Traitors.

[LV426]

OK.. I am willing to read any official government document you can provide supporting your 6 points.
Then we can discuss if they actually support your claim of Bush juicing the housing market.

Nope. Not good enough. You have to do better than that.

Agreeing to a good faith discussion as a compromise is not a valid position or request.

You have to do better if you want this information and these links, because I already know you're not going to accept any of them because it would mean you'd have to admit that I was right.

I don't think you have the stamina or fortitude for that...but by all means, prove me wrong. You haven't acted in good faith so far in this debate, so why would you act in good faith if *I* take an action at your request?

Why can't you just act in good faith regardless? Why do there have to be conditions on it?

 

[LV426]

Undermining the regulations is still not the same thing as a tax cut which is where this all started before you switched horses after being thrown off one in the middle of the stream.

As I've said from the beginning, the reason Bush juiced the housing market was because his tax cut failed to deliver on the promises made of it, and he needed to credit them with success because he made them a centerpiece of his 2004 re-election.

That was expressed when I quoted that Fox News article where Bush "tout[ed] his tax cuts as the economy's savior - and pointing to the housing market as proof."

Had there not been a tax cut that failed, there wouldn't have been a need to juice a housing market.

Bush laid all this out for you when he campaigned in 2004. That was the strategy. And he took several actions to ensure it.

 

[LV426]

1. Wiping out state protections against predatory lending in 2003: “Rapid growth in subprime lending over the past decade has led to rising concerns about abusive practices by subprime lenders. By early 2004, those concerns prompted Georgia and more than 30 other states to pass laws designed to eliminate abusive or predatory lending practices by the financial services firms, including those with federal charters, operating within their boundaries. In 2003, the OCC concluded that federal law preempts the provisions of the Georgia Fair Lending Act (GFLA) that would otherwise affect national banks’ real estate lending. In early 2004, the OCC adopted a final rule providing that state laws that regulate the terms of credit are preempted. “
https://www.occ.gov/publications/pu...onomics-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2004-4.pdf

2. Reversing Clinton's 2000 HUD rule that prevented GSE's from buying risky loans: "(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay.": https://fcic-static.law.stanford.ed...2008-06-10 Washington Post How HUD Policy.pdf

"In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals." http://docplayer.net/8921675-Fannie-mae-freddie-mac.html

3. Lowering the net capital rule on Wall Street banks so they could overleverage: https://www.cnbc.com/id/46808453#:~...,received less favorable regulatory treatment.

4. Handing out 40,000 free down payments to low income home buyers (American Dream Downpayment Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ186/pdf/PLAW-108publ186.pdf

5. Sabotaging GSE reform in 2003: "Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oxley-pulls-fannie-freddie-bill-under-heat-from-bush

That bipartisan bill was ultimately killed by Bush and not brought to a vote.

6. Forcing GSE's to spend $440B in secondary markets: "Substantially increase by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;" https://georgewbush-whitehouse.arch...ership/homeownership-policy-book-execsum.html

So none of that was a trap set for Bush (and why would anyone set a trap for him anyway?)...they were all choices Bush made in 2002-2004. Why did he make those choices? Because he made the "Ownership Society" central to his administration, and he did that because he knew that the best way to get an economy going is to get the housing market going...and since he and his fellow Conservatives are economic illiterates, he took every possible reckless action he could to frantically inflate that market in time for the 2004 election. Because he knew that when this house of cards comes crashing down, he won't be held to account for any of it because he's on his way out after the second term.

The top issue in nearly every election is the economy...and 2004 was no different. Bush tied his tax cuts to the economy while campaigning.

I'll even throw in a bonus because I'm such a nice guy...

7. Bush directing his appointees to say there is no problem with housing:

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s
September 10th, 2003

Mr. Frank: Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow: No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg92231/html/CHRG-108hhrg92231.htm

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

He sure does when he makes "Ownership Society" one of his administrative priorities, which he did: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.arch...ership/homeownership-policy-book-execsum.html

I mean, he made it very simple for you to understand...he even helped me out by listing the ways in which he would juice the housing market:


So it's looking more and more like Bush deliberately inflated a housing bubble. Why would he do that? Because his 2001 tax cut never delivered on the promises made of it.

