3. Bush’s legacy is still hurting economy (10/24/2011)
Some people say that after three years, Obama can’t blame Bush on economy failure any more. But the housing crisis still hurts economy and looks like will continue to damage the economy for several years. The problem he left for this country is huge and long-lasting.
The main expense is to bail out the firms too big to fail, especially the mortgage giant Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The program to help unemployed, incentive to promote car sale and house sale, program to help the home owners whose house value now are underwater. Here is the real expense, that's the real hole you try to avoid of. Three years after sub-prime loan crisis, the roof is still leaking. Here is the some recent "leaking" result:
FanFannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aid
WASHINGTON -- Mortgage buyer Fannie Mae reported a loss of $8.7 billion for the January-March quarter, and asked for an additional $8.5 billion in federal aid.
Fannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aidnie Mae, Freddie Mac Seek $3.1 Billion Amid Improved Earnings
QBy Lorraine Woellert - Feb 24, 2011 9:01 PM PT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-earnings.htmlFannie Mae needs another $5.1 billion in aid as more loans sour
.Date: Friday, August 5, 2011,
http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...1-billion.htmlThree years after the break-off of the housing bubble, it still hurts economy and causes unemployment.Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan
Bank of America stock was up 2 cents at $7 at midday. The stock has lost half its value this year, largely over problems related to poorly-written mortgages it acquired with its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial Corp. The bank faces lawsuits from investors and regulators over the sales of mortgage-backed securities that lost value after the housing boom collapsed.
Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan (VIDEO)
4. How Bush blew up the Housing bubble.
Here is a Federal bench interest rate in Bush's term.
you can see how the interest rate dropped to the bottom from 6% to 1% in his first year administration. That low interest rate created a housing bubble. Bush boasted in his administration, America developed an ownership society. The fast growing up bubble without any restriction was finally boken up in 2007, caused the financial crisis in next year. It is still hurting the economy and likely will continue for years.
One thing else you can see from that interest rate chart. Clinton left his a nice interest rate tool to control the economy. The interest rate was 6%. With that interest rate tool, Bush did push up a economy. But he didn't regulate the economy, loosen the bridle of housing loan for his homeowners' society, that caused today's foreclosure problem. What did he leave for Obama? The Federal interest rate was below 1% which left little space for obama to operate. Without that tool, Obama had to borrow money, or do QE (quantitative easing) to push the economy.End of the ‘Ownership Society’
Oct 10, 2008
Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.
As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system,
So Much for Bush's 'Ownership Society' - The Daily Beast
Clinton left for Bush a surplus budget and a nice financial tool. What has Obama got from Bush?
Last edited by katsung47; 11-15-11 at 08:32 PM.
Interest rates are controlled by the Federal Reserve, not the President and the so called Bush Ownership society was a program adopted from Carter, Clinton, and now Obama,
It's funny. With your words Bush had nothing to do with that economic mess. It becomes Clinton, Carter and Obama's responsibility. What did Bush do in his eight years?
The tax cut law was proposed and carried out by former President Bush. It is proved being a failed policy. In Bush's eight years term, the national debt raised from 6 trillian to 12 trillian. His tax cut law contributes big in debt increasing. Yet, when Obama wanted to recover the tax rate on rich people, the law makers resisted. It proves they are now working for a little group of rich people not for the majority of Americans.
Here is a confession from Greenspan:
Yet, when Obama proposed to cancel that tax cut law to save US from debt increasing, he is facing the opposition from the Republican.Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts
By Michael Gawenda, Herald Correspondent in Washington
March 17, 2005
The chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has admitted he made a mistake in 2001 when he defended President George Bush's tax cuts, which led to the turnaround of a large budget surplus at the end of the Clinton presidency to a budget deficit this year of more than $US400 billion ($506 billion).
Greenspan admits he got it wrong over Bush's tax cuts - World - www.smh.com.au
What is it about people like you that continue to focus on tax increases but never spending? Seems you certainly have a different vision as to the role of the govt. than our Founders and most Americans.
Your knowledge of the debt is flawed. Bush took office with a 5.7 trillion dollar debt and left it at 10.6 trillion which is a 4.9 trillion increase. Obama has added 4.4 trillion in 3 years
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
What did Obama do to save the economy?
Sorry, I think I made it clear in my articles. I have to admit I am not a good teacher to explain everything to a student like you.
Bush increased the national debt not only with his “Tax cut law”, but also with his two Mid-east wars. The war cost is another heavy burden to the US tax payers.
U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting
By Daniel Trotta
NEW YORK | Wed Jun 29, 2011
Reuters) - When President Barack Obama cited cost as a reason to bring troops home from Afghanistan, he referred to a $1 trillion (622 billion pounds) price tag for America's wars.
Staggering as it is, that figure grossly underestimates the total cost of wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to the U.S. Treasury and ignores more imposing costs yet to come, according to a study released on Wednesday.
The final bill will run at least $3.7 trillion and could reach as high as $4.4 trillion, according to the research project "Costs of War" by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. (Home | Costs of War)
U.S. cost of war at least $3.7 trillion and counting | Reuters