Bush Live - Speech on Corporate Responsibilty

MSNBC

[Sub-Driver]

Says Fraudulent CEOs Should Lose All Compensation

[RedBloodedAmerican]

What the hell are you talking about?

[lysie]

I love it when you are right. :-)

[caddie]

I will be happy to clarify.

There is no such thing as a "financial crime" or a "hate crime" or an "economic crime." There are just crimes. The use of the term "financial crime" plays into the real envy of the left, and it besmirches the people who work, invest, and become successful. Bush is pandering to the left with this, and alienating his base at the same time.

From now on, will every person who makes more than one million dollars a year be suspect?

Do you want it that way? Many in America do. I do not.

The "poll-driven president...alienating his base," is an excellent observation. Bush is pandering to the glommy middle, the Left, the Rats, and everybody, RIGHT NOW.

When the Republican primaries start, you will see him, in a craven and sickening manner, start to appeal to the base again. He will sound like a cross between Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt.

But it is all calculated garbage on his part.

The minute he gets the nomination, he will re-emerge JUST AS HE is now, a RINO at best, a cryptosocialist rich boy at worse.

He alienates his base now because he can afford to.

Or, to summarize, HIS POLLSTERS TOLD HIM IT WAS OK TO ALIENATE THE BASE FOR THE PRESENT TIME.

If Bush is serious about corporate malfeasance, he should be indicting Lay, Martha Stewart, and all these guys, including McAuliffe, and maybe Hillary.

Let's see if he REALLY DOES.

[NittanyLion]

Do you want the government deciding what is 'excessive'? Should the government be an unseen seat on every corporate board?

It'll be interesting to see whether increased oversight of CEOs actually results in higher pay for CEOs.

[Miss Marple]

I find it amusing when the actions of a president in trying to clean up Wall Street corruption are met with whines from supposed conservatives.

Your complaints are based on what "might" happen, based on your interpretation of the president's words.

Therre most assuredly are "{finanacial" crimes, just as there are "sex crimes." "Hate" crimes describes motivation; the use of the words "financial" and "sex" indicates the type of crime, not the motivation. It doesn't matter the motivation in a financial crime, whether it was for greed, glory, or stupidity; it is a financial crime.

You anti-Bush people are twisting yourselves into pretzels in order to find something wrong with this speech. You end up looking like you are on the side of the crooks. You are welcome to that position.

[ohioWfan]

Or, to summarize, HIS POLLSTERS TOLD HIM IT WAS OK TO ALIENATE THE BASE FOR THE PRESENT TIME.

Source, please?

btw, haven't you heard? His base has not been alienated. He has well over 90% approval among Conservative Republicans. From the personal disdain you display for him in your posts, I would guess that you were never in his 'base.'

One more btw........going after Martha Stewart would prove to you that he's serious about corporate crimes?! Interesting.

[NittanyLion]

Sounds as though the folks who find fault with this speech have to get into some real semantics to do so. Hopefully it'll be replayed tonight so I can watch.

[Vis Numar]

Here, I'll boil it down to the gist:

Got a problem? Fine, we'll make the Gov't bigger.

[Dales]

Here, I'll boil it down to the gist:

One problem with your boiling down of it- namely, it doesn't do what you said.

[section9]

There is no such thing as a "financial crime" or a "hate crime" or an "economic crime." There are just crimes. The use of the term "financial crime" plays into the real envy of the left, and it besmirches the people who work, invest, and become successful. Bush is pandering to the left with this, and alienating his base at the same time.

I actually agree with you that crime, in and of itself, is merely that, crime. However, there are different classifications of felonies that do exist in the law.

What you don't realize is that a bunch of people are going to be indicted and put away. The fact is, cases against them must be built. That's what DOJ is in the middle of doing right now. Bush's EO merely formalizes this approach within the Department.

We still have a jury system in this country, and even the rapscallions among us have their rights to a trial.

Bush himself can indict no one. His agent, the Attorney General can, but only on proper information that leads to an indictment that will pass muster before the Federal Bar.

I would advise you to hold fire for now, and wait to see if there is proof in the pudding. I shall.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[patricia]

Reading your article is like listening to and observing President Bush: the joy of having perceived EXCELLENCE!

[Miss Marple]

The speech is posted earlier in the thread, and also on the White House web site. It is quite remarkabl how some folks are quibbling over supposed inferences and wordings.

The basic message of the speech is that character matters, clean up your act, and people will be going to jail.

[NittanyLion]

The basic message of the speech is that character matters, clean up your act, and people will be going to jail.

Yep, that's what I gathered based on comments here and the transcript. Seems fair to me.

[Miss Marple]

Two more accounting firms were just indicted by the Department of Justice. Does that count, or do we have to wait for a fab celebrity like Martha Stewart to be brought to trial before we can say President Bush is serious about this?

And WHY are so many folks wanting to pile on Martha, by the way? Could be they think they can make her a "victim" the way Hillary worked it, and make President Bush the villain? JMHO, of course.

[Freedom'sWorthIt]

He (President Bush) does not have the power to indict anybody. The Justice Dept does, however. Yes, we will see if his Justice dept goes after Lay, Martha STewart, Terry McCaulliffe, and a host of others.

What you call political posturing and pandering to the polls has some merit. However, President BUsh has also said from the very beginning of his campaign for PResident that he wanted to work to restore the idea of "accountability" in a whole host of arenas - in Education, in those holding public office, and in business, and in the family.

I know it looks like what will happen is just more trouble for the small businessman or woman who is working his rear end off to make a success of his business.

But none of what we have heard these two days has anything to do with small business. It has to do with corporate boards, CEO's, and megamillions in compensation while the execs are defrauding the company.

But, don't you think the President should address the business climate that has promoted fraud and deceit for the past eight years?

Yes, I am with those who think he should - MUST - also address the fraud and deceit in government. He will. I am sure of it.

The War on Terror is not a fraud and a deceit. Most likely Osama Ben Ladin is dead.

Their terrorist training camps in Afghanistan are gone.

There is a prison full of Al Quaida members down in Cuba and who knows how many other hundreds dead. (We don't know how many because the enemy drags off their dead).

Clinton AVOIDED SERIOUS ATTEMPTS TO GO AFTER TERRORISTS FOR EIGHT LONG YEARS AND DECIMATED OUR MILITARY AND OUR SECURITY FORCES DURING THAT TIME.

In 18 months after an attack on this country unequaled in our history, this President has managed to go after our attackers with force (something they nor the Clintonoids EVER expected him to be able to do); avoid another major terrorist attack; help the economy to keep from going into a total depression though the Demonrats keep talking it down in that direction; push through a tax cut and keep it pushed through; and work for accountability in public schools......while restoring honor, integrity, and normalcy to our Presidency.

I'd say that's quite a lot in almost 2 years.

No, President Bush is NOT a classic conservative in his policies. And, I agree, that is somewhat disconcerting. He has opened the REpublican party to groups that some conservatives are not comfortable in welcoming. But he remains staunchly for lower taxes, less government, a stronger military - and is working in all those directions.

BUT YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE SENATE IS IN OPPOSITION TO EVERYTHING HE PROPOSES!

He could either fail to get any measure through the Senate or he could compromise and get the best he can get under the circumstances and work to elect more Senators of his own persuasion this fall.

He chose the latter.

That is pragmatism and is something that sadly is required to succeed in politics today...until we could possibly take the overwhelming majority in the Senate. What are you doing to see that happen?

[afraidfortherepublic]

People that start and run small businesses in this country make the country work. NOT Wall Street!

And starting and running a small business is TO DAMN HARD for some people! They should be easier to start and maintain. The first thing to do is TRASH the entire tax system. Both corp. and personal. Go to a flat tax.

I couldn't agree more! Something like 75% of the people in America work for corporations that employ less than 50 people, yet those small corporation enjoy none of the so-called corporate tax breaks, write-offs, shelters, perks, etc. And those little corporations are providing most of the new jobs too.

Just the paperwork involved in keeping up with the various taxing authorities is enough to turn you grey and raise your blood pressure. Flat tax would be wonderful!

I recently took over the financial management of our corporation -- including payroll. I have subcontracted the payroll to a service and happened to check the bank statements this week. I transfer money to the service to cover payroll and they pay the employees and the various taxes.

When I looked at the bank transactions I just about croaked at several large deductions from the payroll service that did not match my employee checks. At first I thought the service was embezzling funds from my account, and then I sobered up and realized that these LARGE deductions were for FICA, State & Federal taxes. It is pathetic how much of our combined payroll goes just for taxes!

Looking at the whole shebang all together was a real eye-opener for me.

[BlueAngel]

Bravo John, bravo. Thank you!

[afraidfortherepublic]

I simply have real heartburn with condemning CEO's for pursuing profit

ROTFLOL! I can tell that you are more of my generation than the "younger" generation. Don't you know that the colleges and universities these days teach that "profit" is a dirty, hateful word? And I'm being dead serious on that one -- having more than a passing knowledge of some teacher types.

[Freee-dame]

Anyone hear Imus this morning?

I heard it. I couldn't believe it when I heard Imus say three MONTHS to D Gregory's "a few days" about the time lapse before Harkin stock took a big dip. He even said it more than once. Imus also asked Gregory about Terry McCauliff's Global Crossing $100,000 into $16 Million (or so). Gregory just paused and continued to slam President Bush. It almost seemed like he had orders never to even mention that little deal.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Anyone who has the stomach to watch anything but Fox News has my regrets

Up untill recently I was an "all Fox, all the time" viewer, but I can no longer stomach a lot of it. Fox and Friends has gotten particularly bad with their senseless sniping in the morning and lewd comments. It's a terrible way to start the day. There is nothing better, so I have opted for nothing.

I used to love Hannity & Colmes, but I can hardly stand them either -- for the same reason. The screaming at each other -- particularly when they have a couple of opposing guests. Don't they realize that some of us would appreciate hearing a complete thought out of some of the guests -- even if we don't agree with it? At least Hannity and Colmes are not lewd -- just loud and obnoxious.