That is only true if you can provide evidence that the housing bubble was a result of increased minority home ownership. It wasn't. Much of the housing bubble was the result of speculation by people buying houses to flip.

Let's examine your document. The intent was to help 40,000 people buy homes by providing down payment assistance annually and to provide money for a one time 200,000 more affordable housing units.
This was released in June of 2002. Let's assume it all happened as planned starting in 2002. That would mean by the end of 2006 Bush would have helped 200,000 low income people buy homes and produced 200,000 affordable housing units. That means he helped somewhere between 200,000 - 400,000 people get homes with this initiative. (200,000 if all the low income families bought the 200,000 affordable units promised. 400,000 if the families helped bought other houses than the affordable units.)
Is that enough to cause the bubble?
Here are new built home sales from 1995 - 2019. We can clearly see the bubble. Wikipedia says the average new homes per year from 1990-1995 was 609,000.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/219963/number-of-us-house-sales/

That means from 2002-2006, the average number of new homes built was 1,136,000. That is substantially more than average of the previous 4 year period.

But the other thing missing is existing home sales.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/226144/us-existing-home-sales/
https://www.huduser.gov/periodicals/ushmc/fall09/hist_data.pdf

Once again we see the spike in existing home sales. About 1,500,000 more sales per year compared to the previous years.

That means that the bubble in home sales was somewhere about 5,000,000 - 7,000,000 more homes than normal over that time period of 2002-2006.
But Bush's initiative was only a maximum of 400,000 homes. That means that Bush's desire to get more minorities into homes contributed less than 10% to any bubble over that 4 year period and could have been as little as 2-4% of the bubble.

Keep in mind the total homes sold during that 4 year period was 30,206,000 so Bush's initiative was about 1% of the total homes sold during that period and probably a lot less since I doubt he met the goals expressed in the document.

So when we actually start to look at the numbers, there is no way that the bubble was caused by Bush's minority home initiative. It barely was enough to even be a minor contribution to the bubble.

 

[LV426]

Here's another example of a deliberate action Bush took to increase the housing bubble in time for his 2004 election:

8. BUSH ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCES NEW HUD "ZERO DOWN PAYMENT" MORTGAGE- Initiative Aimed at Removing Major Barrier to Homeownership - Preliminary projections indicate that the new FHA mortgage product would generate about 150,000 homebuyers in the first year alone: https://archives.hud.gov/news/2004/pr04-006.cfm

Note the date - January 19, 2004.

Also, here's Bush coming right out and saying that he was sabotaging GSE reform in 2005 (!) (point #5 from the last post):

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
The Administration strongly believes that the housing GSEs should be focused on their core housing mission, particularly with respect to low-income Americans and first-time homebuyers. Instead, provisions of H.R. 1461 that expand mortgage purchasing authority would lessen the housing GSEs' commitment to low-income homebuyers.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/hr-1461-federal-housing-finance-reform-act-2005

Oh, and here's a Bush appointee bragging about all of this:

“Alphonso Jackson, secretary of Housing and Urban Development, said the Bush administration has no hidden motives in seeking to raise the percentage of financing for low-income homeowners. “There is no administration more supportive of Fannie and Freddie than we are,'' Jackson said today in interview. “We are just actualizing what should have been done years ago.''

And here's Bush during his 2004 SOTU bragging about the housing market that he credited to his tax cut policy: "New home construction: the highest in almost 20 years. Home ownership rates: the highest ever. " http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/sotu.transcript.4/index.html

At this point, how can you argue Bush DIDN'T inflate a housing market for his electoral benefit?

 

[LV426]

That is only true if you can provide evidence that the housing bubble was a result of increased minority home ownership. It wasn't. Much of the housing bubble was the result of speculation by people buying houses to flip.

No, not really. Of the borrowers that defaulted, a larger share of them were minority homeowners.

This was released in June of 2002. Let's assume it all happened as planned starting in 2002. That would mean by the end of 2006 Bush would have helped 200,000 low income people buy homes and produced 200,000 affordable housing units.

Yeah, by relaxing lending standards. Which he did in 2004. Try to keep up, I know I move fast...

That means that the bubble in home sales was somewhere about 5,000,000 - 7,000,000 more homes than normal over that time period of 2002-2006.
But Bush's initiative was only a maximum of 400,000 homes. That means that Bush's desire to get more minorities into homes contributed less than 10% to any bubble over that 4 year period and could have been as little as 2-4% of the bubble.

Right, which is why it was just ONE OF THE EXAMPLES I gave as to how Bush juiced the market, not the sole example.

So you're doing that shitty Flash thing again where you argue in bad faith.

You need to break that habit because you might think it makes you look good, but it really just makes you look like an ignorant, arrogant turd.

 

[LV426]

Keep in mind the total homes sold during that 4 year period was 30,206,000 so Bush's initiative was about 1% of the total homes sold during that period and probably a lot less since I doubt he met the goals expressed in the document.

So when we actually start to look at the numbers, there is no way that the bubble was caused by Bush's minority home initiative. It barely was enough to even be a minor contribution to the bubble.

So you argue in bad faith as a matter of principle, and I'll show you exactly how you do that:

I started this off by saying that there were several examples I could give as to how Bush juiced the housing market to cover for the failure of his tax cuts to deliver on any of the promises made of them. One of those examples was the initiative you're talking about here.

BUT IT IS NOT THE SOLE EXAMPLE.

You are trying to make it into the sole example because that's the only way you can hang in this debate with me.

So you very dishonestly and with deliberate bad faith, exercise the worst of sophistry to make a lying point on a message board. A lying point, that ends up ultimately helping me prove my case that Bush took several actions to inflate a housing bubble.

You are keen to leave the last part of that sentence out, and are trying to reframe the debate as if I said that was the SOLE example of Bush inflating a housing bubble when, I very clearly said, it was one of MANY examples. At least half a dozen that I listed out for you.

You simply cannot handle that for whatever dumb psychological reason, so your natural compulsion is to lie about what I said so that you can save face in a debate you've already lost on the merits.

Prove me wrong, otherwise. You are not a very honest person, and you routinely and regularly engage in bad faith when you debate...not just with me, but with others. It's a pretty shitty habit that can only come from one place; entitlement.

 

[Jarod]

You know, I used to think that...then I recalled that in 1955, William Buckley (the Godfather of Conservatism) said that Conservatism is "standing athwart history, yelling stop!"

Think about that in the context of 1955, when it was written.

What had JUST HAPPENED the year before? Brown v. Board of Education and the start of the Civil Rights Movement.

Buckley says that Conservatism was to yell "STOP" to that. STOP to desegregation. STOP to bussing. STOP to Civil Rights.

Conservatism has always been a racist and reactionary ideology. It hasn't changed in 65 years. You can draw a straight line from Buckley and the Birchers all the way through to the teabags and Trump. They're the same people, have always been the same people, and will always be the same people. Because they want to STOP any progress.

Yes, there has always been that wing of Conservatism, the word itself means to conserve the way things are. But the political ideology of those who call themselves Conservatives also subscribe to ideas about small government, low taxation, limited power, strong military and strong families that are not in of themselves anti-Democratic. I disagree with much of it, but, in that way, it is a legit and Democraticatic friendly ideology.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

1. Wiping out state protections against predatory lending in 2003: “Rapid growth in subprime lending over the past decade has led to rising concerns about abusive practices by subprime lenders. By early 2004, those concerns prompted Georgia and more than 30 other states to pass laws designed to eliminate abusive or predatory lending practices by the financial services firms, including those with federal charters, operating within their boundaries. In 2003, the OCC concluded that federal law preempts the provisions of the Georgia Fair Lending Act (GFLA) that would otherwise affect national banks’ real estate lending. In early 2004, the OCC adopted a final rule providing that state laws that regulate the terms of credit are preempted. “
https://www.occ.gov/publications/pu...onomics-working-papers/2008-2000/wp2004-4.pdf

He didn't wipe out state predatory lending laws. It only exempted Federal regulated banks. This may have contributed some to the crisis but the major problem were not federally regulated banks but rather was mortgage companies that were exempt from banking regulations. Countrywide and True Financial come to mind as 2 of the worst offenders.

