Originally Posted By donnyaz This is an article by the BBC <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7814704.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7814704.stm</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I guess the better question is -- who was in a better position to see the crisis coming and do something in advance to prevent it? Of course, we are talking about the same administration that didn't forsee the levees failing in New Orleans prior to a Category 5 hurricane. I also notice that his article fails to discuss the massive tax cuts for the wealthy and massive spending increases of the Bush administration that only amplify the current economic hardship that this country faces now.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Even worse, as the dark clouds began to gather he said there was nothing to worry about, it was all good.
Originally Posted By donnyaz Bush Did warn the congress <a href="http://furtheradventuresofindigored.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-warned-of-financial-failure-dems.html" target="_blank">http://furtheradventuresofindi...ems.html</a>
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ Nice article. Where did he warn the Congress about Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, and AIG?
Originally Posted By andyll <<Bush Did warn the congress <a href="http://furtheradventuresofindi...ems.html" target="_blank">http://furtheradventuresofindi...ems.html</a> >> Headline of the article.. "Bush Warned of Financial Failure, Dems Ignored Warnings" But read the timeline. Everything the author states on the timeline happened under the Republican congress. ( until the bear sterns collapse) It doesn't matter how much you talk about it... it's what you do. Bush talked about sending us back into space in a state of the union but cut funding for NASA a month later. Republican's are talking about the issues now but have stopped the regulatory bill in the senate. It's like health care. When the republican's killed clintons they said they'd reform it their way... 15 years later when the Dems try to fix it they suddenly yell that their ideas are better.
Originally Posted By DAR Our irresponsiblity as a nation led to the financial crisis, wouldn't have mattered who was runnning the show.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Our irresponsiblity as a nation led to the financial crisis, wouldn't have mattered who was runnning the show.<< While I think that's 100% true, and that our overall attitude of "I'm an American, I can do whatever I want," has led us to this, I do think reasonable assessments can place larger portions of blame squarely on modern Republican policies and attitudes. It starts with Ronald Reagan and his demonization of government as the source of all our ails. Those socialists Eisenhower and Nixon had much, much higher tax rates than Reagan. Anyone who claims Obama is a socialist has to start with Eisenhower and ask if our nation was in socialism under him since the tax rate was so high.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Headline of the article.. "Bush Warned of Financial Failure, Dems Ignored Warnings" But read the timeline. Everything the author states on the timeline happened under the Republican congress. ( until the bear sterns collapse)> Good catch. Moreover, that article only deals with Bush talking about Fannie and Freddie, which were a relatively small part of the problem. Much more important was the deregulation that Republicans pushed that took down the barriers between commercial and investment banks (which were there for 70 years for a reason), allowed banks to leverage themselves far past the traditional 12 to 1 (some levered at 30 to 1 or higher), and allowed for the "financial instruments" that divorced risk from lending (seemingly) and were so complex even the financial institutions themselves often didn't understand them - except that they were getting a "cut" on all the sales. This was what led to the bubble - Fannie and Freddie were more symptom than cause, but because they're often thought of as a "Democratic constituency," some Republicans are trying to re-write history and place greater blame on them. It won't work.
Originally Posted By donnyaz Sorry Dabo2 but you are wrong ! Republicans are not rewriting history most won't even metion that Bill Clinton had his hands in this mess with the the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act ,President Bush actually increased the burden of regulation on US companies, enacting in 2002 what he called "the most far-reaching reform of American business practices since the time of Franklin D Roosevelt", the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals, including the collapse of the energy group Enron, Sarbanes-Oxley significantly increased the reporting requirements and accountability of company boards and management.
Originally Posted By ecdc Sarbanes-Oxley requires internal consistency on business practices, true. It does not, however, limit the scope of those practices or--obvious given where we are today--prevent the kind of shell game banking that led us to this disaster. And plenty of Democrats have repeatedly said Clinton was part of the problem with Glass-Steagall, including Dabob2 on these very boards.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No, I am not wrong. I've noted that Clinton signed that many times right here on these boards. He's not blameless here. Nonetheless, the primary culprit was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, named for - ta da! - three Republicans. Sarbanes-Oxley was kind of a no-brainer after Enron, and given the ties between Bush and "Kenny Boy" Lay of Enron, it would have been political suicide for Bush to veto it. But, of course, he didn't do anything to mitigate Gramm-Leach-Bliley, and the collapse of 2008 was the inevitable result.
Originally Posted By donnyaz Dabob2 why dont you ever include Barney Frank who In 2003, while the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, Frank opposed a Bush administration proposal, in response to accounting scandals, for transferring oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Congress and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to a new agency that would be created within the Treasury Department. The proposal, supported by the head of Fannie Mae, reflected the administration's belief that Congress "neither has the tools, nor the stature" for adequate oversight. Frank stated, "These two entities...are not facing any kind of financial crisis.... The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[50] Conservative groups criticized Frank for campaign contributions totaling $42,350 between 1989 and 2008. They claim the donations from Fannie and Freddie influenced his support of their lending programs, and say that Frank did not play a strong enough role in reforming the institutions in the years leading up to the Economic crisis of 2008.[51] In 2006 a Fannie Mae representative stated in SEC filings that they "did not participate in large amounts of these non-traditional mortgages in 2004 and 2005." [52]In response to criticism from conservatives, Frank said, “In 2004, it was Bush who started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. And I said at the time, ‘Hey—(a) this is going to jeopardize their profitability, but (b) it’s going to put people in homes they can’t afford, and they’re gonna lose them.’” [10] Yes I copied and pasted this.....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Again, Fannie and Freddie were a small part of this problem. Yet Republicans continually point to Frank (who isn't blameless either, and I've also said that before - pay attention, please, before you say things like "why don't you ever include...") as though he (or the GSE's) were the lion's share of the problem, when that's not even close to being true.
Originally Posted By donnyaz Dabob2 I think what I am slowly hearing from you is that no one person (G.W. Bush caused this mess it was a symphony of people including anyone who got a subprime loan.Am I right ??? <a href="http://billstclair.com/blog/images/george-bush-miss-me-yet.jpg" target="_blank">http://billstclair.com/blog/im...-yet.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It was many people, yes. The primary architects were the Republicans in congress who orchestrated the repeal of Glass-Steagall and allowed commercial banks to gamble with regular people's money like a drunken sailor in Vegas. But the buck is supposed to stop with the president. When the more prescient people in the financial press started talking about how the house of cards was going to collapse (hell, some people HERE were talking about it!), he should have taken steps to prevent the worst from happening. He did not.
Originally Posted By donnyaz Dabob2 so under yor logic alot of the blame is with President Bill Clinton ????Who was the President who signed the Repeal into law ?????
Originally Posted By donnyaz What Presdinet signed it ? Answer Bill Clinton. as DaBob puts it the buck stoped with him.
