Did you watch the Bush Bailout Address?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Did you watch the Bush Bailout Address?
21
Wed, 09-24-2008 - 9:33pm

Did you watch the Bush Bailout Address?



  • Yes, but he didn't convince me and I had questions
  • Yes, and I totally understood and agreed with all his points.
  • No, I did not watch it


You will be able to change your vote.


Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2008
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 8:41pm
Please don't assume that just because I didn't comment about the actual topic of the speech that I don't understand what is going on.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 8:47pm
I was at work.

The 3 Day

Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 8:47pm

Had a lot of outdoor work today, time to think. Those who are hurting now, the ones who are scraping to get by from paycheck to paycheck, are not going to see things improve markedly under the Bush Bailout plan. Some of them have already lost that first house, others will be losing their homes in the days to come. Unless the Democrats manage to muster the votes to ensure enclosure and passage, there will be no bailout provision for those people. Bush's "promise" for them is that things will be much worse if the bailout isn't passed. Wouldn't surprise me to see his approval ratings take a marked turn downwards.

Have also been thinking about the doomsday "Great Depression" predictions and have come to the conclusion that I just don't "buy" it. In 1982, DH and I purchased a house, slightly larger and closer to his place of employment than our little starter house was. We extended our ability to pay to its max, assumed a loan at over 10%, got the difference between outstanding principal still due and asking price, by borrowing from my father at 8% AND COUNTED OURSELVES LUCKY! Our discretionary money fund was a change jar--and dinner out was at Steak and Shake with our two small children. We were middle class, through and through. In my opinion, it was much tougher then to get a house and keep it, than is the case even now. But my perceptions may be colored by life stage and relative level of comfort now that aren't reflected in the overall population of the U.S.

IMHO, up until very recently, credit has been far too easy to acquire, habits of spending have verged on the profligate, and "needs" have been confused with "wants". And a president whose idea of dealing with a national attack is to encourage people to "stimulate" the economy by spending; and whose idea of sacrifice in the cause of war is people watching news stories about that war on TV--well, his judgment is not to be trusted because his priorities are clearly addled.

Gettingahandle


Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.


Facts stifle the will, hobble conviction.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 8:55pm

you'll probably be surprised to know I tend to agree ........

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 9:50pm
I am unconvinced of the need to fork over 700-800 billion dollars right this moment. What will happen if we hold off for a few months?
mccain image

Obama image
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 9:53pm

I always tune in when Bush has to go on TV and look like a deer in the headlights to avoid something even WORSE happening than what he's having to explain. Unfortunately, by "something worse," I usually mean "to himself or his party," because he doesn't seem to give care about anything more than that.

But talk about your blinking! ;o)


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-02-2008
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 9:54pm
Absolutely nothing all these companies are still securitizing their stuff and doing business as usual.
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 9:59pm
Well it is certainly possible President Bush has knowledge of things I do not. But my suggestion would be this ... if no harm would come from delaying President Bush should do a Band-aid approach. Patch up the problem, and leave the decision of whether or not to bail these people out to the next President and Congress.
mccain image

Obama image
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 10:05pm
You mean besides Obama winning? ;o)

Probably not much. When I heard Tony Fratto let slip that the Bush administration had had a version of this bailout in the works for "months," that's when I knew that there wasn't anywhere NEAR the urgency the administration is trying to claim. That doesn't mean there isn't a real problem that needs to be addressed, but it DOES mean two things:

  1. All of the administration's (and McCain's, for that matter) rhetoric about how bloomin' awesome the economy was doing over the past several months (at least since they started drafting up this specific contingency, and probably well before) was simply blowing sunshine up our....skirts, and

  2. Bush is quite likely attempting to use a ginned-up sense of urgency to ram-through a bad idea by making the need seem so great that legislators are disinclined to push back - or even to push for more time to examine and ruminate. That's what they did with the Iraq war, what they did with the Patriot Act, and - with Congress scheduled to go on break in a couple of weeks (though they probably will not, now) until after the election (when they will know they're no longer dealing with Bush on anything significant or game-changing), does it really come as a surprise to anyone that this is happening at this specific point in time? Sure, the failure of Indy Mac, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, AIG and Lehman (and the all-but-total failure of Morgan Stanley) have all happened recently, and certainly add to the sense of urgency. But remember, folks that, too, is scarcely different from the Colin Powell show at the UN - the mobile bioweapons labs, the "huge" stockpiles of nonexistent WMD, the "unmanned aerial drones," the "smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud," etc, etc, etc, that was all "urgent" in late '02, early '03. Or the "urgency" that caused Bush to bypass an existing set of laws - FISA - which would have allowed him to do whatever he wanted....except with oversight.


We've seen this before, and it ALWAYS - literally ALWAYS - precedes something truly atrocious and bad for this country. Both Republicans and Democrats are right to push back and demand evidence which cannot be gainsaid or controverted that this must be done NOW.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
Thu, 09-25-2008 - 11:07pm
I've been following this myself and have concluded that bad things will happen, but I don't believe that it will be to the extent that the fearmongerer-in-chief tells us.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />