Bush Gets a Bad Rap

I saw another thread on Bush, and figured a thread was needed to defend his presidency in the context of the circumstances in which he governed.

Bush wasn't that bad. Lets examine his presidency on both fronts.

International....

He was dealt a REALLY bad hand with 9/11 and the Middle East. Your average leftist will jump to Obamas defense economically, and immediately excuse away his horrible numbers due to the hand he was dealt, but yet refuse to cut Bush any slack with the no win situation with 9/11 and the Middle East. After that horrible tragedy, Bush essentially decided that we could no longer sit back and let a growing threat gather, and thus took an aggressive approach toward that entire region. If you ask me, he was correct in that approach. That part of the world is overrun with savages, and in far too many instances the savages are the ones in charge.

I believe that Bush's larger vision was to stay there indefinitely, with a sizeable force in that region, for the express purpose of deterring radicals from uprising, having the ability to quickly and swiftly put down any uprisings that will inevitably occur, and afford us a say in new governments that will arise . Savages don't respond to singing Kumbaya like most leftists seem to think, and strength is the ONLY thing that matters to them. If we had maintained a strong deterrent presence over there, and let it be well known that we will go anywhere and impose our will at any time that we saw fit, the Middle East and the world at large would be a MUCH safer place today. That is not to say that it would be at peace right now, but we would NOT be seeing the expansion of danger that exists right now, and the civilized world would actually have a degree of control over the savages that are now gaining more power.

Inevitably the left will claim that we would have been creating more terrorists, which may have some validity, but with a strong presence over there, we could maintain some control over governance, which would in the long run lead to better education of the ignorant masses, which in the long run would stem the tide of the radical influences taking hold. As it stands now, the savages are in control, the masses remain ignorant, and the slow drip of new radical recruits has literally no end in sight.

Where Bush erred, was in underestimating the power of the anti war left in this country, and overestimating the American Public's resolve following 9/11, in the face of the constant drum beat from the anti war left. During the dog days of the policing portion of the Iraq conflict, the constant drum beat of negativity from the anti war left, along with an all too willing media, turned public opinion against Bush. At that point the left was wholly invested in defeat in Iraq. They opposed the surge profusely, and when it was a smashing success, which would have predictably improved his popularity, the left was handed the political gift of an economic collapse, which takes me to the second portion of his presidency.

Economy......

Prior to the collapse,the economy performed pretty well under Bush's watch. One could complain about rising debt etc, but overall, GDP was strong, unemployment was low, and while things weren't humming along like in the late 90s, for the most part, things were pretty good economically. Democrats want to pretend like Bush caused the collapse, but in reality, the collapse was a function of many factors that had been many years in the making since the deregulation of the mortgage industry. You could argue that he should have seen it coming and taken evasive action, but we had an election in 2006, and no one from either side was campaigning on the need for evasive action to avoid an impending collapse. Predictably, some leftist on here will retort with some cut and paste where some Democrat on some committee complained about some regulation or another, and try to use that as proof that the democrats tried to change things. I could just as easily do the same in reverse, but I am trying to keep this away from petty bickering that really doesn't speak to the totality of the situation.

By in large, the entire government did nothing to avoid the housing meltdown that Greenspan had been predicting since the mid 90s. Bush was no more at fault than anyone else, other than he happened to be the president when the economic game of Jenga that we as a nation had been playing since the early 90s, finally came tumbling down.

All in all, the anti war left maintained a constant drum beat of negativity against Bush, which had an effect on his approval ratings. At the time when the surge worked, and his popularity would have rebounded, the economy started to go into the toilet. The economy took center stage, and the successes in Iraq took a back seat. The economy collapsed ( through no particular fault of his own), and his presidency ended. The timing of these two things were a perfect storm for the Bush Haters. If we had maintained a strong position in the Middle east, the world would be a safer place today. Obama came in and took just the opposite approach internationally, and the inmates are overrunning the Middle East Asylum. One gets the feeling that right now Obama isn't as much concerned about doing what is in our best national security interest, but instead is trying to run out the clock hoping that a tragedy doesn't happen on his watch. The world will eventually pay a huge price for that inaction.

