• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Former President Clinton Blames Dems.

TexasBred

Well-known member
The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Chris Dodd (D-CT), has NO idea how the mortgage crisis happened. I repeat, he is the CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE !!! Dodd says, "American taxpayers are angry and they demand to know how we arrived at this moment."

Well, Mr. Dodd, as CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE, you know damned well how the mortgage crisis happened, and the truth is slowly coming out. The mortgage crisis was created by Democrats like Chris Dodd, who repeatedly blocked regulation. Even former Democratic president Bill Clinton knows that, though I'm surprised he is admitting it. I'm always shocked when a Democrat tells the truth. It's a rare occurence. Most Dems are stonewalling for all they are worth. Here's President Clinton being interviewed on ABC:

CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation?

BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit [lie, he means. Yes, the Dems certainly do that. Constantly]. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[/b]

Gosh, that sure doesn't square with the contention by Democrats and the pro-Obama mainstream media, who are so certain that it was those Bush deregulation policies of the last 8 years that caused the problem (a curious hypothesis, since the Bush administration didn't propose any deregulation of the financial industry during the last 8 years. The GOP only proposed REGULATION of the financial industry, and the Dems shot it down, every time).The following exchange on Fox News sums up nicely how the mortgage crisis happened.

JIM ANGLE, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, backed by the federal government, buy mortgage loans from the lenders who make them. But four years ago, both were in trouble over shoddy accounting. Fannie Mae Chief Franklin Raines, President Clinton's former budget director, was fired. To placate those in Congress who watched over them, Fannie and Freddie promised to do more to help poor people get mortgages. That led them to buy riskier and riskier home loans from private lenders creating incentives for everyone to make shakier loans.

PETER WALLISON, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: The problem is that they encouraged very bad mortgages to be made by banks and other institutions, because Fannie and Freddie would buy them.

ANGLE: Eventually, they bought trillions of dollars worth of mortgages, a substantial portion of them based on poor credit, then resold many of them to financial institutions who thought they were safe because the federal government was behind them.

PETER WALLISON, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: As a result of this appearance that they were backed by the government, people never paid very much attention to the assets they were acquiring or the risks they were taking.

ANGLE: And so shaky mortgages spread throughout the system. But in 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then chaired by Republican Richard Shelby, tried to rein in the two organizations bypassing some strong new regulations.

WALLISON: Which would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring this bad — these bad mortgages. It actually gave a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie the kinds of powers that a bank regulator had.

ANGLE: All the Republicans voted for it. All the Democrats, including the current chairman, Senator Chris Dodd, voted against it, and that was after Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had issued a stark warning to senators that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire. Greenspan said without stronger regulations, "We increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis. Without restrictions on the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States."

Guess how Democrats responded to the "strong new regulations" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that Senator Shelby and other Republicans proposed ? They claimed everything over at Fannie and Freddie was just fine and dandy, they attacked the regulators, and they called Republicans racists for proposing the regulation, like they always do with any GOP legislation they don't like. Political correctness over sound policy, that's the Dem mantra. In the interests of fairness, some House Republicans also opposed the regulations, though the vast majority were for it. Virtually ALL Democrats opposed it, and that's why the regulations died.

When Barney Frank (D-MA) became the incoming Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee after the Dems won Congress in 2006, he said this at the National Press Club on December 11, 2006:

Now let me turn to housing — we have more to do yet in the deregulation. I’m just saying that one of the things that we did was to try and reduce the reporting requirement from the banks to the financial detectives. And far too much has to be reported now, in my judgment, of a routine nature. And the metaphor that I use is that we have told the law enforcement people to find a bunch of needles, and then we have set about building them a very big haystack. And we ought to thin that down so they can do a better job. One of the things that I want to stress to my liberal friends is that excessive regulation or ineffective regulation is bad for regulation. Regulation is very important. The market does need some corrections, but if you overdo it, then you weaken your case.

Yet, the Dems claim Bush was the deregulator of the mortgage industry. NOT. Barney Frank was against every attempt by Republicans to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as was Chris Dodd, as was Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) over in the House, as were virtually all Democrats. Remember this when the lying scumbags try to blame this all on the Republicans. The Democrats protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at every turn, and now we are all left holding that big bag of crap.

And guess who received the second most campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie ? Mister Hope and Change himself, Barack Obama. Number one is Chris Dodd. They say if you want to know the truth about something, follow the money. Yes, indeed. That's all you have to do here.

