What did you think of Bush’s speech tonight?

Basically, he said what he had to say, but did he sell it? CAN he sell it? Up until tonight, one reason Paulson and Bernanke were taking the lead was because of the president’s diminished political capital.

Anyway, what did you think of the speech? If you missed it, here’s the video.

19 thoughts on “What did you think of Bush’s speech tonight?

  1. p,m,

    Bush did fine.
    Biden, however, in his interview with Katie Couric, made himself look like a complete idiot when he said FDR spoke on TV to restore public confidence after the Wall Street crash of 1929.
    Hoover was president. There was no TV, just radio.
    If Palin had said what Biden said, the press would stone her to death tomorrow. Biden’s comments, however, will be largely ignored by Obama’s media buddies.

  2. Mike Cakora

    I agree with Scott Ott of ScrappleFace that it was a heckuva speech and especially liked this:

    The foundation of the U.S. economy could crumble, President George Bush said today, if Congress fails to approve a U.S. Treasury plan to take over foundering financial firms, a proposal which the president called “a much-needed 21st-century civil rights act for stupid people.”
    “To sustain this shining city on a hill,” Mr. Bush said, “we need to rescue the ignorant, irresponsible folks — from Wall Street to Capitol Hill to Main Street — who got us to where we are today. We must guarantee that no American suffers the soft bigotry of being forced to live with the consequences of his bad decisions.”

    But that was the warm-up. Here is the real reason why Congress must act:

    “We need to guarantee that the structures, systems, people and products that got us to this point won’t be tossed on the ash heap of history,” said Mr. Bush. “If these giant companies fail, then America will be left with nothing but thousands of small to mid-sized financial firms that made prudent investment decisions during the past 15 years.”
    The president added that, “Americans value the liberty they have to buy homes they can’t afford, to invest in securities backed by nothing but hope, and to draw six- and seven-figure salaries based on the courage to risk taxpayer dollars on deals that even the dealmakers don’t understand.”
    “It is a moral imperative that we guard the civil rights of these idiots,” he said. “If we fail, then we face the specter of free market capitalism run amok, and millions of Americans will feel the painful lash of personal responsibility across their backs.”

    Truer words were never not spoken.

  3. wtf

    Bush could have come out with his hair on fire and still nobody would listen to him. He’s overdrafted on his credibility and his legacy is being foreclosed upon.
    The real question is what took him so long to say something? If this crisis is worse than the Wall Street affects after 9-11, why did it take him a week so say something….ANYTHING????
    Perhaps to get his story straight?
    For months and as late as this month his team has said, “all’s fine, no worries”. Now it’s “HOLY FRIGGIN CRAP WE’RE DONE FOR….RUN NOW!!!!!” Maybe Bush just forgot to read the PDB entitled “Paulsen determined to strike in the US” just like in August 2001.
    The truth? Bush has had one plan and one plan only since day one. Loot the US Treasury and leave everyone else hanging in the breeze, including McCain. No bid contracts to cronies, tax cuts for CEO’s, deflated dollar, record profits for Big Oil and now this.
    The swath of greed and destruction on Wall Street under Bush is truly amazing. Had he done this with Osama, all the troops would be home now and there’d be a trophy hanging on his wall.

  4. Lee Muller

    I hate to hurt you with the truth, but those “looting” Lehman Bros are advisors to Obama, and the boards of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who took over $1 BILLION in bonuses are mostly Clinton cronies.
    Clintonites looting and screwing up things for millions of innocent people. Same old, same old.

  5. Norm Ivey

    Here’s what I found interesting…
    Shortly before the President’s speech, the McCain/Obama joint statement was released. The joint statement included an additional statement from only Obama outlining principles that should guide the debate (oversight, no golden parachutes, protect the taxpayer). Bush included those principles in his speech. Why didn’t McCain include his name on those principles in the joint statement?

  6. Lee Muller

    If Obama had any substance or a clue about how to handle any issue, Norm and others Obama apologists wouldn’t have to navel gaze, fantasize and speculate.

  7. Richard Otey

    The blame for this “financial crisis” lies with us, the people. We extended too much on credit, thinking the good times will keep rolling. ARMs, 120% mortgages, seconds, HELC, mortgages that are 50 and 75% of our income knowing good well that we can renegotiate in few years when the house is worth 25% more, two or more new cars, sending children away to expensive schools, unpaid credit card balances. The thing is, we have all contributed to this crisis and are now trying to blame someone else so we can feel better about our selves. We are now going to feel the pain for our choices of living beyond our means. No one can bail us out, the market will right it’s self. The only thing we can do is elect people that can tell a bunch of spoiled rotten cry babies that we are not going to pass this problem on to the next two generations. We are going to stand up and make this work with what we have right now.
    We live in the greatest country in the world and we can choose to keep that way or we can turn all of our problems over to the government. We can chose to socialize our retirement because we can’t do it on our own (wait we already did that, sorry). We can choose to socialize healthcare for the poor because as a community we can’t standup and do that on our own (yes, I know and it’s worked so well). I could go on, but I’m sure you have the picture.
    This country is made up of “we the people” and as “we the people” we have responsibilities to the persons that gave us a chance to be spoiled rotten, the patriots that founded and keep this country free. We also have a responsibility to the generations to come, to give them a chance to be spoiled.
    Under crises situations of the past, we have allowed our liberties to be that away from us a little at a time. That’s how freedom is best taken away from “we the people”. If freedom was taken all at once “we the people” would standup and do something about it, however, if taken away bit-by-bit over generations “we the people” do not notice. Benjamin Franklin said “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both”.