 

LOL

Bush responded to the threat of Islamic extremists by invading a secular country.

Bush made homeownership and low income home buyers a priority.

Bush was a failure.

 

I have seen other posts from you. I am not surprised that you 100% avoided discussing any of the substance in the post to which you are responding. That seems to be your modus operandi. If you would like to substantively respond, please do. If not, there are plenty of other threads where you can find people of similar intellect and substance.

 

I was just about to respond to your post when I saw it was moved. I like that you put a lot of thought in your reasoning, instead of the usual one-liners. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time, so my reply will be too short.

Agreed that he was dealt a bad hand. However, he could have put his effort into stabilizing Afghanistan, instead of attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Who are we to determine that Iraq citizens are "savages" (in your words), who deserve to have our will imposed on them? This viewpoint should be so alien to the libertarian thinking of freedom as the main ideal, because clearly we would be imposing on some other country's freedom. What if some other country would decide they should impose their will onto the US? Would that be okay?

Nothing good had ever come from occupations in history. Bush, in his hubris, thought that he could make the outcome different in Iraq, but the occupation was destined to fail because free people don't tolerate occupation (neither would we).

No, he didn't underestimate the power of the left, he underestimated the general public in eventually seeing the truth in the botched war effort, to turn against the war. That was entirely his fault. Of course, a war based on deception cannot stand on its own against principled scrutiny, and the American people were smart enough to see that, even though with a few years delay.

True, there were a multitude of factors at play to initiate the economic collapse, only some of them were Bush's fault. However, he has to be blamed for deregulation and his tax cuts, which were un-necessary and only led to deeper budget problems down the road. The problem was that the entire economic growth during the Bush years was based on private debt taking, clearly that was not sustainable. The tax cuts gave incentives to people to be more risk tolerant and take on more debt, thus leading to a short-lived expansion that eventually has to crash.

 

Clinton made "homeownership and low income home buyers a priority". Bush continued and expanded these programs while adding others, but the push for homeownership didn't start with him. If he would have stopped these programs, people like you would have accused him of not caring about the poor and minorities, which is the standard talking point from the left.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far
Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/hotproperty/archives/2008/02/clintons_drive.html

Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites'
It's one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

HOMEOWNERSHIP AND ITS BENEFITS - 1995
At the request of President Clinton, the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) is working with dozens of national
leaders in government and the housing industry to implement the
National Homeownership Strategy, an unprecedented public-private
partnership to increase homeownership to a record-high level over the
next 6 years.
http://www.huduser.org/publications/txt/hdbrf2.txt

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

Bill Clinton, Home Wrecker
"I want to target new (housing) markets, underserved populations, tear down the barriers to discrimination wherever they are found," Clinton said. "We have to do a better job of reaching the underserved; of eradicating discriminatory practices that prevent minorities from finding, financing or buying the home of their choice.

"We can widen the circle of homeownership beyond anything we have ever seen," he added.

Indeed, Clinton's policies for the first time threw millions of previously unqualified buyers into the mortgage mix, fueling an unprecedented housing bubble.

http://news.investors.com/article/585922/201109231847/bill-clinton-home-wrecker.htm?p=full

 

Don't forget the dotcom bubble Bush inherited. The overheated markets had crashed before 9/11, which exacerbated the decline and led to subsequent loss carryforwards. Most of the doodoo slung at the Bush tax policy ignores entirely the loss carryforward from those crashes' impact on government revenues during the early Bush Admin. The left always wants to talk tax policy in a vacuum because that's where its bread is buttered and it doesn't understand anything else about the economy that doesn't come off a union label graph.

You are correct that Bush had little to do with the mortgage collapse, those dominos were already stacked up. IMO history, at least unbiased non Complex history, will remember the Bush Administration relatively well compared to say the Clinton Administration preceding.

 

You don't discuss pointless spin. You reveal it for what it is. You tried to rationalize Bush's decision to spend billions of dollars invading and destabilizing Iraq by tying it to 9/11 and a plan to combat instability. Which is stupid. If that was really his plan, he was an idiot.

Then you try to excuse his inaction in the face of a looming economic meltdown by saying nobody else did anything either.

You start with the premise that Bush gets a bad rap then proceed to blame his biggest failures on his critics while failing to point to anything that he did right. If you want to have a discussion, refrain from partisan nonsense. There are things Bush did right, but trying to paint his two biggest failures as "not so bad" is a laughable exercise in futility.

 

Thank you for your substantive, civil reply.

Afghanistan no doubt needed to be addressed. Personally, I think the Taliban should have been taken out of power, and we leave. When the Taliban predictably returned, we also return and once again take them out of power. The end result would be that the country would never again be able to house terrorist training camps unabated. I believe Iraq would have been the perfect staging area to do any number of hit and run attacks anywhere throughout that region. Bush tried to do the humanitarian thing and help the indigenous people, but on the whole, their plight is not our concern, and keeping the Taliban out of power only serves to better their lot in life.

I can understand the thinking behind this sentiment. By the same token, I wouldn't let my live in schizophrenic uncle keep a butcher knife under his bed. You could argue that he is a sovereign man, and has that right, but sometimes cooler minds must prevail. With the lunacy that exists amongst the radicals in power in the Middle East, I am more than comfortable asserting that they are lunatics, and imposing MY will. There are advantages to being the baddest MF'er on the block. To not assert that advantage is being negligent to OUR national security interests.

I don't mean occupation as in colonization. I mean occupation as in a military staging area. There may not be precedent for this in history, but there isn't really precedent for any of the lunacy that exists in that region. Changing times calls for changing tactics.

I think it is all one and the same. Terrorists belief is that our Achilles Heel is that we lack the stomach and fortitude that they do in regards to war. Sadly, they are correct, and I firmly believe one day we will pay a steep price for this.

Artificially low interest rates, created artificial demand, which pushed housing prices above their legit value since the early 90s and mortgage deregulation. Greenspan harped on this constantly. The bursting of the housing bubble, when it is all said and done, is what caused that house of cards to come down. You could argue that Bush should have intervened, by the same token we were all living high on the hog, and NO politicians were looking to slow this down. This factor played into the 90s as much as Bush's term.

 

So he should be praised for this? If Bill Clinton jumped off a cliff, would that suddenly make it a smart thing for Bush to do?

 

I'm simply being realistic. Once Clinton lowered the standards for borrowing and all of these low income people who couldn't afford a house payment yesterday suddenly jumped into the housing market and felt "rich", a Republican President coming in and taking away these programs would have gone over badly for him. Although, to his credit, he did recognize the problem early on in his Presidency:

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

The Bush Admin didn't introduce anything related to housing until halfway through 2002, when the housing market was already escalating quickly. The damage may have already been done at that point.

Besides, it's not like Democrats were interested in doing something about a housing bubble that they didn't even believe existed as late as 2005:

[video=youtube;iW5qKYfqALE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE[/video]

Like WMDs in Iraq, Democrats played a game of hindsight 20/20, and acted like they knew about everything after the fact before it happened, except that they didn't.

 

GWB, was the right person to be in office on 9-11-2001 and that's more important to acknowledge after 6 years of Obama. IMO, maybe even if Hillary had been the Candidate in 2008, would have beat McCain, she would have followed the plans GWB would have, primarily some form of occupation and things would have been different today.

However, domestically speaking Bush simply was a good forerunner for Obama, under his "Compassionate Conservative" mentality. No child left behind to TARP and many in between actions, are for all practical purposes, big federal government policies, today's liberal's should be thanking him, but don't. Added is GWB has not and will not defend his own administrative actions or at least try to explain his decisions.

