Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Does George W Bush take any of the blame for our economy?

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    Did Fannie and Freddie make all the other banks create these mortgage backed fraudulant financing deals? Or cook their books so no one knows what is up or down? Did Iceland rely on Freddie or Fannie?

    Freddie and Fannie are a small piece of this gigantic mess.

  2. #22
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,538
    Post Thanks / Like
    imo, W has to bear the bulk of the responsiility for this situation but not for the same reasons as most people think. he was dealt a very bad hand to play his way out of. 9/11 plus the whole dot.bomb bust, and the contested election were a tremendous hurdles to overcome. he did that pretty well including the iraq invasion. however, i believe he really missed an opportunity to set the country on a much better course when he had the country's attention shortly after 9/11. he was flying high and all he had to do was proclaim a plan for energy independence and make policy to fast track nuclear plants and alternative energy and we would be that much further ahead. i don't have many problems with his keep spending approach to keep the country going instead of having the people sacrifice but he also should have curtailed many tax breaks like the accelerated depreciations for suv and small trucks and other which helped fuel the explosion in these types of vehicles. imagine if that deduction hadn't been in the tax code, maybe the auto companies would have been better prepared. and, as far as cars go, the right way to mandate energy efficient cars is to limit engine displacement not phony fuel economy goals. but that's another story.

    as for the future, i believe what we are also seeing is the obama effect on the markets. thursday debate just about finished mccain as a challenge to obama and so the markets have finally awoken to the fact that this guy might just be prez. they are not likeing the prospect because he is all for government control and ownership of a whole ost of things. and consider the power that the treasury secretary has just been granted. suppose obama appoints franklin raines to be treasury secretary. does anyone think he will be there to help the country or line his pockets more? and that is the danger. remember obama name dropped warren buffet for the position but there is no way on earth that buffet would ever take that job and certainly not for an ignorant boob like obama.

  3. #23
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,969
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sameoldjets;2797113]
    as for the future, i believe what we are also seeing is the obama effect on the markets. thursday debate just about finished mccain as a challenge to obama \[/QUOTE]

    as bad as you think mccain looked, this election is still way too close to call.

    zogby says, don't buy the hype.

    elections a re funny like that.

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rockland, New York
    Posts
    5,359
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2796947][B]Why no call for Bernake to raise rates?[/B] Or might a recession in election year not have been politically expedient?

    Also, this is the same admin that boasted about record home ownership, so they are talking out of both sides of their mouth here.

    Do I think Bush is the sole cause? Of course not, but as the head guy, he gets the majority of the blame. This is a disaster of historic proporations, and I can't give him a pass because Barney Frank is a bigger idiot then he is..[/QUOTE]

    He could put pressure on the Fed Chairman, but he can't make him do it. At least in theory that's how it works. Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent of the federal government.

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;2796760]yeah those darn surpluses Clinton left him, such strings[/QUOTE]

    bionti read between the lines :D You of all people should know exactly what I mean by strings

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Dallas Via Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    3,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    Crap guys i cant get away for a damn minute. Let me put it in different terms.

    Geroge Bush is too much of an Idiot to make such decisions he is told exactly what to do and he does it, no questions asked. he is a Puppet.

  7. #27
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,597
    Post Thanks / Like
    The usual risible revisionism by the Republican supporters on here - if Republicans were judged on their economic management they wouldn't be elected again for centuries.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    35,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2796947]Why no call for Bernake to raise rates? Or might a recession in election year not have been politically expedient?

    Also, this is the same admin that boasted about record home ownership, so they are talking out of both sides of their mouth here.

    Do I think Bush is the sole cause? Of course not, but as the head guy, he gets the majority of the blame. This is a disaster of historic proporations, and I can't give him a pass because Barney Frank is a bigger idiot then he is..[/QUOTE]

    I agree that the head guy gets the blame but that's like blaming Favre for the Jets loss in San Diego. Yes, he's the QB and team leader so he should be the one blamed but people who really know what's going on wouldn't see it that way.

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    No it would be like Mangini taking responsibility for the loss.

    This is the biggest problem with Wall Street and the Big Business mentality. Everyone steps up for the accolades and run for the hills when it comes to the negative.

    Can you name one CEO that has stepped up and try to take responsiblity? But we can all name failed CEO's who took their bonuses based on fraudulant numbers. Why aren't these guys being indicted?



    [QUOTE=jetstream23;2797385]I agree that the head guy gets the blame but that's like blaming Favre for the Jets loss in San Diego. Yes, he's the QB and team leader so he should be the one blamed but people who really know what's going on wouldn't see it that way.[/QUOTE]

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,292
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jetstream23;2796880]He's as responsible for this as Brandon Moore was for the Jets losing to San Diego. In other words, he's one of many, many people who contributed but shouldn't really stand out at all. In fact, he had been pushing since his second year in office for reform of Fannie Mae. It was constantly blocked by Congress.[/QUOTE]


    I remember Brandon Moore getting pilloried for the shaun phillips sack AND the wmds after that week...

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    35,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;2796949]Did Fannie and Freddie make all the other banks create these mortgage backed fraudulant financing deals?
    [/QUOTE]

    Fraudulant? Not sure what you're talking about. But, were Fannie and Freddie influential in encouraging bad lending? Absolutely. When the government lowered the standards for loans that Fannie would purchase they basically told the market, you can lend to people with bad credit and not have them put much money down and you will still be able to sell those loans to Fannie Mae.

    [QUOTE]

    Or cook their books so no one knows what is up or down?
    [/QUOTE]

    Yes.

    [url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1[/url]

    "The plan (by the Bush administration to install oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."

    [QUOTE]
    Did Iceland rely on Freddie or Fannie?
    [/QUOTE]

    To a degree, many people did. The implicit backstop of a U.S. GSE encouraged many investors around the world to believe that the mortgages and collateral used in the derivatives, CDOs, etc. were of reasonable quality. Also at fault here in a big way are the credit rating agencies...Fitch, Moody's, S&P, etc.

    [QUOTE]
    Freddie and Fannie are a small piece of this gigantic mess.[/QUOTE]

    A piece, yes. Not a small one.
    Last edited by jetstream23; 10-10-2008 at 12:33 AM.

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,888
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jetstream23;2797399]Fraudulant? Not sure what you're talking about. But, were Fannie and Freddie influential in encouraging bad lending? Absolutely. When the government lowered the standards for loans the Fannie would purchase they basically told the market, you can lend to people with bad credit and not have them put much money down and you will still be able to sell those loans to Fannie Mae.[/QUOTE]

    Undeniable, but don't forget Fannie and Freddie were late to the party. So they didn't start the process. They just extended it by giving it the government seal of approval.

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am referencing the way these mortgages were packaged and sold off.

    Lowering the standards and ignoring the standards are two different things.

    I am not trying to argue with you, I respect your opinion.

    [QUOTE=jetstream23;2797399]Fraudulant? Not sure what you're talking about. But, were Fannie and Freddie influential in encouraging bad lending? Absolutely. When the government lowered the standards for loans the Fannie would purchase they basically told the market, you can lend to people with bad credit and not have them put much money down and you will still be able to sell those loans to Fannie Mae.



    Yes.

    [url]http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1[/url]

    "The plan (by the Bush administration to install oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."



    To a degree, many people did. The implicit backstop of a U.S. GSE encouraged many investors around the world to believe that the mortgages and collateral used in the derivatives, CDOs, etc. were of reasonable quality. Also at fault here in a big way are the credit rating agenies...Fitch, Moody's, S&P, etc.



    A piece, yes. Not a small one.[/QUOTE]

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    35,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;2797393]No it would be like Mangini taking responsibility for the loss.

    This is the biggest problem with Wall Street and the Big Business mentality. Everyone steps up for the accolades and run for the hills when it comes to the negative.

    Can you name one CEO that has stepped up and try to take responsiblity? But we can all name failed CEO's who took their bonuses based on fraudulant numbers. Why aren't these guys being indicted?[/QUOTE]

    I want to see a hundred guys do the perp. walk for some of this. Some of these guys are outright criminals at this point. No doubt about it. But there's a big difference between being a criminal and a bad investor or CEO. Most of these guys are the latter. The people who should be going to jail are those that criminally extended loans to people they should not have, people who were simply being compensated for closing mortgages and helped people lie on applications or sign up for the wrong product. Predatory lending was a big problem here.

