In another oddity the Republican history on this subject appears to end in 2003. I understand why they find later events unpleasant, since those events document the gathering series of policy mistakes that the Republicans made which ended in their being repudiated in 2006, and re-repudiated in 2008. In their view of the world, the last relevant thing that happened was a statement I made in 2003 in which I said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not in crisis. I did say that. And I would have said it as well-- and may have-- about Wachovia Bank, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and dozens of other financial institutions in America and elsewhere which were not in fact in crisis in 2003.
-- Rep. Barney Frank
Being accused of having blocked legislation to prohibit irresponsible lending to low-income people from 1995 to 2006 is flattering in a bizarre way. Apparently those Republicans parroting these right-wing talking points believe that I had some heretofore undisclosed power over first Newt Gingrich and then Tom DeLay, which allowed me to keep them from passing legislation they wanted to pass. If that had been true, I would have used that power to block the impeachment of Bill Clinton in the House, the war in Iraq, large tax cuts for the very wealthy, the intrusion into the sad case of Terri Schiavo, and appropriations bills that badly underfunded important social priorities.
I did not try to stop them from passing legislation to control subprime lending or to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because in the first case they were never willing to do so, and in the second case, I worked together with Republican Chairman Mike Oxley on the only bill that the Republicans considered during that period to restrict Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the bill was defeated because, in the words of Mr. Oxley, the Bush administration gave his efforts "the one-finger salute."
Meanwhile, in 2000, the Clinton administration -- worried about the potential for abuse as subprime markets were opened up to traditional lenders -- disqualified predatory loans with high-cost terms from counting toward mandated affordable housing goals. In 2004, the Bush adminstration removed that restriction and signficantly raised the mandate while at the same time removing levrage limits from Wall Street. Bush simply invited the disaster that eventually befell him.
The credit crisis and resulting Great Bush Recession were brought to you by cowboy capitalism and the truly horrible fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies of a bunch of simpletonian, laissez-faire, free-market Republicans, George W Bush, Team Captain. End of story.
Here again is the original text you decried. Quite a range of facts is covered within it. Can you refute or even dispute ANY of them or am I dealing here with just another drive-by, right-wing wimp?
While Bush's work on AIDS and good-governance in Africa so far falls short of what the Clinton Global Initiative has been doing, they had a head start, and Bush did get points by comparison simply for not ignoring Africa while actually in office, the fact that he had simply run out of other places he could travel to notwithstanding. These efforts likely do stand as the one and only net positive contrbution that Bush was able to make in eight years. One entry does not comprise a list, however.
Decent? What in God's name was there that even approached decent? Iraq? The economy? Abu Ghraib and Gitmo? His bold steps forward on health care, energy, and immigration policy? DHS? Education? The environment? Foreign policy? Civil rights? Katrina? What? There is an eight-year litany of very nearly wall-to-wall disgrace and failure. Do point out the decent parts that are somehow being covered up.
Obama is like FDR. This is no average for what he's been asked to do. And FDR of course didn't have to deal with a hostile, terrorist Congress while doing it. We'll have to see how it all shakes out over the next four years, but I would guess that he'll be at least knocking on the door of upper quartile status.
Try to be serious. Recency bias and the serial position effect are tiddlywinks notions related to small-scale short-term memory storage and recall. They have nothing to do with history. You're either a researcher in the field plumbing for grant money or are a quite considerable way off base.
Returning to reality, there is nothing about lately that precludes it from having witnesssed one of the worst presidencies of all time. All that's necessary is for there recently to have been a President whose failures and shortcomings were so glaring and numerous as to qualify him for such a position. Quite a powerful case can in fact be made for exactly that having happened.
Tax Cuts for the Rich were meanwhile just that. They dumped huge piles of money on the already wealthy while providing peanuts to the middle and upper-middle classes. Benefits continue to accrue to the weathy year after year but have almost vanished now for everyone else. More than 50% of the benefits today go to the top 1% of earners. Like they are having a hard time.
Maybe because I don't read your mind trying to figure which law you will use to your defence.Why aren't you aware of them already? Is it because you were not actually paying any attention at the time and have gotten all your news from the disinformation media? It's a little late now, of course, but go check out H.R. 1461 of the 109th Congress, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005.
Over to the law you mentioned, I don't see how it is relevant. Both democrats and republicans voted in favour of it, and it didn't really solve the major problems. However, what happened was that the law didn't get implemented because of democrats blockading it in the senate. Are you stating that law would have made the crisis worse? Most people would say that law would help. However, it was in 2005 and that was too late. House prices started dropping in late 2006.
Oh... right. So you think the cuts from 1.75 to 1% was the cause of the inflated property market, and not the cuts from 6% to 1.75%?!LOL! The federal funds rate target was at 6% at the start of 2001, but it had to be lowered to 3.75% by June on account of the Lesser Bush Recession. Tax Cuts for the Rich were also passed in June 2001, with various provisions being retroactive. Post-9/11, the target rate was lowered to 1.75%, but it was the cuts to 1.25% in late 2002 and then to 1.00% in mid-2003 that I was talking more about.
Also, the correct name is Dotcom bubble, not Bush mild recession. Just like Obama, Bush had just entered office. If you are going to name it after a president, it would be Clinton's mild recession.
Last edited by Camlon; 09-30-12 at 08:42 AM.
Uhhh..what hollowness? You're the one trying to say the guy was the worst president ever. I've never heard an educated person say that unless they were a complete partisan.
You're the one making the assertion. It's laughable and not really worth considering.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
The success of these loans -- both prime and subprime -- led to a situation remisicent of the Oklahoma Land Rush. Everyone wanted a piece of those profits, and subprime in particular became a market that everyone was interested in. The GSE's for their part were busy designing model credit types for these markets -- typically a 30-year fixed-rate instrument with front-loaded fees and premiums that borrowers could earn their way out of through solid loan performance. But Wall Street and their broker-henchmen had other ideas. Ideas like teaser rates, no-cap ARM's, interest-only, and reverse-amortization. They packed their loans with all sorts of gimmicks, put the hard-sell on those products into subprime and other markets, then sold the slop they were generating off through Wall Street and into the secondary markets. That's where the problems came from.
Subprime markets did and still do hold great potential for profitability. They were not the problem. Market abuse and predatory lending by cowboy capitalists were the problem, particularly as the quality of borrower they were dragging in kept falling to new lows. That plus regulators somehow convinced that markets were wise enough to regulate themselves.
Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 09-30-12 at 09:01 AM.
The actual recession of March-November 2001 grew out of an understandable crisis in confidence in this George W Bush guy and his extremist economic policies. The first signs of worry show up in declining gross private domestic investment in the second half of 2000, as the chance of this bumpkin actually becoming a candidate and potentially becoming President start to increase. Things only get worse from there. Now, it is of course as normal as 98.6 degrees for there to be a period of business caution both before and after a change in administrations, but this was much more than that, as where Gore could be counted on for economic continuity, this Bush guy was issuing calls to upset the entire apple cart that had served so many so well for so long. And then he actually did it. The case could be and has been made that it was actually the slap-in-the-face and national unity of 9/11 that actually brought the Lesser Bush Recession to an end. Trying to pass it off on Clinton is simply absurd, and of course, the Great Bush Recession officially began in December 2007, 13 months before Obama took office. You are getting really desperate for material here.
Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 09-30-12 at 10:24 AM.