In summery, I feel both Clinton and GWB were much the same and Obama has used both of them to further his dream of what America should be. Then neither is getting a bad rap, but what's deserved, leading up to the current office holder.

 

Hate to say it. But this is a good debate. Well conducted by conservatives on the forum.

 

There was no housing bubble while Clinton was president:



But there was while Bush was president.


BUSH ADMINISTRATION UNVEILS NEW HOMEOWNERSHIP INITIATIVE
Martinez Announces $1000 Homebuyer Cash Back Incentive

http://archives.hud.gov/news/2002/pr02-075.cfm

“We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?pagewanted=all

Bush drive for home ownership fueled housing bubble
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/worldbusiness/21iht-admin.4.18853088.html?pagewanted=all


American Dream Downpayment Initiative The American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) was signed into law on December 16, 2003. The American Dream Downpayment Assistance Act authorized up to $200 million annually. ADDI helped first-time homebuyers with the biggest hurdle to homeownership: downpayment and closing costs. The program was created to assist low-income first-time homebuyers in purchasing single-family homes by providing funds for downpayment, closing costs, and rehabilitation carried out in conjunction with the assisted home purchase.

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/addi/

Bush Campaign Promotes Great American Dream
THE NATION Homeownership: The president's program aims to help people with low incomes, particularly Latinos and African Americans.
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/16/nation/na-bush16


National Homeownership Month, 2005
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

More Americans than ever own their own homes, but we must continue to work hard so that every family has an opportunity to realize the American Dream. In 2002, I announced a goal to add 5.5 million new minority homeowners by the end of the decade. Since then, we have added 2.3 million new minority households. My Administration has also set a goal of adding 7 million new affordable homes to the market within the next 10 years. In my FY 2006 budget, I proposed a single family housing tax credit and two mortgage programs -- the Zero Downpayment mortgage and the Payment Incentives program -- to help more families achieve homeownership. In 2003, I signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, and I have proposed more than $200 million to continue the American Dream Downpayment Initiative to provide downpayment assistance to thousands of American families. By promoting initiatives such as financial literacy, tax incentives for building affordable homes, voucher programs, and Individual Development Accounts, we are strengthening our communities and improving citizens' lives. [/QUOTE]

+++

Bush's HUD relaxes rules on lending:

In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Bush' OFHEO, the WH agency responsible for oversight of Fannie you never heard of because you only look at right wing propaganda, dramatically increases the level of conforming loans. It increased the "conforming loan" limits from $252k in 2000 to $417k in 2007. This made it easier to get loans for more expensive houses and reduced the number classified as subprime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conforming_loan[/QUOTE]

Here, from 2002, is President George W. Bush, saying Freddie is “dismantling barriers” to help more people have home ownership, how “deserving families who have bad credit histories” can own homes, and that “the low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.”

http://www.alan.com/2010/10/27/flas...wnership-for-those-with-bad-credit-histories/



+++

The affordable housing goal levels set by the WH thru HUD:

42% 1997-2000
50% 2001-2004
52% 2005
53% 2006
55% 2007
56% 2008

http://research.stlouisfed.org/conferences/gse/Weicher.pdf page 5.

Issue Brief: HUD’s AFFORDABLE LENDING GOALS FOR FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC

HUD has estimated that 11.7 million dwelling units were financed by conventional conforming mortgages in 1998, and that the GSEs provided financing for 55 percent of these units.

In March 2000, HUD issued a proposed rule, significantly increasing the GSEs’ affordable housing goals for the post-2000 period, and this rule was finalized in October. For each year from 2001 through 2003, the goals are: ...

These goals remain in effect for the post-2003 period unless modified prior to 2004.

http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/gse.pdf

 

USA Patriot Act invalidates your argument.

 

Barney Frank disagreed up until 2005, as the bubble neared its peak, and few Democrats were as involved with the situation as he was.

You did nothing except agree with my previous post where I indicated that Bush continued Clinton's goal of homeownership for low income people and minorities and added some of his own, though not until more than halfway through 2002, as prices were already over 4 years into a rising trend that started during Clinton's 2nd term.

 

Funny, though I don't recall Bush or conservatives thanking Clinton for rising home ownership rates when they were happening under his watch and he would brag about it.

Continuing and expanding home ownership policies might make sense when there is not housing bubble. When you are in the middle of a bubble, it is clearly the wrong thing to do.

 

there is no way to defend bush...it cant be done... no way... cant do it.,..ever

 

Not according to Democrats involved with the situation, who did not acknowledge a housing bubble all the way into 2005, as the bubble was nearing its peak. So it appears it was not "clearly wrong" to them, otherwise they wouldn't have supported it at the time.

Though an argument could be made that the Government shouldn't have meddled with the housing market at all and incentivized lenders to play around with taxpayer funds as part of their business model, but progressives do think they know best, even after it blows up in their face and takes down a lot of people.

 

I hate to break this to you, but your one line partisan declarations ( rants) do nothing to support your argument. If you feel like you have truly encountered "pointless spin", then the intelligent way to address that is to address it specifically, and thus expose the "pointless spin" for what it is.

Yes a war does cost billions of dollars. The money involved however, is NOT the deciding factor when serious matters of national security are involved. If you want to argue against the merits of going to war, money should not enter into the equation. From a monetary standpoint, the cost of inaction can be far greater. To bring money into the equation can accurately be titled "pointless spin".

It was a house of cards, close to a couple decades in the making. You can argue that he should have rallied the country around the concept of significantly changing regulations to try to avoid the impending disaster, but aside from not doing such an unprecedented move, he didn't have anything to do with it. If the Democrats had campaigned in 2006 about significantly changing regulations to avoid the impending disaster, they could blame Bush for his inaction. They didn't, and as such blaming it solely on him is nothing more than "pointless spin"

I think I very expressly stated that his aggressive approach toward the Middle East was the right thing to do. The only thing that was a failure in regards to that policy, was the lack of American Resolve to follow through on this vision. Considering that the whole intent of the anti war movement is to galvanize public opinion to their way of thinking, tying together the lack of American resolve to the anti war movement isn't exactly a leap in logic.

 

BS, the only thing that hides the actuality of the longterm nature of the housing price increase is anomalously high inflation of the 70s-90s. For this reason, the nominal curve is a better indicator of the upward trend in housing, and clearly demonstrates a longterm increase.

Not even close, not even a drop in the bucket. The blowoff top in mortgages really began in the New Deal era, continued through every administration since, and exacerbated calamitously due far more to Clinton, not Bush era policies. EVERY president enacts these or those programs to incent home ownership, wasn't some Bush invention. EVERY president since FDR illicitly interferes in mortgage markets in hopes of getting that incumbency boosting rosy, but fake, economy. Spare us all NYT claptrap, not much more credible than HuffPuff or Rawstory. The attempt to lay the mortgage collapse almost entirely on Bush is financially ignorant and transparent, omits mountains of necessary context, as union label arguments inevitably do. Bush continued many boneheaded programs and policies of the past where mortgages are concerned, particularly Clintonesque programs, but the operative word there is "continued."

Another drop in the bucket, a tiny oily rag you want to pawn off as the gas and matches. The gas and matches of the mortgage collapse were government, not BUSHDIDIT, not REAGANDIDIT, but GOVERNMENT meddling in the mortgage markets for many decades. The biggest oily rags accompanying were 1. the unwise flouting of the antitrust laws, mostly during Clinton, but all administrations up to 2008, that led to mega giant banks and central credit committees replacing old-fashioned fiduciary, local banking with central, profit-driven decisions, together with 2. Jawboning and threats associated with CRA directed at the banks and Fanfred. Of course we don't hear about those big rags as much, and with respect to CRA all manner of smokescreen and irrelevancies are attempted, because they were mostly a Democrat creation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riegle-Neal_Interstate_Banking_and_Branching_Efficiency_Act_of_1994

Sorry, bad policy, but had nothing whatsoever to do with the mortgage crash, with respect to which the handwriting was on the wall far before 2007.

