Skip to comments.BUSH IS AQUITTED OF ANY BLAME FOR THE FINANCIAL CRISIS
Posted on 04/15/2009 12:58:47 PM PDT by Cindy of Nashville
This is a video every American should see. It has been pulled from American Youtube. It is still on Canadian Youtube. Please click on the URL link and view this. Spread it around before is disappears from Canada too.
Then Bush should have fought against the bailout instead of for it.
Bush should have fought for a lot of things that he didn’t fight for. It was the Achilles heel of his presidency.
He understood when he was up against with the islamists. With the leftists, not so much.
For years, Bush promoted no-down-payment mortgages in order to increase the rate of homeownership, especially among minorities. This was a continuation of Clinton policies. Bush DOES deserve some of the blame. Liberal policies don’t suddenly become good because they are implemented by a Republican president.
Can someone provide a set of instructions on how to download the video to keep a personal copy?
Firefox has free plugins that do that. Just search the download video capture plug ins.
“Then Bush should have fought against the bailout instead of for it.”
To be fair, those are two different issues. One could argue, along with Ben “Helicopter” Bernanke that once the mistakes had been made, it was to dangerous to let the market correct itself. I don’t agree with that argument, but it isn’ty logically fallacious.
It is quite simple. After viewing the video, go to Windows Explorer, find
C:\Documents and Settings\~[YOUR USER NAME]\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files,
sort by Last Accessed with the most recent at the top, find the FLV file
(usually ends in .flv) and copy it to a permanent directory.
Bush “promoted no down-payment mortages”?
What exactly did he do to promote them?
Did he sign something into law that made them easier to get than they already were?
Did he give a speech announcing the “free money” to everyone who hadn’t heard about it since the mid’90’s?
What did he actually do to “promote” these loans?
“Bush tried to stop Fannie and Freddie clear back in 2001, and the Democrats majority in congress stopped him. DEMOCRATS CAUSED THE BANKING CRISIS, NOT GEORGE BUSH”
I couldn’t agree more!
[And yes, President Bush did battle the Democrats on this and MANY, MANY other issues including Social Security . . . Where were FR’s keyboard commandos then? Where were the conservative talkers? Where was the conservative intelligensia? No where to be found . . . perhaps they were busy helping Ron Paul craft his one zillionth earmark?!]
I don’t aquite Bush entirely. He (and other Republicans) pushed TARP I. Inexcusable.
taxcontrol, just email the video link from youtube to yourself. After you receive it, put it in a file in your My Documents.
Zero-down mortgage initiative by Bush is hit Budget office says plan likely to spur more loan defaults By Chris Reidy, Globe Staff | October 5, 2004
President Bush's weekend campaign promise that he will push legislation allowing for no money down on some federally insured mortgages could cost taxpayers as much as $500 million over four years because of a higher rate of defaults, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The election-year idea may appeal to those who can't save as fast as home prices are rising. But some financial planners warn that increasingly common no- and low-down-payment programs can be ruinous for some consumers -- especially if home values decline. If housing prices fall, consumers with little or no money of their own invested in the home are more vulnerable to ending up with mortgages larger than the value of the house. And those who can't afford large down payments usually don't have enough savings to serve as a cushion if someone in the household gets sick or is laid off. "If you're really stretching, maybe you should back off and look at a less expensive house," said Joan Gray Anderson, a professor of family financial counseling at the University of Rhode Island. Bush proposed zero-down-payment legislation earlier this year. The Congressional Budget Office has contended for months that the proposal would generate huge losses, an assessment that could be a stumbling block for the bill's passage. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development thinks the program could be run on a break-even basis. Bush contends that reducing the required 3 percent down in the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program to zero down would help 150,000 first-time buyers in the first year. Homeownership rates are now about 69 percent nationwide, compared to about 64 percent 10 years ago. The FHA insures many private-lender home loans.
Trying doesn’t count. Succeeding does. Bush had the bully pulpit, DOJ, Executive Orders — lots of things under his belt that he could have used, but did not. Making a speech that goes no where is not enough. Results matters.
You’re right. Every American should view this. I’m sending this to non-freepers to help spread the word.
The Dems did not have a majority until 2006. The last line of the piece says that the Republicans did not bring the regulation measure to a vote because it would not have passed. Barney argued this to the kid who questioned him on the video recently. Bush is acquitted of any blame. I do not think the republican Congress is blameless however.
Okay, I fell into your trap. My bad.
What I meant to ask was, when did Bush promote zero-down loans for unqualified buyers? Because in your article, when Kerry’s griping about the “relative few” Bush’s plan would help, he’s referring to all the below-550 rated applicants that Bush never talked about giving home loans to.
And they’re the ones who killed the economy. The deadbeats. Who were getting free money and McMansions long before Bush ever took his first Oath of office.
I thought Kanjorski said that the bailout was to cover the $550B 2 hour run on money markets on Sept 18, 2008.
I just downloaded a firefox plugin, tried it out and it worked wonderfully for me. I got it at:
I heard somewhere that the great depression brought on a method to keep a run on the banks from causing a worse problem, and that method was to flood them with money.
“I heard somewhere that the great depression brought on a method to keep a run on the banks from causing a worse problem, and that method was to flood them with money.”
Academic study of the Great Depression tought some people, including the otherwise free-market-loving Milton Friedman, the dangers of not using the Fed to prevent deflation. Current Fed chairman Bernanke is a devoted believer in counter-cyclical monetary action. They believe the only reason the depression was Great was because banks failed. I believe they are dead-wrong. Crashes are caused by the preceeding boom period. Depressions are the solution, not the problem. Can’t solve them by treating them to what caused them in the first place.
For instance, how do they explain the “Second Great Depression” of ‘37-’38, which didn’t at all follow from bank collapse? Paul Krugman blames it on spending cuts and budget-balancing, but he’s clearly insane.
Ditto what you said...
Look, I was there when the Secretary and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve came those days and talked with members of Congress about what was going on. It was about September 15th. Here's the facts, and we don't even talk about these things. On Thursday (which would have been September 11th ahem) at about 11 oclock in the morning the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of $550 Billion was being drawn out in in a matter of an hour or two.
The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 Billion into the system, and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks.
Decided to close down the accounts and announce a guarantee of 250k per account so there wouldnt be further panic out there, and thats what actually happened.
If they had not done that their estimation was that by 2:00 that afternoon, 5.5 TRILLION wouldve been drawn out of the MM system of the US,
wouldve collapsed the entire economy of the US
and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
Now we talked at that time about what would happen if that happened.
It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.
And thats why when they made the point, weve got to act and do things quickly we did it.
So in a way it is President Bush's fault for not allowing not only our political and economic system, but the world's as well, to fail and put the world in total chaos which is exactly what O-bomb-us and Soros had in mind, IMHO.
Thus the statement about abandoning free-market principles to save the free market. Unfortunately, we were not privy to the above information last September.
This has been posted on FR repeatedly and yet there are people that are ignorant of the facts. I find that surprising.
I debated with myself about posting it again, but with ignorance still running rampant I thought it could not hurt.
Personally, I think most of those that still "don't get it" are the BDS club here on FR and they choose NOT to get it as it ruins their agenda.
You find it surprising...I find it pathetic and sad.
It is possible that some haven’t seen it.
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.