Here's another interesting quote from Barney Frank, made in 2003 during Senate hearings about regulations of Fannie and Freddie that the Bush administration was calling for:

Some of the critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that the problem is is the federal government is obligated to bail-out people who might lose money in connection with them. I do not believe that we have any such obligation. And as we said that it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy based on people. So let me make it clear: I’m a strong supporter of the role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in housing. But nobody who invested in them should come looking to me for a nickel, nor anybody else in the federal government.

Think of this when you hear Mr. Fwank making jokes about how the GOP killed the bailout deal the other day, and about how Fwank says the GOP put their hurt feelings above the good of the country. Fwank is full of it. He wouldn't tell the truth now to save his life, but he sure as heck will lie to save his job. Read many of Barney Fwank's statements about Fannie-Freddie here. It's enlightening.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
If anybody truly wants to know why this country is in the economic shape it is today, look no further than this article. We're not in a "Bush recession", we're in a "Democrat recession".
 

Tex

Well-known member
I think you can blame it on Clinton and Bush. Both set the stage for biz to prosper at the cost of the fundamentals of the economy. After all, we have trade deficits out the kazoo, biz has profited from undermining the U.S. economy and so have the politicians they have in their pocket. We have had the short termers ahead of the switch for some time and they stayed there because of the "grease" they spread in politician's hands.

Personally, I am getting the feeling that Bush was more incompetent than corrupt on some of these issues (if the Libby thing is correct) but the corruption came from members of his own party who did nothing (probably because they are reactionary politicians, not good policy makers). Sooner or later it does catch up with you. You can adjust the numbers only so long before the fundamentals show their strength.

To blame this only on the dems or the republicans leaves half of those responsible get off.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Tex said:
I think you can blame it on Clinton and Bush. Both set the stage for biz to prosper at the cost of the fundamentals of the economy. After all, we have trade deficits out the kazoo, biz has profited from undermining the U.S. economy and so have the politicians they have in their pocket. We have had the short termers ahead of the switch for some time and they stayed there because of the "grease" they spread in politician's hands.

Personally, I am getting the feeling that Bush was more incompetent than corrupt on some of these issues (if the Libby thing is correct) but the corruption came from members of his own party who did nothing (probably because they are reactionary politicians, not good policy makers). Sooner or later it does catch up with you. You can adjust the numbers only so long before the fundamentals show their strength.

To blame this only on the dems or the republicans leaves half of those responsible get off.


Tex I think that's all any of us want, is both for parties to take their share of the responsibility. Neither at the time had the power to act one way or the other without the help of the other.
 

TSR

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Tex said:
I think you can blame it on Clinton and Bush. Both set the stage for biz to prosper at the cost of the fundamentals of the economy. After all, we have trade deficits out the kazoo, biz has profited from undermining the U.S. economy and so have the politicians they have in their pocket. We have had the short termers ahead of the switch for some time and they stayed there because of the "grease" they spread in politician's hands.

Personally, I am getting the feeling that Bush was more incompetent than corrupt on some of these issues (if the Libby thing is correct) but the corruption came from members of his own party who did nothing (probably because they are reactionary politicians, not good policy makers). Sooner or later it does catch up with you. You can adjust the numbers only so long before the fundamentals show their strength.

To blame this only on the dems or the republicans leaves half of those responsible get off.


Tex I think that's all any of us want, is both for parties to take their share of the responsibility. Neither at the time had the power to act one way or the other without the help of the other.

TBred I think you have made a similar statement before referring to the sellout of our politicians to lobbyists related to this mess we are in. IMO in the face of such disaster our President should have gone on national TV and talked to the American people about the impending meltdown and at least threatened with his veto power any future bills of either party unless something was done to correct this future financial collapse. Why didn't he? Was it lack of leadership or had he to become overwhelmed by the lobbyists and corporate interests power, influence, and money?
 

Tex

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Tex said:
I think you can blame it on Clinton and Bush. Both set the stage for biz to prosper at the cost of the fundamentals of the economy. After all, we have trade deficits out the kazoo, biz has profited from undermining the U.S. economy and so have the politicians they have in their pocket. We have had the short termers ahead of the switch for some time and they stayed there because of the "grease" they spread in politician's hands.