Spare us all the rest of the union label cherrypicks and diversion attempts. It is interesting to note, however, how furiously the union label works overtime to hide the truth, even as more layers of the smelly onion of govt meddling in mortgage markets for decades is revealed. BUSHDIDIT! BUSHDIDIT! No. All cherrypicks, all omit mountains of necessary context.

I have listed the real factors in great detail in post after post, and have summarized them in this post. Don't be fooled by union label cherrypicking and horsesht. The facts of the mortgage collapse are relatively simple, GOVDIDIT, and did it to us over many decades.

A plain English summary of what happened. I don't agree with all of it, but most of it is accurate, far moreso than "BushdiditReagandidit" chicanery and cherrypicking.

http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_11_Imprimis.pdf

 

As another member pointed out, he didn't have to take down a securalist government that had nothing to do with 9/11.

There are lots of governments that are worse than Hussein that we get cozy with.

The principle that infidels invading a Muslim territory motivating radicals throughout the middle east was noted by many during the time, including me. We are certainly seeing it come to pass.

Where Bush erred was invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 based on shoddy intel that any prudent leaders should have reconsidered after UN inspectors were given free access to the country and made hundreds of unannounced inspections around the country and found nothing.

The economy was doing OK, but for the cost of his tax cuts, nowhere near what was supposed to be the case.

Bush's very best year with the tax cuts would have been Clinton's 7th best year with his tax increase.

See below. Bush had exactly the wrong policies needed for the the situation.

I disagree with the implication that Bush could have done nothing to avoid or lesson the recession.

What hurt Bush's approval ratings had nothing to do with the left. It had to do that he got us into a war that was supposed to last weeks, cost $50 billion, and get rid of dangerous WMDs Hussein supposedly had.

Bush's policy on Iraq was one of the biggest strategic foreign policy blunders of all time.

Hussein was not involved in 9-11 or any other terrorist attack outside Iraq. He was not in bed with AQ, and to the contrary, they were his enemies, and wanted to remove him from power. He was not a Islamist; his second in command was a Christian for heaven's sake. While he was not a nice guy, we've certainly played with far worse. He was a tough dictator, but he maintained stability in his country, including relative peace and security for the million Christians living there. He also was bulwark against Iranian hegemony in the region.

The ill fated decision by Bush who was IMO manipulated by the neocons and motivated to what he saw as a stain on his dad's record. It came after the during the time UN inspectors had been given free, unfettered access to the entire country, had made hundreds of unannounced, spot inspections all over the country, and found nothing of the WMD he was supposed to have. If the credibility of the evidence (largely unreliable "informants") was not already in doubt, any prudent person should have done a re-assessment based on the UN inspectors lack of findings, instead of rushing into an ill-fated war with little understanding of what they were doing and the end game. It has been one of the costliest mistakes in US history.

On the domestic side, Bush pandered tax cut policies (mostly benefiting the richest) as well as a huge increase in spending (mostly on military and security stuff and wars) that led, in shockingly rapid procession, the golden opportunity of a surplus being squandered and replaced with new record deficits that run up, unnecessarily, trillions more debt at a time when the economy was otherwise doing well and when the debt should have been paid down. It was a tragic case of irresponsibility that hit hard in the GR when we were limited in the stimulus we could achieve because of the debt that we were already in before the GR. While the deficit did drop after Bush stopped cutting taxes, it never got anywhere close back to the surplus he had inherited.

