Can You Really Blame Bush For The Economy?

[MattAMatt]

I keep hearing that the Bush economic policy was to blame for the economic crisis we now face. Lord knows Bush's budgets were way out of line, even though he had 9/11, Wars, Katrina, Power Outages in NYC and the like (secondary causes of recession). The fact is that the primary culprit behind the economic crisis was the statist policies from Carter & Slick Willy that Bush inherited:

1977 CRA Community Reinvestment Act - The act provided that banks have an "affirmative obligation" to meet the credit needs of the communities in which they are chartered.

1989 Congress amended the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requiring banks to collect racial data on Mortgage applications.

1995 Treasury Department issued regulations tracking loans by neighborhoods, income groups, and races to rate the performance of banks. The ratings were used by regulators to determine whether the government would approve bank mergers, acquisitions, and new branches. It also encouraged statist-aligned groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN) and the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, to file petitions with regulators, or threaten to slow or even prevent banks from conducting their business by challenging the extent to which banks were issuing these loans. With such powerful leverage over banks, some groups were able, in effect, to legally extort banks to make huge pools of money available to the groups, money they in turn used to make loans.

The Banks and community groups issued loans to low-income individuals who often had bad credit or insufficient income. And these loans, which became known as "Subprime" loans, made available 100% financing, did not always require the use of credit scores, and were even made without documenting income. Basically, the government insisted that banks abandon traditional underwriting standards if the bank wanted to grow. Not to mention that in 1992 Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were pressured by the HUD to purchase large bundles of these loans for the conflicting purposes of diversifying the risk and making even more money available to banks to make further risky loans.

Congress also passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act which eventually mandated that these companies by 45% of all loans from people of low and moderate incomes. The Treasury Department also established the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which provided banks with tax dollars to encourage even more risky loans.

When you add derivatives and Greenspan into the mix, you have an economic crisis, not just a housing/banking crisis. This cannot be blamed on Just President Bush by any stretch of the imagination. I am not at all excusing Bush from any responsibility. He made his share of mistakes. But to insist that he was entirely to blame ignores years of damaging statist government intervention.

I can't think of a better time to have the statist of all statists in office and a majority statist Congress. Can you?

[disrupter]

Bush passed HIS "Zero Down Payment Initiative" in February 2004. Low doc, No doc, zero down, zero entry interest . . .

So, um, gosh, . . . . . YES! LOL

you apologist, ignoramus dipshit.

[MattAMatt]

Bush passed HIS "Zero Down Payment Initiative" in February 2004. Low doc, No doc, zero down, zero entry interest . . .

So, um, gosh, . . . . . YES! LOL

you apologist, ignoramus dipshit.

The Zero Down Payment Act of 2004 is available only for first-time homebuyers who meet FHA's underwriting requirements and who could easily afford monthly mortgage payments. NOT A SUBPRIME LOAN! http://www.alta.org/washington/news.cfm?newsID=488

FHA underwriting requirements: http://www.fhaloanpros.com/fha-guidelines/

[SeedyROM]

Bill Clinton passed the Commodities Modernization Act of 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
which had the Enron Loophole which allowed wallstreet to jackup oil and gas prices because they traded in offexchange transactions on unregulated exchanges.

Clinton also repealed the Glass Stegal Act that Robert Rubin and Sandford Weil ( Citibank) founder backed. The bill was sponsored by reps but Clinton thought it was a good idea. Clinton and Rubin were fools!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act#Repeal_of_the_Act

Clinton and Democrats have a lot to be blamed for, they are guilty as sin and we must continue to bring the issues to educate the public!!

[Independent Harry]

hey chicken little, you keep posting lies. Why don't you go ahead and provide the census data showing us how these CRA loans were the culprit...

[SeedyROM]

Bush has some blame tied to him but he tried to get dems to back his agenda to regulate banking and they refused. Its Congress that has the bulk of the blame, namely Frank and Dodd who represented Fannie and Freddie since 1994 and chaired the banking committees since 2004.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...080919-15.html
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.