2. Reversing Clinton's 2000 HUD rule that prevented GSE's from buying risky loans: "(In 2000) HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower's ability to repay.": https://fcic-static.law.stanford.ed...2008-06-10 Washington Post How HUD Policy.pdf

"In 2004, the 2000 rules were dropped and high‐risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals." http://docplayer.net/8921675-Fannie-mae-freddie-mac.html

Once again, we are left without numbers from you. In 2003-2004 Fannie and Freddie saw a reduction in the percent of overall loans they were buying. By the time Fannie and Freddie started buying the high risk loans the bubble was already huge. When the crash occurred in 2008, Fannie and Freddie only had about 44% of the subprime loans. While Fannie and Freddie helped to accelerate the bubble to its final bursting they were not there at the beginning and arrived to the party late.

3. Lowering the net capital rule on Wall Street banks so they could overleverage: https://www.cnbc.com/id/46808453#:~...,received less favorable regulatory treatment.

You might want to read the actual story before posting it. If we go to what CNBC based it on we see this...
http://blogs.reuters.com/bethany-mclean/2012/03/19/the-meltdown-explanation-that-melts-away/
Thus did the “fact” become part of the conventional wisdom about the crisis.
The article directly contradicts your claim and states that what you are claiming is a myth that didn't really happen.

4. Handing out 40,000 free down payments to low income home buyers (American Dream Downpayment Act): https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-108publ186/pdf/PLAW-108publ186.pdf

40,000 loans out of 27 million sub prime loans is the reason for the crisis? I think you need to rethink your argument.

5. Sabotaging GSE reform in 2003: "Strong opposition by the Bush administration forced a top Republican congressman to delay a vote on a bill that would create a new regulator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." https://www.marketwatch.com/story/oxley-pulls-fannie-freddie-bill-under-heat-from-bush

That bipartisan bill was ultimately killed by Bush and not brought to a vote.

This is just a repeat of point 2 which is what they did when the bill didn't pass. By the way, you might want to check out the actual bill before you try to claim it would have prevented the crisis. It would not have. It may have shielded Fannie and Freddie but probably wouldn't have even done that.

6. Forcing GSE's to spend $440B in secondary markets: "Substantially increase by at least $440 billion, the financial commitment made by the government sponsored enterprises involved in the secondary mortgage market, specifically targeted toward the minority market;" https://georgewbush-whitehouse.arch...ership/homeownership-policy-book-execsum.html

First of all, your link in no way supports your claim. GSE, Fannie, Freddie are not mentioned at all in the document. When I pull up Fannie and Freddie purchases of loans in 2008, I find that they only spent $21 billion total between them to purchase low income loans. Where is this 440B you mentioned?
https://www.fhfa.gov/PolicyPrograms.../2008_ENTERPRISE_HOUSING_GOAL_PERFORMANCE.pdf

So none of that was a trap set for Bush (and why would anyone set a trap for him anyway?)...they were all choices Bush made in 2002-2004. Why did he make those choices? Because he made the "Ownership Society" central to his administration, and he did that because he knew that the best way to get an economy going is to get the housing market going...and since he and his fellow Conservatives are economic illiterates, he took every possible reckless action he could to frantically inflate that market in time for the 2004 election. Because he knew that when this house of cards comes crashing down, he won't be held to account for any of it because he's on his way out after the second term.

The top issue in nearly every election is the economy...and 2004 was no different. Bush tied his tax cuts to the economy while campaigning.

I'll even throw in a bonus because I'm such a nice guy...

7. Bush directing his appointees to say there is no problem with housing:

Testimony from W’s Treasury Secretary John Snow to the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS concerning the 'regulation’ of the GSE’s
September 10th, 2003

Mr. Frank: Are we in a crisis now with these entities?

Secretary Snow: No, that is a fair characterization, Congressman Frank, of our position. We are not putting this proposal before you because of some concern over some imminent danger to the financial system for housing; far from it: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg92231/html/CHRG-108hhrg92231.htm

You are doing nothing but attempting to rewrite the actual history to one of the many "fake" histories that has been promoted as the reason for the housing crisis. The things you cite may have contributed to the crisis in minor ways but they are in no way close to the real causes.

 

[LV426]

He didn't wipe out state predatory lending laws. It only exempted Federal regulated banks. This may have contributed some to the crisis but the major problem were not federally regulated banks but rather was mortgage companies that were exempt from banking regulations. Countrywide and True Financial come to mind as 2 of the worst offenders..

