Bush warns of threats to freedom, economic growth

American · Nov 13, 2009

Link

Originally published 03:00 p.m., November 12, 2009
Joseph Curl

Former President George W. Bush, outlining plans for a new public policy institute, on Thursday said America must fight the temptation to allow the federal government to take control of the private sector, declaring that too much government intervention will squelch economic recovery and expansion.
With the Obama administration establishing far-reaching controls in the auto, real estate and financial sectors, Mr. Bush said that "the role of government is not to create wealth, but to create the conditions that allow entrepreneurs and innovators to thrive."
"As the world recovers, we will face a temptation to replace the risk-and-reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control. History shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too little government involvement, but too much," said Mr. Bush, who has remained largely out of the limelight since leaving office and rarely criticizes his successor.
Delivering a speech on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, future home to the George W. Bush Presidential Center, the former president sought to explain his decision to have the federal government intervene at the beginning of the economic downturn last fall.
"I believe in the power of the free enterprise system, which made the decision I faced last fall one of the most difficult of my presidency. I went against my free market instincts and approved a temporary government intervention to unfreeze credit and prevent a global financial catastrophe," he said.
While many economists credit that early action with halting the economic freefall, Mr. Bush said the only answer to returning America to prosperity is to remove government controls on the private sector and continue to force open markets to U.S. goods.
"Trade has been one of the world's most powerful engines of economic growth, and one of the most effective ways to lift people out of poverty. Yet a 60-year movement toward trade liberalization is under threat from creeping protectionism and isolationism," Mr. Bush said.

Bush admits it was a mistake to have govt overinvolved in the private sector (i.e., bailouts).

PeteEU · Nov 13, 2009

American said:
Link

Bush admits it was a mistake to have govt overinvolved in the private sector (i.e., bailouts).

Nice, maybe he should admit that his lack of oversight, regulation and transparency lead in part to the problem as well.

WillRockwell · Nov 13, 2009

I guess that after causing the mess we're in, Bush should be considered an expert.

j-mac · Nov 13, 2009

WillRockwell said:
I guess that after causing the mess we're in, Bush should be considered an expert.

Yes, and ramping up handouts, and freebies with regards to the CRA and forcing banks to loan to people they knew damned well couldn't afford the homes they were underwriting had NOTHING to do with it.

Investigating the regulators instead of the heeding what they had to say about the situation, then proclaiming to the rest of us that things were strong, while they took 'sweetheart deals' from the CEO's of those making money hand over fist, Yeah, nothing wrong there.

Get outta here with this lay everything at Bush's feet crap. Did he do some things in the financial sector that didn't help? hell yes. Is he alone responsible for the collapse? NO!!!!! When you are intellectually honest enough to say the 'the ONE' has blown into office on the promises of empty pledge, and to date spent, or wants to spend 4 to 5 times what Bush did in his entire Presidency. When you can say that Obama has a plan for change that involves destroying the United States as we know it. Then maybe we have the start of an honest debate. Until then, talking points are tiresome.

j-mac

liblady · Nov 13, 2009

j-mac said:
Yes, and ramping up handouts, and freebies with regards to the CRA and forcing banks to loan to people they knew damned well couldn't afford the homes they were underwriting had NOTHING to do with it.

Investigating the regulators instead of the heeding what they had to say about the situation, then proclaiming to the rest of us that things were strong, while they took 'sweetheart deals' from the CEO's of those making money hand over fist, Yeah, nothing wrong there.

Get outta here with this lay everything at Bush's feet crap. Did he do some things in the financial sector that didn't help? hell yes. Is he alone responsible for the collapse? NO!!!!! When you are intellectually honest enough to say the 'the ONE' has blown into office on the promises of empty pledge, and to date spent, or wants to spend 4 to 5 times what Bush did in his entire Presidency. When you can say that Obama has a plan for change that involves destroying the United States as we know it. Then maybe we have the start of an honest debate. Until then, talking points are tiresome.

j-mac

no bank was never forced to lend money to people who didn't qualify. are you at all familiar with CRA? it's ridiculous to write that, and it's ridiculous to believe that. THAT'S intellectually dishonest.

j-mac · Nov 13, 2009

liblady said:
no bank was never forced to lend money to people who didn't qualify. are you at all familiar with CRA? it's ridiculous to write that, and it's ridiculous to believe that. THAT'S intellectually dishonest.

So, when I lived in Baltimore, and watched as ACORN would gather shower banks with threats, then meet with them and all of the sudden loans were freed up in those neighborhoods, there was no coercion right? Or when demo members of congress were threatening banks with the force of the US Congress to make more loans, and then selling Fannie and Freddie as quasi Government entities, and telling regulators to back off, yeah that's ok eh?

pfft!

j-mac

liblady · Nov 13, 2009

j-mac said:
So, when I lived in Baltimore, and watched as ACORN would gather shower banks with threats, then meet with them and all of the sudden loans were freed up in those neighborhoods, there was no coercion right? Or when demo members of congress were threatening banks with the force of the US Congress to make more loans, and then selling Fannie and Freddie as quasi Government entities, and telling regulators to back off, yeah that's ok eh?

pfft!

j-mac

again, no bank was ever forced to make a loan. seriously. and please, please remember who boasted about the level of home ownership under his administration.

greed drove those loans. pure greed. it's not so much that people couldn't afford the loans when they were made, it's that when refinance time came the property values had plummeted.