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.

[SeedyROM]

Crook Frank could care less about honesty, integrity and our economy

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76160
Rep. Barney Frank denounced Mankiw, saying he had no "concern about housing." How dare you oppose suicidal loans to people who can't repay them! The New York Times reported that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were "under heavy assault by the Republicans," but these entities still had "important political allies" in the Democrats.


http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76160

This crisis was caused by political correctness being forced on the mortgage lending industry in the Clinton era. Before the Democrats' affirmative-action lending policies became an embarrassment, the Los Angeles Times reported that, starting in 1992, a majority-Democratic Congress "mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains."

[SeedyROM]

hey chicken little, you keep posting lies. Why don't you go ahead and provide the census data showing us how these CRA loans were the culprit...

I'm sure he will because the CRA loaned about 15% to 20% of sub prime loans.

[Bill Cosby]

I keep hearing that the Bush economic policy was to blame for the economic crisis we now face. Lord knows Bush's budgets were way out of line, even though he had 9/11, Wars, Katrina, Power Outages in NYC and the like (secondary causes of recession). The fact is that the primary culprit behind the economic crisis was the statist policies from Carter & Slick Willy that Bush inherited:


Y0u forgot to mention Ronnie & bush one..............

I would love to blame it all on bush the lessor but in fact he is not all to blame.......... Even clinton had his messy little fingers in on it as much as dems wish otherwiZe.........

IMO the dereg revolution went to far............. More is not always better......

[Independent Harry]

I'm sure he will because the CRA loaned about 15% to 20% of sub prime loans.

no they didn't, I've looked at the Census data isn't closer to 5%, as I posed here earlier. But regardless, 15-20% of the subprime loans is 1/5. So where did the other 80% come from, not from CRA, and it seems to me that 80% is a lot bigger than 20% and the default rates were the same.

[bairdi]

I agree with the following opinion. I would like to also add to point 3. Not only did Bush hide the expenses for the wars, but he repeatedly contended that tax cuts were actually working to reduce the deficit while at the same time refusing to address the effect of the cuts on raising the National Debt. The buck stops at the desk of the president. Bush was in office for eight years, six of which had an Republican congress to ink stamp any request. Whether you like it or not, after eight years, the president owns the economy. I predict that the next talking point will be that it was Bush's policies that leads to the economic recovery.

Cheney Flat out Wrong: Bush Aministration is Responsible for the Damage to our Economy
March 16, 2009 - 3:04pm.

Vice President Cheney recently asserted on CNN’s State of the Union that the Bush Misadministration should not be blamed for the current economic crisis. ISZATSO? Cheney neglects some basic facts about this economic crisis as he tries to avert responsibility for the economic wreckage we are currently experiencing. Eight years of the Bush Administration’s incompetence has left Americans poorer, America weaker, and our National Economic Security seriously damaged. There can be no doubt this economic Pearl Harbor was caused by The Bush Administration and the six years of a Republican controlled Congress that rubber stamped Bush/Cheney policies and budgets.

1) In the same way that Bush was warned about the impending attack of Al-Qaida before September 11, 2001 but chose to do nothing about it. So to the Bush administration was warned by the FBI in 2004 of the widespread mortgage fraud and chose to do nothing about it. [See Paul Shukovsky. “FBI saw mortgage fraud early,” (01-28-09) Seattle Post-Intelligencer. (03.14.09), ].

2) Similarly, we now know that for 10 years the SEC knew about the Madoff fraud but repeatedly chose to do nothing about it or even to investigate the evidence exposing it presented to them by whistleblower Harry Markopolos. The irresponsibility and incompetence of these Bush operatives on the SEC has led to the greatest investment fraud in American History, but it was entirely in line with other see no evil antics of the Bush Administration. [See Aaron Smith, “Madoff: ‘I knew this day would come,” (03.12.09), CNNMoney.Com, (03.14.09), ].