  8. Lee Muller

    Don’t blame me. I never had a mortgage like the ones described above. Those junk mortgages were created for low-income, first-time home buyers, mostly minorities.
    Some naive liberals who wanted to feel good actually believed they were helping minorities live the American Dream.
    Professional liberal politicians were just using it to appear compassionate and caring about minorities.
    The rest were a bunch of barracudas who figured, if the liberals are dumb enough to create billions of taxpayer subsidized junk loans, they might as well get in on the turkey shoot. Lots of Democrats got payoff jobs in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, making up to 200 times what they made as “public servants”.

  9. Richard Otey

    My point is that “we the people” are to blame not any individual, this is our mess and we need to clean it up, don’t let government take over more of our liberties. If we allow this “liberal this and conservative that” game to go on, the people taking our liberties away will win. We need to say stop it now, together as “we the people”

  10. bud

    Mike that was a pretty good parady. Sadly it’s only partially true. I’m afraid if we don’t bail out the scoundrel who made bad choices those of us who made good choices will also suffer. (Full disclosure. I’ve made a couple of bad spending decisions that I’m living with now. So far, I have been able to pay my bills. But it has required a second job and significant cutbacks.) But if the entire economy collapses even those folks in the best shape could find themselves in trouble.

  11. bud

    About the speech. Bush did a fair job reading off the teleprompter. I doubt he wrote a single word in it. The words themselves were less than inspiring.

  12. Tim C

    Sorry Lee but that perception is myth. The majority (not all) of these loans are higher dollar loans for homes in excess of $300K and not low income first time borrowers. There will be time to investigate corruption, collusion and ignorance later. On to the topic, for the first time ever, Bush looked humble and aware that it could no longer be “my way or the highway.” He laid it on the line to his party, the Democrats and the American people. We deregulated as a nation and here is what we got. Now we have to fix it. I rarely agree with him but he is right. With proper oversight and good business managers (pay them what you need to), we can come out ahead. Yes $500 – $700 billion is a lot of money. But if we the people (our government) actually have the collateral (that being the houses and the land) or an actual stake in the companies, we will make money or break even over a 10 to 15 year period. But we can’t stop at that. There must also be accountability. No money to those fired or resigning due to their incompetence; board members that failed in their responsibilities removed from all boards forever; jail time for all trading irregularities, falsification of documents etc.; legislation preventing short trading to name a few. Now does Bush have any capital left to get it done?

  13. Richard Otey

    Tim C I will agree with you except for the bailout. Let the market adjust it self, it’s going to anyway why prolong it and make the fall harder and farther.

  14. Lee Muller

    bud, you don’t know a thing about the mortgage business except the disinformation fed you by lying Democrats trying to cover their tracks.
    Here are some facts:
    * 45% of all home purchases in California in 2008 were by speculators.
    * In July in the State of CA alone, $12.5 billion in foreclosures went back to the bank due to no buyers at the Trustee Sales
    – Source: Mortgage Insurance Companies of America Report of August 31, 2008
    * 95% of all mortgages were paid on time in 2008, so the trouble mortgages represent 5% of the entire market. Of those, only 40% were held by homeowners. 60% were held by investors of some sort: developers, builders, or speculators, all hoping to turn over the property very quickly.

  15. Lee Muller

    My mistake. It was not ‘bud”, but ‘Tim C’ who was blowing smoke about the mortgage mess not being due, in large part, to junk loans made to minorities as official policy.

  16. Tim C

    Lee, you agree with me then. Speculators and not low income first time home borrowers were the problem. i don’t listen to either political party on this topic. I happen to understand the mortgage business and finance quite well without it thank you.

  17. Tim

    Yeah, Tim C, I read those figures the same way. However, a $300k loan in California would equal a $100k or less here, so there could be some truth that loans are concentrated in lower income levels. However, that’s only speculation, as Lee’s numbers seem to suggest that the majority went to “get-rich-quick” speculators.
    Personal testimony, I currently have an ARM on my house. It readjusted at the beginning of September and guess how much my payment increased? A whopping $30. The problem is, as we already know, these people who bought homes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars with an ARM. Even with a small adjustment in the interest rate there is a swing of hundreds of dollars or more in the payment. I only have an $80k mortgage, it would take a pretty big swing in the interest rate for my payment to go way up. Hoping to move in the next year, but that’s looking less and less likely as things play out.

  18. Lee Muller

    Unqualified home buyers, mostly minorities, ARE a big part of the mortgage bankruptcy problem.
    Sub-prime mortgages were created specifically to make risky loans, and avoid charges of racism. Democrats beat back reform of the system 18 times since 1995.
    In 1992, subprime loans made up 2% of all loans. By 2002, they comprised over 20% of loans. – Source = Mortgage Insurance Association
    Why speculators make up such a large proportion of mortgages in foreclosure:
    1. This new market created for unqualified, naive buyers was an opportunity for speculators to build and remodel houses to sell them at high profit margins.
    2. The deluge of new government money created demand pressure which caused rapid escalation of home prices. This created another opportunity to buy speculative lots, unfinished homes, and resale homes to “flip”.
    3. In the first round of foreclosures on homebuyers, speculators were able to swoop in, buy and resell these homes at a profit.
    4. Now, speculators are stuck with houses whose price is falling so rapidly that they cannot even be sold on the courthouse steps.
    I was in Seattle last week, talking with a building inspector. Permits are down 25% in 3 months because of the glut of used houses on the market, and prices, which had risen from $180,000 to $420,000 in 6 years, have slid to $240,000, leaving many buyers and banks, upside down in their mortgages.

  19. Lee Muller

    Tim C, don’t play that childish “so you agree with me” game.
    You don’t know anything about mortgage banking. I know quite a bit, having been a builder and developed expert systems for mortgage production and loan packaging for Wall Street.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *