Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 59 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Bush says anxiety feeding market instability
Published Friday, October 10, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Friday that the government’s financial rescue plan was aggressive enough and big enough to work, but would take time to fully kick in. ‘‘We can solve this crisis and we will,’’ he said in brief remarks from the White House Rose Garden.
Bush spoke as leaders of the world’s top economies gathered in Washington amid frozen credit markets, panic selling in stock markets and a looming global recession.
The president noted that major Western countries were working together in an attempt to stabilize markets and end the spreading panic, including coordinated cuts in interest rates.
‘‘Through these efforts, the world is sending an unmistakable signal. We’re in this together and we’ll come through this together,’’ Bush said.
Finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of Seven — the United States, Japan, Britain, Germany, France Italy and Canada — were here for a weekend meeting. Bush plans to meet with the leaders on Saturday.
Bush said he understood how Americans could be concerned about their economic future. ‘‘That anxiety can feed anxiety and that can make it hard to see all that’s being done to solve the problem,’’ he said.
But despite a relentless sell-off that has seen the Dow Jones industrials plunge 20 percent in the past seven trading days, Bush said, ‘‘We are a prosperous nation with immense resources and a wide range of tools at our disposal.’’
The president said the new $700 billion rescue plan that he signed into law a week ago authorizes the Treasury Department to use a variety of measures to rebuild their balance sheets including ‘‘purchasing equity of financial institutions.’’
It was the first time the president has mentioned suggestions that the government buy shares of banks, although it has been mentioned by other administration officials.
Since the bailout package was signed into law, the conversation about how it will be used has shifted from taxpayers buying troubled mortgages to taxpayers buying troubled banks. Or at least pieces of them.
Such a move would amount to a partial nationalization of the U.S. banking industry, a move once considered unthinkable.
The government is authorized under the law to buy ‘‘troubled assets.’’
Those assets include mortgages, but according to the law, they may also include ‘‘any other financial instrument’’ that is ‘‘necessary to promote financial market stability ... .’’
It is the government’s position that this authority extends to bank stocks.
‘‘The plan we are executing is aggressive. It is the right plan. It will take time to have its full impact. It is flexible enough to adapt as the situation changes. And it is big enough to work,’’ Bush said.
He also noted that the Federal Reserve has injected hundreds of billions into the system and with other central banks has made interest-rate cuts that should help thaw frozen credit markets and enable loans to flow again.
Government insurance on bank and credit union deposit accounts has been raised to $250,000 and the Treasury is offering insurance for the first time for money-market funds, he added.
‘‘The federal government has a comprehensive strategy and the tools necessary to address the challenges in our economy,’’ Bush said.
While he sought to reassure Americans that the government is doing all it can, Bush also acknowledged mounting worry among people about their retirement and investment accounts.
Bush said his administration had launched initiatives that ‘‘have helped more than 2 million Americans stay in their homes.’’
He also noted ‘‘rigorous enforcement’’ steps taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission to make sure that some investors don’t ‘‘take advantage of the crisis to illegally manipulate the stock market.’’
Stock market volatility continued, with the Dow Jones industrials falling nearly 700 points soon after trading began, regaining all of that deficit to show an advance and then turning lower again.
‘‘Over the past few days,’’ Bush said, ‘‘we have witnessed a startling drop in the stock market, much of it driven by uncertainty and fear. This has been a deeply unsettling period for the American people.’’
Comments
Posted by mudzillaefi (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Even though I support Bush, it is his presidency that is supporting the anxiety. War, financial calpse, job loss, national debt, healthcare, Iran, North Korea, the list goes on and on
Posted by jrn59 (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep its anxiety alright. This is what happens when a new leader takes over the country. President Barack Hussein Obama is heading to the big house. President Bush has been a good leader, has kept us safe and I wish him God speed!
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nothing to fear but fear itself-FDR...truest words he ever uttered.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"He also noted ‘‘rigorous enforcement’’ steps taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission to make sure that some investors don’t ‘‘take advantage of the crisis to illegally manipulate the stock market"
I think President Bush latched the gate after the horse got out.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Ried who refused to latch the gate and it's not latched yet.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"He also noted ‘‘rigorous enforcement’’ steps taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission to make sure that some investors don’t ‘‘take advantage of the crisis to illegally manipulate the stock market"
Sam, he said "rigorous enforcement" - I took that to mean President Bush is indicating the SEC has not consistently practiced "rigorous enforcement" of laws already in place. I believe that is true.
Sam said:
"It was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Ried who refused to latch the gate and it's not latched yet."
What gate is that?
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My point is that the gates should have been latched before the crisis when Bush asked for correction of the problems and was rebuffed by the above-mentioned quartet.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, did the Democratic congress and senate stop the executive branch from enforcing laws already on the books?
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It doesn't matter a whole heck of a lot what has been done before this election . People are not going to breathe easy until we have new people in Congress and the presidential administration .obama is too much of the same cloth as the Democratic Congress. McCain clearly shows a different politician for us . You can't trust obama .
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But alas , money talks and obama has spent much more than his share of it and not through as of yet .
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
belle, I think it does matter what has been done before this election.
By both Democrats and Republicans.
If I had my druthers, I would like to see our country producing goods again, for which I would be willing to pay more than for goods produced overseas.
I would like to see US corporations move back to this country.
I believe most corporations would move back to the US on their own accord were they not allowed to sacrifice foreign workers' human rights.
I believe Bill Clinton is, in a large part, responsible for our manufacturing, as well as service related jobs, moving overseas.
Money does talk. I believe Wall Street is out of control. George Bush even said "Wall Street got drunk".
Bush seemed to say in the following statement that SEC regulations were not being rigorously enforced prior to this crisis:
"He also noted ‘‘rigorous enforcement’’ steps taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission to make sure that some investors don’t ‘‘take advantage of the crisis to illegally manipulate the stock market"
I agree that we need to get out of the mess we're in.
Senator Obama says he favors tax incentives for US corporations who return to the US from overseas. I have not heard Senator Clinton or Senator McCain address this issue.
I do not trust Senator McCain - he admitted his cockiness while he was a POW was responsible for some of the treatment he received.
I see no evidence he has learned to manage his anger.
I also question his judgement, especially in difficult times - after having Sarah Palin stir up his supporters to a fever pitch with her terrorist talk, Senator McCain had to calm them down after they began yelling "off with his head" (ref. Senator Obama's head) and attacking a black media person, by saying Sarah Palin's terrorist talk was not true.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...neither McCain nor Palin have called anyone a terrorist except those who by action and word have indicated that they truly are. They have called Bill Ayres a terrorist because he is. They have corrected those who tried to call Obama a terrorist by association. Only Obama's judgement has been called into question because of his association with Ayres, not his partriotism.
McCain corrected the lady who called Obama an Arab in very strong terms. I think that is both true and fair...your last sentence was misleading and exagerated.
McCain, Palin, Obama and Biden have all been better than most at making sure personal attacks are not a part of their campaigns and both parties should have credit and pride in that...unfortunately, the same can't be said of some of their surrogates over which they have no control.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
McCain has said many times we have to give these big corporations incentives for not taking their companies overseas. That is part of his tax plan . Isn't it stange how one person can hear things said one way and somebody else another way . I think McCain has held his temper too much . It's out of character . There is nothing wrong with getting angry if the anger is used in a productive unhurtful way . Anger is a honest emotion that a person cannot let have control over in a negative way . Anger can be used to get a person off his butt and get things done . I don't want a passive leader . I want one that will stand up for our rights and do it in a fair and honest way . Our President should be a mirror of what the American people are about . I want to look at my President and feel confident he has my best interest at heart . If he fails,because he is only human,I want to know he tried his best . I don't want to doubt his character or wonder where his loyalities are . I believe John McCain is that man.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 12, 2008 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Belle, I heard John McCain say he favors giving a tax decrease to all corporations.
I did not hear him say he would offer any additional incentive to corporations to move manufacturing or outsourced services back to the US.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sw you are right ,he does want to help everbody . However he also said tax incentives for large corporations would help keep jobs here in the United States . That translates into jobs. We need money and money and jobs go hand in hand . We have an economic crisis going on and somebodies going to have to fix it . I've always been told you have to work for your money . John McCain is no stranger to work . And he is nobodies fool and he cannot be bought . Isn't it funny how we only hear what we want to hear ? I try to listen to obama but I keep hearing him talk about change and then he says he's GOING to do it but it never goes any further than that so I get bored . He reminds me of a salesman I used to know . That guy could talk about the sky being blue none stop for twenty-five minutes or more and when he finished you still didn't know what that had to do with the price of the vehicle but you liked him so you bought the car anyway . I should have insisited on knowing more about the car . It quit on me a mile down the road . Anyway ,I have a whole lot more faith in McCain than obama . That's my story and I'm stickin to it !
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to see incentives for US companies who return manufacturing and outsourced service jobs to US workers.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Take a good hard look at Michigan. They did precisely what Obama wants to do, their democratic leadership taxed corporate America right out of the state. The only difference is that Obama will tax them right out of America. He will kill small business and mark my words, if god forbid he is elected, our unemployment rate wioll go through the roof.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
happy: unemployment IS going through the roof. Can't blame it on Obama.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
happy: looks like McCain has an ACORN in his past too...
hmmmmmmmmm
Bertha Lewis, Acorn's chief organizer, said in a statement, “It has deeply saddened us to see Senator McCain abandon his historic support for ACORN and our efforts to support the goals of low-income Americans."
”We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform," she said.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"McCain clearly shows a different politician for us ."
Belle: How can you make that statement when McCain has voted with Bush 95% of the time. How is that "different'????
That is more of the same!!
We cannot afford 4 mores years of the last 8 years.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hi bunny, I'm saying I support Obama's plan to give tax breaks to corporations who return manufacturing and outsourced services to this country, which would create jobs.
Also, I am saying I am willing to pay more for goods and services produced in the US in order to create jobs here.
I am a conservative - I don't buy stuff I don't need.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i agree so. woman.
That's why I never shop in Walmart. All their stuff comes from China and not from the US.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southside, Did McCain funnel 800K to ACORN? I don't think so. This whole ACORN mess stinks to high heaven.
Good luck finding items made in the USA if Obama is elected, corporate taxation will send them packing. You won't need to worry about job creation, but rather job loss.
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dunno yet happy, but I am sure there is more to learn...
And yes happy, Obama clearly wants to destroy all industry in this country with ruinous taxation. Because that will be so good for America and do so much to bring down unemployment that will skyrocket next year. Heck that will even guarantee that he gets elected to a second term! Gee! What a great idea!
Crimony.
Do you even stop and think before you type?
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What's up with Obama proposing a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures?
There he goes looking to give freebies out.
That's three months of free living for these people. They got themselves into this mess...they need to get themselves out.
Where's the accountability?
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Notfrom: so when your neighbors around you are foreclosed upon, and the houses go vacant, what does that do to your home value?
And who takes care of maintaining those vacant houses?
Sure, you and I get the shaft for paying a mortgage we can afford.
But in the long run, our houses earn us back the money because of a plan to keep houses from going vacant and becoming derelect.
So, yes, YOU do benefit.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hi bunny, if you can tell me where I can now find stuff made in the US, I will shop for stuff I need from the list.
I believe giving tax incentives to corporations bringing manufacturing operations and outsourced services back to the US would create jobs.
I believe Obama's proposals include giving tax incentives to small businesses would create more jobs.
I agree with natchezsouthside - I would like to end our dependence on Wal-Mart sold/Chinese made goods as well as foreign oil.
We're not doing so well with our pyramid scheme based investments.
I also support Senator Obama's plan to create jobs by working on our country's infrastructure - I hear it's old and in bad shape.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You didn't address the accountability question.
My neighbors are paying their mortgages. I live in a good neighborhood, so I don't expect to see any vacant homes in my neighborhood.
I still don't see the benefit.
All I see is more hand outs...for the undeserving.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
notfromnatchez,
Assuming your neighborhood is middle class, you might want to take a look at Senator Obama's proposals he announced today.
I sincerely wish you well, but I don't believe this thing is over.
Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Looking for children’s Christmas gifts these last couple of years, I did my homework and purchased clothes and toys made in the USA from eBay, starting in August each year. Older games and toy trends from the 50's, 60's and 70’s are all coming back which is great. I always ask the seller where the item is made; I refuse to shop at Wall mart and Kmart for these items. As the grandkids get older I discuss the downside of purchasing non-American items and they know they will not be getting the newest gadget from China from this grandparent. Each in our own way can make small changes.
