Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

VIDEO: Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown
Youtube ^ | 9/28/10 | fox

Posted on 09/28/2010 2:17:46 PM PDT by Nachum

The Bush Admin and Senator McCain warned repeatedly about Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and what thus became the 2008 financial crisis -- starting in 2002 (and actually even earlier -- in the Clinton and Carter White Houses. Democrats resisted and kept to their party line, extending loans to people who couldn't afford them -- just like you would expect of socialists.

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bush; bushgse; deflecting; democratcorruption; democrats; dodd; economy; fannie; financialcrisis; fingerpointing; frank; freddie; gopwas4biggov2; mccainwarning; nijaloans; scapegoating; timeline

1 posted on 09/28/2010 2:17:49 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Nachum

This video has been around for a long time. Too bad the GOP and RNC don’t use it.


2 posted on 09/28/2010 2:21:43 PM PDT by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64; Nachum

3 posted on 09/28/2010 2:29:26 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

Show it in Bwannies’ district 24/7.


4 posted on 09/28/2010 2:29:56 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64
I have worked in the USN and USAF as aircraft electrician, and I have done c++ and java software engineering at sabre and IBM and done IT work at largest transaction systems on the planet. I learned that business types in corporate America do not appreciate proactive logical implications . It doesn't matter how eloquent the argument is. The inverse of this behavior was common in aircraft maintenance ... If you explained some potential catastrophic scenario (if x, then y), then your voice would be heard and appreciated.

The dems have been wrong on pretty much every issue. They are worse than the business types who can only understand reaction reflexes if technology is involved.

5 posted on 09/28/2010 2:36:17 PM PDT by gcraig (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
More at How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett
6 posted on 09/28/2010 2:37:29 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Compassionate Conservatism? Promoting self reliance is compassionate. Promoting dependency is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
During the 2004 election Bush INCREASED the buying percentage of F and F from 50% to 54%.

While Bush may have been decrying F and F in 2006 HUD increased the percentage of loans they would buy.

I wish people would learn the truth. Bush and his admin were just as much a part of this as anyone else.

7 posted on 09/28/2010 2:42:52 PM PDT by raybbr (Someone who invades another country is NOT an immigrant - illegal or otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Thanks for posting it
it needs to be shown over and over

As angry as I get that the Bush and company didn’t try harder I understand how they would have been taken down by Dems and media if they had tried harder. If we think we get called racist now think how loud the calls would have been.
mean ol GOP denying poor black folk houses

Now though we need to keep this spinning around the Net
remind people who really caused the crisis


8 posted on 09/28/2010 2:43:03 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

“During the 2004 election Bush INCREASED the buying percentage of F and F from 50% to 54%. “

Do you have a source for that?
I am not saying it didn’t happen, I am asking to learn more.


9 posted on 09/28/2010 2:47:43 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger

From what I understand, Bush set the increase as a goal, but not as a mandate. He did come out against the reckless way F&F were going about it.


10 posted on 09/28/2010 2:54:15 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Compassionate Conservatism? Promoting self reliance is compassionate. Promoting dependency is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

It is too bad, since the MSM seems to have no memory of it. It would be nice as well to have clips of the Democrats as “the party of NO” for years—especially during 2004—2008


11 posted on 09/28/2010 2:54:49 PM PDT by RepublicanMeansAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty

thank you

Isn’t asking for an increase in mortgages F&F underwrite quite differnt than asking for more regulation and you can have both, underwriting more loans BUT making sure the loans are not shaky

Did Bush say, ok increase it to 54% on risky loans?

It seems like they are apples and oranges


12 posted on 09/28/2010 3:00:06 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger
Sorry, I should have posted the link...

That June Post story focused its critical reassessment of HUD's affordable-housing goals on the department's 2004 decision—during the Bush re-election campaign—to juice them up again, pushing the target to 56 percent by 2007. Though the story never mentioned Cuomo—whose three-year, eight-point goal hike exceeded Bush's more gradual six-point increase—it did quote his top aide William Apgar, who helped craft the 2000 policy, saying: "It was a mistake." Apgar, who now teaches at Harvard, conceded, "In hindsight, I would have done it differently."

From here..........

It's a long article that lays the blame on Cuomo and partly on Bush.

The whole housing mess is on the federal govt shoulders from start to finish.

13 posted on 09/28/2010 3:01:31 PM PDT by raybbr (Someone who invades another country is NOT an immigrant - illegal or otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae/

Attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president’s warnings:

** 2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

** 2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market’s] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)

** 2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

“[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.


