Posted on 09/20/2008 5:52:25 AM PDT by coffee260
The Republicans in Congress don’t deserve blame for the most part. But GW Bush and his “home ownership for all” plank of “compassionate conservatism” certainly is one of the biggest culprits.
"Timely comments," the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, "can have a strong influence on a bank's CRA rating."
yes, he’s taken a lot of credit for rising home ownership. I can’t help but feel the pendulum will swing back to a more positive outlook and return to normalcy.
This is a find ! All true conservatives should warm up their printers go to the original link (only because authenticity would be challenged) and dish this out like candy. This is being linked when I do my update in http://www.theusmat.com/
This is must reading and ping lists.
“from winter 2000”
After 8 years, is this even an issue any more?
On June 17, 2002
Bush said:
And so, therefore, education is a critical component of increasing ownership throughout America. Financial education, housing counseling, how to help people understand that there are unscrupulous lenders. And so one of the things we’re going to do is we’re going to promote education, the education of owning a home, the education of buying a home throughout our society...The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation will dramatically expand financial and home buyer education efforts to 380,000 minority families.
We’re beginning to use the Internet better, so that realtors all across the country will be able to call up programs all designed to help minority home buyers understand what’s available, what’s possible, and what to avoid.
Only if you think the banking crash is important.
Only if you would like to understand how and why it happened and how to keep it from happening again.
Otherwise, it has no importance at all.
Go look at the football game.
ditto
You’re right, the more I find out the better Bush comes out:
“In fact, here’s a New York Times story from September 2003, clearly showing that the first substantive Fannie and Freddie reform from inside government came from the Bush administration. Spurred by worries that Fannie and Freddie were cooking their books and taking too many risks, Treasury Secretary John Snow proposed placing the companies under Treasury oversight with strict controls over risk and capital reserves.”
coffee260 great find, Somebody get this to Michael Savage who frequently gets things wrong. Grahams (some of his stuff I nevcr cared for) role in this as well as GWB citing this is a lesson in accomodation with the left setting the agenda over principle, and a failure in leadership. Which may explain why GWB is a pushing face saving tax busting bailout while letting the wolves like Dodd, Obama, et al (both sides)guard the geese laying the golden eggs...
Is this sentence the extent of your rebuttal?
Your comment about Wall Street creating instruments out of thin air is the real problem here. It’s not the CRA or any of this other stuff.
Look at AIG. You hear on the news all week that AIG couldn’t go under because they sold billions in “credit default swaps”. What are credit default swaps? Essentially insurance that investors could buy that stocks/bonds of companies they owned wouldn’t go belly-up.
Now I understand the absolute need for things like insurance to pay for medical bills, to replace your house if it is hit by a tornado or for life insurance. But was it really wise to have a bunch of these Wall Street firms start taking bets from investors to provide “insurance” that a company would have good credit?
Sure I understand that having that type of insurance can make markets more “efficient”. But in reality, all we’ve done is write up a bunch of worthless paper contracts that people then relied on to the tune of trillions of dollars.
I realize at the heart of things our whole system is based on confidence and fiat money but Wall Street, with Washington’s full approval (or at least lack of interference) took the whole concept of “belief in the system will hold this up” and pushed it to the ends of the earth with derivatives. And this was all done in the past 15-years at an exponential pace.
That’s our problem right now.
“Only if you think the banking crash is important.”
Right...
And you think this is why the banking collapse is happening. Please explain your theory.
bookmark
It happened when it happen, take it for what it is.
I realize at the heart of things our whole system is based on confidence and fiat money but Wall Street, with Washington’s full approval (or at least lack of interference) took the whole concept of “belief in the system will hold this up” and pushed it to the ends of the earth with derivatives. And this was all done in the past 15-years at an exponential pace.
That’s our problem right now.
You are 100% correct, but the cool-aide drinkers will still want grape. And no amount of blame "the monkey behind the tree" by the republican party will change the fact that most of it happened on their watch.
The GOP did NOT have control of both houses for the first 6 years of Bush's presidency.
the Democrats controlled the Senate for most of the 107th Congress
Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present
107th Congress
Democratic Majority takes control Jan 3, 2001Jeffords split with GOP could hamper Bush agenda, May 24, 2001
Republican Majority takes control Jan 20, 2001
Democratic majority takes control June 6, 2001
Congress out of session when Talent beats Carnahan Nov. 5 2002
“This is not all clitoons fault it has 100% to do with complete like of congressional oversight...”
Clinton effectively forced the CRA strongarm tactics through the Justice Department, not the Congress.
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.