Bush and the US economy

Desh said:
It is pure partisan hatered to try to spread the blame equally to the party which has had no control for the last 6 years.
Click to expand...

So, the Dems in the 90's encouraged this, the dems of the past 6 years, like the Reps did little to nothing to stop it, but it is all the Reps fault?

As usual desh, your party kool-aid consumption quota has obviously been filled.
 
Every policy has some adverse consequences and they need to be adressed when they arise. The consequences were ignored and the Rs were the ones who were in power at the time they needed addressing. I blame the party who did not adress the adverse consequences.
 
Desh said:
Every policy has some adverse consequences and they need to be adressed when they arise. The consequences were ignored and the Rs were the ones who were in power at the time they needed addressing. I blame the party who did not adress the adverse consequences.
Click to expand...

Tell me Desh... what did the Dems do? Were they out of power in every state? No.

Is the minority party incapable of bringing up issues like this to the public? They don't have to be capable of imposing a law upon us to address the public and make the public aware of the problems with taking out I-only loans or ARMs when interest rates were at 40 year lows.

Face it, NEITHER party did shit (other than the weak attempt the politicians attempted that Damo brought up).

Why are you so incapable of seeing that both parties were at fault to a degree. Bottom line though, the majority of the blame lies with the lenders and borrowers. Not politicians.
 
Desh said:
http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/mortgage/statelaws.html

This shows the states and their laws.

The Dems were not allowed to bring any thing to the table while the Rs were in control. Where were you the last 6 years?
Click to expand...
Yet it wasn't even a point in their campaigns. It wasn't suggested as a law while they had control, other than to just "fix" it all rather than let people learn from any mistakes.

It wasn't a priority for them, they too were bought off.

It may be unpleasant, but it is clear that both parties enjoyed the benefits of "more people in houses than ever before" and were willing to ride that until there was a problem. Even changing laws BACK after they had been changed to partially fix the issue...

This is one mess that both parties created, both of them promoted as the "more in houses" crap, and both of them now are responsible.
 
Desh said:
http://www.responsiblelending.org/issues/mortgage/statelaws.html

This shows the states and their laws.

The Dems were not allowed to bring any thing to the table while the Rs were in control. Where were you the last 6 years?
Click to expand...

Again Desh.... no one is suggesting the Reps don't share in the blame. But again, quit ignoring what I asked you....

What does bringing a bill to the floor have to do with it? Does that mean the Dems are incapable of making the public aware of the problem? No, there are many avenues they could have taken .... but they, like the Reps, were too fucking busy hyping the great home ownership percentages to care what the long term effects might be.

They did nothing. Thus as far as blame goes, they are just as culpable as the Reps.
 
they did nothing because the republicans controled everything.

The republicans didnt investigate much of anything while they had control
 
Between March 2006 and March 2007 personal-bankruptcy rates soared more than 60 percent. As families went into bankruptcy, more and more of them came to understand who had won and who had lost as a result of the president’s 2005 bankruptcy bill, which made it harder for individuals to discharge their debts in a reasonable way. The lenders that had pressed for “reform” had been the clear winners, gaining added leverage and protections for themselves; people facing financial distress got the shaft.



http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712
 
evince said:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712

A good read
Click to expand...

A waste of time, ancient history written in 2007....5 long years ago.....more facts are known today and we have a better understanding of the issues
faced then.....a different time....
The Debt rose approx. $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency.

If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or an estimated $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

9/11/2001 losses already exceed $100 billion. Including the loss in stock market wealth -- the market's own estimate arising from expectations of lower corporate profits and higher discount rates for economic volatility -- the price tag approaches $2 trillion.
A different time....
 
evince said:
Between March 2006 and March 2007 personal-bankruptcy rates soared more than 60 percent. As families went into bankruptcy, more and more of them came to understand who had won and who had lost as a result of the president’s 2005 bankruptcy bill, which made it harder for individuals to discharge their debts in a reasonable way. The lenders that had pressed for “reform” had been the clear winners, gaining added leverage and protections for themselves; people facing financial distress got the shaft.



http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712
Click to expand...




and you pretended no one could have seen it coming
 
Tell us Desh, you bitched about the Dems not having any control for six years and thus being powerless to do anything. Tell us... what did they do when they had complete control to prevent the same thing from happening again? Did they put glass Steagall back in place? Or did the too big to fail banks get even bigger?
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us Desh, you bitched about the Dems not having any control for six years and thus being powerless to do anything. Tell us... what did they do when they had complete control to prevent the same thing from happening again? Did they put glass Steagall back in place? Or did the too big to fail banks get even bigger?
Click to expand...

They put in force specific designated "too big to fail" banks in their "regulations"... Along with stupid fines for giving out "bad" loans without a definition of "bad" or "good" making banks shy of giving loans...
 
evince said:
when did they have complete control?
Click to expand...

For a period at the beginning of Obama's "reign" both houses had super majorities.

They also had control of congress for 4 years of Bush's terms. In fact they "presided" over the monetary policy that created the frickin' recession. Yeah, they had control of both houses for that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top