Posted by 2008 (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
American Made: Products and Services - Made in USA
http://www.madeinusa.org/
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for the link, 2008.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NatchezSS...you said, "looks like McCain has an ACORN in his past too."...you also quoted Bertha Lewis, "We are sure that the extremists he is trying to get into a froth will be even more excited to learn that John McCain stood shoulder to shoulder with ACORN, at an ACORN co-sponsored event, to promote immigration reform.
Joining in an ACORN sponsored event for immigration reform, an issue he truly has been a champion of, is a far dry from accepting their help to fraudulently win an election...has Obama condemned their actions yet? Have you?
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no need to wish me well...things are going great for me.
I just don't like people getting freebies when they don't deserve it.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NatchezSS...you said, "Obama clearly wants to destroy all industry in this country with ruinous taxation. Because that will be so good for America and do so much to bring down unemployment that will skyrocket next year. Heck that will even guarantee that he gets elected to a second term! Gee! What a great idea!"
Yes, that's exactly what Obama has said. Do YOU every stop to think before you type?
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NatchezSS...you said, "...so when your neighbors around you are foreclosed upon, and the houses go vacant, what does that do to your home value? And who takes care of maintaining those vacant houses? Sure, you and I get the shaft for paying a mortgage we can afford. But in the long run, our houses earn us back the money because of a plan to keep houses from going vacant and becoming derelect. So, yes, YOU do benefit."
Biggest rationalization for a ridiculous argument I've heard in a while...LOL. It presupposes that the houses will remain vacant. There are a lot of people out there that have jobs and good credit that need the housing that will keep those houses from being vacant very long. No, we don't benefit by keeping deadbeats in the house next door loitering, hanging out, parking cars in the yard, and selling crack.
We benefit when they are evicted and our property values go up because a family that actually works for, pays for and takes care of the house next door moves in.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dow Up 1,0000: Democrats Break Out in Cold Sweats!:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...
:)
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama Crowds Call For The Lynching Of Palin:
http://electivedecisions.wordpress.com/2...
:(
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Dow Up 1,0000: Democrats Break Out in Cold Sweats!:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...
If you enjoy satire, I highly recommend you read the article linked in OldGrandDad's post.
Sounds like the Canadians I know - ruthless and non-discriminatory - we all took a hit.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 13, 2008 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OGD...The fumigator arrives...LOL.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes I am sweating all the way to the bank. he,he!
Posted by natchezsouthside (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"We benefit when they are evicted and our property values go up because a family that actually works for, pays for and takes care of the house next door moves in."
Sam: try logging off here and reading what is happening in the real world. Clearly you are not paying attention.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I didn't know Sam lived next door to crackheads.
Oh, that was a "royal" we -- like the pope would use if he was pontificating.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have said many times before...Things are better for me now than they were 8 years ago.
I worry when Obama is talking about 90 days of people not paying their mortgage.
I worry when Pelosi is talking about $150B for unemployment and welfare.
It seems like people would be better off not working if Obama wins.
I guess that bumper sticker I read today was pretty accurate: "Work Harder. Millions of people on welfare are counting on you."
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
and Universal healthcare is the biggest mistake EVER!!!!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How are you better off today than you were 8 years ago? Maybe the reason your candidate is losing is that not many people evidently get money the way you do and do not share your sentiment. Are you doing better because of military spending?
Do you worry when McCain says to buy up the bad mortgages? -- even worse that a 90 day moratorium for people who can do math. Why does a 90 day moratorium bother you but a total buyout on the taxpayer NOT bother you????!!!
Do you think anyone's estimate of what unemployment and welfare will be would be any better than Pelosi's? When the GOP had the congress and the presidency they didn't do a thing serious about welfare.
It seems like people who can scrape along on a government check might be better off not working but most of us shoot a lot higher than that. Your statement is a bit lacking -- welfare is not one of Obama's big plans. He has enough on his plate with health care, oil dependence and paying off the failures of the other side.
And universal healthhcare, or making sure there is unversal coverage does not amount to government takeover of health. It amounts to ensuring the other -- what 12% or 15% of the population -- has access enough to healthcare that they can have checkups and fix their health before it gets expensive. We already pay for the charity and unpaid bils of the extremely ill --they just don't get ptreventive care.
I'm glad you laid it out like you did notfromnatchez. It shows you don't think like most people. Why should we have your choice of president if you don't think like most people? This is a democracy.
Posted by notfromnatchez (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 7:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was not happy to hear about McCain's plan, but at least people will have a chance at refinancing. I don't like it but it give people a chance to be accountable.
Obama not wanting anyone to pay isn't going to help those people. They will just see it as a 3 months of free living. and then what?
What happens at the end of three months? That's right, those people will have their houses foreclosed.
I am not better off because of military spending. I am better off because i worked my butt off to get out of debt. I did it all on my own, without the help or support of any government handout.
All universal health care is going to do is make it hard to get appointments and be given adequate service.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it, on the days President Bush makes a speech about the economy, the market drops?
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vote Republican...because not everyone can be on welfare!
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi Bunny, you are so right - we can't all work for a bank.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The banks are on welfare now - supported by my tax dollars.
And I've worked for everything I've ever had. And I resent it.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well you can thank Mr. Clinton and all his democratic pals still holding out their hands. Nothing like big government and with your buddy Obama, it's going to be HUGE. You will be paying for EVERYONE!!! I don't understand you liberals, you complain about paying for welfare, and yet, you are voting for the biggest socialist left wing ho to ever run. At least Bil and John are in the middle. Far right and far lest don't cut it.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi bunny, the only welfare I'm complaining about is going to the banking and financial institutions where the enforcement of the laws on the books were lax and some transactions were not regulated at all. The regulations, they are a'coming.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The regulations in combination with Clinton created this mess. Clinton put the Community Reivestment act on steroids to try to get "everyone" a home and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were pressured to produce a number of low income loans. They in turn losened their guidelines, and we all know what happened next....
If you have a better factual explanation, then please share.
Then you add in Sarbanes Oxley which was put into place in response to Enron. This accounting provision is what has placed banks in this situation on paper. Not to mention t cost corporat America multi-millions to implement.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I certainly have my issues with President Bush, and even though he tried many times to reign in the big financial institutions most responsible for this latest crisis, it was the Clinton Administration, the Democrats-,especially Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Barack Obama's own economic advisor, Frank Raines who are most responsible for this mess. Check out the New York Times article from September 30th, 1999, and it will fill you in on when the stage was set for this disaster.
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
southernwoman...GWB tried to get legislation to curb the bad lending practices of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, but liberal Democrat Senators Barney Frank and Chris Dodd killed the efforts.
You're right, existing regulations and laws weren't adequately enforced primarily due to the intimidation of Pelosi, Ried, Frank and Dodd, but also because some people screwed up...Christopher Cox and the SEC failed in their due diligence and oversight of both Fanny and Freddy and Wall Street in general, prompting McCain to call for his firing, as he should have.
The exact wrong thing to do would be to over-regulate as had been done prior to Reagan's administration and thus choke free enterprise in a knee-jerk reaction.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know about SOX, bunny.
And I know about Enron - George Bush's buddy "Kenny boy", et al.
Here's a fact for you, bunny: the banking and financial institutions did not take responsibility for their transactions and the taxpayers are bailing them out.
The credit default swaps which were an AIG specialty were never regulated.
President Bush proposed it and the Congress and the Senate, including Senators McCain & Obama, voted for the welfare, I think because they did not believe they could afford not to.
I don't think anyone knows if that was the right thing to do. If our financial system had collapsed, it might have brought on world chaos and anarchy.
Paper work is a lot cheaper than bailing out banks - and it will create jobs. Maybe they can take some of the megamillions being paid to executives who ran these institutions into the ground and pay some clerks instead.
Posted by happybunny (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK I tried to be nice....What do YOU know about SOX?nothing...Please explain swaps to me...I can explain them to you...the local banks are fine..no reason to apologize.
Our financial system HAS NOT collapsed chicken little....have you ever heard of a cyclical economy? I don't know how old you are but I remember 12% mortgage rates....yikes...in a democratic administration.
Posted by southernwoman (anonymous) on October 14, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hi bunny, I stand by what I said.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)