Bush says he is working hard on economic turmoil
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Australia's most populated state lifts uranium mining ban
( 2 )
-
Israel blames Iran for series of blasts
( 20 )
-
Obama: Strong U.S.-China ties help rest of the world
( 5 )
-
Santorum surging in Republican presidential race
( 12 )
-
Private funeral Saturday for Whitney Houston
( 2 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
32 Comments
Login to comment
0
rjd_jr
Yea I'm sure he is working so hard and diligent in resolving the economic turmoil.
0
Alinsky4prez
Unfortunatley for Barack the market roared back today.
0
Betzee
Yes, I did find it odd that GWB remained out of sight, holding meeting with close allies like the President of Ghana, while Berneke and Paulson ran around trying to keep the fire from engulfing everything.
On the other hand, what could he say? For months he's been assuring the American public the "economy's fundamentals are sound." Ummm, not they are not. There has been an explosion in public and private debt during his watch. And a blogger put things in perspective with a little much needed comic relief:
Last night I was happy as a lark, because I'd gone and bought something. Then came this morning. Oh my gosh! Was I drunk or something? I feel totally hung over. What am I going to do?! This most recent purchase - it's so cute with its three little initials in an elegant white font on a crisp blue square! - means I now owe another $85-billion. And that's on top of the $230-billion bill I've racked up in just the past few months. My closet is stuffed to the gills now, and even the driveway has a $2-trillion war - that's going nowhere, of course - sitting in it.
I don't think I'm alone here in being able to recall the hue and cry over the USD 1.5-billion loan guarantee which Uncle Sam extended to an ailing Chrysler, a loan that the auto giant paid back early incidentally. That was back in 1979, just before the era of deregulation began and we were told the free market would raise all boats. Instead it has brought about a situation where "profits are privatizated while losses are socialized."
It shouldn't escape anyone's notice that the American taxpayer is inexorably assuming primary responsibility for keeping global financial markets afloat. Yet even before this crisis started, the USA as a country, and many citizens individually, were already spending far in excess of what they were bringing in. In other words, we were already living on credit making it difficult to see how we can afford the liabilities we have been asked to assume only this week. By comparison, the Chrysler bail-out was a drop in the bucket.....
0
CavemanLawyer
Working hard? I would rather he were working smart. Obviously, that is not going to happen.
--Cirroc
0
Betzee
WASHINGTON — The head of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve began discussions on Thursday with Congressional leaders on what could become the biggest bailout in United States history.
While details remain to be worked out, the plan is likely to authorize the government to buy distressed mortgages at deep discounts from banks and other institutions. The proposal could result in the most direct commitment of taxpayer funds so far in the financial crisis that Fed and Treasury officials say is the worst they have ever seen.
Senior aides and lawmakers said the goal was to complete the legislation by the end of next week, when Congress is scheduled to adjourn. The legislation would grant new authority to the administration and require what several officials said would be a substantial appropriation of federal dollars, though no figures were disclosed in the meeting....
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/business/19fed.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
0
Alinsky4prez
I dont understand their sense of humor.Are they mocking bush's handling of the economy or do they dare suggest that the Democrats must share blame?
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/
0
SushiSake3
Bush has been saying the U.S. economy 'is strong' for years now.
looks like he got that wrong.
mccain is echoing bush and they are both flat wrong.
how can an economy be 'strong' when it takes on $6 trillion in extra debt and everything negative that goes with that?
These Republicans couldn't manage a booze up in a brewery, let alone sensibly manage an economy.
0
Nessie
Whatever he's doing, it's working.
Now if he would only work hard against economic turmoil...
0
Nessie
The Bush Doctrine:
Privatize gains, socialize losses
0
Sarge
Nessie - That's not the Bush Doctrine. Try again.
0
Nessie
Okay, Sarge. How about "pre-emptive strike": cash in your stock options before it all goes fubar.
0
Alinsky4prez
Russia just closed down its stock market. Putin's cred as a true progressive just grows and grows.
Too bad we'll have to wait til next January before Barack can do the same to our out of control neoliberal nightmare of free markets and the whole 'pursuit of happiness' thing.
0
Betzee
Ah, but we don't have to wait until January. We're going to get big government (yep, that's right) beyond anyone's wildest dreams by the end of next week. While Uncle Sam did make a little money off the Chrysler bail-out, it's hard to see how we the feds can unload their recent purchases at anything but fire sale prices.
One imagines that the "Republican Study Committee," a group of 100 or so conservative lawmakers who released a letter today asking Bernanke and Paulson to "refrain from conducting any additional government-financed bailouts for large financial firms," will not be pleased at the news that the federal government is now promising to fix the balance sheets of everyone on Wall Street who is coming down with the subprime flu. Even those of us who rarely are in agreement with conservative Republicans confess, they might have a point when they complain about a climate "where companies are absolved, not punished, for excessive risk taking."
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/09/19/wallstcampaigndayin_review/
0
borscht
I hope Bush isn't doing anything about the economic turmoil. I hope he's leaving it to people who know what they are doing. i.e. people not in his administration.
0
SezWho2
I think the best thing that Bush can do at this point is to craft a rescue plan that is both along the lines recommended by McCain and contrary to that which is recommended by Obama--if either candidate has been specific enough that this is even possible.
