Posted on 11/24/2008 4:02:36 PM PST by RobinMasters
Steve Sailer dusts of this Realty Times article reminding us that President Bush's program to increase minority home ownership relied heavily upon the generosity of Fannie and Freddie. Sailer asks, "By the way, do you ever get the feeling that historians will someday look back on the Bush-Obama years as a single era?"
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Tsk-tsk
shhh don’t tell Hannity
Actually, I look upon the entire post-Reagan era as a single era.
With the sole exception of this administration's willingness to war against Al-Queda and Hussein, Clinton/Bush era is already a reality.
I have been posting about this for months. I have called some names and chastised. But, the truth is that Bush appointed Mel Martinez and Alphonso Jackson as Secretaries of HUD under whose purview Fannie and Freddie operated. Both are serious Bush cronies and cohorts. They were both put there as minority (Jackson is black) figureheads to create “minority home ownership” legacy for Bush.
I’ve long faulted President Bush for all his nonsense about an “ownership society.” Many of those people own nothing but debt. You can’t have long term properity by runaway credit. Debt catches up with you. This is the most profligate generation in history, virtually awash in a sea of debt. And what do people have to show for it? Why, gewgaws, gadgets, gizmos and gimcracks.
Alas, in domestic policy it will be the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years as a single entity, since Bush, Sr. started the caving to liberals as the antidote to Reaganism and neither Bush has been good on curbing domestic spending.
The current Pres. Bush certainly has some big plusses over the liberals in international matters, but “compassionate conservativism” was just code for RINO liberalism.
I thought we were going to encourage investing, not more debt. ok, a house is an asset but it doesn’t produce anything.
...It wouldn’t matter, that partisan shill dosen’t listen to reason! The only thing he can come up with is “Mr. smarty pants liberal!!!”
I think you are right about the Bush-Clinton-Bush-0bama years on the domestic policy side. Is there any difference between Paulson and Giethner? From what I can tell, they are interchangeable.
On the foreign policy side, 0bama could be Poppy Bush’s second term, as Powell and Scowcroft are advising 0bama.
he was able to attack Mccain even though Mccain was against most of Bush’s big spending.
Where’s the fair and balanced? The liberals won’t go after Bush over freddie and immigration either.
we want change!
W liked everything that was pandering, big government and big spending. And?
I also heard on the same CNBC program that Geithner as NY Fed Bank Chairman was the primary regulator of CityBank. He was a real success at that was he not.
>>I also heard on the same CNBC program that Geithner as NY Fed Bank Chairman was the primary regulator of CityBank. He was a real success at that was he not.<<
Yep. Obama is selling it as he has first hand experience in the financial mess.
...AhhhhTACK is an extreme word. Bush big government is one issue I would agree with McCain, AND Hannity. And Limbaugh. Yer correct, the liberals want the same thing. Government control of business, they all ready have the Big B, they also want the small b. FACISM...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.