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.
reason: Let’s take a quick look back at the Bush years. Spending has exploded to historic proportions. Regulations exploded too. Yet people look back on the Bush years and say it’s a failure of free market policies. What do you say to that?
Stossel: I say b.s! There was no deregulation under Bush. People don’t know that, yet everybody says, “See, your libertarian ideas, they’re wrong and this proves it.” First of all, there was no real deregulation. [The repeal of the Depression-era banking regulation] Glass-Steagall was done under Clinton...
Or is the argument more that deregulation wether it came from republicans or democrats is what's the root cause of this financial meltdown? Repeal of Glass-Steagall was done by Clinton but it had bipartisian support. The repeal of Glass-Steagall according to many is where this crisis started along with Clinton pressing for Fannie and Freddie Mac to lessen their lending standards.
Deregulation was a movement started by neo conservativism 30yrs ago and they went overboard. Glass-steagall was repealed by that movement, with a republican majority legislative branch pushing it through, and YES, Clinton DID go along with it. Yes he did. Lets ask every single legislator who pushed that plan and Clinton why they made such a foolish mistake. Let's also ask Bush why he didn't pay attention to the affects and take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage early on. Let's ask him why he sat there empty handed and motionless like a deer in headlights AGAIN.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall according to many is where this crisis started along with Clinton pressing for Fannie and Freddie Mac to lessen their lending standards.
Let's not presume that happened in a vaccum either, because fannie and freddie were deliberately being undercut privately w/ smarmy games from outfits like country wide. Under bidding a govt program for market share... where are they now? They meant to undercut because they could take the money and run (their profits were up front) whereas the government returns were on the back side, along with their liability to insure. Everything they sold ultimately got shoved over to default properties that the government becomes responsible for directly.
Let's also ask Bush why he didn't pay attention to the affects and take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage early on. Let's ask him why he sat there empty handed and motionless like a deer in headlights AGAIN.
I read that the main issue with Bush on this is that he appointed Treasury Secretaries who didn't have wall street backgrounds so as a result they weren't alert to problems on wall street.
Or is the argument more that deregulation wether it came from republicans or democrats is what's the root cause of this financial meltdown? Repeal of Glass-Steagall was done by Clinton but it had bipartisian support. The repeal of Glass-Steagall according to many is where this crisis started along with Clinton pressing for Fannie and Freddie Mac to lessen their lending standards.
Perhaps we can blame Clinton for listening to republicans and signing a bill sponsored by them (and many democrats stand to be blamed as well), but the root cause isn't just regulation or deregulation. Instead I would blame lack of vigilance and pragmatism, making adjustments along the way to avoid a debacle when all pointers were towards it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion
I read that the main issue with Bush on this is that he appointed Treasury Secretaries who didn't have wall street backgrounds so as a result they weren't alert to problems on wall street.
Paulson was an insider, and knew what he was doing. In fact, relaxing lending leverage was a dream he had mentioned going back in 2000, and got a chance in 2004 (effective 2005). Any person with basic knowledge in lending leverage would have seen a debacle in the making. But then, we live in a capitalistic society where emphasis is on personal benefits over company's health (much less how it affects the nation).
The trio of mindless free marketeers in Bush, Greenspan and Paulson did no favors to help avoid the situation, effect accelerated by a sliding economy, maintained solely by a fake one, and a housing bubble that has direct connection not just to lending practices but also ridiculous marketing of credits via low interest rates.
I read that the main issue with Bush on this is that he appointed Treasury Secretaries who didn't have wall street backgrounds so as a result they weren't alert to problems on wall street.
Baloney!
Before he became Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson was employed at Goldman-Sachs and was lobbying in favor of that infamous 40:1 leverage ratio.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
What Did Bush Deregulate?
