-
Weak Dollar, Strong Dollar
April 11, 2012 | 11 comments
-
American Exceptionalism Under Assault
February 27, 2012 | 89 comments
Political Hay
Inheritance
When Mr. Obama points blame at his predecessor he is pointing in the wrong direction.
Clever politicians are good at articulating facts that, while accurate, are misleading. The President and his surrogates have taken this art to a new level as they seek to undercut Mitt Romney’s claim to be most capable of tackling our struggling economy. In a recent economic address, the president suggested the failure of the Bush presidency, and by implication a Romney Presidency, by saying: “from 2001-2008, we had the slowest job growth in half a century.”
The president was technically correct. Arithmetically, any analysis of economic activity comparing the first day of the Bush presidency to the last will produce an anemic trajectory. For example, on his inauguration day, total U.S. non-farm employment stood at 133 million, and eight years later it was 134 million — apparent stagnation.
These figures appear to discredit Bush’s economic policies, but the calculation cited by the president is meaningless in determining the efficacy of these policies because the time period he observes captures outcomes for which Bush should not be held accountable.
Consider the years 2001-2003. Virtually every economist pegs early 2001 as the beginning of the U.S. recession that followed the burst Internet bubble — mere days after Bush took office. A recovery was stifled later that year by the attacks of September 11th that caused many sectors of the economy virtually to stop, such as airline travel and resort activity. Nine months later, in the summer of 2002, the economy was hurt once again by the ripple effect of the fraud and bankruptcies of World Com and Enron.
The impact of these three events was profound and extended into mid-2003. For the period from the beginning of Bush’s tenure to mid-2003, employment fell by almost 4 million. Unemployment rose to over 6%. Equity markets shed $4 trillion of value, the equivalent of the entire U.S. corporate pension savings. In June/July 2002 alone, the S&P shed almost 20% of its value — the equivalent of the 1987 market crash.
Only the most partisan would suggest the administration bore responsibility for this bleak picture, Bush’s inheritance if you will.
The analysis of the Bush presidency looks different when the time-frame considered is most relevant to Bush’s core policies. For example, the key policy response to the events of his early years was the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act of May 2003 containing the now famous Bush tax cuts. Following that legislation, for the period June 2003 through January 2008, nonfarm employment increased by almost 10 million. Unemployment fell from 6.3% to 5%. GDP grew by $3 trillion. Tax receipts to the U.S. Treasury grew every year and were the largest in recorded history, and notably in the context of lower marginal rates.
Now consider 2008, the last year of his presidency where there was, again, significant economic dislocation when the housing bubble burst and significant job loss. Who bears that responsibility? With Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the heart of the crisis, Bush deserves a pass.
It is well documented that a defining initiative of the Bush administration was to seek the reform and potential dismantling of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs) because of the risks they presented to the economy, and for their roles in distorting properly functioning mortgage markets that led ultimately to the crisis. The administration was relentless in its effort to reform these agencies and should not be held to blame for their contributions to the crisis.
How central to the crisis were the GSEs? The roots of housing bubble can be traced, in large part, to 1992 when the GSE Act imposed “Affordable Housing” goals on the agencies via quotas which required them to purchase loans from low- to middle income home buyers. The quotas were a means by which the Democrats hoped to achieve their social policy goal of higher home ownership among lower-quality borrowers.
Initially the quotas required Fannie and Freddie to allocate 30% of their loan purchases to satisfy this mandate, and by the end of the Clinton Administration it was a breathtaking 50%. It is hard to overstate the correlation between these government-directed quotas and the crisis 15 years later. Prior to the quotas, the demand for lower-quality mortgages by private market capital was limited, and understandably so, because of the risk they presented.
But the quotas changed all that. They distorted the mortgage market first by creating artificial demand for these types of loans and, second, by creating a dynamic where, in order to accommodate such a quality-insensitive buyer, market participants lowered mortgage underwriting standards. These lower standards were ultimately embodied in now-infamous subprime mortgage products and even mainstream mortgages. In the mid-1990s, Fannie and Freddie, in an effort to reach their quotas, reduced mortgage down payment requirements to 3%, and by the end of the Clinton years, they were buying loans with no down payment — well before Bush came to office.
So, the subprime mortgage market did not emerge organically driven by arm’s length demand and price discovery among private market participants. It was a government creation. Tellingly, at the time of the crisis, Fannie and Freddie held 74% of all subprime and riskier loans.
In an odd perversion, Democrat-sponsored Dodd-Frank has imposed itself on all participants in the crisis — such as bankers, credit rating agencies, derivatives, and big banks — while ignoring Fannie and Freddie. It is as if the sponsors of that legislation and the Democrat-controlled Congress purposely gave the GSEs a de facto waiver from the new regulatory order in an attempt to exonerate them.
But such irony does not exculpate the GSEs, which even “roll the dice” Barney Frank would describe as more affiliated with the House of Obama than with the House of Bush. Consider that after Chris Dodd, then Senator Obama was the largest recipient of contributions from the GSEs.
And therein lies an inconvenient truth for the president: it was those in Obama’s own house that fueled the mess which he often describes as his inheritance.
About the Author
Emil W. Henry, Jr. is CEO of Henry, Tiger, LLC, a private equity firm, and is a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (60) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Emil W. Henry, Jr.
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/01/inheritance
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- Once Upon a Time in the West
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jack in Wi| 8.1.12 @ 7:04AM
Bush and his incompetence put Obama in the White House. Romney is doing his best to keep him there. How many bills did Bush ever veto? Well the answer is virtually none. He got along great with the Democrats in Texas and he played kissy poo with them in Washington. He kept the banksters in power in 2008 when he should have done his duty and let Goldman Sachs, AIG, and General Motors go into bankruptcy. He and Greenspan and Bernanke financed a war on building bubbles with cheap credit instead of taxes. If taxes had been rasied to finace all these wars, maybe they never would have happened. Obama has carried out the Bush policies in most cases. He is still running several wars on borrowed money and printing money. Romney is just another Bushite. I have asked this question here several times. What is Romney going to do that is any different from the last 3 presidents? I don't see much.
This depression started under Bush has continued under Obama and I don't see much from Romney but more of the same. I will watch the convention and hope something positive happens, but right now phooey.
DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 8:26AM
Jack,
You are so fact free here that I begin to wonder if you might be suffering from some physical ailment.
How about Romney is going to declare Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel.
Ooops - you're not going to like that, are you?
Better get yourself some meds, dude, and TAKE them...
Don't Tread On Me...
Jack in Wi| 8.1.12 @ 8:50AM
Who cares about Jerusalem? Obama said the same thing in 2008. They are never going to recognize Jerusalem as the sole Jewish capitol. They are going to have to share it with the Palistinians. I will also tell you right now Romney will never back any war with Iran. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and the heads of the intelligence agencies will resign in mass if he tried to force them to committ this war crime. Bush didn't attack Iran, Obama hasn't attacked Iran, and lily livered Romney is never going to attack Iran. It would be a massive war crime to attack Iran who is following the Non proliferation treaties it signed. The 3 stooges pictured above didn't move the embassy to Jerusalem or attack Iran. Don't expect Romney to it either. The streets would be so full of people if either Romney or Obama did it that it would end up like Johnson in 1968 or probably far worse. If Romney did it there would be more trouble then if Obama did.
vtwin| 8.1.12 @ 9:08AM
DTOM, I don't see anything in Jacks' comments above that could construed as "fact free." But if you are here for more than name calling maybe you could elaborate.
DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 11:53AM
Jack's post was rich in fact-freedom.
I offer this example - Raising tax rates invariably reduces tax collections. So the thesis that Bush should have raised tax rates to pay for the Iraq war is farcical in its essence.
Here's another: Bush II vetoed 12 bills. There's a non-fact from Jack.
So exactly how do you know "I will also tell you right now Romney will never back any war with Iran." to be so? You don't. There's an opinion trying to pretend being a fact.
The Joint Chiefs serve at the pleasure of the President - maybe the current bunch would do the country a great service by resigning en masse. We do not need their current pre-occupation with political correctness protecting Islamicists in our own military- (Maj Hassan was shouting "Allah Akbar" as he murdered our unarmed troops!) and making sure that the homosexuals' pride and self-respect is assured over the establishing rational rules of engagement to allow our brave troops to defend themselves without the fear of post-action lawsuits initiated by CAIR or the ACLU.
Jack just makes crap up and then uses his made up crap to assail the candidate.
Why?
Because he wants Obama to win. Why else would he do what he does, continually and endlessly?
Jack, you ARE an Obama supporter.
Listen to yourself.
VTWIN - you are firmly established here as an unrepentant communist. Your support of Jack identifies both of you as trolls. Period.
See ya!
vtwin| 8.1.12 @ 1:23PM
I think Jack’s argument was the wars would have been less palatable to the American people had the wars been coupled with a TAX increase to pay for them. And Bushed didn’t veto any spending bill, before 2007, despite the growing deficit will the Republicans were in control of congress.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 3:39PM
Typical idiot.
Everything would be just Peachy Keen, if we would just Raise Taxes.
Don't Cut Spending.
Don't stop having $1,000,000,000,000 Deficits.
Don't stop adding Trillion$ to the National Debt.
If they're not doing any good?
That just means we need MORE DEBT.
MORE TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICITS.
HIGHER TAXES.
The only thing we cannot do, NO MATTER WHAT!
Is Spending Cuts.
Sincerely Yours - Dumbass vtwin.
Nice Plan.
Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 3:39PM
The best way to finance would have been through the issuance of War Bonds. Bush had an opportunity to actually take the nation to war but chose not to play it out that way. It would have been long over and our enemies destroyed, had different decisions been made at the outset.
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.1.12 @ 9:42AM
Main point is:
having Bush as war president is comparable to having had Jimmy Carter in George Washington's position:
In Over His Head.
Moe Blotz| 8.1.12 @ 2:36PM
George Bush was victimised by a Congress that refused his request to repeal the syntax.
Von Mises Jr| 8.1.12 @ 8:07AM
The Subprime Mortgage and financial crisis was caused by the Federal Government policies for “Affordable Housing.” The Carter Administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 with the stated goal of encouraging commercial banks and savings associations to provide for the needs of borrowers in low-income and moderate-income neighborhoods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....tment_Act. Government edicts defied the laws of economics and mandated home loans be approved on the base of “fairness” as opposed to credit worthiness. It was effectively “affirmative Action” for home ownership.
Fannie Mae was established during the FDR regime in 1938 as a Government Sponsored Entity. The Democrat Congress of 1970 created a Charter for Freddie Mac to purchase mortgages from lenders and package them as securities to sell to investors. As a GSE, there was the implicit backing of the “full faith and credit of the United States.” The Clinton Administration began to aggressively enforce the CRA in 1995 as Janet Reno pursued banks for redlining low-income and minority mortgage applicants http://news.investors.com/arti.....ecker.htm.
It took the government 70 years and they were all liberal/socialist policies advanced by the Democrats.
Jack in Wi| 8.1.12 @ 8:56AM
Come on Ludwig: The reason the housing bubble happened is because Bush refused to use his veto pen and Greenspan and Bernanke refused to stop it by raising rates. I have been involved in the construction racket for over 5 decades. Any sane person could see that it was all unsustainable and it all happened on Bush's watch.
George S| 8.1.12 @ 9:41AM
Okay, so what particular law was passed that Bush signed instead of vetoed?
Brookschwarzenegro | 8.1.12 @ 9:45AM
The go-ahead signature for invading Iraq before Afghanistan was pacified-- IF Afghanistan could ever be said to be "pacified."
Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 11:44AM
You mean the one that all the Dems, including the ones on the Senate intellegience committee passed? That one?
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 3:44PM
They didn't just Pass it.
They Passed it TWICE.
The second time, when they DEMANDED that President Bush hold a Second Vote, on Live Television, so everyone could see how GUNG HO they were.
You can't make this Shit up.
vtwin| 8.1.12 @ 9:12AM
“Encouraging” commercial banks to provide loans in the communities from where the commercial banks collect deposits is not the requiring commercial banks to loan money to people whom were not qualified to borrow it but loaning money to unqualified people is what the commercial banks did.
Von Mises Jr| 8.1.12 @ 9:27AM
Look up the definition of "Redlining," genius. It is government force.
This is a Mises quote on the state:
“The state is a human institution, not a superhuman being. He who says “state” means coercion and compulsion. He who says: There should be a law concerning this matter, means: The armed men of the government should force people to do what they do not want to do, or not to do what they like. He who says: This law should be better enforced, means: the police should force people to obey this law. He who says: The state is God, deified arms and prisons. The worship of the state is the worship of force.”
mike 3/505| 8.1.12 @ 4:04PM
Hear ! Hear!
DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 11:56AM
Because they were forced to by the Federal government at the behest of Acorn-Barney Frank axis of financial irresponsibility.
Anybody notice that Government Motors is using junk mortgages to sell their cars? They are.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 3:49PM
Anyone notice that Government Motors just OUTSOURCED a Deal that will send $600,000,000 to an English Soccer Team, for Advertisement, after they told the American Super Bowl, to POUND SAND, when offered a chance to Advertise with them?
Hello?
Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 9:30AM
Well, I'll give Jack one point, it happened on Bushs' watch. That said, it happened AFTER the Dem takeover of Congress in 2006. Were we given a choice, I would prefer the economic policies which prevailed from 1983 to 2006 every time.
Bush should have vetoed spending. The late GOP Congress went ape with spending. There is more than enough blame to go around. It is policies, not people or parties, which we must examine. What works, and has always worked is: 1 less spending; 2 lower taxes; 3 allowing wages to set their own level; 4 encouraging business expansion. What we often overlook in the tax cut battle is that such cuts must be paired with spending cuts.
One party opposes both while another pursues one. We need the close combination of both. Raising rates, ie penalizing success, is bad policy, so is uncontrolled spending. Which candidates propose, like Obama did in 2008, to get spending and the deficit under control? He failed.
Jack in Wi| 8.1.12 @ 10:03AM
Ludwig: Raising rates to real market number is the basis of the free market. The artificial low rates of the last 12 years have grown unsustainable bubbles and given money to government to fund endless wars, endless waste, and welfare on the backs of real savers. By the way, you are a disgrace to the name Von Mises.
DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 11:58AM
It was not a question of rates - it was a question of relaxing loan requirements to the point that repayment was not possible, not just improbable.
More non-facts from Obama supporter Jack!
Jack in Wi| 8.1.12 @ 3:06PM
Moere nonsense from the zionist shill DTom. I am a conservative Republican of the Bob Taft, Warren Harding, Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan and Pat Buchanan, and on foreign policy, Herbert Hoover variety. The kind that is sick of wasting American blood and treasure around the world. I am a real conservative not a neo conservative who come out of Communism and the Democrat party. I voted the Republican ticket for President in the last 12 elections. I am trying to find some reasons to vote for Romney instead of going fishing on election day. So far you guys aren't giving me much.
My 25 year old son came over to give me a picture of Mitt Romney and the Missus. It seems the Romney campaign thought they could get his vote by sending out the picture. My son is totally unintrested in politics like many young people. I dragged him to the polls to vote for Scott Walker in this recall election. He also sent a nonsense letter along with it. If he thinks this is going to get the youth vote he is wating his money. He needs to adress real issues like ending these endless wars, and getting the economy going. So far he has the elocution of Bush, Dole, and McCain and about the same likeabilty.
Jack in Wi| 8.1.12 @ 3:06PM
Moere nonsense from the zionist shill DTom. I am a conservative Republican of the Bob Taft, Warren Harding, Ron Paul, Ronald Reagan and Pat Buchanan, and on foreign policy, Herbert Hoover variety. The kind that is sick of wasting American blood and treasure around the world. I am a real conservative not a neo conservative who come out of Communism and the Democrat party. I voted the Republican ticket for President in the last 12 elections. I am trying to find some reasons to vote for Romney instead of going fishing on election day. So far you guys aren't giving me much.
My 25 year old son came over to give me a picture of Mitt Romney and the Missus. It seems the Romney campaign thought they could get his vote by sending out the picture. My son is totally unintrested in politics like many young people. I dragged him to the polls to vote for Scott Walker in this recall election. He also sent a nonsense letter along with it. If he thinks this is going to get the youth vote he is wating his money. He needs to adress real issues like ending these endless wars, and getting the economy going. So far he has the elocution of Bush, Dole, and McCain and about the same likeabilty.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 8:18AM
This is no different from Ferrari's Column, and it all boils down to A Corrupt, Unmitigated Biased Media, and their Unwillingness to tell the Truth, about our Emperor's Wardrobe.
Yadda, yadda, yadda?
Yet, I'm really not that worried. What began as The Muslim rolling a Snowball down the Hill, has become an Avalanche, and is about to put everything that we hold dear, in this Country, in to an Ice Age.
Nothing is going good, and nothing is going to go good, as long as "The Man who would be Soviet Premier" is in the White House.
Europe can only get worse. Tax Cheat Timmy, and his Boys at all of the Monetary Outfits, are looking out for #1. THEMSELVES. It'll be - Every man for himself.
Chief Justice Mustard, did it in the Supreme Court with a Shiv, right in our backs. His was the Last Nail.
Young James T. Kirk exclaims, as he orders his Ship to pursue an Alien Ship from the Future - "Either they're going down? Or, we are."
That pretty much sums it up.
Either this Idi Amin wannabe, is going down? Or, our way of life, is. Like with Matter. The two can not exist in the same space.
If he wins?
The Exodus of American Companies, from these Shores, will resemble that of the American Settlers of the 19th Century, racing Westward in a Vast Wave of People seeking Opportunity, and a Better Life.
And he will have performed a Bloodless Coup, on the Greatest Nation God ever gave Man.
Never to be seen, again.
THE END.
(Literally)
vtwin| 8.1.12 @ 8:40AM
The “roots” of the financial meltdown of 2007, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (GSEs)? No, like the depression of the 1920s, its roots are found in the excesses of unregulated free enterprise. In 2007 the excess was competitive mortgage securitization. The competition to sell mortgage-backed securities between mortgage securitizers (Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs…), the competition to sell mortgages between mortgage originators (Ametiquest, Countrywide…), and separation between these securitizers and originators led to adoption of lower underwriting standards, more subprime loans, and the eventual financial crisis on 2007. Competitive mortgage securitization has failed every time it has been tried (1880s, 1920s, and 2000s) in the United States.
George S| 8.1.12 @ 9:29AM
I thought home mortgages prior to 1937 were unheard of.
How can Wall Street sell these things without mortgages in the first place? Did Wall Street create phantom buyers and originated a mortgage process just to create counterfeit mortgages then steal the money from their own banks and sell them to each other? Seriously?
Read what the man wrote: Fannie Mae purchased and sold bad mortgages backed by good money that were written under threat of a HUD lawsuit. Fannie got hefty commissions (i.e., millionaire bureaucrats) for passing these off to Wall Street; which Wall Street gladly purchased and bundled because:
a) Fannie was buying a lot of these, thereby hiding the inherent risk a little deeper;
b) The fact that Fannie -- a quasi-government agency -- was selling them was (wink-wink) an unspoken guarantee that the taxpayers will one way or another back the risk; and
c) Government and Wall Street are in bed together covering each other with a history of being bailed out of bad investments. (How is it that Goldman employees gave $1 million to Obama in 2008?)
Competing to sell mortgages is only possible after your acquire the mortgages first.
Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 11:47AM
George, there you go with facts again. Your going to give Vtwin a complex.
DTOM| 8.1.12 @ 12:01PM
Anybody remember the S&L crisis? Didn't they destroy the local financing of home construction by S & L's who used local funds to finance loans, so that they could take the assets (mortgages) to a national, federally-insured market? Yes.
vtwin| 8.1.12 @ 1:01PM
“Did Wall Street create phantom buyers and originated a mortgage process just to create counterfeit mortgages then steal the money from their own banks and sell them to each other?”
No. But then where did these mortgages originate?
