers Foundation of Chicago.  Really -- it pushed this, with the Bradley Foundation here.  And they found a susceptible, well-meaning AA legislator to push it through, thinking it would help her inner-city constituents' kids.  

    And it got backing because it got the white-flight burbs out of having to take more of the city kids under the busing system, now being cut back so that the city kids can stay in a school district that may dissolve, to essentially declare bankruptcy and be reconstituted somehow.  But there doesn't seem to be outsider money for that . . . while our property taxes soar more to support the private schools still in business, and our home values drop.  Nice, huh?


    Parent

    lol!~ I forgot about our bankrupt status (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:39:42 PM EST
    I really have just relied on Bloomberg to keep things right. I always feel that he really is on the side of the people overall and have gotten comfortable with that.

    I still am not getting how taxes can go to private schools vs public. I'm a product of public school as is everyone I know. I can't imagine them being privatized. Managed better, yes, but competing for funds with private schools, hell no. The HS across from me used to be a pit. Now it's broken into smaller schools with in the same building. All public, but with different concentrations. It hasn't changed the demographic of the school, just the attitude and experience.

    There's no way in hell I would want my tax dollars going to a school system that is geared private, has religious schools etc. I don't have kids, but I don't mind supporting the PS system. What you're describing, no way. I can't imagine what would happen if we became a voucher system and got rid of PSs.  We really just need to make better use of our tax dollars and make all PS schools competitive, imo. We are supposed to be a rich and top notch democracy, lets prove it by educating our children in that model.

    Parent

    Does that sink the voucher program? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:26:43 AM EST
    Or not?  It would certainly be interesting if dissolution trashed the voucher program as well.  

    Parent
    Nope, the private schools are assured (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:13:06 AM EST
    that the vouchers paid by our taxes continue and they keep their students in their schools, even when the public school district closes . . . to be replaced by who knows what.  The private schools are protected because the voucher system is state law, imposed on this city (and no other).

    And again, it was a system started by Democrats and expanded by our current Democratic governor and legislature -- which would not listen to our city's Democratic mayor and primarily Democratic school board.  Can we all say "liberal fatigue" -- especially from this faith-based funding stuff?

    Maybe the Dem nominee's Faith Tour Bus will stop in this city and give us all feel-good warm fuzzies.

    Parent

    Is dissolution legal? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:08:30 AM EST
    I think the right to an education is part of the Ohio constitution, not sure what the Illinois state law is.  Land grant schools are part of our history.  The little township elementary school I went to was located on the parcel of land allocated for just that purpose.  OSU is a land grant university.  (See - I remembered all this stuff from those many years ago!)

    Parent
    Sure, it's legal. It's dissolving a district (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 03:36:45 PM EST
    which is a particular structure for supplying public education, so it's not the same as public education itself.  

    Surely you have merged school districts in Ohio.  To do so, you had to dissolve the previous ones and replace them with some other mechanism to meet the legal requirement to provide public education.

    Btw, that is not just state law in Ohio.  In your state and mine, that is a federal requirement, a legacy of the North-West Ordinance that had to be inculcated in every state constitution to get the approval of Congress.  Thus, your state constitution -- the first one to come from the North-West Territory -- also had to require religious tolerance.  How we doin' on that?  Don't ask a Muslim in my state. . . .

    (And we all had to require no slavery.  We know how Ohio did on that.  As with every state under the ordinance, there still was slavery.  Illegally.  Your first governor, Harrison, brought the Black Codes from his native Virginia.  And he still kept petitioning Congress to make slavery legal in Ohio.  And then he became president -- and did his part to keep down African Americans, Native Americans. . . .)

    Bottom line is that even a lot of illegal things are tolerated in this country more than many religions, huh?  But this move is legal -- and may be the only resort to get this state to fork over the funds for what it mandates on my city.  Much as many a Midwestern state had to get tough to get the feds to fund what they mandated on us, such as public education -- accomplished through that section 16 in every township in Ohio and here.  Hmm, maybe my city can sell off some more of those section 16s to raise the funds now . . . a bit of eminent domain law oughta do it, as we take back those factories, homes, and more.

    Parent

    You am GOOD! (none / 0) (#84)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    Heck, you probably know more than most legislators in either my OR your state!

    Why does IL have a part time legislature again? Now I wonder how many states do that.

    Parent

    Awwww. But you probably know more (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:27:08 PM EST
    than a lotta the legislators in my state, believe me.  I've read your posts, I've listened to them, and I'd vote for you over some of them, any day.

    As for parttime legislatures, the sort of lawmakers we're talking about here gives a good reason for parttime legislatures.  Imagine the damage that they could do if they were fulltime.:-)

    Parent

    Btw, good on ya for remembering (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:32:59 PM EST
    about land-grant universities.  Another great law, the Morrill Act of 1862, as I recall -- so a lot later than the (third) North-West Ordinance in 1787, but based on the same principle.

    I would have thought OSU was older than that, btw.  I'll look into it.  But I've already found out a lot that is interesting about Ohio being so late in being settled, compared to other upper Midwest states.  I still don't understand why you had hardly any French Canadians there, with the first stable Euro settlements not until the Revolutionary War, and only after it the first American invaders, as it were.  I've gotta get to Ohio to get a handle on a lot of this, clearly.  I've nearly made it there several times, with relatives there, but something always came up . . . to keep me from the historic Rock'n' Roll Hall of Fame, darn it!

    Parent

    I think it has to do with (none / 0) (#87)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:41:31 PM EST
    settlers following the water.  Naturally, the natural harbors in the Great Lakes were magnets for early settlers.  However, at least some of the Erie shore was swampy so not very good for settling or farming.  Plus the northern third of Ohio drains towards Erie so that didn't lend itself to ease of movement.  

    I'd expect that early travel was done on the Great Lakes in the north and along the major rivers in the south.  Ditto for initial settlement.

    For fun reading, look up the last major Glaciation and its effects on Ohio geography, geology and soil surveys.  Then ponder the fact that in less than twenty thousand years, entire new sets of ecosystems evolved, probably a series of ecosystems.

    Parent

    Thanks, I will follow up on this (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:15:21 AM EST
    as it would explain why there was so little Native settlement there, too, as late as the 1500s before the first Euros arrived in the Midwest (Coronado, actually, and perhaps De Sote, even before the first French).  I have some good books and readings about the glaciation in the Great Lakes region to the west of Ohio -- and the gorgeous unglaciated area along the Mississippi, which is why some of the earliest Paleo settlements were there in what is now Wisconsin.  But I clearly have got to see what the geographers can contribute to what the archaeologists tell us about Ohio.

    Looks like we both love this stuff.  I wish I had taken archaeology courses and more anthropology courses.  

    Parent

    I had trouble getting student loans from (none / 0) (#37)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:30:20 PM EST
    the government 2, 3, 4 and 5 years ago...

    welcome to my world, the world of people who start at the absolute bottom in this country 'where anyone can realize their dreams'...

    all this no credit stuff is nothing new for us that started our lives in the under 20K a year households...

    it's not that nice here even in the greatest country, but I'll save you all a seat...

    Parent

    You're not listening to Obama on this (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:40:31 PM EST
    as he included the situation of students in his comments today.

    Sorry the banks didn't cut checks for you -- and I empathize, as I was turned down when I was broke and had to borrow the money any which way to stay in school, too.  And now my son was turned down for odd reasons this fall, so I'm paying for that again.  The student loan setup is very mixed up and needs to be dealt with as well.

    But see again, if you can step back from our own lives and past lives and look at TODAY, that this is a situation in which a bank is not cutting student loan checks for a lot of students, period.

    Do you see the difference?


    Parent

    I do see the difference (4.00 / 1) (#46)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    but unfortunately as someone who has been on the short-end of the American stick for most of my life (do to being born in a single-parent household in a country where most women w/o an education struggle to make more than $9/hr) I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone....

    we're losing our middle class...that is a big issue, but not if you ask any of the super elite that run this country...

    Parent

    this is what happens in a free market (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:48:02 PM EST
    as the Republicans want...

    this is where they want the country to be, obviously, since its the free market that has us in this mess to begin with...

    Parent

    In 1981 (none / 0) (#47)
    by D Jessup on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:48:01 PM EST
    it was just about impossible to get a student loan.  None of the banks in Austin was giving loans. My father had to talk to his banker in my home town.  The last 20 years has been the exception not the rule.

    Parent
    and the exception should be the way (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:51:07 PM EST
    it is, as having education for ALL AMERICANS is vital to our economic success...

    unfortunately that's not the Republican mantra...

    I had to drop out of school even with a large scholarship, and still owe money to a school so I can't continue my education (as schools have a handshake deal that if you owe one school you can't go to any other)...

    I started from the poorest of the poor, and given the circumstances in America, I'll probably never be any more than lower-middle class...yay...great...

    Parent

    Don't give up. Even if you can only take (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Teresa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:54:49 PM EST
    a class every now and then, you can make it. I'm so sorry for your rough time.

    A girl who worked for me took one class a semester to get out of a similar situation. It took a while, but she made it and has a great job now. Good luck.

    Parent

    thanks for the encouraging words (4.66 / 3) (#66)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:22:03 PM EST
    it looks like it's bankruptcy for me...but I think that's going to be the fad now anyway, so I won't feel as bad about it as I generally would (going against all my libertarian fibers)...

    at least then I won't owe my previous school money so I'll be able to go back to school, maybe even at a school that isn't a crappy state school...