The GR is more complex, and therefore I don't blame Bush as directly for it as I do the other two things. However, his basic economic policies of 1) expanding home ownership as part of his "Ownership Society" programs, coupled with his "industry can regulate itself" philosophy, could not have been more wrong for the scenario. At a time when we needed a strong hand regulating these business practices, we got hands off and policies encouraging more home ownership expansion. There are arguably many reasons and causes and failures that contributed to the GR, but I cannot excuse Bush completely for it either.

 

No doubt some did, just as Bush's OFHEO gave the green light on Fannie/Freddie capitalization all the way into 2008.

The Govt should have obviously meddle more about the sloppy rating, lending, and underwriting practices.

- - - Updated - - -

Prices were within the historical trend prior to the 2000s housing bubble.

We didn't have bubbles anything like that before.

Pushing even more Home ownership programs was exactly the wrong thing to do in a housing bubble.

CRA loans were only a tiny fraction of the subprime pie.


... CRA-motivated loans represented only a very small portion of the subprime lending market. Nearly half of all subprime loans between 2004 and 2006 were originated by independent mortgage companies (IMCs) not covered by CRA at all (Avery, Brevoort, and Canner 2007). Most of the rest of the subprime lending undertaken by banks or their mortgage company subsidiaries and affiliates did not qualify for CRA credit. In a detailed review of lending in 2005 and 2006, the height of the subprime boom, economists at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors found that only six percent of subprime loans were subject to CRA review, meaning that they were extended by CRA-obligated lenders to lower-income borrowers or in lower-income tracts within their CRA assessment areas (Kroszner, 200. Such loans (high-cost loans that were actually CRA-eligible) represented only 1.3 percent of all mortgages made in 2004-2006—certainly not enough to set off a global financial disaster (Park, 2010).

Second, there is evidence that CRA loans have been less likely to go into foreclosure than subprime loans more generally. In fact, research suggests that CRA may have protected borrowers from the risky lending practices that were dominant in the marketplace over this time period.

Second, the paper’s claim that “CRA loans” (loans made by treatment banks during the period surrounding the CRA exam date) were riskier is not well supported by the evidence presented. ... Moreover, the average FICO score for loans made by banks undergoing a CRA evaluation is 714, well above the FICO score of 640 generally associated with subprime or riskier lending. Indeed, only four percent of the loans in their main CRA sample are “subprime,” suggesting that the loans made by banks undergoing CRA exams were generally high quality, low-risk loans.

Even within their subprime sample, the default rate for the “CRA loans” is markedly lower than the market as a whole, suggesting that their research is picking up the deterioration in loan performance more generally, rather than anything having to do with CRA specifically[/I]
http://ccc.sites.unc.edu/files/2013/02/DebunkingCRAMyth.pdf

The Federal Reserve Board has found no connection between CRA and the subprime mortgage problems. In fact, the Board's analysis (102 KB PDF) found that nearly 60 percent of higher-priced loans went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods, which are not the focus of CRA activity. Additionally, about 20 percent of the higher-priced loans that were extended in low- or moderate-income areas, or to low- or moderate-income borrowers, were loans originated by lenders not covered by the CRA. Our analysis found that only six percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. Further, our review of loan performance found that rates of serious mortgage delinquency are high in all neighborhood groups, not just in lower-income areas.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/banking_12625.htm

Also:

o Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the CRA law. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/1...#storylink=cpy

o More than 55 percent of subprime loans went to white borrowers. During the period of 2004 to 2006, whites had more subprime rate loans than all minorities combined. http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/07/28/daily54.html?jst=b_ln_hl

o Of the 1.9 million subprime rate loans in 2006, upper-income borrowers had the highest share at 39.37 percent, followed by 27.55 percent for middle-income borrowers and 20.99 percent for moderate-income borrowers. http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/07/28/daily54.html?jst=b_ln_hl

o Low-income borrowers had only 149,173, or 7.57 percent, of 2006 subprime rate loans. http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/07/28/daily54.html?jst=b_ln_hl

o More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/

o Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers in 2006, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Disagree for reasons stated.