3) The Bush administration hid the expenses of the two wars it chose to fight, [see Adam Levine, “The dirtiest word in the budget,” (02.26.09), AC360, (3.14.09),
and savaged the economy by adding an additional $4 trillion in to the National Debt during its eight years in power. [See Mark Knoller, “Bush Administration Adds 4 Trillion to the National Debt,“ (9.29.08), CBS News: Couric & Co., (03.14.09), ].

4) The eight years of the Bush administration progressively damaged the economy as it looked the other way as wide spread looting of the American Treasury through government corruption and war profiteering, sweetheart deals and kickbacks, high level officials on the take, trillions of missing and unaccounted for dollars, non-bid contracts, as well as fraudulent contractor billing for reconstruction projects took place. [See Stephen Lendman, “Exposing Bush Administration Corruption,” (06.16.08), The Populist Party, (3.14.09), ]. Any honest description of the fiscal misbehavior of the last eight years would catalog the most astonishing lawlessness which gave away Billions to Bush’s Republican friends and allies.
5) Much of the financial crash we have experienced is directly the result of the Bush Administration’s deregulatory policies and incompetence. Bush’s allies in congress, especially conservatives such as Senator Phil Gramm, were strong voices for freeing the markets from regulation on the notion they would be self regulating. Hell bent to dismantle the New Deal safeguards against Stock market misbehavior, Conservatives in Congress promoted the massive use of risky new financial products as they shut down FDR’s long respected traditions of oversight and regulation. Their misguided notion that the markets could regulate themselves opened the flood gates for massive securities fraud, the results of which we see all around us in our disappearing 401Ks. [See “The Consequences of Conservative Policies in our Housing and Financial markets,” (10.21.08), Center for American Progress Action Fund, (3.14.09), ].

6) When the Bush administration’s wrecking crew had brought down the American Banking Industry, they launched the most audacious demand for $700 Billion to bail-out the banks, a fund they originally wanted complete control of without any oversight from Congress. [See David M. Herszenhorn, “Administration is Seeking $700 Billion for Wall Street,” (09.21.08), The New York Times, (03.14.09), ]. Even with the controls Congress demanded, we have lately discovered that in bailing out the banks there was some $78 billion given out which was not guaranteed by any asset whatsoever: a flat-out gift to the corporate friends of Bush and the Treasury Secretary. Scandalously, the Bush Administration poured $254 billion into financial institutions but received only $176 billion in value in return. [See Reuters, “Regulator Says Bailout Fund is Misleading the Public,” (02.06.09), New York Times, (03.14.09), ].

That the American Treasury and the personal wealth of American Investors and Retirees were looted during the Bush Administration is incontrovertible. The horror stories of the origins and effects of this wreckage continue to emerge almost daily. We should thank God that they were blocked from turning over Social Security funds to Wall Street. Let us admit that we are well rid of G. W. Bush and his looters. Let us hear no more that our current economic troubles were caused by anyone else but George W. Bush as president and chief cheerleader of his “anything goes” attitude towards government.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/16563

[mwillman]

Great Post Bairdi,

OF course the right wingers will come on here and deny it and make shit up so they dont have to face the fact that right wing economics are a joke.

[bairdi]

Great Post Bairdi,

OF course the right wingers will come on here and deny it and make shit up so they dont have to face the fact that right wing economics are a joke.
Yes, that pretty much fits their M.O.. :lmao2:

[Frankg]

I agee with the following opinion:
President Bush Had Nothing To Do With Financial Crisis
By Noel Sheppard
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/rt_Bush_Economy_080204_mn.jpg
As the financial crisis hit last September, NewsBusters regularly informed readers of the truth behind the matter, and that media assertions the Bush administration was to blame were politically motivated falsehoods intentionally designed to get Barack Obama elected president.

On Saturday, the financial publication Barron's offered readers an editorial (http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB123396551669058895-lMyQjAxMDI5MzAzNzkwNjc1Wj.html) by Hoover Institution visiting fellow Scott S. Powell which presented facts that were routinely withheld from the public during the campaign assuring the Democrat candidate victory in November.

More importantly, Powell offered some compelling insights into the dangers of partisanship which sadly is negatively impacting today's stimulus package discussion.





But before we get there, this was Powell's case as to who was really to blame for this crisis (h/t Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/07/barrons-were-all-to-blame/)):
CONTRARY TO A VIEW POPULARIZED DURING THE 2008 presidential election season, the current economic crisis was not the result of deregulation.


The Bush administration made many mistakes, but deregulation was not one of them.

Not only was there no major deregulation passed during the past eight years, but the Bush administration and a Republican Congress approved the most sweeping financial-market regulation in decades.

The bipartisan Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted in 2002 to prevent corporate fraud and restore investor confidence after the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. It failed to prevent the accounting fraud and influence-peddling scandals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And even after those scandals were widely understood, regulators sent Fannie and Freddie back into the market to continue buying subprime loans, lending and borrowing with implied taxpayer backing.

Across the government, the Bush administration supported new regulations that added almost 1,000 pages a year to the Federal Register, nearly a record.

If this is insufficient regulation, it's hard to imagine a scope that would be effective.






Powell of course was spot on.

Sarbanes-Oxley was indeed a comprehensive and encompassing piece of legislation specifically designed to prevent a repeat of the tech bubble and Enron.

Yet, as the financial crisis raged last fall, media members who wanted to blame the problem on Bush and deregulation conveniently forgot this sweeping bill.






But there's more:Our present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities.

Then in the 1990s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development took a fateful step by getting the GSEs to accept subprime mortgages.

With Fannie and Freddie easing credit requirements on loans they would purchase from lenders, banks could greatly increase lending to borrowers unqualified for conventional loans.

In the name of extending affordable housing, this broadened the acceptability of risky loans throughout the financial system.

The risk lurking in the GSE portfolios was acknowledged in the Bush administration's first fiscal-year budget, released in April 2001.

It stated that Fannie and Freddie were "a potential problem" because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in the financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity."

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan issued repeated warnings that the GSEs "placed the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

Such warnings went unheeded even after accounting scandals rocked Fannie and Freddie.





Yep. The Bush administration began warning of problems with Fannie and Freddie just three months into its first term, and continued doing so for years.

But you wouldn't know that from how the press reported things last fall, would you?


However, what's done is done. The press wanted Obama to be president, and by dishonestly blaming Bush for the financial crisis, so-called journalists were able to paint John McCain as also being at fault thereby making it impossible for him to win.





Yet, Powell left us with a warning concerning this matter that is quite important given economic stimulus plans currently being discussed:But the lesson should be clear that socializing failed businesses -- whether in housing, health care or in Detroit -- is not a long-term solution.

Expanding government's intrusion into the private sector doesn't come without great risk.

The renewing and self-correcting nature of the private sector is largely lost in the public sector, where accountability is impaired by obfuscation of responsibility, and where special interests benefit even when the public good is ill-served.


George Washington also warned against excessive partisanship, which distracts public councils and enfeebles public administration.

Rather than blaming the party in power or the party formerly in power, the nation should stop living in denial of the mistakes of both parties.

Spreading failure across the entire economy risks turning a recession into a depression. Regulatory reform now must foster responsible behavior and financial accountability.

Far better for our citizenry and businesses to have a strength and resourcefulness that comes from creativity, honesty and self-reliance than to have a growing dependence on a profligate government.





Powell touched on a lot of issues here that should be at the front of the current stimulus debate but sadly aren't.


In particular, the partisanship in the nation today prevents an honest assessment of the past thereby dooming us to repeat the same mistakes.

Take for example the Great Depression.

For almost 80 years the left and their media minions have done everything within their power to blame all that era's ills on Herbert Hoover while crediting Franklin D. Roosevelt with the eventual economic recovery despite the former presiding over only two years of the Depression.


Yet, after eight years of unprecedented federal spending under Roosevelt, the unemployment rate was still a staggering 14.6 percent in 1940, and the Gross Domestic Product was still under its pre-Depression level.


Isn't this important, especially since our federal debt is already quite high?
Unfortunately, because of the partisanship, such can't be discussed.

The left have so much time and money invested in Roosevelt supposedly being the greatest president of the 20th century that an honest assessment of what did and did not work back then is verboten.

But isn't that absurd? Assuming we really are on the verge of another Depression -- an assumption I don't necessarily agree with yet, mind you -- shouldn't we be examining everything we did before and during the last one in order to chart a more effective course this time?


The fact is the last Depression began in 1931 and despite all Roosevelt's good intentions didn't end until America entered World War II in 1941.

Once the war ended, we went back into a very serious recession suggesting that nothing Roosevelt implemented had a lasting positive economic impact.

Isn't this relevant, especially given the Congressional Budget Office's report (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/02/07/media-ignore-cbo-report-bashing-senate-stimulus-plan) last week predicting current stimulus plans will actually hurt the economy in the long run?

Sadly, the answer is "No," for the left are so protective of Roosevelt's legacy that any analysis of his economic policies is totally unacceptable even as our nation grapples with solutions to our current financial problems.

Is this the way adults should behave? Is this really the best we can get from our elected officials?

Given the known failings and wastefulness of last year's TARP, wouldn't we be well-advised to halt all current stimulus discussions until a thorough and impartial analysis of previous plans -- INCLUDING those implemented by us during the '30s and by Japan during the '90s -- was accomplished thereby increasing the likelihood of success while reducing the chance of us making exactly the same mistakes?

If the answer is "No," the only conclusion is that Party, at this critical juncture in our nation's history, is indeed more important than policy, and partisanship is asphyxiating our capital.

George Washington must be rolling over in his grave.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/02/08/barrons-editorial-bush-had-nothing-do-financial-crisis

[Bill Cosby]

Not only was there no major deregulation passed during the past eight years, but the Bush administration and a Republican Congress approved the most sweeping financial-market regulation in decades.
.

Major- Gee that sounds a lot like a qualifier there to me.... :dunno:

He was the president- remember the buck stops here..... He & his ppl were in charge- There is no escaping that........


Across the government, the Bush administration supported new regulations that added almost 1,000 pages a year to the Federal Register, nearly a record

So what???? What if it was a million pages, so waht??? That don't mean a damn thing..........

The ball of de reg has been rolling for over thirty years- it is not "all" anyones fault but there is a lot of fault to go around of which the last adminstration rightly deserves their fair share of it..........

[mwillman]

The biggest way that the Bush administration deregulated was through defunding the regulatory agencies and by installing deregulation minded leaders to the regulatory agencies.

[SeedyROM]

no they didn't, I've looked at the Census data isn't closer to 5%, as I posed here earlier. But regardless, 15-20% of the subprime loans is 1/5. So where did the other 80% come from, not from CRA, and it seems to me that 80% is a lot bigger than 20% and the default rates were the same.

But 15% and the way some groups were pushing for loans they couldn't afford. The other 80 came mostly thru mortgage brokers, you were a broker at one point so you know how easy it is to push a loc doc or no doc loan. When banks are backing the paper because civil rights groups are pushing banks and politicians to give up the money, the facts fall to the wayside. The fake formulas used to write the loan packages sold onth exchanges was pathetic. The math did add up and Congress was asleep at the wheel.

[MattAMatt]

The biggest way that the Bush administration deregulated was through defunding the regulatory agencies and by installing deregulation minded leaders to the regulatory agencies.

He also needed to use a laxative because he was deregular.

[SeedyROM]

Whether you like it or not, after eight years, the president owns the economy. I predict that the next talking point will be that it was Bush's policies that leads to the economic recovery.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/16563[/URL]


If you believe the Obama stimulus will work then you must also believe that the Bush stimulus helped too. Right? It takes 6 to 9 months to see signs of effectiveness according to some economists so the if you believe Obama spent billions to boost the economy then Bush must have done the right thing too. Till you consider its all keynesian balony and inflation will spike again due to the influx of new money.