I guess you could be right, WilliamIII, which is a sad thing, since the one thing that clearly is not Bush’s fault is the financial collapse, which was brought about by decades of liberal policies — especially in the housing industry — policies which Bush did try to reverse, though not very vigorously.
I would argue that one of the reasons Bush was so unsuccessful at stopping Barney Frank and his allies from wrecking the financial markets with their bad-loan-guarantees was that he was so mired in Iraq and had spent all his political capital in Iraq.
I could be wrong, but I still believe that had Bush limited the war to Afghanistan he would have governed more as a conservative domestically and that the financial collapse would have been lessened... maybe even avoided.
But instead, Bush was hobbled because of the Iraq War and his legacy is to be hated. That hatred, in my opinion, is either directly or indirectly related to that war.
In my opinion that war directly lead to the election of Obamugabe and is thus the biggest single political blunder in US history. That’s my opinion. I admit I could be wrong.
the one thing that clearly is not Bush’s fault is the financial collapse
Wrong. Bush and Rove had an explicit policy of encouraging no-down-payment loans to low-income minorities who couldn’t afford houses under normal, responsible standards of lending. The crash in 2008 was the natural result of the housing bubble that inflated throughout the previous six years of the Bush-Rove presidency.
Read all about it:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/10/05/zero_down_mortgage_initiative_by_bush_is_hit/
“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.
“To build an ownership society, we’ll help even more Americans to buy homes,” Bush said in an Ohio speech to home builders. “Some families are more than able to pay a mortgage but just don’t have the savings to put money down.”