I said nothing about unions.

Disagree for reasons stated.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL

"Peter J. Wallison holds the Arthur F. Burns Chair in Financial Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Previously he practiced banking, corporate, and financial law at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, D.C., and in New York. He also served as White House Counsel in the Reagan Administration. A graduate of Harvard College, Mr. Wallison received his law degree from Harvard Law School and is a regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal, among many other publications. He is the editor, co-editor, author, or co-author of numerous books, including Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency and Bad History, Worse Policy: How a False Narrative about the Financial Crisis Led to the Dodd-Frank Act."

Could you possible find someone more biased for your "plain English" summary? I don't think so.

 

Here, from 2002, is President George W. Bush, saying Freddie is “dismantling barriers” to help more people have home ownership, how “deserving families who have bad credit histories” can own homes, and that “the low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.”

You have posted this and gave a web sight where Bush was supposed to say it, but that video is private and can't be opened. Now there were 7-8 other sights that say he said the same thing, but all but one are discussion sights and the last is a Liberal sight who also has the same private video. There is no proof I can see where he said that. It would seem funny that he would since he was warning Congress of the problem with F/M as early as 2001.

Today, the Washington Times incorrectly accused the White House of ignoring warnings of trouble ahead for government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and neglecting to "adopt any reform until this summer," when it was too late. "Neither the White House nor Congress heeded the warnings, Fannie and Freddie retained strong bipartisan support during the 1990s and early part of this decade." (Editorial, "Hear, See And Speak No Evil About Fannie And Freddie," The Washington Times, 10/9/0

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, 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 with the GSEs.

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 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)

2002

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

2003

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.


September: Then-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.


September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)


October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)


November: Then-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 calls 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: Then-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)


April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)


June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls 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: Then-Secretary 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)


July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)

2007

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)


August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)


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

February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "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, 2/7/0


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, 3/14/0


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, 4/14/0


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, 5/3/0


"[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, 5/19/0


"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, 5/31/0

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., 6/6/0



http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

 

And here is the Bush administration giving the "one fingered salute" to the over 90% of Republicans and over 60% of Democrats who passed House 1461, the *only* bill *ever* to pass either chamber of the Republican controlled Congress to provide greater oversight to Fannie and Freddie.

Here is the vote of the Democrats on HR 1461, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005, which was the *only* bill to regulate F/F to ever be passed (in 2005) by a chamber of the Republican controlled Congress.

Party - Ayes - Nays
Republican 209 15
Democratic 122 74

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll547.xml


And here is the the Bush administration's response to this, the only bill to regulate F/F ever pased by either chamber of the Republican controlled Congress:

"the Administration opposes the bill"

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=24851

And here's a link to an article about Republican Mike Oxley, of Sarbannes-Oxley fame, then ranking Republican majority member and chair of the House Financial Committee on Financial Services and sponsor of that bill, saying how they "got a one-finger salute” from the Bush White House.


He fumes about the criticism of his House colleagues. “All the handwringing and bedwetting is going on without remembering how the House stepped up on this,” he says. “What did we get from the White House? We got a one-finger salute.”

The House bill, the 2005 Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, would have created a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, to limit their portfolios and to deal with the possibility of receivership.

Mr Oxley reached out to Barney Frank, then the ranking Democrat on the committee and now its chairman, to secure support on the other side of the aisle. But after winning bipartisan support in the House, where the bill passed by 331 to 90 votes, the legislation lacked a champion in the Senate and faced hostility from the Bush administration. Adamant that the only solution to the problems posed by Fannie and Freddie was their privatisation, the White House attacked the bill. Mr Greenspan also weighed in, saying that the House legislation was worse than no bill at all.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8780c35e-7e91-11dd-b1af-000077b07658.html
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/09/10/greenspan_bush_fannie_freddie/index.html
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/one-finger-salute/