If it passes, it will have required bi-partisan support. And Obama is undercut as not having the support of his own party. But the great part is that if it fails, the Democrats get blamed and Obama is still undercut.
Of course, such a plan wouldn't necessarily be an effective plan. But maybe that's beside the point?
If it fails to pass, the Democrats get blamed
0
Betzee
SezWho,
Nobody has a plan, except to do whatever is necessary today to stave off disaster tomorrow. The thinking doesn't extend beyond that. As for the partisan angle:
Conservative Republicans are mad at Bush, a Republican presidential candidate is mad at Bush's choice for SEC chairman because he's insufficiently tough on Wall Street, but not mad enough to lambaste Bush himself. And the Republican SEC chairman is mad at his party's nominee for president.
Somewhere, a Democratic witch doctor who preached "Confusion to the enemy!" this morning is cackling, satisfied with a day's work well done.
What's been undercut here is the Republican mantra that everything is best left to the market and government involvement can only muck things up.
0
SezWho2
Betzee,
I agree that no one has a plan. That's why any specific plan that can be presented as pro-McCain-anti-Obama would be such a good one. Whether it works is secondary. The primary consideration is holding on to power.
0
zurcronium
bush has worked hardly at all in his last 8 years which is why the country is a total mess. He has been on vacation 2.5 years of the last seven plus. He was on vacation when he let OBL attack the US. He did get busy enough to lie his way into invading iraq but not busy enough to prevent it from being a total failure.
The repub leaders are locking up bush now as they know when he says anything stupid again, another 250,000 people will vote for Obama.
Its sad that his own party is not ashamed of him, as I am sure his family is as well. He wanted to prove daddy wrong about not being a screw-up, but in the end he just proved it all over and this time he screwed up the country.
0
Betzee
Except for the time factor. They don't even have time to present a plan. While the Europeans are enjoying the hypocrisy of American free-marketeers suddenly rolling up their sleeves to involve the government in unprecedented ways, nobody really wants to see the global financial system go belly up. Once the system is stablized, then there will the time to discuss plans. It will also be time to take stock of just how much debt the American taxpayer has been asked to shoulder to achieve stability.
0
Betzee
Here's a measure that would have been difficult to contemplate (even last week):
The Treasury Department said Friday morning that it would guarantee, at least temporarily, money market funds up to an amount of $50 billion in order to ensure their solvency.
0
SuperLib
It's strange but I just realized that this is the only media outlet where the economic debate is 100% about George Bush.
0
Sarge
SuperLib - Amazing, isn't it, considering that the Democrats basically caused this mess.
0
Betzee
Congressional leaders said after meeting Thursday evening with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that as much as $1 trillion could be needed to avoid an imminent meltdown of the U.S. financial system.
Wonders never cease, the five trillion GWB will bequeath to the national debt just grew.
0
Sarge
zurcronium - The Republicans are the ones who have been trying to reform the system. And who's been in charge of Congress recently? And who was in the White House from 1993 to 2001?
0
Good_Jorb
The problem started in 1913, since then both parties have had enough time in power to reform the system. The fault lies with everyone who believed an economy based on debt could continue to grow forever.
The ironic part is the Bush and Republicans have been working hard at fixing the problem by turning the US into a socialist welfare state.
0
moderateguy2008
Sarge- great post buddy, true patriot!
Those pesly DEmocrats aleways try to ruin the good work of Republicans, but the country trusts Bush and McCain.
0
SuperLib
Well, maybe I should say that this is the only website that defines the problem through Democrats and Republicans. I read quite a few different websites to get information about the problem and there's very little partisan reporting, but I come here and it's 100% partisan. Most people here have no free will.
0
SezWho2
SuperLib,
If "most people here" have no free will, we can all be thankful that you are a refreshing exception.
Solutions--if any exist--to this problem are going to be crafted with fiscal policies in a political environment. If we are going to make generalizations about "most people here", I would submit that most of us here are not economists and are completely unqualified to discuss this problem apart from political considerations. We might as well discuss cosmology as pure economics applied to the current situation.
This particular article concerns what Bush is or is not doing. Generalizations about most people here or this web site aside, it is 100% applicable to be talking about what Bush is or is not doing, has or has not done.
0
SezWho2
Betzee,
I really don't want to get into an argument with you as to whether the administration has time to craft a plan or not. I personally think they do have time, but if you don't think so that's OK with me. I don't know how we would go about proving this point one way or another. Do you?
0
Betzee
You're right on the money here (with enough knowledge, however, ignorance is easy to spot something SuperLib fails to comprehend): I would submit that most of us here are not economists and are completely unqualified to discuss this problem apart from political considerations.
Finance has become an arcane field that requires a strong background in math (like beyond calculus). Future Treasury Secys should have Wall Street on the resume. Those who come industry are unlikely to be able to adequately follow what is going on in the financial world.
We've arrived at the planning stage now (and we're in uncharted waters). For example, how will the purchase price of these assets be determined? If Uncle Sam, or specifically the Treasury Department, gets the price right, the upfront outlay could be recouped at the later resale date (after the real estate market recovers). On the other hand, if it overpays, the taxpayer (that's you and me) have to absorb the difference.
0
SezWho2
Betzee,
I think you are right about the purchase price valuation being important. But I'm devilish enough to wonder how much of the 2-year budget of $700B Paulson intends spend and who he intends to spend it on.
Back to top