• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Majority of Americans blaim former President Bush for today's bad economy

mpg said:
How many conservatives are blaming FDR for our CURRENT mess?
Click to expand...

How many are blaming Clinton? A lot. Any time I discuss the roots of the financial meltdown with a conservative it inevitably comes down to Clinton's changes to CRA and the bank and derivative deregulation bills signed by Clinton -- according to the conservative. Ironically they always come to that from the starting point of, "stop blaming Bush." :D
 
DarkWizard12 said:
There is no doubt that Bush's policies is the main reason the financial crises happened, and in the result, contributed to the great recession.

The question is, is obama doing anything to improve it? The result seems to be No. But we will see what America decides come election day. Left-wing policies are clearly not the solution to Bush's policies.
Click to expand...

Nothing that Clinton did by getting rid of glass stegeall? It must be fun to live in a world where you create your own reality.
 
washunut said:
Nothing that Clinton did by getting rid of glass stegeall? It must be fun to live in a world where you create your own reality.
Click to expand...

The truth is that Glass Steagall was all but dead by the time Clinton signed Graham, Leach, Blilely (who are all republicans, btw). And the more corrosive legislation was the commodities futurization act, which Gramm slipped into an omnibus spending bill. That doesn't absolve Clinton of blame, but I don't think he deserves a lot. We can wonder if he would have seen the error of his ways once the derivatives market exploded, but we know that Bush did nothing to stop it.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The truth is that Glass Steagall was all but dead by the time Clinton signed Graham, Leach, Blilely (who are all republicans, btw). And the more corrosive legislation was the commodities futurization act, which Gramm slipped into an omnibus spending bill. That doesn't absolve Clinton of blame, but I don't think he deserves a lot. We can wonder if he would have seen the error of his ways once the derivatives market exploded, but we know that Bush did nothing to stop it.
Click to expand...

It is interesting because I lay a lot of the blame on the Federal reserve which is the regulator for the big financial institutions. You may know who was the head of the NY Fed at the time this all happened, want to tell the folks who that was.
 
AdamT said:
How many are blaming Clinton? A lot. Any time I discuss the roots of the financial meltdown with a conservative it inevitably comes down to Clinton's changes to CRA and the bank and derivative deregulation bills signed by Clinton -- according to the conservative. Ironically they always come to that from the starting point of, "stop blaming Bush." :D
Click to expand...

Here's where I differ from others... I don't blame Clinton for the financial meltdown that caused the economic mess we're in. While it's true that the changes to the CRA he made, along with his administrations stringent enforcement of those changes may have started the ball rolling, I can't blame him or his administration for the economic collapse that resulted.

The reason he's not to blame is simple... It's because 1) even though I may disagree with his political beliefs and the CRA itself, I believe both the changes, as well as the strict enforcement were done with the best intentions, and I don't believe for a minute they knew their actions would eventually result in the collapse the housing market and the banks. And 2) the threat to collapse the economy created by CRA was recognized and brought to light in congress back in 2001, in plenty of time to prevent the 2007 collapse. The fact nothing was done about it, isn't Bill Clinton fault.

You can blame Clinton and his administration for enacting a flawed policy, but you can't blame them for the collapse that policy lead to... That blame belongs to the democrats in the house and senate, who for 7 years ignored repeated warnings, refused to allow action to be taken, and instead chose to play politics by opposing republican reform efforts, just to protect one of their precious entitlement programs.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
How many are blaming Clinton? A lot. Any time I discuss the roots of the financial meltdown with a conservative it inevitably comes down to Clinton's changes to CRA and the bank and derivative deregulation bills signed by Clinton -- according to the conservative. Ironically they always come to that from the starting point of, "stop blaming Bush." :D
Click to expand...
Not for nothing, but ... Conservatives go back to Carter when it comes to blaming him for the CRA.
 
Grim17 said:
You can blame Clinton and his administration for enacting a flawed policy, but you can't blame them for the collapse that policy lead to... That blame belongs to the democrats in the house and senate, who for 7 years ignored repeated warnings, refused to allow action to be taken, and instead chose to play politics by opposing republican reform efforts, just to protect one of their precious entitlement programs.
Click to expand...


3h4yr5
. . . . . . .
3h4yr5
. . . . . . .
3h4yr5
​


Democrats are to blame, huh? Let me point out who was actually in charge during those years ...

YEAR .... HOUSE .... SENATE ... WH

2001 .... R ............. R/D ......... R
2002 .... R ............. D ............. R
2003 .... R ............. R ............. R
2004 .... R ............. R ............. R
2005 .... R ............. R ............. R
2006 .... R ............. R ............. R
2007 .... D ............. D ............. R

... and weren't you the one giving me grief for "passing blame?" :lamo
 
Sheik Yerbuti;t1059689026 said:
Yup, America still blames Bush for the economic mess we face.

mpg said:
probably the same people who blamed Saddam for 9/11
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Dick "Pretty Well Confirmed" Cheney still blames Bush?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Democrats are to blame, huh? Let me point out who was actually in charge during those years ...

YEAR .... HOUSE .... SENATE ... WH

2001 .... R ............. R/D ......... R
2002 .... R ............. D ............. R
2003 .... R ............. R ............. R
2004 .... R ............. R ............. R
2005 .... R ............. R ............. R
2006 .... R ............. R ............. R
2007 .... D ............. D ............. R

... and weren't you the one giving me grief for "passing blame?" :lamo
Click to expand...

Why don't you do a little research and educate yourself...

A plan to reform finance regulations and reign in Fannie and Freddie was brought up by republicans in the House Financial Services Committee back in 2003 (report from the NY Times). A bill was drafted, but it was only marginally supported by republicans and received no support at all from committee democrats, so it never made it to the house floor.

Then in 2005, republicans on the Senate Banking Committee adopted a much stronger version of the 2003 House bill, but it received unanimous opposition by democrats on the committee, so under threat of a democratic filibuster, it never reached the senate floor for a vote.

There are a ton of videos out there of the democrats in interviews and during committee hearing, that show their opposition to the proposed regulations in 2003 and 2005... The same goes for republicans who supported and pushed for them.

Like I said, the blame for the meltdown belongs to the democrats in the house and senate, who for 7 years ignored repeated warnings, refused to allow action to be taken, and instead chose to play politics by opposing republican reform efforts, just to protect one of their precious entitlement programs.
 
washunut said:
It is interesting because I lay a lot of the blame on the Federal reserve which is the regulator for the big financial institutions. You may know who was the head of the NY Fed at the time this all happened, want to tell the folks who that was.
Click to expand...

Hmm, why do you want to focus on a regional fed office? Because Alan Greenspan was actually running the Fed? In any case, it isn't just the Fed that regulates financial institutions. It's also the OCC, the OTC, the FDIC, the SEC, and so on and so on. And that's part of the problem.
 
Grim17 said:
Why don't you do a little research and educate yourself...

A plan to reform finance regulations and reign in Fannie and Freddie was brought up by republicans in the House Financial Services Committee back in 2003 (report from the NY Times). A bill was drafted, but it was only marginally supported by republicans and received no support at all from committee democrats, so it never made it to the house floor.

Then in 2005, republicans on the Senate Banking Committee adopted a much stronger version of the 2003 House bill, but it received unanimous opposition by democrats on the committee, so under threat of a democratic filibuster, it never reached the senate floor for a vote.
Click to expand...
No bill ever was ever voted on by the full Senate during the 6 years Republicans controlled the House and 4½ years they controlled the Senate. If their excuse, which I don't buy, is that they wouldn't vote on it because they were afraid Democrats would filibuster it, then they should never be in charge of Congress again because that shows a complete lack of testicular fortitude where they back down from doing their job at the mere threat of a filibuster, which I believe you are assigning to them unjustly. Indeed, if that were the case, there never would have been any filibusters because Republicans would have sat on bills rather then vote on them, just to avoid a filibuster, where there were quite a few during that session of Congress. Why did they try to pass other bills which were filibustered, but not S.190? Not buying it. Furthermore, it would have been in Republicans best interest to force a filibuster since that would have provided them a legitimate defense that Democrats blocked them from passing much needed oversight of the GSE's. No way do I buy that Republicans took the blame for that because they were afraid Democrats would filibuster.

Grim17 said:
There are a ton of videos out there of the democrats in interviews and during committee hearing, that show their opposition to the proposed regulations in 2003 and 2005... The same goes for republicans who supported and pushed for them.
Click to expand...
So? Who ever said Democrats were on the right side of this issue? They weren't. But they also weren't in charge. Republicans were and Republicans didn't pass any legislation to prevent the meltdown, despite some of them predicting the calamity which ultimately occurred.

Grim17 said:
Like I said, the blame for the meltdown belongs to the democrats in the house and senate, who for 7 years ignored repeated warnings, refused to allow action to be taken, and instead chose to play politics by opposing republican reform efforts, just to protect one of their precious entitlement programs.
Click to expand...
You can say it a thousand more times, doing so will not make it true. Republicans were in charge. They dropped the ball -- they get the blame. Just as the Democrats get the blame for also doing nothing to prevent the meltdown in 2007. America knows it even if you don't; that's why they kicked Republicans to the curb in 2008 and handed the keys to the White House to Barack Hussein Obama.
 
Again People seem to confuse "personal belief" with "Personal facts"....

Two things...The bill that really stated the snow ball of financial claps of the economy was Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Many of the largest banks, brokerages, and insurance companies desired the Act at the time. The justification was that individuals usually put more money into investments when the economy is doing well, but they put most of their money into savings accounts when the economy turns bad. With the new Act, they would be able to do both 'savings' and 'investment' at the same financial institution, which would be able to do well in both good and bad economic times.

Prior to the Act, most financial services companies were already offering both saving and investment opportunities to their customers. On the retail/consumer side, a bank called Norwest which would later merge with Wells Fargo Bank led the charge in offering all types of financial services products in 1986. American Express attempted to own almost every field of financial business (although there was little synergy among them). Things culminated in 1998 when Citibank merged with Travelers Insurance creating CitiGroup. The merger violated the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA), but Citibank was given a two-year forbearance that was based on an assumption that they would be able to force a change in the law. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act passed in November 1999, repealing portions of the BHCA and the Glass–Steagall Act, allowing banks, brokerages, and insurance companies to merge, thus making the CitiCorp/Travelers Group merger legal.

Also prior to the passage of the Act, there were many relaxations to the Glass–Steagall Act. For example, a few years earlier, commercial Banks were allowed to pursue investment banking, and before that banks were also allowed to begin stock and insurance brokerage. Insurance underwriting was the only main operation they weren't allowed to do, something rarely done by banks even after the passage of the Act.

Much consolidation occurred in the financial services industry since, but not at the scale some had expected. Retail banks, for example, do not tend to buy insurance underwriters, as they seek to engage in a more profitable business of insurance brokerage by selling products of other insurance companies. Other retail banks were slow to market investments and insurance products and package those products in a convincing way. Brokerage companies had a hard time getting into banking, because they do not have a large branch and backshop footprint. Banks have recently tended to buy other banks, such as the 2004 Bank of America and Fleet Boston merger, yet they have had less success integrating with investment and insurance companies. Many banks have expanded into investment banking, but have found it hard to package it with their banking services, without resorting to questionable tie-ins which caused scandals at Smith Barney.
Click to expand...

Also lets not forget Bush's famous speech and calling to congress and Senate to pass bills so that people can move to better and bigger houses without "good Credit"


GWB 2002 Speech :

”More and more people own their homes in America today. Yet we have a problem here in America because fewer than half the Hispanics and African Americans own their own homes. That’s a home ownership gap; a gap that we got to work together to close. And by the end of this decade we’ll increase the number of minority homeowners (future Obama voters ) by 5.5 million families. “

“One of the major obstacles to minority home-ownership is financing. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (who I will bail out in 2008) have committed to provide more money for lenders, they committed to meet the shortage of capital available for minority home-buyers. Freddie Mac just began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers (like income requirements) and create better opportunities for home-ownership. One of the programs is designed to help families with bad credit histories to qualify for home ownership loans (by faking their income) . You don’t have to have a lousy home for first time home-buyers. You put your mind to it the first time low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anyone else (till those adjustable rates go up). “
Click to expand...

Are you freaking kidding me.... No wonder Republicans and Conservatives hate government...They Suck at Running it!

Diving Mullah
 
Diving Mullah said:
Also lets not forget Bush's famous speech and calling to congress and Senate to pass bills so that people can move to better and bigger houses without "good Credit"
Click to expand...
During another speech by Bush, also not to be forgotten. This one, to the Republicans who attended the 2004 Republican National Convention as he accepted the nomination to run again later that year...
"Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all-time high." ~ George Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech
​
 
DarkWizard12 said:
There is no doubt that Bush's policies is the main reason the financial crises happened, and in the result, contributed to the great recession.
Click to expand...
The policies that caused the recession enjoyed massive support from BOTH parties.
 
mpg said:
The policies that caused the recession enjoyed massive support from BOTH parties.
Click to expand...
While that's completely true, it masks another truth ... Only one of those parties controlled the House for 6 of those critical 7 years, the Senate for 4½, and the White House for all 7.

Based on that, I find it completely within reason to assign more blame to Republicans than to Democrats.

I like how before the bubble collapsed, during the boom years of 2003-2005, Republicans were more than happy to take credit for it and the booming economy it generated ... but when that boom led to a financial meltdown and housing collapse, suddenly it's the minority party Democrats' fault for not doing anything to get the majority party Republicans to establish much needed oversight. :roll:
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
While that's completely true, it masks another truth ... Only one of those parties controlled the House for 6 of those critical 7 years, the Senate for 4½, and the White House for all 7.

Based on that, I find it completely within reason to assign more blame to Republicans than to Democrats.

I like how before the bubble collapsed, during the boom years of 2003-2005, Republicans were more than happy to take credit for it and the booming economy it generated ... but when that boom led to a financial meltdown and housing collapse, suddenly it's the minority party Democrats' fault for not doing anything to get the majority party Republicans to establish much needed oversight. :roll:
Click to expand...
You're throwing away your right to complain about filibusters.
 
mpg said:
I guess I exaggerated. You already made a good point about having the gutts to stand up to the threat of a filibuster.
Click to expand...
I'm all for filibusters, being the only bark with bite for the minority. Had Democrats actually blocked legislation to add oversight for GSE's with filibusters, I would be blaming them. But they didn't. Republicans dropped the ball on that one. IMO, it doesn't matter that Democrats were also on the wrong side of the issue, I blame the party with power to do something about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom