Quote:
Originally Posted by World Citizen
I'm sure happy to give someone called SourD a chuckle.
But the facts are the facts....
Mr. Bush was our Commander in Chief while our economy was being destroyed by the same folks that were responsible for the first Great Depression and who stood at the table then to be bailed out ... the same ones who enjoyed windfall profits first and the only ones who landed on their feet. Then, one year after their second robbery of US public funds, after being responsible for ruining thousands of American's financial futures,... they shamelessly paid out huge bonuses to their undeserving CEO's.
I worked in a mortgage company during that time and who got out because it was obvious that what was going on was completely out of control. It didn't matter to me how much they paid me, I wanted NOTHING to do with it.
It's really unfortunate that you don't believe the person who was our President for 8 years has any responsibility for allowing our economy to be destroyed.
Laugh on!
|
and in 2003 when the republicans were trying to fix it???....
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.): "" The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios."" Sept. 10, 2003:
Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), speaking to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez: ""Secretary Martinez, if it ain't broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals?""
Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.
Senate Banking Committee, Feb. 24-25, 2004:
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .
Senate Banking Committee, June 15, 2006:
Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): I think a lot of people are being opportunistic, . . . throwing out the baby with the bathwater, saying, "Let's dramatically restructure Fannie and Freddie," when that is not what's called for as a result of what's happened here. . . .
did bush sign nafta...did bush sign cafta..did bush change the rules for mortgages in 1995
you say its bush's fault, but you dont see the big picture
the problems we face today (the 2 main problems) housing and JOBS started before bush....bush certainly didnt help...and neither is obama
sorry to INFORM you but these problems stem from: 1993, 1995, and 1999 and you can thank the liberals for it, and most of it goes back to the clinton era. why because ECONOMICS run in 10(+/-4) year CYCLES and what we are facing NOW is in DIRECT RELATION to what happened back in the 90's
1993 NAFTA and the other 'freetrade' agreements----originally sugested by Brzezinski's puppet carter.....negotiated by bush1--- passed by the democrat controlled congress in Dec 1993, pushed by clinton, signed by clinton, expanded by bush2...expanded even more by obama---the consequence ...... 60+ million HIGH PAYING jobs have been lost, 3 trillion worth of debt from the lost wages.
1995 clinton (through his chief(s) of HUD (Henry Cisneros, and later Andrew Coumo )) eased the rules on obtaining mortgages allowing more 'exotic' mortgages and 'no-dov' mortgages-----the consequence ......housing SKYROCKETED causing low inventories causing a 'not normal' increase in home prices, sellers got greedy, buyers got even greedier (looking to PROFIT in a skyrocketing market by flipping) and bought THINKING that prices would still increase and their ADJUSTABLE mortgage would pay it self off in MINIMUMAL years...EVEN THOUGH THESE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNHEARD OF, AND MORTGAGE RATES WERE AT 40 YEAR LOWS( what did they think an adjustable mortgage gotten at 40 year lows would do in the term(3 months-3years) when it adjusted...of course it would go up, their CONTRACT even said after the term it would be 6% PLUS PRIME)))
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
The above is the start of the mortgage meltdon: Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy...Hot Property February 2008 Archives - BusinessWeek
1996 clinton signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it allowed industry consolidation whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 30 in 1993 to 10 in 1996, and reducing the 10 in 1996 to 6 in 2005.)
1998 clinton does not allow drilling for OUR OWN OIL (he and the dems say it would be 10 yaers before we would see anything)....hmmm been more than 10 years now...
1999 Clinton DEREGULATES the banking industry
2000 clinton signs the China trade bill
2000 clinton signs the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000..(which paves the way for ENRON)
2001 Clinton gets china into the World Trade Organization
our problems that we face TODAY, started well before bush2
was bush an idiot...sure...did he help us...nope...but the problems started well before him
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
