You all know I cannot stomach McCain, but he did try to alert about the upcoming crash that fell on deaf ears: McCain Co-Sponsored Fannie/Freddie Reform
He is probably not the only one. But that was after 4 or 5 years of Bush's initiative to put so many people in homes they couldn't afford. It might have helped but Bush had already set the tidal wave in motion.
Well, let me ask you this...how can you put so much stock in "subprime" figures when what constitutes a "subprime" mortgage has changed so dramtically over the years? FYI- "subprime" used to refer only to bad credit credit but has been expanded to include interest only loans (which are a relatively newer mortgage product), adjustable rate mortgages and a whole slew of other non-conventional fixed term/fixed rate mortgages, without regard to one's credit. Example: In the 90's you were called subprime if you had bad credit, a few years later a buyer with good credit would be called subprime simply because of the mortgage product they took out, so you see, definitions are of some importance when dealing with the subject. You are awfully naive but I appreciate your enthusiasm in trying learn new things.
Thought it time for a little comic relief. So I started with the top thread (2008-2011). Should be renamed ‘Bash Bush thread #289’. I’m sure there is a name for it but I’ll call it “My guy sucks so bad lets blame the last guy”. So let’s review….we have or will have…. gas prices at sustained record levels, unemployment at sustained record levels. Obama has doubled the deficit since he took office. $2.3 trillion higher than Obama originally claimed. Obama and a Democrat supermajority in Congress, has increased federal spending from 21% to 25% of GDP. We learned after passing ObamaCare that the Obama administration got its figures wrong … by about $115 billion. And this is just scratching the surface. But of course, it just has to be Bush’s fault, doesn’t it? Obama now knows that everything thing he’s tried; his moronic and economically destructive Pelosi-designed stimulus plan, his hire-more-government-workers jobs programs, his promoting of jobs-killing unions, his animosity toward private enterprise … none of it is working. So of course he, the lame street media and liberal bloggers is going to blame Bush. We hear phrases from Obama about “turning the corner” and “moving in the right direction” the “recovery”(not), as Barry begs for another term so that he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of the United States. Damn Bush.
Whenever gas prices go up they reach record levels. And actually prices are now lower than they were in May. At least where I live.
The definition of subprime has not changed. It has always meant risky loans to people with poor or little credit. What qualifies as risky may have changed over time but It doesn't matter why they are deemed risky when you are talking about a President encouraging them. They are still risky loans. You made a nice effort at a dodge and move issue but it is irrelevant to the discussion. Nice try though in a Clintonesque definition of is kind of way. So let's reword it. Under Bush the number of risky loans given to people with poor or little credit increased six fold while his irresponsible home ownership initiative was taking place.
Face it, without the current president, your house would be worth 90 percent less than it is now. And that is a fact that needs no backing up at all. No sources, references, data or concurring opinions needed. Just being typed makes it true. That is the way it works here.
Yes. Obama sucks. But the definition of sucks has changed over time so it might mean he is actually really good. That's how we roll on pwre. Just ask David.
Coincidentally, there's a new book out on the subject. It details how Clinton's involvement in the mortgage industry began the downward spiral that eventually resulted in the bubble bursting. The part I had forgotten was Clinton & Janet Reno's pledge to prosecute any lender who dared to challenge their policy by working off debt ratios or asking for income verification.
Does it talk about Bush's irresponsible home ownership initiatives during the first 6 years of his Presidency? Like, say, putting 5.5 million people into mortgages who wouldn't have qualified before? Pressuring Freddie and Fannie to buy hundreds of billion of those mortgages? See, the difference between us, David, is that I can see where both Presidents' policies caused the crisis and you only see where the one with the D caused it...even though the actual explosion happened directly after the R's initiatives.
Gee, sounds like Bush is the only one you are blaming even in the face of credible proof the ball was in motion well before he became President.
Read "product description", near the bottom of the page. Amazon.com: Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon (9780805091205): Gretchen Morgenson, Joshua Rosner: Books
David, you are dead wrong. Several times in this thread I have said that he is not the only one to blame and that others share blame too. Which is several times more than you have ever admitted that he is also to blame. Even though his policies were every bit as bad, if not worse, than his predecessors.
You would not care to point just one out, would you? This is the only time in this entire thread you used the word "Clinton". "But, of course, all that really happened back in the early 90ies under Clinton in that alternate universe we are supposed to buy into." That does not sound to me like you are assigning him any blame there. In fact, it sounds to me more like you are say he had no fault.
I said earlier in the thread that not all the blame goes to Bush. And I said that I blame him for not seeing what was already happening (what others caused before him). And I said that I blame him for not fixing those problems before it was too late and, instead making them worse from the beginning of his first term. And I agreed with Craig when he said Bush could have stopped the problem but instead made it worse. Go look it up. There is not much point in debating the people we agree had a hand in it...Clinton, Freddie, Fannie, and the banks, investment firms, etc...now is there? There is plenty of blame in an explosion of this magnitude. However, the entire argument has been over Bush's role. That is what we are in contention over. And, while he has ducked and dodged and redefined at will - not once, not a solitary single time, at all, has David acknowledged or even hinted - despite all the loads of sourced evidence (even in Bush's own words) provided - that Bush and his home ownership initiatives that he started when he first took office, his increase in Freddie and Fannie activity and his pressure on the lending industry - contributed mightily to the crisis. Despite the fact that his own party warned that it would lead to increased defaults. All that happened under Bush. And obviously, only in an alternate universe, did all the things I have posted about that happened under Bush actually happen under Clinton. And now that you have come to the party - and obviously read every single thing I posted - every quoted source and the loads of it in Bush's own words... What do you say about Bush's role in the crisis?