14 posted on 09/28/2010 3:11:09 PM PDT by roses of sharon (I can do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

I saw “goal”, but not “mandate”. I saw nothing to mandate that F&F go about it in the reckless way they did.


15 posted on 09/28/2010 3:11:53 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Compassionate Conservatism? Promoting self reliance is compassionate. Promoting dependency is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

thanks for that
the question is would raising the per centage mean you couldn’t also regulate F&f?
In other words just raising the amount they underwrote isn’t saying, give out more shaky loans.
Of course the Feds are to blame
and it was chickenshit of the GOP to not want the give Dems the race card to use


16 posted on 09/28/2010 3:20:18 PM PDT by RWGinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
I saw “goal”, but not “mandate”. I saw nothing to mandate that F&F go about it in the reckless way they did.

I don't ever recall seeing those goals written as a mandate. Go to this thread and watch linked video. A good explanation.

I Was A Fannie Mae Executive (WSJ Opinion Journal Video)

If what you say is true then Cuomo cannot be blamed either. After all, it was just a "goal". Also, Bawney could use the same excuse.

17 posted on 09/28/2010 3:20:32 PM PDT by raybbr (Someone who invades another country is NOT an immigrant - illegal or otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
After all, it was just a "goal". Also, Bawney could use the same excuse.

Nope, because he and the Dems ran interference for F&F's reckless ways against the GOP.

18 posted on 09/28/2010 3:23:26 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Compassionate Conservatism? Promoting self reliance is compassionate. Promoting dependency is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RWGinger; Ol' Dan Tucker
thanks for that the question is would raising the per centage mean you couldn’t also regulate F&f?

Sure, but the goal was to increase the purchase of shaky loans.

(from the article: "Cuomo's predecessor, Henry Cisneros, did that for the first time in December 1995, taking a cautious approach and moving the GSEs toward a requirement that 42 percent of their mortgages serve low- and moderate-income families. Cuomo raised that number to 50 percent and dramatically hiked GSE mandates to buy mortgages in underserved neighborhoods and for the "very-low-income." "

Those were the same goals that Bush increased.

If you really want some good info on this go to "Ol' Dan Tucker's" page to see his links and info.

It's a real eye opener.

19 posted on 09/28/2010 3:26:48 PM PDT by raybbr (Someone who invades another country is NOT an immigrant - illegal or otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

marked for later


20 posted on 09/28/2010 3:52:51 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; NFHale; genetic homophobe; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; dools007; rabscuttle385; AuntB; ..
Not again. It makes no sense to try to rehash this non-sense Bush fictional narrative now with Republicans finally recovering the economy trust issue.

All you have to do is google to see all these references to Bush promoting home-ownership to those minorities that couldnt afford it, or even read the contracts (probably many illegals too since those were the worst areas.) Then when it crashed these poor-bad credit minorities blamed Republicans and elected Democrats. Compassionate conservativism was a disaster.

President Bush Mortgage Speech 2002(Helping those w bad credit buy houses)

President Bush Reiterates Goal on Homeownership, Remarks by the President on Homeownership, Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington, D.C. (2002)

Early in George W. Bush’s first administration, a home ownership initiative was introduced, sometimes referred to as the Blueprint for the American Dream, to close the homeownership gap by 5.5 million minority families. Along with this homeownership initiative, there were other policies implemented to dismantle barriers to homeownership in minority communities.” from :
The Great American Mortgage Scam & The Latino Community

George W. Bush, The White House.gov: Homeownership Continues to Increase in 2002 , HUD Statement on Record Homeownership Rates in 2002

George W. Bush, The White House.gov: National Homeownership Month, 2003, By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation

21 posted on 09/28/2010 7:02:18 PM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr; RWGinger
RE :”I wish people would learn the truth. Bush and his admin were just as much a part of this as anyone else.

Another sane person here. Try these references: Bush minority homeownership links at #21

22 posted on 09/28/2010 7:07:44 PM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Those were the same goals that Bush increased.

I might add that Bush made two major changes:

1. He changed the banking regulations/laws so that banks could legally serve Mexican illegal aliens who had neither a Social Security number or valid US identification.

A provision hidden inside the PATRIOT Act allowed banks and lending institutions to accept the Mexican Matricula Consular card as valid ID and they could use the IRS ITIN in lieu of a SSN.

2. Banks who served the 'low income market' (guess who they're talking about?) would receive credit under the CRA.

Once these changes were made, banks put their reps in all the Mexican Consulates to explain to Mexican illegal aliens how they could take advantage of the US banks' goods and services (checking/savings accounts, credit cards, auto, home and business loans, etc.) while they waited in line for their Matricula Consular card.

The others before him were bad, but Bush is the one who really broke the back of the US economy.

23 posted on 09/28/2010 7:24:22 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Governement should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All; raybbr; sickoflibs; DoughtyOne; mkjessup; stephenjohnbanker; Bokababe; calcowgirl; ...
Sure, but the goal was to increase the purchase of shaky loans.

"Increasing homeownership, particularly among minorities, is a priority for the Bush Administration," said HUD Secretary Mel Martinez. (01/27/2003) (georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov)

In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. (08/09/2004) (georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov)

In June, President Bush announced an aggressive homeownership agenda to dismantle barriers to homeownership by providing down payment assistance, increasing the supply of affordable homes, increasing support for self-help homeownership programs, and simplifying the homebuying process and increasing education. The President also issued "America's Homeownership Challenge" to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to join in his effort to increase the number of minority homeowners by taking concrete steps to tear down the barriers to homeownership that face minority families. The Bush Administration is working to increase homeownership among minority Americans through a number of new and expanded initiatives, as well as through ongoing programs administered by HUD and other federal departments..." (10/15/2001) (georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov)

S. 811: American Dream Downpayment Act (govtrack.us)

Note that the S.811, which provided tax-free "down payment" grant assistance using your tax dollars, was written, sponsored, and supported entirely by Republicans!

The establishment (both Dems and Republicans, including statist "conservatives" like Santorum and Sessions, both of whom were sponsors of S.811) really screwed the pooch this time around.

24 posted on 09/28/2010 7:34:40 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: All; raybbr; sickoflibs; DoughtyOne; mkjessup; stephenjohnbanker; Bokababe; calcowgirl; ...

Bush was a RINO, and I’m glad the SOB is no longer in office.


25 posted on 09/28/2010 7:35:44 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Mark


26 posted on 09/28/2010 7:38:36 PM PDT by Randy Larsen ( BTW, If I offend you! Please let me know, I may want to offend you again!(FR #1690))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker; raybbr; rabscuttle385
RE :”The others before him were bad, but Bush is the one who really broke the back of the US economy.

It is sad to have to rehash all this again. Why this was posted now is beyond me. It wasnt all Bush's fault but he certainly wasnt the hero that a few delusional freepers claim. He was a progressive and a big part of the problem.

Much of these actions created a phony housing bubble that appeared to be economic growth in overdrive. The stock market, tax revenues, home values, all seemed too good to be true and it was. The credit contraction took almost two years to wipe out the expansion that lasted about three or so, leaving a Sea of debt and lots of angry voters. The re-writers wanted to take Bush credit for the bubble expansion, and then pass blame for the crash which was a part of it. It never sold, never could.

See comment #21 also.

27 posted on 09/28/2010 7:40:54 PM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Who is Bush or anyone else to give this country away lock stock and Barrel, Compassionate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How being compassionate for this Country for once and Not Mexicans, Muslims and everyone else who does NOT belong here.


28 posted on 09/28/2010 8:13:33 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; Ol' Dan Tucker; rabscuttle385
It wasnt all Bush's fault but he certainly wasnt the hero that a few delusional freepers claim. He was a progressive and a big part of the problem.

Yes.

Thanks for the support, guys. It seems there are still so many that want to laud Bush for pumping air into the bubble.

My fervent hope is that one day Limbaugh would see this thread and stop spouting the line that this thread takes. I would bet that's where all these people who think Bush tried to stop this get their talking points from.

29 posted on 09/29/2010 3:48:30 AM PDT by raybbr (Someone who invades another country is NOT an immigrant - illegal or otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: raybbr; Ol' Dan Tucker; rabscuttle385
RE :” My fervent hope is that one day Limbaugh would see this thread and stop spouting the line that this thread takes. I would bet that's where all these people who think Bush tried to stop this get their talking points from.

Yes, This is my biggest problem on Rush and why I cannot believe him again when he promotes other ‘conservatives’. He still has this need to put a positive spin on the Bush economy.

Yesterday a woman called his show who said she voted for Obama in 2008 because she was fed up with Republicans, even though now she cant stand Obama. So Rush went into this long back and forth with her asking her why she didn't listen to him in 2008 when he was warning us how bad Obama was as a socialist. I was thinking that I would have like to have told Rush , “I couldn't trust you because you were the Bush apologist for so many years and even today try to spin him as a positive”. To me someone has no credibility going after democrats if they cant admit what went wrong with Republicans(and i don't mean blaming it all on the media like Obama does now.) .

I think part of it is Bush cut taxes so Rush feels he has to promote Bush legacy to promote tax cuts, but this is just speculation.

30 posted on 09/29/2010 5:34:48 AM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Well, I went through your links. I didn't see anything mandating F&F's reckless behavior, but I did find this here.

"Early in George W. Bush’s first administration, a home ownership initiative was introduced, sometimes referred to as the Blueprint for the American Dream, to close the homeownership gap by 5.5 million minority families. Along with this homeownership initiative, there were other policies implemented to dismantle barriers to homeownership in minority communities. In December of 2003, President Bush signed into law, the American Dream Downpayment Act, which incorporated three steps to broaden the homeownership. The first rule was to warn buyers about mortgage costs up front so that they could make informed decisions about their purchase. Funds for home counseling services were doubled (some funds went to faith based groups to provide such counseling). The second rule was supposed to make it easier for home buyers to decipher closing costs, and the third rule was to make the paperwork for home loans easier to read."

Read what follows at your like to see what F&F did, which kind of ties in with:

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

and

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

So yes, Bush took steps to increase minority home ownership, but he didn't enact mandates/quotas to force banks to make those bad loans.

But, you and others did open my eyes to one thing. Bush took way too much initiative on this issue, rather than just letting the free market work. THAT, I disagree with.

BTW, I believe our problems started with the collapse of our auto industry in the 70's. It's easy to ignore now because we're used to seeing so many imports on the road, but there was a time when GM had about 60% of the US market to itself. Now, it's considered good news when all of the US makers have 50%. You can't lose a third of your home market by the 90's, and now over half, to imports without taking an economic hit. If the US auto industry wasn't bleeding American jobs, and if other industries hadn't lost so many jobs, then more people would have been able to make their payments and the mortgage problem may not have been as bad as it was.

31 posted on 09/30/2010 2:27:28 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Compassionate Conservatism? Promoting self reliance is compassionate. Promoting dependency is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
RE :”...and the third rule was to make the paperwork for home loans easier to read.

That really worked well, didn't it? No time in the history of the US was there more uninformed home buyers than during that subprime credit disaster. Many of those loans were preditory and those minorities Bush tried to help with them were not at all really to those handle complex contracts. Getting rid of down payment requirement was a recipe for disaster, as was the removal of capital gains for flipping houses. Great for short term credit bubble creation though.

Bush wasn't the only problem, obviously this was a win-win for Democrats, but he benefited short term for this long term disaster, and he was at the wheel driving with his Republican congress back when defenders claim he was fighting tooth and nail to fix it.

I bet when Obama claims that the economy is recovering slowly because Senate minority Republicans blocked some of their great jobs bills, you don't buy it (anymore than me.) Then we cant have it both ways. Either the president with his own party holds much of the responsibility or not.

I have always thought that conservatives should group Bush and Obama together, Bush-Pelosi, then Obama-Pelosi. progressivism has failed.

32 posted on 09/30/2010 5:58:54 PM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
That really worked well, didn't it? No time in the history of the US was there more uninformed home buyers than during that subprime credit disaster. Many of those loans were preditory

That's the fault of the lenders, especially F&F, not the government.

and those minorities Bush tried to help with them were not at all really to those handle complex contracts.

If so, it wasn't because no effort was made to educate them, as your own link confirms.

Getting rid of down payment requirement was a recipe for disaster, as was the removal of capital gains for flipping houses. Great for short term credit bubble creation though.

Trying to manipulate the free market in this way was a move that I don't agree with, but it didn't force F&F or any bank to make risky loans.

Bush wasn't the only problem, obviously this was a win-win for Democrats, but he benefited short term for this long term disaster, and he was at the wheel driving with his Republican congress back when defenders claim he was fighting tooth and nail to fix it.

Not just his defenders.

I bet when Obama claims that the economy is recovering slowly because Senate minority Republicans blocked some of their great jobs bills, you don't buy it (anymore than me.) Then we cant have it both ways. Either the president with his own party holds much of the responsibility or not.

Apples and oranges. Obama has passed his agenda through (porkulus, Obamacare), and the result has been failure. Remember, unemployment would only be 8% if porkulus passed. If he fails to pass any more through, it will be because his own party backed away from his agenda. OTOH, the Dems had sufficient numbers to block GOP attempts to reign in F&F, and used them.

I have always thought that conservatives should group Bush and Obama together, Bush-Pelosi, then Obama-Pelosi. progressivism has failed.

That's an opinion that I can at least respect. I'll grant that he "reached across the isle" far more than he should have, especially after the 2004 elections when he had a crystal clear mandate.

33 posted on 10/01/2010 2:34:05 PM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Compassionate Conservatism? Promoting self reliance is compassionate. Promoting dependency is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson