The Story of Bush

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Amused
The truly sad thing is people think economic policies have an immediate effect.

The housing crisis was not brought on by Bush, nor did he have anything to do with the idealism behind offering home loans to less than worthy debtors. He also had nothing to do with the housing bubble, or it's collapse.

To blame our current economic situation on Bush is just silly.

Has Bush been a failure as President? Pretty much. I have plenty I can fault him for. But he had little to nothing to do with the situation we are now in. The policies that led to this are decades old and decades in the making. It was inevitable as soon as banks were encouraged to give loans to people who had no business getting a loan.

Once the market was overbuilt, a crash in housing prices was inevitable. And with the crash in housing prices, came the collapse of banks as they could no longer rely on simply getting their money back on defaulted housing loans by repossessing the property and selling it... all caused by giving loans to less than worthy debtors. This took more than a decade to come about.

However, the current bailout is crap and is coming from both sides of the aisle. Bush only reinforced what a complete failure he is when he supported the bailouts.

Yes and no.

While it is true that economic policies take time to evolve and show whether their true nature will be positive, neutral or negative, it takes a nanosecond for policy changes of deregulation and the lack of desire to punish those that are willing to do anything in their power for another 7, 8 or 9 digit stock option to take advantage of it.

You act like these CEOs and other board members that have hid or lied about their true exposure to the sub-prime crisis is the result of Clinton policies to attempt to help the poor get houses instead of what it truly is....Absolute greed with the knowledge that they will never be held responsible for their actions.

Hell, instead we threw billions of taxpayer dollars at them which they are now trying to figure out ways of getting even more bonuses from.

First, the policies preceed Clinton.

Secondly, what is your point? The CEOs and board members do not control housing prices, or set federal policy on making housing loans available to non-creditworthy borrowers.

And, in the end, that is who we blame. The people with bad credit who defaulted on their loans. You can take the nanny state approach that more regulation would have stopped this, but then... it was regulation that CAUSED it in the first place. High risk loans are not something the banks would deal in were it not for incentives provided by the feds in the first place.

The leftist ideal of "everyone deserves a house/loan has come back to bite us in the ass. It's time to face the fact that people do NOT deserve things... they must earn them.

My point is simple. If the CEOs and other board members would have been upfront about the true exposure their companies had to the sub-prime crisis, then investors would have been less likely to have placed their savings and/or money in those companies limiting the overall breadth of the bubble.

Let me ask you, would you have invested in Merrill knowing that they were buried balls-deep in sub-prime vehicles or would you have invested in XYZ, Inc knowing that their books had less than 5% exposure? Merrill would have fallen by the wayside or been swallowed up by someone in a stronger position (unlike BoA who got $29B to purchase them and are now asking for another $15-20B to cover "unforeseen" additional losses) and the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars ++.

I'm sure you are trying to debate from the "free market" perspective based on your "Nanny state" comment. If this were truly a free market (or you truly believed in one), why are you taking their side and not wishing that they would go the way of a true free market failure....extinct?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
I say judge his presidency after 10 years or so. Then I think we'd get a better idea of how effective or ineffective his presidency actually was.

This.

So many people have still yet to realize the very real impact a few of Clinton's economic policies have had to this day. The economic crisis that is today? Some of the problems that lead to the catastrophic breakdown had been implemented by Clinton. So much for simply the state of the government budget being a true indicator. Who cares if a President managed a massive budget surplus, or helped send the budget into a spiraling freefall... the impacts further down the road are what important. If the expenditure one year helped make the country better 10 years down the road... great. If not spending anything and hoarding a massive surplus leads to an economic crisis down the road... is that really a great thing?

Yet again, everyone blames all the problems of today on the President sitting in office at the moment. Such a large percentage of our population are blind to the facts, and just don't care to follow important policies and measures that every President puts into effect. It's a lot of work to do so, and the elected officials handle the mess, so why should the everyday layman follow such news right? :roll:

Bush apologists have been blaming Clinton for the last 8 years...it's getting old.

so being a realist and actually knowing what has happened in the past is now equal to being a Bush supporter? Oh how easy that is. Blame anyone that disagrees with your lack of knowledge on the matter as being a supporter of one person, and pointing out how seemingly wrong they are.

Yes, I supported Bush's presidency, doesn't mean I like the guy. He did plenty I didn't agree with, but he also did some things I agreed with. And quite a few of the problems that arose out of his presidency were from the Congress. Same with Clinton's presidency. It was a largely Republican-dominant Congress under Clinton and are they not equally worthy of being hailed as the heroes for building a large surplus? Oh... no? How partisan.
Partisan politics are ridiculous and do not belong in our government, at least not in the two-party system currently loved by so many.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: XxPrOdiGyxX
I say judge his presidency after 10 years or so. Then I think we'd get a better idea of how effective or ineffective his presidency actually was.

At least 10 years. All this judging before he hasn't even left office is dumber than a box of shit.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Amused
The truly sad thing is people think economic policies have an immediate effect.

The housing crisis was not brought on by Bush, nor did he have anything to do with the idealism behind offering home loans to less than worthy debtors. He also had nothing to do with the housing bubble, or it's collapse.

To blame our current economic situation on Bush is just silly.

Has Bush been a failure as President? Pretty much. I have plenty I can fault him for. But he had little to nothing to do with the situation we are now in. The policies that led to this are decades old and decades in the making. It was inevitable as soon as banks were encouraged to give loans to people who had no business getting a loan.

Once the market was overbuilt, a crash in housing prices was inevitable. And with the crash in housing prices, came the collapse of banks as they could no longer rely on simply getting their money back on defaulted housing loans by repossessing the property and selling it... all caused by giving loans to less than worthy debtors. This took more than a decade to come about.

However, the current bailout is crap and is coming from both sides of the aisle. Bush only reinforced what a complete failure he is when he supported the bailouts.

Yes and no.

While it is true that economic policies take time to evolve and show whether their true nature will be positive, neutral or negative, it takes a nanosecond for policy changes of deregulation and the lack of desire to punish those that are willing to do anything in their power for another 7, 8 or 9 digit stock option to take advantage of it.

You act like these CEOs and other board members that have hid or lied about their true exposure to the sub-prime crisis is the result of Clinton policies to attempt to help the poor get houses instead of what it truly is....Absolute greed with the knowledge that they will never be held responsible for their actions.

Hell, instead we threw billions of taxpayer dollars at them which they are now trying to figure out ways of getting even more bonuses from.

First, the policies preceed Clinton.

Secondly, what is your point? The CEOs and board members do not control housing prices, or set federal policy on making housing loans available to non-creditworthy borrowers.

And, in the end, that is who we blame. The people with bad credit who defaulted on their loans. You can take the nanny state approach that more regulation would have stopped this, but then... it was regulation that CAUSED it in the first place. High risk loans are not something the banks would deal in were it not for incentives provided by the feds in the first place.

The leftist ideal of "everyone deserves a house/loan has come back to bite us in the ass. It's time to face the fact that people do NOT deserve things... they must earn them.

My point is simple. If the CEOs and other board members would have been upfront about the true exposure their companies had to the sub-prime crisis, then investors would have been less likely to have placed their savings and/or money in those companies limiting the overall breadth of the bubble.

Let me ask you, would you have invested in Merrill knowing that they were buried balls-deep in sub-prime vehicles or would you have invested in XYZ, Inc knowing that their books had less than 5% exposure? Merrill would have fallen by the wayside or been swallowed up by someone in a stronger position (unlike BoA who got $29B to purchase them and are now asking for another $15-20B to cover "unforeseen" additional losses) and the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars ++.

I'm sure you are trying to debate from the "free market" perspective based on your "Nanny state" comment. If this were truly a free market (or you truly believed in one), why are you taking their side and not wishing that they would go the way of a true free market failure....extinct?

Quite simply, the bail out was wrong. Companies should be allowed to fail.

The pressure to lend to non credit worthy people was wrong. People do not deserve to own homes.

 

[manowar821]

How people can have anything but complete and total disdain for this administration is beyond me. I hope they all suffer in their coming years.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: manowar821
How people can have anything but complete and total disdain for this administration is beyond me. I hope they all suffer in their coming years.