Can you read? What does this mean:

In 2003, the OCC concluded that federal law preempts the provisions of the Georgia Fair Lending Act (GFLA) that would otherwise affect national banks’ real estate lending. In early 2004, the OCC adopted a final rule providing that state laws that regulate the terms of credit are preempted. “"

So yes, Bush invoked the OCC rule to wipe out state protections against predatory lending.

Do you think that had a positive or negative impact on lending?

 

[LV426]

Once again, we are left without numbers from you. In 2003-2004 Fannie and Freddie saw a reduction in the percent of overall loans they were buying. By the time Fannie and Freddie started buying the high risk loans the bubble was already huge. When the crash occurred in 2008, Fannie and Freddie only had about 44% of the subprime loans. While Fannie and Freddie helped to accelerate the bubble to its final bursting they were not there at the beginning and arrived to the party late.

I never said they were, and in fact, I even cited that the rule changed in 2004.

You JUST SAID ABOVE that rule change accelerated the growth of the bubble. So...that means...it was juicing the bubble, doesn't it?

 

[LV426]

You might want to read the actual story before posting it. If we go to what CNBC based it on we see this...
http://blogs.reuters.com/bethany-mcl...at-melts-away/
Thus did the “fact” become part of the conventional wisdom about the crisis.
The article directly contradicts your claim and states that what you are claiming is a myth that didn't really happen.

Only the most dishonest and sophist reading of that article would lead you to that conclusion. So here is another example of you falling into the same bad habits.

The Net Capital Rule was definitely lowered:

Agency’s ’04 Rule Let Banks Pile Up New Debt
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html

This is literally what the CNBC article says. Did you read it? I don't think you did. I think you're lying.

The 2004 amendments to the net capital rules meant that investment banks could reduce their chance of crossing important regulatory thresholds by building up their balance sheets with mortgage-backed securities as opposed to other securities that received less favorable regulatory treatment.

Now, how do you get from that above^, to this below:

The article directly contradicts your claim and states that what you are claiming is a myth that didn't really happen.

 

[LV426]

40,000 loans out of 27 million sub prime loans is the reason for the crisis? I think you need to rethink your argument.

Where did I ever say it was the sole reason for the crisis?

Where?

You have the thread here before you, so you should be able to find that.

You're not going to, because of your compulsions and bad habits.

Sad.

So you're not even engaging in good faith in this debate. You're lying your way through it.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, not really. Of the borrowers that defaulted, a larger share of them were minority homeowners.

Evidence that minorities were the largest share of defaults? Of course that completely ignores the fact that the real problem was the financial institutions that were forced to write down those defaults which in turn caused the crash because they could no longer buy mortgages.

Yeah, by relaxing lending standards. Which he did in 2004. Try to keep up, I know I move fast...

And 400,000 is still a drop in the bucket when it comes to the 27 million sub prime loans. It seems you have decided to completely ignore the math which shows Bush's contribution was so small that this could not have been a major contributor to the failures. Bush didn't relax lending standards. What was relaxed was the type of subprime loans that Fannie and Freddie could buy that counted toward their mandate. At that point there were probably 15-20 million loans out there that already existed. All of the existing ones were already purchased by other entities. Fannie and Freddie don't loan money. They buy loans so the lenders have money to lend again.




Right, which is why it was just ONE OF THE EXAMPLES I gave as to how Bush juiced the market, not the sole example.

So you're doing that shitty Flash thing again where you argue in bad faith.

You need to break that habit because you might think it makes you look good, but it really just makes you look like an ignorant, arrogant turd.[/QUOTE]
You have failed to address any of my points but instead just claim I miss your points.
Your one example does not mean that all your other examples are relevant or exist. Your one example is a drop in the bucket. I am still waiting for you to provide the evidence that supports the rest of the crisis can be laid solely at Bush's feet.

 

[LV426]

This is just a repeat of point 2 which is what they did when the bill didn't pass. By the way, you might want to check out the actual bill before you try to claim it would have prevented the crisis. It would not have. It may have shielded Fannie and Freddie but probably wouldn't have even done that.

Well, given the fact that YOU SAID YOURSELF 44% of the subprimes were held by GSE's, it would seem GSE reform would have probably mitigated the collapse among the non-GSE's.

