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

Yes, it's Bush's fault

fff

Well-known member
The financial crisis wasn't an accident, it wasn't a surprise. There was ample warning to the Bush White House and the Republican Congress.

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

Lawrence B. Lindsay, Mr. Bush’s first chief economics adviser, said there was little impetus to raise alarms about the proliferation of easy credit that was helping Mr. Bush meet housing goals.

“No one wanted to stop that bubble,” Mr. Lindsay said. “It would have conflicted with the president’s own policies.”

Park Place South is, in microcosm, the story of a well-intentioned policy gone awry. Advocating homeownership is hardly novel; the Clinton administration did it, too. For Mr. Bush, it was part of his vision of an “ownership society,” in which Americans would rely less on the government for health care, retirement and shelter. It was also good politics, a way to court black and Hispanic voters.

But for much of Mr. Bush’s tenure, government statistics show, incomes for most families remained relatively stagnant while housing prices skyrocketed. That put homeownership increasingly out of reach for first-time buyers like Mr. West.

So Mr. Bush had to, in his words, “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to meet his goal. He proposed affordable housing tax incentives. He insisted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac meet ambitious new goals for low-income lending.

Concerned that down payments were a barrier, Mr. Bush persuaded Congress to spend up to $200 million a year to help first-time buyers with down payments and closing costs.

But Mr. Bush populated the financial system’s alphabet soup of oversight agencies with people who, like him, wanted fewer rules, not more.

The president did push rules aimed at forcing lenders to more clearly explain loan terms. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.

But the back story is more complicated. To begin with, on the day Mr. Falcon issued his report, the White House tried to fire him.

At the time, Fannie and Freddie were allies in the president’s quest to drive up homeownership rates; Franklin D. Raines, then Fannie’s chief executive, has fond memories of visiting Mr. Bush in the Oval Office and flying aboard Air Force One to a housing event. “They loved us,” he said.

So when Mr. Falcon refused to deep-six his report, Mr. Raines took his complaints to top Treasury officials and the White House. “I’m going to do what I need to do to defend my company and my position,” Mr. Raines told Mr. Falcon.

Days later, as Mr. Falcon was in New York preparing to deliver a speech about his findings, his cellphone rang. It was the White House personnel office, he said, telling him he was about to be unemployed.

Entire article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&adxnnlx=1229864567-UHChitjR3UJ0O1Qz%20u1NNw[/quote]
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It forgot the one about Bush telling lenders/regulators to overlook the law requiring they check into the legal status of immigrants before giving a loan...
That is the one that had Congressman Bilbray (R) calling for Bush to be indicted under the RICO statute for conspiracy along with all the illegal immigrants that defrauded on mortgages in his homestate- California- that has led to much of their economic problems....
 

fff

Well-known member
When I look around at the shambles this country is in, I'm almost speechless. Virtually every faucet of our society has been damaged by these people. Reader, you're much kinder than me if you can give Bush any sort of credit. I don't believe he's a "dimwit". I think he knew exactly what he was doing in appointing political pals into responsible positions, as heads of agencies they had fought in their pre-Washington life. It's the Conservative line: we don't need oversight. Now you see people, especially young people who only have Bush's administration to look at, saying government is incompetent and wasteful. They either ignore or don't know any better that under Clinton, we had a well run FEMA, a strong military, we didn't spy on citizens, didn't throw political opponents in jail because we couldn't beat them at the polls, didn't torture our enemies, and the list goes on.

The mess he's left for Obama to clean up is mindboggling, both domestically and internationally.

BTW, that's a long article at the link. I didn't copy even a third of it.
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
fff said:
When I look around at the shambles this country is in, I'm almost speechless. Virtually every faucet of our society has been damaged by these people. Reader, you're much kinder than me if you can give Bush any sort of credit. I don't believe he's a "dimwit". I think he knew exactly what he was doing in appointing political pals into responsible positions, as heads of agencies they had fought in their pre-Washington life. It's the Conservative line: we don't need oversight. Now you see people, especially young people who only have Bush's administration to look at, saying government is incompetent and wasteful. They either ignore or don't know any better that under Clinton, we had a well run FEMA, a strong military, we didn't spy on citizens, didn't throw political opponents in jail because we couldn't beat them at the polls, didn't torture our enemies, and the list goes on.

The mess he's left for Obama to clean up is mindboggling, both domestically and internationally.

BTW, that's a long article at the link. I didn't copy even a third of it.

Do you perhaps mean, "virtually every facet of our society has been damaged by these people," or do you perhaps mean, "virtually every faucet of our society has been drained by these people"? Just curious and not sure if the way you have written it holds any water, so to speak. :? :???:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
"virtually every faucet of our society has been drained by these people"

If you keep the faucet running, and don't need the use of the water, it's called waste.

Waste is what got the US in this situation. Growth that was fueled by over-consumption, credit, and no savings.

Now they are trying to solve the problem with more credit.

The US debt is twice the net worth!
 

Tam

Well-known member
Hey fff did you see the reports today about how the NYTs seem to have forgotten about this from Sept 1999,

In a NYTs article on Sept 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''


Looks like the New York Times should have looked in their own archives before trying to blame something on Bush that Clinton was warned by them would happen. :x
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Do you mean to say that frankie would deliberately try and post articles and such that are meant to mislead?? Surely not she seems to be so knowing and straight about all her hatred that she wouldn't stoop to such an act.

Between her and oldtimer you can read all the lies, half truths, and mis-information that is fit to cut and paste!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: As long as it fits thier agenda
 

Brad S

Well-known member
THis financial meltdown is exactly due to Fannie Fraud and her henchmen Dodd and Obama.

The Left is desperately trying to sling mud on Bush, but history will be clear. Ofcourse the fact that roughly half the electorate believes New Mexico is an independant country gives hope eternal to Left Wing deceivers.
 
Top