Whip Comes Down · Nov 13, 2009

The Man Who Lied Us Into War said:
America must fight the temptation to allow the federal government to take control of the private sector

Name the elected officials who are advocating for the federal government to take control of the private sector.

too much government intervention will squelch economic recovery and expansion.

Give us a few examples of present government intervention that will squelch economic recovery and expansion.

j-mac · Nov 13, 2009

liblady said:
again, no bank was ever forced to make a loan.

Sorry, you are just plain wrong about this.

If you still doubt the role of the Community Reinvestment Act in encouraging lax lending practices, you should check out this 1996 pamphlet published by the Comptroller of the Currency. It discusses "some activities undertaken by small national banks that demonstrate exemplary performance under the Community Reinvestment Act." Those activities now look a lot like the creation of toxic loans.

How The Government Used The CRA To Push Crappy Lending Standards

and please, please remember who boasted about the level of home ownership under his administration.

yes, and who was smacked down when he offered any change to the system that was making these loans?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube- Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis[/ame]

greed drove those loans.

partially yes. But greed alone was not the enabler of those who wanted to give their constituents something they couldn't afford, regardless of the damage that would do. That was demo's.

it's not so much that people couldn't afford the loans when they were made

:rofl Really? So qualifying to by a half million dollar home with no proof of income, and then buying the house on an interest only bubble loan was affordable? When?

it's that when refinance time came the property values had plummeted.

If the home was affordable to them when they purchased it, there shouldn't have been a need to refi it.

j-mac

Whip Comes Down · Nov 13, 2009

"the role of government is... to create the conditions that allow entrepreneurs and innovators to thrive."

That's only one of the many roles of government in the economic affairs of the Nation.

liblady · Nov 13, 2009

j-mac said:
Sorry, you are just plain wrong about this.

yes, and who was smacked down when he offered any change to the system that was making these loans?

YouTube- Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis

partially yes. But greed alone was not the enabler of those who wanted to give their constituents something they couldn't afford, regardless of the damage that would do. That was demo's.

:rofl Really? So qualifying to by a half million dollar home with no proof of income, and then buying the house on an interest only bubble loan was affordable? When?

If the home was affordable to them when they purchased it, there shouldn't have been a need to refi it.

j-mac

there is no cra regulation that required banks to make loans to people who did not qualify, nor were there statutes that required banks to look the other way on proof of income. please show some actual proof that cra regulations caused the mortgage meltdown.

your link does not provide a single shred of proof.

Erod · Nov 13, 2009

liblady said:
no bank was never forced to lend money to people who didn't qualify. are you at all familiar with CRA? it's ridiculous to write that, and it's ridiculous to believe that. THAT'S intellectually dishonest.

That's not the whole truth. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd threatened enormous political and social pressure on institutions that didn't play along with the entire sub-prime movement. Now, I do not support the banks decisions, and I believe they should have stood up to that pressure. They were complicit for sure.

But Frank and Dodd should be in prison for what they did with Fannie and Freddie; instead, they remain poster boys for the Democratic party.

And the mere consideration of bailing out these banks will be the blemish on Bush's presidency that will not go away. (In 50 years, he'll be looked upon favorably like many presidents are after the nuts of the day are finally dead and buried.)

Obama wants to bail them out again...and again....and again....until the government owns the banking institution virtually entirely. Same with a lot of things.

j-mac · Nov 13, 2009

liblady said:
there is no cra regulation that required banks to make loans to people who did not qualify, nor were there statutes that required banks to look the other way on proof of income. please show some actual proof that cra regulations caused the mortgage meltdown.

your link does not provide a single shred of proof.

:rofl Even if your talking points are true, which there is a severe measure of disingenuousness to them, you don't think that the thugs in congress or the pressure groups like ACORN, and the SEIU would put anything like that in writing do you? What do you libs take the American people for?

You so obviously didn't watch the clip I gave to you that shows how the liberal demo's went after the regulators for even daring to suggest that something was wrong with Fannie, or Freddie.

It is obscene that you would defend, and worse yet try to pin the entire debacle of Bush, or the republican party alone, and shows that instead of actually researching what happened, and what caused this meltdown, you prefer to take the word of people looking to cover their own asses politically, and feed you talking points that you lap up like a sheep.

j-mac

Kushinator · Nov 13, 2009

:lol:

Newsflash: There was a housing bubble. And for some reason, i find it hard to believe that the housing bubble was primarily caused by lower income defaults.

If the bold was truly the case it would not have been a bubble....

liblady · Nov 13, 2009

j-mac said:
:rofl Even if your talking points are true, which there is a severe measure of disingenuousness to them, you don't think that the thugs in congress or the pressure groups like ACORN, and the SEIU would put anything like that in writing do you? What do you libs take the American people for?

You so obviously didn't watch the clip I gave to you that shows how the liberal demo's went after the regulators for even daring to suggest that something was wrong with Fannie, or Freddie.

It is obscene that you would defend, and worse yet try to pin the entire debacle of Bush, or the republican party alone, and shows that instead of actually researching what happened, and what caused this meltdown, you prefer to take the word of people looking to cover their own asses politically, and feed you talking points that you lap up like a sheep.

j-mac

these are not talking points. i don't play that way. and where did i try to pin anything on anyone? i think your hyper-partisanship is showing.....better pull up your slip.

i work for a bank and have some insight, btw. and you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the cra regs required banks to make shaky loans. not a shred.

the re market is in miserable shape for a multitude of reasons. seems you believe democrats are to blame, and that's pure partisanship.

liblady · Nov 13, 2009

Goldenboy219 said:
:lol:

Newsflash: There was a housing bubble. And for some reason, i find it hard to believe that the housing bubble was primarily caused by lower income defaults.

If the bold was truly the case it would not have been a bubble....

it wasn't. it's ridiculous to believe so. ;-)

ConservaBill · Nov 13, 2009

Whip Comes Down said:
That's only one of the many roles of government in the economic affairs of the Nation.

That is unless you've actually READ the Constitution and enough of the Founding Fathers to understand it!

Whip Comes Down · Nov 13, 2009

ConservaBill said:
That is unless you've actually READ the Constitution and enough of the Founding Fathers to understand it!

What did the Founding Fathers say about the applying the well established common law rules of construction to the Constitution?

j-mac · Nov 13, 2009

liblady said:
these are not talking points. i don't play that way. and where did i try to pin anything on anyone? i think your hyper-partisanship is showing.....better pull up your slip.

Yeah, sure they aren't...And you did try and pin this on the usual liberal demons, evil banks making loans to unsuspecting dolts that didn't know any better, all to make a quick buck right here...www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-new...s-freedom-economic-growth.html#post1058362543

Yes I am partisan, but not without good reason.

i work for a bank and have some insight

yeah, what do you do for the bank, and how big are they?

and you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the cra regs required banks to make shaky loans. not a shred.

View the video I provided, it certainly is odd that demo's are attacking a regulator is it not? But I believe that Frank, and Dodd should be investigated criminally for their involvement. Then maybe you could get to the bottom.

the re market is in miserable shape for a multitude of reasons. seems you believe democrats are to blame, and that's pure partisanship.

The refi market is in terrible shape because they are trying to throw our money at the problem without fixing it....We already know the outcome of what they want to continue.

j-mac

apdst · Nov 13, 2009

PeteEU said:
Nice, maybe he should admit that his lack of oversight, regulation and transparency lead in part to the problem as well.

Care to point to specific examples of this being all Bush's fault?

apdst · Nov 13, 2009

Whip Comes Down said:
That's only one of the many roles of government in the economic affairs of the Nation.

No, tha's the only economic role of government. Government can't create wealth. So, there's it's useless, even self defeating for the government attempt to create wealth, because it can't happen.

Whip Comes Down · Nov 13, 2009

apdst said:
No, tha's the only economic role of government.

The American people overwhelming reject that idea, bro.

Government can't create wealth.

Yes it can, bro. However, that's not the best way to do it.

phattonez · Nov 13, 2009

Whip Comes Down said:
The American people overwhelming reject that idea, bro.

And look at the trouble it's given us. We are no longer a creditor nation.

Yes it can, bro. However, that's not the best way to do it.

What wealth has government ever created? I mean a net positive.

apdst · Nov 13, 2009

Whip Comes Down said:
The American people overwhelming reject that idea, bro.

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention lately.

Yes it can, bro. However, that's not the best way to do it.

Government can't generate profits. The only money they receive is from taxes...and, where do taxes come from????

Ethereal · Nov 13, 2009

PeteEU said:
Nice, maybe he should admit that his lack of oversight, regulation and transparency lead in part to the problem as well.

Please, explain how lack of oversight, regulation, and transparency were the cause of the problem.

Bush warns of threats to freedom, economic growth

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

PeteEU

WillRockwell

j-mac

liblady

pirate lover

j-mac

liblady

pirate lover

Whip Comes Down

j-mac

Whip Comes Down

liblady

pirate lover

Erod

j-mac

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

liblady

pirate lover

liblady

pirate lover

ConservaBill

Active member

Whip Comes Down

j-mac

apdst

apdst

Whip Comes Down

phattonez

Catholic

apdst

Ethereal