    But, the biggest problem still originates in housing and the fact that the changes made to Fannie, Freddie, etc. encouraged people with substandard credit and substandard incomes to buy houses....and encouraged the banks to lend them the money to do so. It was a very easy sell back in 1999 - Housing always goes up, the economy is booming and stocks are flying through the roof (dot com in full effect) and the people being left behind are poor people who can't come up with 20% or 10% down payments. So, in it's infinite wisdom our government made some very liberal decisions - Low income people with less than perfect credit are being discriminated against when it comes to mortgages and "every American has the right to own a home." That's the start of it all.

    So, less than 10 years later when you have tens of thousands of people in homes that they have literally put down $0 for, what is their incentive to stay and keep paying the mortgage if the balance is $250,000 and the house is only worth $175,000. Those people had absolutely no skin in the game and they are abandoning homes and defaulting on all these mortgages. Who is left holding the bag? Banks, Fannie/Freddie, investors, teacher's pension funds, and others who hold all these crappy mortgages that are defaulting.
    Last edited by jetstream23; 10-10-2008 at 12:42 AM.

  15. #35
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    What about the car loan markets as well? Aren't they going bell up as well? Did Freddie or Frannie back those loans? Iceland? Great Britain?

    How many times have we heard let the market work itself out? Well, we can't let that happen because the super rich are being effected.

    Kind of like the draft during Vietnam, no one cared until the rich kids draft number got called, then bye bye draft.

    Sorry venting a little.

    [QUOTE=jetstream23;2797414]I want to see a hundred guys do the perp. walk for some of this. Some of these guys are outright criminals at this point. No doubt about it. But there's a big difference between being a criminal and a bad investor or CEO. Most of these guys are the latter. The people who should be going to jail are those that criminally extended loans to people they should not have, people who were simply being compensated for closing mortgages and helped people lie on applications or sign up for the wrong product. Predatory lending was a big problem here.

    But, the biggest problem still originates in housing and the fact that the changes made to Fannie, Freddie, etc. encouraged people with substandard credit and substandard incomes to buy houses....and encouraged the banks to lend them the money to do so. It was a very easy sell back in 1999 - Housing always goes up, the economy is booming and stocks are flying through the roof (dot com in full effect) and the people being left behind are poor people who can't come up with 20% or 10% down payments. So, in it's infinite wisdom our government made some very liberal decisions - Low income people with less than perfect credit are being discriminated against when it comes to mortgages and "every American has the right to own a home." That's the start of it all.

    So, less than 10 years later when you have tens of thousands of people in homes that they have literally put down $0 for, what is their incentive to stay and keep paying the mortgage if the the balance in $250,000 and the house is only worth $175,000. Those people had absolutely no skin in the game and they are abandoning homes and defaulting on all these mortgages. Who is left holding the bag? Banks, Fannie/Freddie, investors, teacher's pension funds, and others who have hold all these crappy mortgages that are defaulting.[/QUOTE]

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    35,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;2797406]I am referencing the way these mortgages were packaged and sold off.

    Lowering the standards and ignoring the standards are two different things.

    I am not trying to argue with you, I respect your opinion.[/QUOTE]

    I understand and I'm not arguing either, I'm just saying that there are a ton of moving parts that came together to get us to this point where the banking system is essentially failing (that's not an understatement) and with an economy heading into a deep recession (my opinion). This dates back over multiple administrations and is the culmination of decades of decision-making in the public and private sectors. As is often the case, good intentions caused really bad decisions to be made and we're paying for it.

  17. #37
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    Honestly, it seems very simple. No one really cares about the "Greater Good" when it comes to making money.


    [QUOTE=jetstream23;2797425]I understand and I'm not arguing either, I'm just saying that there are a ton of moving parts that came together to get us to this point where the banking system is essentially failing (that's not an understatement) and with an economy heading into a deep recession (my opinion). This dates back over multiple administrations and is the culmination of decades of decision-making in the public and private sectors. As is often the case, good intentions caused really bad decisions to be made and we're paying for it.[/QUOTE]

  18. #38
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    35,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;2797417]What about the car loan markets as well? Aren't they going bell up as well? Did Freddie or Frannie back those loans? Iceland? Great Britain?

    How many times have we heard let the market work itself out? Well, we can't let that happen because the super rich are being effected.

    Kind of like the draft during Vietnam, no one cared until the rich kids draft number got called, then bye bye draft.

    Sorry venting a little.[/QUOTE]

    Venting is cool dude. And I completely understand the frustration....and I share it. But the idea that we're only bailing out this situation because the rich are effected is kinda short-sighted. This problem hits Main Street very, very quickly. In a nutshell....

    1. If banks can't lend money then corporations and businesses can't fund short term operations (everything from inventory to payroll). REAL examples happening now: McDonald's can't get a loan to expand its coffee bars into stores, Circuit City couldn't get funding for inventory this week, GE had to borrow from Warren Buffet at 10+% interest because it couldn't get funding any other way. So, big solid regular businesses (not banks and financial institutions are feeling the pinch).

    2. What this means is that economic activity is slowing significantly and these companies will begin to lay people off. So the problems in the banks are going to quickly cause unemployment to rise. This will hit Joe Average American.

    3. The stock market is accepting the realization of a dramatically slowing economy. The stock market is a forward-looking indicator meaning that the prices reflect what people think the future holds for the company. Right now it is saying the future looks very bleak. This is also being reflected in the price of commodities like oil. Why do you think oil is down from $140 earlier this year to under $90 today? Because demand is decreasing and expected to decrease....fewer products to ship and fewer commuters (because of unemployment) mean less demand for oil/gas.

    For the American consumer I don't think things could look too much worse. You had a situation of strong housing prices, people took out HELOCs and home equity loans on those houses, they felt comfortable in their jobs and the stock market was doing okay. Now, the house may be worth less than the mortgage, they can't borrow money, banks may be cutting credit card limits or raising rates, and their job may be in jeopardy. The world has changed very quickly over the past 2 years and the consumer is slowing his spending. It is a vicious cycle - buying fewer plasma TVs and going on fewer vacations leads to lower sales for Sony, layoffs at their factories and fewer hotel jobs for example.
    Last edited by jetstream23; 10-10-2008 at 01:08 AM.

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ (Jets Stadium Section 246)
    Posts
    35,712
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=cr726;2797429]Honestly, it seems very simple. No one really cares about the "Greater Good" when it comes to making money.[/QUOTE]

    Well, some people do and it depends on their definition of the greater good. I had a conversation with a guy once who said he'd only buy stock in companies that helped people and if they didn't sell products he disagreed with. In other words, he wouldn't buy stock in Phillip Morris because they sold cigarettes, he wouldn't buy stock in a media company that sold prnography magazines, etc. I said to him, "hey, I really respect that position but its not a wise investment if you ignore those kinds of companies. Maybe what you should do is invest in them and then use the money for a good purpose. For example, PM is a great company and if you make a good profit on them why not donate that money to the American Cancer Society, or use it to support Stop Smoking causes?" My basic point is that money is simply money. It's not a bad thing unless you do bad things with it. IMO, what we've lost in this country is all acceptance of personal responsibility. I'd never want to put my family in a position where we were constrained by debt. I think people need to buy what they can afford and a lot of people simply don't do that. Then, when things go bad, they look to blame others rather than looking at themselves. [B]Politicians will NEVER EVER say this but, a big part of the housing problem are the homeowners themselves. But, do you think someone running for office is going to say, "the Wall Street CEO who took a big bonus before his company failed is just as guilty as the homeowner who took out a 100% mortgage and then stopped paying his mortgage and walked away from his house leaving banks and taxpayers holding the bag"?[/B]

    I've often thought about what a great experiment it would be if we turned off everyone's credit cards for 3 months. How would most people do if they went strictly to cash for everything? The funny thing is we may be starting to see that experiment, whether we want to or not.
    Last edited by jetstream23; 10-10-2008 at 01:10 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us