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.
As for Katrina, a president doesn't handle events like hurricanes and earthquakes; those are handled by a state's mayor and governor. In the case of Katrina, is was mishandled by that state's mayor & governor.
Actually, when a disaster cripples an entire coastline, incapacitating multiple states and cities, the federal government steps in. It always does. It declares a state of emergency and funnels resources to fix it. I'd have a lot more respect for a president who willingly crossed the lines of protocol because people were dying and dealt with the political backlash later than one who pulled arbitrary federal-state excusues later, having appointed a college buddy whose best expertise in emergency management was being the head of a horse association.
That's criminally negligent behavior and Bush, who sat on vacation for days while people drown, holds the blood of more than a thousand people on his hands.
Quote:
Many did not give Bush a chance... don't you remember that? All the far leftists could say was that baloney about him "stealing the election."
Well, yes, it was a rigged "election". But that didn't have much to do with Bush himself. People gave Bush a chance to make the criminal behavior associated with his brother and the court worthwhile. He never did.
Quote:
Give him a chance to screw up? He already has!
It's actually to early to place Bush in the rankings. And who are these "historians" who ranked Bush... liberal teachers and instructors?
Considering the economy's on the rise and bridges have been built with former adversaries and the Iraq war is winding down while the war on terror is ramping up again (the one Bush lost focus on), I'd say an objective observer would be hard-pressed to identify any major mis-steps to date.
Professional historians from across the political spectrum were surveyed and Bush was ranked, if I recall, 36 out of 43.
Inaccurate to say that Bush "destroyed" the economy. The housing and mortgage mess happened mainly under the "guidance" of Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd.
LOL. I guess by "guidance" you mean that they were the senior minority members of the Financial Services and Banking Committees. What contributions to the credit crisis they had from there is difficult to fathom, but right-wingers do try to conjure up stuff a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
We actually had about 5-6 years of a very good economy under Bush. 52 consecutive months of job growth, an unemployment rate as low as 4.5% and strong GDP growth- at one point over 7%.
The unemployment rate under Bush was never lower than on the day he was first sworn into office, and that "one point" of 7% GDP growth (2003-III) was double the rate of both the quarter before it and the quarter after. For the bulk of his eight miserable years, GDP growth under Bush paled in comparison to that which had been achieved during the first three years of the Jimmy Carter administration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Also impressive is that the last recession which began in March, 2001 ended by Nov. 2001 even with the 9/11 attacks just two months earlier.
Why would that be impressive? In economic terms, 9/11 was a blip. Fears of psychological damage led the Fed to cut interest rates to near zero, which was probably a sound move at the time. Leaving them there until 2004 because the Bushie tax cuts failed to have any of the intended effect was not a good idea, as that turned into a major contributing factor in the emergence of the credit crisis.
[quote=Bluefly;11400700]Actually, when a disaster cripples an entire coastline, incapacitating multiple states and cities, the federal government steps in. I'd have a lot more respect for a president who willingly crossed the lines of protocol because people were dying and dealt with the political backlash later than one who pulled arbitrary federal-state excusues later, having appointed a college buddy whose best expertise in emergency management was being the head of a horse association.
That's criminally negligent behavior and Bush, who sat on vacation for days while people drown, holds the blood of more than a thousand people on his hands. QUOTE]
I think you have been reading leftist propaganda
FACT: Bush declared it a emergency 1 day BEFORE the hurricaine hit
FACT: the federal government sent lots of money to N.O.
FACT: mayor Nagin, was the one the REFUSED the money, help. he even refused to use his cities OWN BUSSES to get the people out.
FACT: many of the poeple that died, were the SAME ONES that REFUSED to leave when the evactation was ordered
FACT: the mayor nagin has worried about getting casino's built instead of getting the poor peoples homes rebuilt.......go figure that one
Getting everyone into homes via ludicrously loose lending standards has been, unfortunately, a practice of many administrations dating back decades. It's such an easy and popular platform, promoting the "American Dream" of home ownership. So tons of people that couldn't afford a home were able to buy one anyway, and here we are.
Gross mischaracterization of the facts. The only people pushing folks into mortgages they could not afford were those unregulated private brokers (Countrywide, Ameriquest, New Century Financial et al) busy trying to push paper up the line to the Wall Street investment banks for slicing and dicing into the secondary markets. Just about every administration for decades has supported the goal of expanding home ownership opportunities, but that's a horse of a very, very different color.
Gross mischaracterization of the facts. The only people pushing folks into mortgages they could not afford were those unregulated private brokers (Countrywide, Ameriquest, New Century Financial et al) busy trying to push paper up the line to the Wall Street investment banks for slicing and dicing into the secondary markets. Just about every administration for decades has supported the goal of expanding home ownership opportunities, but that's a horse of a very, very different color.
Yup.
Those companies (and others like them) cranked out as many mortgages as they could as fast as they could (whether they met lending standards or not) and then sold them off ASAP. Those folks KNEW they were generating garbage mortgages - they just didn't care, because those mortgages would soon become "someone else's problem".
Organizations / Agencies as HUD, FNMA partnered with Countrywide, Ameriquest et al to create new mortgage products that would be purchased by the Secondary market.
If FNMA / FHLMC / GNMA had, at any time said they would not buy the 125%LTV investor loans, or the .05% initial rate good for 3 year ARM with no adjustment cap, or the loans with "drive by" appraisals etc., the loans WOULD NOT have been funded in a vast majority of the cases.
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.