Potential, but unqualified, home buyer applies for a mortgage with Countrywide. Unqualified, no problem for Countrywide because the more unqualified the applicant is for the mortgage the higher the interest rate and fees Countrywide can charge the applicant for the mortgage. And no problem for unqualified home buyer because the fees are tacked on the mortgage he or she will never repay. So how does Countrywide make money investing its capital in bad mortgages? Countrywide sells them to Bear Stearns. So how does Bear Stearns make money investing its capital in bad mortgages? By creating and selling security-backed mortgages to unsuspecting investors like the government of Iceland or even your retirement account. And why were these investors so gullible? Because Moodys rated these securities AAA and AIG insured these securities. Unregulated capitalism in action.
George S| 8.1.12 @ 3:10PM
Why would Countrywide make that loan?
They may have sold to Bear Stearns but Fannie Mae was buying a large number of them and also selling them (making millionaires out of its bureaucrats). Because of Fannie, they had the implicit guarantee of taxpayer bailout.
Why did Fannie Mae even put themselves in the market for those loans?
In 1993 the HUD started legal actions against banks who declined “too many” minority loan applications. HUD also pressured Freddie and Fannie to buy more low and moderate-income (LMI) mortgages. In 1995, Janet Reno required banks to prove they were making a mandated number of loans to LMI borrowers, directing them to use “innovative or flexible” lending practices to achieve their quotas.
How did the Clinton Administration help?
Congress repealed legislation prohibiting banks from affiliating with securities and insurance companies. Permission for mergers and for opening branch offices was tied to banks’ CRA compliance in that community.
How did the Bush Administration help?
The 2003 American Dream Down Payment Act help subsidize down payments to low income buyers.
George S| 8.1.12 @ 3:24PM
How did congress help?
They demanded that Freddie and Fannie buy hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of these subprime loans. Triple-A ratings were given out to
mortgage-based securities from government accredited credit agencies.
How did Fannie/Freddie help?
They were telling banks that they and other GSE's were very eager to buy more mortgages as now they were making money.
How did investors react?
Banks were eager to make even more such loans with no incentive to investigate borrower's finances. Investors were blinded to the risks by the triple-A ratings and the fact that Fannie was buying and selling a large number of mortgages.
How did this cause the bubble?
Figure it out yourself. None of this would have happened without the CRA being used as a political hammer to increase the number of homeowners.
Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 3:53PM
Waiting on Dred reply. He is usually very prompt about screaming the bubble had nothing to do with CRA.
Nice Job George!
DRed| 8.1.12 @ 5:15PM
You need to say my name 3 times if you wish to summon me.
vtwin| 8.1.12 @ 4:44PM
Why would Countrywide make that loan? Wrong question. You mean; why DID Countrywide make that loan? Answer; because Countrywide made billion of dollars selling these subprime mortgages to Wall Street and Wall Street in turn made billions of dollar reselling these repacked subprime mortgages as mortgage-backed securities to investors all over the world.
The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007,"-- the President's [Bush] Working Group on Financial Markets reported October 10, 2008.
Did Freddie and Fannie contribute to the crisis? Yes. But you are blinded by your ideology, it must be the Democrats, it must be the government. When in fact 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in the secondary mortgage market, not Freddie or Fannie, and 84 percent of the subprime mortgages issued between 2004- 2006 were issued by private lending institutions, according to the Federal Reserve. That's why we had to bailout Wall Street.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 9:30AM
And, it was all made possible, because The Rapist - Bill Clinton - Eliminated Glass Steagal, with a stroke of his pen.
Let me repeat that - And, it was all made possible, because The Rapist - Bill Clinton - Eliminated Glass Steagal, with a stroke of his pen.
RIGHT?
vtwin| 8.1.12 @ 1:12PM
The elimination of glass steagall act (aka the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) as you correctly but inelegantly pointed out was signed into law by Clinton was a major contributor to the subprime mortgage crisis. An excellent argument TLP, for government re-regulation of the banking industry.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 3:53PM
In this case, I would agree.
JimmyMac1948| 8.1.12 @ 9:12AM
In June, 1991, the WSJ had an editorial warning of the dangers Fannie and Freddie posed for the economy. They were mere babes at that time. The Dems used them as a way to further an agenda that would have flopped miserably if they had tried to push it through the legislative process. We have reaped the results of this off-budget legerdemain.
Louisiana Joe| 8.1.12 @ 10:39AM
Let’s be clear, this is the fault of both parties. I am a very proud conservative Republican and only wish that the rest of the party were the same. Looking back at Clinton, Bush, and Obama, they didn’t create these problems alone; instead the Democrat party’s policy of buying votes with handouts and the Republican party’s policy of “go along to get along” created all of this mess. All of the politicians in both parties have but one goal, re-election. None of them give one good damn about the destruction they have wrought on America, only about their re-election, power, and feathering their own nest. The Republican controlled House and Senate could have taken Clinton to the wood shed on some of his crap but lacked the guts. Bush could have stood up to the big spending Republican House and Senate but he was a big spender himself. Bush could have vetoed bills passed by the Democrat House and Senate but he was too chicken.
What does excite me is the Tea Party. They are systematically removing Rinos from power. We are cleaning up our party from within while the Democrats continue to drift to Socialism/Marxism. Is there a patriotic Democrat anywhere that will stand up to their party and call Obama what he really is, an enemy of America? I don’t think so, for you see, they are Democrats first and Americans second. Kind of sound like the old Soviet Union and current day China, the party is GOD.
PS: Clinton didn’t leave Bush a surplus, Newt did.
Al Adab| 8.1.12 @ 11:35AM
Joe:
You make the point well. We judge by administration and President when the fault lies with Congress which sets taxes and funds programs for the benefit of "constituant groups". High time we began treating our citizens as individuals rather than as demographic or interest groups. Bush failed to veto GOP spending and we got 2006 as a result. That led to the '08 collapse and the ensuing election of statists promising to cut deficits. Boy, were we voters ever snookered. Time to get back to free markets, low spending and low taxes; those policies do work.
irish19| 8.2.12 @ 2:09AM
Well said!
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 11:57AM
Meanwhile.....in other news:
Boehner & Co. sell the American people down the river, yet again.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07.....ppointees/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll537.xml
Remember, back in the spring of '11, when the first budget battle was winding up? And, Boehner/Cantor/McCarthy/Ryan were lying to conservatives about cutting $100 billion in the budget deal?
Remember when Boehner & Co. were telling us to wait until Sept., '11, when they could really cut the budget?
Remember when Boehner & Co. promised that if the GOP took back control of the House, they would publish ALL BILLS 3 days before a vote?
Remember, a year ago, when Boehner & Co. sold-out to O'Bama on the debt-ceiling increase, and didn't give us 3 days to read the bill?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boehner has got to go!
Intelligent Design| 8.1.12 @ 1:08PM
If Obama were president for 150 years he would blame all his failures on his predecessors.
Mistral| 8.1.12 @ 1:18PM
Indeed, Emil, the Fannie and Freddie debacle had its foundations laid in the Clinton presidency. Bush was not as daft as his detractors have always made out. It is Hussein Obama who is daft but the mainstream media have made him up to be a demi-god. Strange how Bill C hates him but he has opted for a quiet life in the sequel. It is a great shame Romney looks like a white Hussein but without media obsequiosness towards every breath he takes.
Kingofthenet| 8.1.12 @ 3:16PM
Yeah the TRILLIONS in sub-prime Mortgage 'instruments' that the big banks put together had NOTHING to do with it.
TLP| 8.1.12 @ 3:54PM
Also, The Rapist.
bxy| 8.1.12 @ 1:29PM
HOLD IT!!! It's not Bush's fault because, oh the poor sap had to deal with 911. NO! Even if you discount all the so called Conspiracy Theories and and by some impossible chance those planes did bring down the Towers, Bush was still our President, he failed to protect us, and directly failed in this case by having our Military and FAA tied up on a huge scale, making it impossible for them to protect us as they have so many times in the past. No Bush failed us in 911. Doesn't mater if 911 was internal, or external, or what, Bush failed to protect us, and the effect of his failure was catastrophic to our economy.
Drunken Sailor| 8.1.12 @ 3:54PM
You sir are a idiot.
Kingofthenet| 8.1.12 @ 3:12PM
Here is the Cliff notes version:ANYTHING good under Bush was due to his Brilliance, anything Bad, "He gets a Pass". Now under Obama, just forget the 'steaming pile' Bush left him with, forget that the ENTIRE banking system was on life support, and that the President had to clamp the Jumper Cables on Uncle Sams Nipples least he die, forget all that, forget that from that till now a few short years things have stabilized and are on the upswing.The American Auto industry is back(Thanks Dirty Harry) jobs are being created instead of lost. No it's better to ask yourself a simple question Punk, Is America TODAY in better shape than it was in Jan 2009? Well is it Punk?
Stick| 8.1.12 @ 4:18PM
Hey King do you agree that Clinton put us on the sugar high (housing bubble) and not Bush? Who stood in the way of throttling the mess back, Bush or Barney and Chris? It is expected that a nation will deficit spend to fight wars. It is not expected that a government will knowingly undermine the investments of its people.
Kingofthenet| 8.1.12 @ 5:47PM
Don't be an imbecile, the housing crisis didn't happen because Fanny and Freddy were giving loans to some minorities to buy starter homes, they couldn't afford. How can I say this? Well look at the houses in foreclosure MOST of them are pretty hi end and not the purview of Fanny or Freddy. The REAL cause of the housing crisis was the Big Banks and Wall Street, FIRST they create a Financial WMD in CMO's and other junk investments.Than they loan money to ANYONE for ANY reason.Why? Because they knew they were going to sell these Turds so who cares if they are GOOD risks? They weren't going to be holding these grenades for long, than at some point EITHER these Hot Potatoes got backed up in production, or these Banks started to drink their own Kool-Aid and actually believed their own Bullshit. Either way the music stopped and they didn't have a chair.Except of course Goldman Sachs who as usual found a way to make obscene profits from this mess.
Juli| 8.1.12 @ 10:13PM
"Well look at the houses in foreclosure MOST of them are pretty hi end..."
Where do you get that? Did you drive around the town you live in taking notes? Did you read it somewhere that you can provide us a link? The majority of homes in foreclosure in my town are in lower and middle class neighborhoods, NOT in the high ends of town. Yes, I live in one of those neighborhoods and I drive through plenty of them every week in my town.
I did a quick search and found this link http://online.wsj.com/article/.....9161.html. 30% is not MOST.
cicero| 8.1.12 @ 8:39PM
I know I'm joining the party late, but so be it. As for Goldman Sachs making money off of the fiasco, you only had to follow the bouncing ball to findd out that the AIG bailout was the Goldman bailout. AIG was profitable in all of its insurance divisions. The only sub that was upside down was its division that was engaged in programed trading of mortgage backed securities that were insured by its counter party - Goldman Sachs. Without the bailout of AIG, Goldman would have had to pick up the losses. By the govt bailing out AIG, Goldman was off the hook.
As I have said many time here. if the government had done NOTHING, the so called crisis would have been over upon the filing of bankruptcy petitions by the banks that bet the wrong way. As it was, the banks were all able to repay their TARP monies as soon as the government changed the accounting procedures from mark to market to standard accounting proceedures in March of 2009. As if by majic, all of those mortgages that were market down to zero when none of the betting banks would take them as collateral, all at once were marked up to face value, and the banks ran to the Fed window where they borrow 9 to one against them at 0% interest. All at once, they were flush, and it was bonus time. And once again, the taxpayers bailed out the BANKERS.
Occam's Tool| 8.2.12 @ 12:17PM
I find it fascinating that some use tax policy as a political issue. I prefer to think of what will raise money, what money must be raised, and how to protect the individual and incease overall wealth as much as possible.
I'm perfectly happy with how the marketplace allocates benefits. I could have done other work and proceed from there.
Occam's Tool| 8.2.12 @ 12:18PM
Sorry--"-increase."
theyjustcantstop| 8.3.12 @ 3:41PM
this is why i'm tickled o'bama is dragging clinton's policies into light, this can first truly transparent look,(history),theres still a lot of people that don't believe this housing diasaster was clinton,and the democrat congress.
o'bama's cheering clinton policies,he just gutted clintons walfare reform act,won't prosecute clinton's defense of marriage act.
o'bama blames bush for anything he can,now he wants to take credit for reagan's policies that made it possible for the jobs in the clinton era.