And this is the silly shit on both sides that will ultimately lead to the downfall of this country.

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Amused
The truly sad thing is people think economic policies have an immediate effect.

The housing crisis was not brought on by Bush, nor did he have anything to do with the idealism behind offering home loans to less than worthy debtors. He also had nothing to do with the housing bubble, or it's collapse.

To blame our current economic situation on Bush is just silly.

Has Bush been a failure as President? Pretty much. I have plenty I can fault him for. But he had little to nothing to do with the situation we are now in. The policies that led to this are decades old and decades in the making. It was inevitable as soon as banks were encouraged to give loans to people who had no business getting a loan.

Once the market was overbuilt, a crash in housing prices was inevitable. And with the crash in housing prices, came the collapse of banks as they could no longer rely on simply getting their money back on defaulted housing loans by repossessing the property and selling it... all caused by giving loans to less than worthy debtors. This took more than a decade to come about.

However, the current bailout is crap and is coming from both sides of the aisle. Bush only reinforced what a complete failure he is when he supported the bailouts.

Yes and no.

While it is true that economic policies take time to evolve and show whether their true nature will be positive, neutral or negative, it takes a nanosecond for policy changes of deregulation and the lack of desire to punish those that are willing to do anything in their power for another 7, 8 or 9 digit stock option to take advantage of it.

You act like these CEOs and other board members that have hid or lied about their true exposure to the sub-prime crisis is the result of Clinton policies to attempt to help the poor get houses instead of what it truly is....Absolute greed with the knowledge that they will never be held responsible for their actions.

Hell, instead we threw billions of taxpayer dollars at them which they are now trying to figure out ways of getting even more bonuses from.

First, the policies preceed Clinton.

Secondly, what is your point? The CEOs and board members do not control housing prices, or set federal policy on making housing loans available to non-creditworthy borrowers.

And, in the end, that is who we blame. The people with bad credit who defaulted on their loans. You can take the nanny state approach that more regulation would have stopped this, but then... it was regulation that CAUSED it in the first place. High risk loans are not something the banks would deal in were it not for incentives provided by the feds in the first place.

The leftist ideal of "everyone deserves a house/loan has come back to bite us in the ass. It's time to face the fact that people do NOT deserve things... they must earn them.

My point is simple. If the CEOs and other board members would have been upfront about the true exposure their companies had to the sub-prime crisis, then investors would have been less likely to have placed their savings and/or money in those companies limiting the overall breadth of the bubble.

Let me ask you, would you have invested in Merrill knowing that they were buried balls-deep in sub-prime vehicles or would you have invested in XYZ, Inc knowing that their books had less than 5% exposure? Merrill would have fallen by the wayside or been swallowed up by someone in a stronger position (unlike BoA who got $29B to purchase them and are now asking for another $15-20B to cover "unforeseen" additional losses) and the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for 3/4 of a TRILLION dollars ++.

I'm sure you are trying to debate from the "free market" perspective based on your "Nanny state" comment. If this were truly a free market (or you truly believed in one), why are you taking their side and not wishing that they would go the way of a true free market failure....extinct?

Quite simply, the bail out was wrong. Companies should be allowed to fail.

The pressure to lend to non credit worthy people was wrong. People do not deserve to own homes.

Bush is fucked either way. If he didn't bail them out and the economy eventually tanks even worse they would have blamed him for not taking an active role and bailing them out.

If the economy ends up tanking even worse with the bailout they will blame him for being proactive.

Of course, everything in hindsight is so easy to judge. But presidents should have super powers to predict the future, eh?

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

President Bush will write a book about his time in office. I expect it will start off with a bang, then turn into a disorganized mess that becomes a torture to read before ending with Chapter 11. It should also be written in red ink and fall apart after a year.

Mike Mosser, Chicago

I found this comment funny.

term limits were created not to limit the great, but to minimize the damage of the horrible.

sigh.. ZERO year curse, why now of all times did you slack off?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: manowar821
How people can have anything but complete and total disdain for this administration is beyond me. I hope they all suffer in their coming years.

And this is the silly shit on both sides that will ultimately lead to the downfall of this country.

How exactly is that going to happen, do tell?