And Bush opposed the GSE reform...why? Because he wouldn't be able to force them into inflating the bubble.

First of all, your link in no way supports your claim. GSE, Fannie, Freddie are not mentioned at all in the document. When I pull up Fannie and Freddie purchases of loans in 2008, I find that they only spent $21 billion total between them to purchase low income loans. Where is this 440B you mentioned?

How does it not support my claim when it comes directly from the Bush White House?

You're really bad at this.

 

[LV426]

You are doing nothing but attempting to rewrite the actual history to one of the many "fake" histories that has been promoted as the reason for the housing crisis. The things you cite may have contributed to the crisis in minor ways but they are in no way close to the real causes.

I'm rewriting history by quoting people directly? Or is it that you just don't like the fact that I've connected all the dots here before you did and you can't argue against my position?

Nothing I've posted is false. It's all linked and cited, as you requested.

What you haven't done is provide a counter argument to any of it that doesn't rely on cherry picking and sophistry borne from contempt.

Bush inflated a housing bubble, that is not up for debate.

He inflated it because his tax cuts failed to deliver on the promises made of them, which is also not up for debate.

If Bush didn't tie his housing bubble to his tax cuts, why did he campaign on that connection?

 

[LV426]

The things you cite may have contributed to the crisis in minor ways but they are in no way close to the real causes.

So...look at how fucking stupid this sentence is.

"Yeah, those things contributed to the bubble but they weren't the cause of the bubble."

Did I say they were the cause? NO! What I said was that they juiced the bubble. I said that at least half a dozen times.

So you have real problems when it comes to listening, to reading, to comprehending things other people say. And like I said before, you don't do this with just me...you do this with everyone. You shift goalposts, you misstate what other people say, you exaggerate, you invoke anecdotes, you twist yourself into knots trying to avoid the simple answer that you just don't really know what the hell you're talking about, but you want people to think you do.

That culminates in the sentence I quoted above...everything about that sentence is wrong, dishonest, and sophist. Everything. I gave you all these links and all this information, at your request, and the best you can do is skim through it, not thinking critically about any of it, because you just can't stand the fact that someone knows more about something than you do.

You're not exceptional in this debate.

 

[LV426]

Evidence that minorities were the largest share of defaults?

Again, if I do this for you, WHAT DO I GET IN RETURN?

Because I'm tired of having to meet arbitrary goalposts that you shift as you continue losing this debate.

 

[LV426]

Of course that completely ignores the fact that the real problem was the financial institutions that were forced to write down those defaults which in turn caused the crash because they could no longer buy mortgages.

Those defaults would have never happened had Bush not lowered lending standards in 2004.

The reason he did that was because he wanted to juice a housing market to make it look like his tax cuts were working in time for the election, when we all knew they weren't.

That's exactly the reason why he tied his tax cuts to the housing market in 2004.

So that tells you that the housing bubble was a result of making the tax cut policy look better.

Because prior to 2004, the only real legislative achievement Bush had in his first term was the 2001 Tax Cut. Everyone hated Medicare Part-D and the Iraq War was divisive.

 

[LV426]

And 400,000 is still a drop in the bucket when it comes to the 27 million sub prime loans. It seems you have decided to completely ignore the math which shows Bush's contribution was so small that this could not have been a major contributor to the failures. Bush didn't relax lending standards. What was relaxed was the type of subprime loans that Fannie and Freddie could buy that counted toward their mandate. At that point there were probably 15-20 million loans out there that already existed. All of the existing ones were already purchased by other entities. Fannie and Freddie don't loan money. They buy loans so the lenders have money to lend again.

For the 20th time...I never said it was the sole reason for the bubble. What I said was that it was juicing the bubble for Bush ahead of his 2004 election. I never, ever said it was the sole factor, and actually included it in a list with half a dozen other examples.

So why are you compelled to frame it that way? Because you don't want to admit that I'm right. That Bush juiced a housing bubble to cover for the failure of his tax cuts. Again, why would he tie his tax cuts to the housing market if that wasn't the case? You're right in and of itself that the tax cut has little to do with the housing bubble except for the fact that the tax cut prompted the housing bubble as a policy fix because the tax cut didn't deliver on its promises.

You know what else? Tax cuts never do. They never deliver on any promises.