Personally, I am getting the feeling that Bush was more incompetent than corrupt on some of these issues (if the Libby thing is correct) but the corruption came from members of his own party who did nothing (probably because they are reactionary politicians, not good policy makers). Sooner or later it does catch up with you. You can adjust the numbers only so long before the fundamentals show their strength.

To blame this only on the dems or the republicans leaves half of those responsible get off.


Tex I think that's all any of us want, is both for parties to take their share of the responsibility. Neither at the time had the power to act one way or the other without the help of the other.

I have to disagree with you here. Both had the ability to do something and both Clinton and Bush did nothing. Both were head of the executive branch that controls the regulatory agencies, the bully pulpit, and the leadership of the government.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
TSR said:
TexasBred said:
Tex said:
I think you can blame it on Clinton and Bush. Both set the stage for biz to prosper at the cost of the fundamentals of the economy. After all, we have trade deficits out the kazoo, biz has profited from undermining the U.S. economy and so have the politicians they have in their pocket. We have had the short termers ahead of the switch for some time and they stayed there because of the "grease" they spread in politician's hands.

Personally, I am getting the feeling that Bush was more incompetent than corrupt on some of these issues (if the Libby thing is correct) but the corruption came from members of his own party who did nothing (probably because they are reactionary politicians, not good policy makers). Sooner or later it does catch up with you. You can adjust the numbers only so long before the fundamentals show their strength.

To blame this only on the dems or the republicans leaves half of those responsible get off.


Tex I think that's all any of us want, is both for parties to take their share of the responsibility. Neither at the time had the power to act one way or the other without the help of the other.

TBred I think you have made a similar statement before referring to the sellout of our politicians to lobbyists related to this mess we are in. IMO in the face of such disaster our President should have gone on national TV and talked to the American people about the impending meltdown and at least threatened with his veto power any future bills of either party unless something was done to correct this future financial collapse. Why didn't he? Was it lack of leadership or had he to become overwhelmed by the lobbyists and corporate interests power, influence, and money?

TSR who knows. It could be that...and it could be sort of like peeing into the wind. It's better to just keep it inside.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Tex, then help me understand this:

The Independent Regulatory Agencies are Government bodies established with the specificpurpose of regulating a particular aspect of American economic or social life (e.g. the FederalCommunications Commission is responsible for licensing and regulating radio and televisionstations in the US).Because the IRAs make rules, enforce those rules and decide disputes that arise under the rules,they are not wholly executive in their function and are “quasi-judicial”. This puts them beyondthe reach of the President. President cannot remove members of the boards of the IndependentRegulatory Agencies.Problems of Presidential Control of the Executive Branch
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
- 2 -(a) Size — No CEO of any private corporation anywhere in the world has as many people workingfor them as has the President of the United States. In January 2001, there were nearly 3 millioncivilians employed in the executive branch of government — amounts to about 3% of total USworkforce.(b) Permanent Bureaucracy — Career bureaucrats stay in Washington for a long time. Politicalleaders come and go. Many senior career bureaucrats know that they will outlast the Presidentwhich tends to give them a different perspective on time. They also have expertise, experience,continuity, institutional memory which most political executives do not possess.(c) Overlapping Jurisdiction — Structure of the executive branch is not well-matched to thenature of policy problems in contemporary America. Problems transcend the clientele-orientedjurisdiction of departments and agencies. The consequence of overlapping jurisdiction is thatlines of responsibility get blurred, departments get involved in turf fights and coordination andcontrol mechanisms are needed to sort out jurisdictional problems.(d) Network of Alliances — Career bureaucrats inevitably build strong working relationships withother “permanent” political actors in Washington, particularly the relevant congressionalcommittees and the major interest groups that operate in the policy area. This is frequentlyreferred to as an “iron triangle” and creates a network of influence that forms a policy-makingsubsystem which the President needs to break down.(e) Independent Regulatory Agencies — These ‘executive branch’ agencies have quasi judicialfunctions. They make laws regulating certain activities and they also determine when thoseregulations have been breached. Presidents cannot tell the boards of the IRAs what to do andcannot remove individuals on the boards. Many members of those boards have a longer term ofoffice than the President. Some of those agencies have very significant policy-makingresponsibilities (e.g. The Federal Reserve with respect to interest rates).(f) Ideological and Political Opposition — Career bureaucracy may be ideologicallyunsympathetic to presidential policy goals or that incoming Presidents may perceive that careercivil servants are ideologically opposed to their policies. President Nixon was a good example. –he believed that the senior levels of the bureaucracy were staffed with Democratic sympathisers.Ideological hostility to the President was tested by Joel Aberbach and Bert Rockman (see“Clashing Beliefs Within the Executive Branch: The Nixon Administration Bureaucracy,”American Political Science Review, Vol.LXX No.2, June 1976, pp.456-468). Aberbach andRockman provided some evidence that Nixon’s fears were justified, although the researchdoesn’t test whether the bureaucrats acted on their hostility to Nixon’s policies.Mitigating MechanismsWhat do Presidents have at their disposal to mitigate the weakness of their control over theexecutive branch? In short, the answer is not much(a) The Cabinet — Role of Cabinet ill-defined and it operates very differently to theWestminster-type Cabinet. President isn’t politically dependent upon support of Cabinet. U.S.Cabinet not usually made up of leading members of the party. US Cabinet doesn’t containleaders of the President’s party in Congress (because of the separation of powers). The USCabinet is rarely a force for collective action and thus not really useful for getting control ofthe career bureaucracy. Cabinet now a symbolic body. It signifies the unity of the executivebranch but does little more. It is not a deliberative body on which the President depends forsupport and it meets only rarely.….continued over
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
- 3 -(b) Political Executives — These are supposed to be the President’s agents within theDepartments, but they also have to represent the interests of their Departments if they are tobe effective within the Department. This creates divided allegiances amongst the politicalexecutives. Political executives are at a disadvantage against career civil servants with respect toknowledge, experience, length of service, and political power base.Presidential Responses to the Problem of Executive Branch LeadershipFour techniques that modern Presidents have utilized to help them control the executivebranch:(a) Personnel Management Practices — Punitive assignments/reassignments, performanceappraisals, closure of regional offices, staff reductions etc.(b) Reorganisation — Structural reorganisation of departments and agencies can be a tool forbreaking down the network of relationships (iron triangles) which bureaucrats may use toobstruct presidential policy goals. But it is much easier to set up a new department than abolishexisting ones because departmental reorganisation requires congressional approval andCongress is usually part of the influence network that the President is trying to weaken.Generally reorganising Presidents (e.g. Nixon and Carter) are not very successful andreorganisation of the executive branch departmental structure is not a sound politicalinvestment.(c) Politicisation — Incentives to make career civil servants more politically responsive, e.g.President Carter’s Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 which established the Senior ExecutiveService for top career-level bureaucrats. This legislation created a number of incentives for civilservants (e.g. bonuses) in return for accepting less job security and willingness to submit toperformance appraisals by political executives. In effect it amounted to civil servants giving uptheir protection from political interference. Carter’s legislation used to great effect by PresidentReagan during the 1980s. It definitely gave him better control of the bureaucracy but it wasalso the major reason for the low morale and increasing number of resignations of career civilservants during the Reagan years. (Hawke reforms of 1983/84 in Australia were modelled onCarter’s 1978 legislation).(d) Salvation by Staff — Presidents attempt to centralise power within their own White Housestaff. Rather than make the bureaucracy go along with them, they set up a counter-bureaucracy with loyal staffers in the Executive Office of the President, which some writers seeas an almost separate branch of government - a presidential branch (see next lecture on ThePresidential Branch — 9th April).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
- 4 -Table 1 - Structure of the Executive Branch of GovernmentT H E P R E S I D E N TExecutive Office of the PresidentGOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTSSTATE; TREASURY; JUSTICE; DEFENSE; INTERIOR; AGRICULTURE; COMMERCE;LABOR; HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT;TRANSPORTATION; EDUCATION; ENERGY; VETERANS AFFAIRS, HOMELAND SECURITYNON CABINET–LEVEL AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONSGeneral Services Administration; Environmental Protection Agency Office of PersonnelManagement; Peace Corps; U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; U.S. InformationAgency; Small Business Administration; National Aeronautics and Space Administration;National Archives and Records Administration; Export-Import Bank of the United States;Tennessee Valley Authority; Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation etc.INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCIESCivil Aeronautics Board; Consumer Product Safety Commission; Federal CommunicationsCommission; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Federal Maritime Commission;Federal Reserve; Federal Trade Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission;National Labor Relations Board; Nuclear Regulatory Commission;Securities and Exchange Commission; Railroad Retirement Board, etc.
 
Top