    I'll get somewhere though...and it will be nice having most of America living a 'lower standard' of life like me as the credit dries up and the financial markets are proven to be the scam of the economy they are (slight sarcasm, I'm only human though)

    again, though, thanks for the encouraging words...some people are still human in America...

    Parent

    Hopefully. . . (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:59:37 PM EST
    he'll mention McCain by name.

    heh (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:10:47 PM EST
    I'm soooo not bothering to watch this.

    Parent
    Gee you missed another Bush gaffe (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:11:33 PM EST
    Mortgage holders default. You give a mortgage in return for a loan. The person you give it to (i.e. the lender) holds the mortgage.

    Borrowers with adjustable-rate mortgages, who had been planning to sell or refinance their homes at a higher price, were stuck with homes worth less than expected, along with mortgage payments they could not afford.
    As a result, many mortgage-holders began to default.

    In context he is referring to the borrower. Arguably lenders without ready cash defaulted on their short term obligations, but that is not the context in his speech.

    Condescending Jerk with an MBA doesn't even understand the terms.

    Parent

    Do you think there's anyone in America (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:16:24 PM EST
    who was watching tonight, or who could have watched, who doesn't already have an opinion about W?

    Parent
    No, but that wasn't my point (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:18:05 PM EST
    Probably nobody cares, I just spit up when I heard it.

    Parent
    I dunno. . . (none / 0) (#62)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:17:50 PM EST
    you're right, of course, that the mortgage holder is the bank and the homeowner is the mortgage giver.  But the terms are so widely reversed that you can't really use the correct ones in a public speech without causing further confusion.  He could have simply said "homeowners", I guess.

    Parent
    or borrowers. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:19:05 PM EST
    What is wrong with borrowers?

    Parent
    According to Phil Gramm. . . (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:21:28 PM EST
    they're all whiners.  But yes, he could have said "borrowers" as well.

    Parent
    Bush emerges? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:05:55 PM EST
    I hope he doesn't see his shadow.

    Clogging the financial system (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:11:13 PM EST
    Now, do we need to go there?

    We just need to unclog the financial system (none / 0) (#21)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:12:39 PM EST
    Sort of like $700B of Draino.

    Parent
    Ehem...the (none / 0) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:13:37 PM EST
    Enematic economic policy.  

    Parent
    Fiber! We need more FIBER! (none / 0) (#25)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:14:19 PM EST
    I prefer natural uncloggers  ;)

    Parent
    I wasn't sure whether we were (none / 0) (#58)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:06:03 PM EST
    talking about laxatives or unclogging the series of Toobz.

    Parent
    "Federal Govt" patient (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    Heh, he just gave the argument for single payer insurance,only the Federal govt is patient enough to hold on to these assets.  

    Democratic capitalism is the best system ever (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:16:32 PM EST
    Republican capitalism, on the other hand, has failed miserably.

    To summarize (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Makarov on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:20:41 PM EST
    1. Don't panic, your deposits are insured
    2. Panic if we don't throw 700 billion at the problem RIGHT NOW


    McCain flying into DC (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:24:37 PM EST
    is more of a rescue plan for John McCain than a rescue plan for the economy.  Way to go, Chris Dodd.

    hm (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    Well, the good news is that we won't have to stare at that confused mug for much longer.  If there was ever a face that didnt inspire confidence, it's his.

    The network ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:39:07 AM EST
    on which I watched the speech had some audio bleed-over from another feed.

    It was probably just static.  But it sounded likes someone snoring.

    Seemed very appropriate.

    Obama's coming to Washington (none / 0) (#6)
    by Pianobuff on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:44:32 PM EST
    Looks like both McCain & Obama are now returning to Washington per GWB's invite.

    More here.

    Tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:51:17 PM EST
    Still not an excuse for not debating on Friday night.

    Parent
    Will you live-blog W's remarks? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:52:30 PM EST
    Please?

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure the GOP are going to walk away... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:54:53 PM EST
    ...from national government quite happily if the financial crisis is really this big, counting their loot as always.   They can blame Obama for 10% unemployment in a year or two and plot their revenge merrily.

    Parent
    springing a trap eh? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:52:57 PM EST
    Hey Barack

    Here's the ransom. $7000 billion in T-bonds and unmarked notes.

    Final offer.

    W

    Parent

    You do understand that the bait in the trap (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:41:57 PM EST
    is you and me, right?

    Parent
    I hope Obama's armed and dangerous. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:44:26 PM EST
    He's a cornered rat right now.

    Parent
    Springing a trap: king's X--debate (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 07:58:04 PM EST
    is back on for Friday.  

    Parent
    "More than a decade ..." (none / 0) (#14)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    Guess it's not W's fault in his mind, that's all that matters.  Too many new houses.  Supply and demand, simple as that.

    and the domino effect (none / 0) (#16)
    by byteb on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:10:20 PM EST
    don't forget the dominoes.

    Parent
    Texas Air National Guard was about (none / 0) (#20)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:11:53 PM EST
    the Domino Theory too.

    Parent
    Many investors assumed Fannie and Freddie (none / 0) (#15)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:09:04 PM EST
    securities were guaranteed by the federal government, therefore Fannie and Freddie borrowed too much money, and drove my Chevy to the Levy but the Levy was dry.

    Up until July, Fannie and Freddie (none / 0) (#73)
    by ding7777 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:17:31 PM EST
    were implicitly back by the Government (and now, of course those mortgages are explicitly backed by the Treasury)

    But Fannie and Freddie's problem is that they strayed from their charter of only Grade A and started backing pools of subprime mortgages

    ( a layman's guide to Frannie/Freddie - Lehman - AIG)

    Parent

    The market is not functioning properly (none / 0) (#18)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:10:58 PM EST
    because of a widespread lack of confidence.  We just need a better cheerleader to instill more confidence.  W knows about being a cheerleader.  Give me a W!

    That's the Phil Gramm "whiners" theory (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by litigatormom on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 09:09:43 PM EST
    Don't worry!  Be happy! Just click your heels together and say, "there's no place like home, there's no place like home."

    Parent
    He does? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM EST


    35 Address to the nation (none / 0) (#27)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:17:30 PM EST
    Hopefully his last.  Unless we need him to shore up Obama's support before November 4th.

    Bush Talks? (none / 0) (#29)
    by rdandrea on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:21:07 PM EST
    Sort of.

    Bush Talks (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:22:44 PM EST
    and chews Gum.

    Parent
    Now if he could just... (none / 0) (#34)
    by rdandrea on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:28:27 PM EST
    ...lead and chew gum...

    Parent
    Bush reads (none / 0) (#35)
    by robrecht on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:29:44 PM EST
    teleprompter like a deer in the headlights

    Parent
    Focus (none / 0) (#33)
    by downtownted on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:27:22 PM EST
    To keep an understanding of what is really happening on the economic front, i.e. the reason for the bailout, I suggest you stay tuned in to Paul Krugman's blog at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/.
    Meant to post here.

    Krugman is god (none / 0) (#53)
    by lambert on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:56:29 PM EST
    or maybe Krugman's cats are god. I'm not sure.

    Parent
    I always knew that (none / 0) (#39)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:34:33 PM EST
    the suburban sprawl of America would ruin us...

    and now Bush said it's had a big hand in doing just that...

    All the years us urban planners (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:41:01 PM EST
    wanted to control growth, we got bashed by the free marketeers.  

    Parent
    if people would just realize that (none / 0) (#52)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 08:55:06 PM EST
    Le Corbusier was right and that engineers and architects should govern the world then all would be well...

    hey, it couldn't be any worse than what we have now...

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 04:18:30 AM EST
    if he had EF Hutton with him, I mighta listened.

    Let him alone? (none / 0) (#79)
    by candideinnc on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:57:40 AM EST
    I don't think we need to let Bush alone after the election.  I think an invitation is awaiting him at the Hague.

    interesting.. (none / 0) (#82)
    by 18anapple2 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:11:42 AM EST
    "
    The congressional vote on Gramm-Leach-Bliley in November 1999 was not close. The bill passed handily with bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives and Senate, 450-64 between the two chambers. President Bill Clinton supported the legislation and readily signed it. "

    "There was little difference in the money collected by Republicans who supported the bill and those who opposed it; the 255 GOP supporters collected an average of  $179,175, while the opponents in their ranks-and there were only five of them-collected $171,890. On the Democratic side, however, there was a wide gulf, as the graph indicates. The 195 Democrats who supported the Financial Services Modernization Act had received an average of $179,920 in the two years and 10 months leading up to its passage, while the 59 Democrats who opposed it received just $83,475.
    'Many of the Democrats who voted for Gramm-Leach-Bliley are still in Congress, as are many of the Republicans. Republican presidential nominee John McCain was recorded as absent for the 1999 vote. Democratic nominee Barack Obama was not serving in the Senate then, but his running mate, Joe Biden, supported the bill. McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, at the time. "Financial sector contributions to Congress, 1989-2008 (top five)

    Hillary Clinton (D-NY)  $31,040,714  
    S  Barack Obama (D)  $27,942,613  
    S  John McCain (R)  $26,593,411      
    S  John Kerry (D-Mass)  $19,094,828  
    S  Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn)  $13,204,556    
    S  Charles E. Schumer (D-NY)  $12,795,946  

    Biden comes in at the 18th position.
    Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del)  $3,714,310  

    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/money-and-votes-aligned-in-con.html

    Bush Talks | 87 comments (87 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment