Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

This section is for general money matters, finance and investing.
User avatar
izzix
udonmap.com
Posts: 2562
Joined: November 30, 2005, 7:59 pm
Location: where can i find a GOOD brass

Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by izzix » October 4, 2008, 10:19 pm


U.S. mess started with Carter
By SALIM MANSUR



The story of man's fall is in part the history of unintended effects of his initial actions.

Paris of Troy falls in love with Helen of Sparta that puts to sea a thousand Greek ships, and the Trojan War is unleashed. Gavrilo Princip, driven by his Serbian nationalist fervour, assassinates the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and it ignites the First World War. Neither Paris nor Princip calculated the unintended effects of his initial actions.

As the United States is rocked by the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and a deep recession or worse looms on the horizon threatening the global economy, politicians -- Democrats and Republicans -- have scrambled to work out a rescue package for the collapsing capital market.

But how could the U.S. government be unaware of the capital and liquidity crunch of such dimension building up over time so that a taxpayer bailout of Wall Street to the tune of a trillion dollars was urgently needed? How did this tsunami of bad loans come about in the first place?

The story is one of unintended effects. And politicians who unleashed it have remained in full throttle of denying responsibility.

The origin of the crisis goes back to 1977 when then president Jimmy Carter signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress.

MORTGAGES FOR ALL

The CRA required, as the U.S. Federal Reserve Board notes, "depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low and moderate income neighbourhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations."

In other words, by law lending institutions were instructed to provide money as mortgages and commercial loans to underserved communities of mostly low income Afro-Americans and underprivileged minorities with poor credit history.

The reasoning behind CRA was to make housing affordable for that segment of the American population that could not meet credit tests of the financial industry. The CRA was civil rights action with roots going back to the Great Society push of president Lyndon Johnson's administration a decade earlier.

The CRA requirement brought loosening of underwriting standards by lending institutions, and the beginning of bad loans or the "sub-prime" mortgages. The two government-sponsored lending institutions -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- aggressively pushed sub-prime mortgages to high risk borrowers, and then covered the questionable mortgages by access to government-backed credit legislatively available from the U.S. Treasury.

In 1995 during Bill Clinton's administration, amendments to the CRA increased lending for home purchases and the bad loans piled up while a frenzy of buying led to a real estate bubble.

In 2003 President George W. Bush's administration sought a corrective overhaul of the lending practices and in 2005 Sen. John McCain pushed for reform oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

BUSH FIX DERAILED

On both occasions corrective measures were derailed in the Congress subcommittee hearings by the Democratic leadership led by Sen. Christopher Dodd in the Senate Committee on Banking and Congressman Barney Frank in the House Financial Services Committee.

The politics of affirmative action for affordable housing twisted sound financial practices, and over time it created a heated housing market that could not be sustained indefinitely.

A mountain of bad loans eventually crashed, and the U.S. capital market was frontally assaulted by the unintended effects of the CRA.


Have all the news delivered to your door 7 days a week.


http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2008 ... 6-sun.html



User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by WBU ALUM » October 4, 2008, 10:45 pm

And there it is again tied in a neat bundle for all to understand.

The media is starting to follow the money.

thrilled
udonmap.com
Posts: 590
Joined: August 22, 2007, 4:06 am
Location: udon thani
Contact:

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by thrilled » October 5, 2008, 12:38 am

The vdems have put A spin on it.They are doing the blame game on the republicans of course.Obama is forever attacking Bush on his commercials.But what else is new,thats the dems play book for ya.They cause it and then blame it on the republicans.The problem is that many people believe them.It's really sad.I believe most people are sheep.

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18405
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by BobHelm » October 5, 2008, 8:59 am

It does constantly amaze me that people take a certain political stance and then try and fit every situation so that it proves 'their' set of principles are correct & all the world's problems are created by an opposing set of principles.

Couple of points from the article...
Carter set this up in 1977 - that was 31 years ago !! It has run creating no issues for nearly 30 years & now it has gone wrong it was bad at its' inception & the people holding the reigns now have no responsibility for it.
Since 1977 I believe that there have been times when the Republicans not only had someone in the White House, but also had a majority in Congress & the Senate. They did nothing about it when they needed no-ones permission & yet they are blameless now?????

No one of any political persuasion comes out of this with any credit whatsoever.
The Bush administration has created a 'money at all costs' attitude within the commercial & financial markets that meant common sense & proprietary went way out of the window in a grasp for the extra dollar.

Both Houses & their committees have been woefully lacking in protection of their citizens. Either because they were too busy feeding at the trough, too dam lazy or just too stupid - that isn't democrats, that isn't republicans, it is every single one of them.

The accounting geniuses that oversaw this mess in the commercial sector are equally to blame and should be disbarred from ever holding a position of authority ever again.

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by WBU ALUM » October 5, 2008, 9:23 am

BobHelm wrote:Carter set this up in 1977 - that was 31 years ago !! It has run creating no issues for nearly 30 years & now it has gone wrong it was bad at its' inception & the people holding the reigns now have no responsibility for it.
Bill Clinton extended it during his administration and threatened fed sanctions on banks who did not provide subprime loans.
Since 1977 I believe that there have been times when the Republicans not only had someone in the White House, but also had a majority in Congress & the Senate. They did nothing about it when they needed no-ones permission & yet they are blameless now?????
Refer to Civics lesson 2,437 in a previous post. Simple majorities to do not guarantee passage of anything. If the party in power cannot get 60 votes in the US Senate to debate it, the issue never makes it to the floor to debate. In other words, it's like it doesn't exist.
The Bush administration has created a 'money at all costs' attitude within the commercial & financial markets that meant common sense & proprietary went way out of the window in a grasp for the extra dollar.
Just what is a 'money at all costs' attitude? What does that mean?

Please get a handle on the US form of government. I'd like to see specifics as to how you can lay this at the feet of Bush other than the fact that he couldn't get Congress to consider the regulations that he proposed during his administration. The president is not a individual. The president is part of a 3-branch government with checks and balances.
Both Houses & their committees have been woefully lacking in protection of their citizens. Either because they were too busy feeding at the trough, too dam lazy or just too stupid - that isn't democrats, that isn't republicans, it is every single one of them.
This is one of the first things in this post that I can agree with, but it's not every single one of them. It's the ones with the most seniority in both houses who serve on committees and turn a blind eye to the problems.
The accounting geniuses that oversaw this mess in the commercial sector are equally to blame and should be disbarred from ever holding a position of authority ever again.
You mean the banks that had to make the subprime loans -- by law -- or suffer federal sanctions? To be branded as racists and redliners? Congress makes laws in the US. No one else. Banks were doing what they were told and had to provide documentation of their subprime loans to keep the feds from shutting them down.

The accountants and administrators who were lying and falsifying documentation were at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are the ones who sold the cancerous mortgages into the economy.

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18405
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by BobHelm » October 5, 2008, 10:00 am

Refer to Civics lesson 2,437 - yes, I suppose they actually pass zero laws during their term, as this always applies. Get real, 90% of the laws that the party in power WANT to pass get passed. If something cannot get the 60 majority that implies that the ruling party have very little interest in passing the bill.

You say Mr. Clinton threatened Fed sanctions, can you name the ones he enacted - given that the President is "not like a individual" and cannot pass any laws in his own right???

You may be able to supply the detail, but personally I cannot remember Mr. Bush shouting from the roof tops about legislation he tried to enable to prevent this, that was stopped by one of the houses.

Do not think the Banks were lead crying & bleating towards these loans. They saw it as a chance to maximise profits with minimal efforts. That is why many banks from all over the world (and so certainly not subject to these mythical federal threats) were equally keen to jump on the bandwagon. And, personally, I certainly do not feel sorry for them, they have had years of record profits (& pay) on the back of these worthless pieces of paper.

p.s. WBU as someone to the right in American politics I am surprised at your attitude towards the sub prime market (if correctly handled). This was a principal plank in the thinking of the denizen of the free market economy - Margaret Thatcher - Homes for All....

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by WBU ALUM » October 5, 2008, 10:30 am

BobHelm wrote:Refer to Civics lesson 2,437 - yes, I suppose they actually pass zero laws during their term, as this always applies. Get real, 90% of the laws that the party in power WANT to pass get passed. If something cannot get the 60 majority that implies that the ruling party have very little interest in passing the bill.
Bob, there are bills that must originate and pass in the House. There are bills that must originate and pass in the Senate. They both operate under different rules for passage, and they both have committees that deal with every issue. If a bill doesn't make it out of committee in either branch of Congress, we never see it. If a bill happens to make it out of committee, it is because a majority want it to go to the floor for consideration/debate/vote. There's no way that I can explain all the nuances to how the Congress operates, just like you couldn't explain France's or England's or anyone else's to me. Suffice to say that while you keep up with things politically, you (and many Americans) don't fully understand how the US government and Congress works -- or doesn't work.
You say Mr. Clinton threatened Fed sanctions, can you name the ones he enacted - given that the President is "not like a individual" and cannot pass any laws in his own right???
It was done through the Justice Department, which the president controls and is run by the Attorney General (Janet Reno at that time), who is appointed by the president. The Justice Department threatened banks with being branded as "redliners" and "racists" for not making the loans. The Justice Department houses the FBI and all of the US Attorneys' offices. They also conduct audits of the banks and investigate bank dealings regarding mergers and acquisitions. Those audits and investigations can be as subjective as the investigators want them to be, and mergers and acquisitions can be denied on a whim. All of this can cost the financial institution millions in court and in reputation.
You may be able to supply the detail, but personally I cannot remember Mr. Bush shouting from the roof tops about legislation he tried to enable to prevent this, that was stopped by one of the houses.
The first was in 2003 and has been well documented, but the president cannot force Congress to act. If the discussion doesn't make it out of committee, the idea/bill/law never sees the light of day no matter the party in power. The president doesn't even have control over the federal budget. He makes recommendations, but Congress has the final say as to what they will agree to fund.
Do not think the Banks were lead crying & bleating towards these loans. They saw it as a chance to maximise profits with minimal efforts. That is why many banks from all over the world (and so certainly not subject to these mythical federal threats) were equally keen to jump on the bandwagon. And, personally, I certainly do not feel sorry for them, they have had years of record profits (& pay) on the back of these worthless pieces of paper.
Banks didn't want to make them and would have never made them. I know. I was working at a bank. The loans were structured to limit the risk for the banks. The homes were in neighborhoods where the resale would be horrendous, and the loans were made to people who would never be able to pay them back if the economy turned south. Banks structured the ARM loans in order to limit their risk and float the loan based on the interest rate, not a fixed rate. Fixed rate loans in the US are earned through the borrower's credit history and ability to repay. The loans were called subprime for a reason. They were below prime in every way, shape and form.

The banks all over the world bought into this garbage because they trusted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were quasi-federal agencies who claimed to make everything good and backed up by the full faith and credit of the US government. Sounds good on the surface, but if oversight isn't there, then the loan packages can be garbage and numbers inflated, which is what happened. Then gas prices sky-rocketed and job losses began -- which made a slowing economy even worse. People couldn't pay. Now the US government owns a bunch of crap houses that are neighborhoods that need to be burned down. The American taxpayer is hung out to dry again, but this time the world is hung out to dry with us.
p.s. WBU as someone to the right in American politics I am surprised at your attitude towards the sub prime market (if correctly handled). This was a principal plank in the thinking of the denizen of the free market economy - Margaret Thatcher - Homes for All....
Homes for all, regardless of credit history, is a socialist philosophy. It's a "free lunch" philosophy. Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for everything. The government's money is our money.

I don't ascribe to subprime lending for the very reason that we're having this debate today. People have to earn their way. I have earned mine. I'm tired of paying for mine and for theirs, and here I am doing it again. This kind of fool hearty legislation stifles motivation in a capitalist system. Why work hard? Why worry? Someone will pay for me if I lose my job. Someone else will pick up the tab. All motivation is lost because those who are most successful and most productive are penalized for being so.

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18405
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by BobHelm » October 5, 2008, 10:47 am

Thank you for the information on the workings of US government system, some of which I already understood, some of which was news to me.

However, I still believe that if Presidential desire is there then it will happen in the majority of cases. If it doesn't happen then it is either because it is something that would be so abhorrent to the majority of the house that it is impossible to 'fly', or something the President is willing to 'trade' for something else - which is the most likely.

I hear what you say about the Justice Department. By the way, exactly how many cases did they actually bring to court?? How many mergers have been prevented???

To call Margaret Thatcher a socialist does not do anything to display a knowledge of British politics - rather like me calling Ronald Regan a left wing loony.... :D :D :D
Her thinking was that if people have a "stake" in society then they are going to be more inclined to support that society. People with zero stake have zero interest in the positive, only the negative - street crime, drug abuse, riots etc.
By the way, in the main, this type of lending has worked very well in the UK - although it is regulated in a far different way there. The main difference is that the company making the mortgage holds it until it is finally paid up (mergers excepted) and it cannot be sold off to others.
The Banks in the UK who have been hit by this crisis have all been playing in the US & it is not from bad loans in the UK.

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by WBU ALUM » October 5, 2008, 10:58 am

BobHelm wrote:However, I still believe that if Presidential desire is there then it will happen in the majority of cases. If it doesn't happen then it is either because it is something that would be so abhorrent to the majority of the house that it is impossible to 'fly', or something the President is willing to 'trade' for something else - which is the most likely.
If you've never lived in the US, you have no idea how easily it is to be branded a "racist" when you are trying to make someone accountable for their actions and/or past actions. Let's just say that had the issue been pushed, the Democrats would have branded every single politician a "racist" who would be in favor of changing the law.
I hear what you say about the Justice Department. By the way, exactly how many cases did they actually bring to court?? How many mergers have been prevented???
Don't know. Do you actually think that any bank would buck the president and the Justice Dept? I don't think so.
To call Margaret Thatcher a socialist does not do anything to display a knowledge of British politics - rather like me calling Ronald Regan a left wing loony
I didn't call Maggie a socialist. I am totally unfamiliar with any plan she had to finance homes for everyone regardless of their credit worthiness or job status or credit history. What was the specifics of her plan? If it was anything like the one proposed in the Community Reinvestment Act in the US under Carter and Clinton, it's socialist and would have had the same effect as this mess is having.

It's not wrong to want people to have what they need, but it is wrong to expect everyone else to pay for it for them. I don't mind helping people who are helpless. I do it all the time, but I do mind lying thieves who whine to the government to do everything for them when they can go out and get a job like everyone else.

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by WBU ALUM » October 5, 2008, 11:06 am

Her thinking was that if people have a "stake" in society then they are going to be more inclined to support that society. People with zero stake have zero interest in the positive, only the negative - street crime, drug abuse, riots etc.
This makes perfect sense, Bob.

But with these subprime loans, we're talking about people who have invested nothing when they are allowed to buy a home without any down payment. Used to be 20% in the US. If they have no money in the home, it's like renting. Can't make the note, walk away from it as if you were renting. Who cares? Won't do any good to sue. No money. Plus, can file for bankruptcy and no one can touch you. Then in 7 years, you can start all over again.

You see, in the US, the unproductive people get the benefit of the doubt with everything.

Bob, I'm sure that many of my American expat friends can share "racism" stories with you that would be unbelievable. In addition, I'm sure they have stories of people shirking their financial responsibilities and just walking away without anything happening to them.

American society is ... Hell, I don't even know how to characterize it anymore. One thing is certain. Those who are productive are punished for it. Those who are unproductive are rewarded.

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by WBU ALUM » October 5, 2008, 12:37 pm

Bob, here's a link to a NYT article about the 2003 plan to reign in Fannie and Freddie.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

While the date at the top of the link is 2008, the proper date of the article is just below the article's title.

Below is a quote from the article. Remember, we're talking about $1.5 trillion in debt in 2003!
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by WBU ALUM » October 5, 2008, 12:43 pm

This is a quote from John McCain's speech on the senate floor in 2005. The text is available in senate records. For the record, I would vote "none of the above" in this election. I am happy with neither candidate. I have only provided this quote to show that efforts were made to stop the bleeding five years ago and three years ago.
From John McCain in 2005 on the Senate Floor:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18405
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by BobHelm » October 5, 2008, 1:38 pm

Thanks for that WBU. Some interesting reads about the bill :D
It was not exactly earth shattering in what it was trying to do (basically settling up a body to regulate FM & FM). If it had of being passed, depending on the quality of the people on the board & incharge of the authority then it may well have stopped what has happened since - or made it happen quicker, I am unsure which.
It certainly was an opportunity lost, that is for sure. Some of the reasons for that lost opportunity seem to differ quite a lot from your own conclusions though WBU.
It never got scheduled for debate before the full Senate, probably mainly for two reasons:

a) The 109th Congress was the shortest since the 40s, PLUS they had to deal with Hurricane Katrina, so they were pressed on time,

b) President Bush and Alan Greenspan, who were proponents of regulating Fannie Mae, both disliked this bill. Greenspan went so far as to call it "worse than doing nothing", because of how it watered down what he'd originally asked for.

Democratic opposition was unlikely to be filibuster-level strong. After all, a majority of the House Democrats voted in favor of this legislation -- 60% Yes/40% No -- so it's a bit hard to believe that they couldn't find FIVE democrats willing to vote for quorum, even if they voted against the bill.

The original author of the bill (in the House) himself blamed Bush and Greenspan for their lack of support for his legislation as the reason for its not passing.

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by WBU ALUM » October 5, 2008, 1:49 pm

BobHelm wrote:
It never got scheduled for debate before the full Senate, probably mainly for two reasons:

a) The 109th Congress was the shortest since the 40s, PLUS they had to deal with Hurricane Katrina, so they were pressed on time,

b) President Bush and Alan Greenspan, who were proponents of regulating Fannie Mae, both disliked this bill. Greenspan went so far as to call it "worse than doing nothing", because of how it watered down what he'd originally asked for.

Democratic opposition was unlikely to be filibuster-level strong. After all, a majority of the House Democrats voted in favor of this legislation -- 60% Yes/40% No -- so it's a bit hard to believe that they couldn't find FIVE democrats willing to vote for quorum, even if they voted against the bill.

The original author of the bill (in the House) himself blamed Bush and Greenspan for their lack of support for his legislation as the reason for its not passing.
From where did this quote come? Who is making those assumptions? I see a lot of words like "probably ... likely ... unlikely ... if" None of that makes me think that it came from people directly involved with working on the legislation.

Katrina makes sense. That event was filled with race-baiting. People actually accusing the government of responding slowly because New Orleans is 65% black. Again, people don't know how government operates and that the governor of each state has to give the federal government permission to enter a state. The governor of Louisiana was more worried about "losing control and getting credit" for supervision of the rescue and relief. She waited four or five days before realizing that she couldn't handle it. Feds had to wait until she allowed them in. And I was there in the middle of it, so I know of which I speak.

I can imagine the racist firestorm that the 2003 regulation would have created in addition to all of the Katrina mess. :yikes:

As for the other reasons, I'd be interested to know whose observations they are.

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by WBU ALUM » October 11, 2008, 9:57 am

Bush's Failure to Preserve Traditional American Ideals

For the last 7 yrs, Bush protected my country from hard terrorism. Since 9/11, the US hasn't been attacked once. Indeed, we took the fight to our enemies. Our enemies have been on the run or in hiding. They've seen American power, and they know we are not a nation with which to fool around. Against hard terrorists, Bush has employed tough conservatism.

But, Bush's soft or compassionate conservatism at home allowed leftists to plant soft bombs inside our capitalist system. The bombs went off in September 2008 and have accomplished what Osama Bin Laden failed to accomplish in the September of 2001. Al Qaeda had sought to shut down our economy, make us lose confidence in ourselves and in our system. It wanted us to abandon our American way of life and adopt a radically new order. It wanted the US to get on its knees and come to the negotiating table and beg for peace. Osama utterly failed. Americans rallied together. Americans protected their homeland. We rooted out terror cells in the US, and we took the fight to our enemies. After 9/11, we went shopping like Israelis have gone shopping after terrorist attacks. It was to send a message that terrorists will not change the way we live. We were not willing to negotiate with terrorists.

But, where Osama's people failed, Obama's people succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. They really brought down the economy. They planted soft time bombs inside the capitalist system. They used soft, politically correct, and closet-radical means to turn the free market system into a Forced Marked System. It looked free from the outside, but its inner workings had been burdened with policies that forced banks and other lending institutions to offer countless loans to risky and reckless borrowers. ACORN was one of the groups behind this. Most Democrats were behind this. Crooks like Franklin Raines and Jimmy Johnson were behind this. And, so was Obama. These bad loans were unsustainable and radioactive, so lending institutions bundled them, insured them (with AIG and others), and passed/sold them to others. When some Republicans stood up to this madness, they were shouted down as 'racists', but Republicans were not innocent either. Bush was excited about the expansion of 'ownership society' under his watch, and Wall Street had come up with 'creative' ways to make tremendous short-term profits from bundling and selling these bad loans all over the world. As long as housing prices were rising, lending institutions were making obscene record profits from this pyramid scheme. The CEOs were raking it in and employees were getting big bonuses. Capitalists got into it even though they knew it wasn't sustainable. The temptation of tremendous short-term profits was irresistible.

There's a line in 'The Godfather' that states, "A man with a briefcase can steal a lot more than a man with a gun." Similarly, a radical with a briefcase is far more dangerous than a radical with a bomb. So, what Osama's peopled failed to do, Obama's people succeeded. Osama, Taliban, and Alqaeda must be laughing their asses off right now! Yes, we STUPID Americans! On top of that, of course, Obama wants to negotiate with mass murderers all over the world who are morally no better than Osama Bin Laden. Obama's people not only undermined our economy, but wants to make our foreign policy terrorist-friendly.

Bush showed spine, the will, the courage and tenacity to go after Islamic terrorists. He rooted them out in the US, worked with Europeans to pursue them and worked hard to go after terrorists in the Middle East. Yet, he was totally spineless against the soft terrorists in America. Indeed, he seemed more interested in winning praise from the likes of Bono and the Congressional Black Caucus than fighting for honest hardworking Americans who know that there's no such thing as free lunch.

'W' in George W. Bush stood for 'Will' against Islamic terrorists, but for 'Weak' against Soft Terrorists who used the pen and the briefcase to bring down our capitalist system. Bush didn't fight the people who were turning free markets into forced markets. He was clueless and weak. He pandered to liberals and Democrats hoping to win their approval and love and fearful of the accusation of 'racism'. Bush was even weak in some areas of fighting hard terrorism. Did airports really have to inspect old white ladies as well as young olive-skinned males? Think of the time and money wasted because of that piece of political correctness!

Bush should have been tough against soft terrorists as he'd been tough against hard terrorists. He should have realized that soft terrorists are anti-American, anti-capitalist and anti-excellence.

Yes, soft terrorists wave the American flag, but so do illegal aliens as they march by the hundreds of thousands in big cities across America. The leftist idea of America is not American anymore than an illegal alien's idea of citizenship is our idea of citizenship. The left is clever enough not to call themselves socialists or the "Karl Marx Brigade". Recall that most Soviet front groups in the US often waved the American flag and called for disarmament in the name of world peace.

Because the Cold War ended 20 yrs ago, too many Americans do not consider the leftist agenda. They think it is finished and dead and buried. If anything, it's stronger than ever in the US. Leftists have taken over our pop culture, academia, media, community groups, and much of politics. Just because we removed a big cancerous tumor doesn't mean that we're cancer free. If anything, the ideological cancer has moved to our brain, eyes, and ears. Leftists control the brain centers of American life; they control what we see and hear, and they control the law and courts. They will even try to shut down Talk Radio with what they call the "Fairness Doctrine".

Soft terrorists pander and seek to radicalize the underclass. Worse, they even want the working-class and middle-class to harbor victimological mindsets, which explains the class war rhetoric. Mr. Obama and his people yammer on and on about how the highly successful are not paying their fair share. They never mention that the bottom 1/3 don't pay anything at all. Worse, a great many people take from everyone else. We have a growing number of people who not only add nothing, but think they are entitled to take and take from the rest of us. They take from others through crime or through the government, where bureaucrats legally rob us and say we should fork over more.

Why didn't Bush stand up to these people? Bush didn't care about Islamic terrorists calling him an 'imperialist pig'. He did what he had to do to fight hard terrorism, but he was so sensitive about being called a 'racist'. So, he pretty much did NOTHING except lodge some weak protest when liberals were planting soft bombs inside the housing and financial industry.

Where were the Republicans? Why didn't they stand up to these crazy policies? They had both the White House and Congress from 2001 to 2006!! Of course, there was the greed factor. Wall Street found 'creative' ways to make great short-term profits from bundling and selling risky loans all over the world, and many Republicans praised it as free markets at their best.

However, we know that one of the reasons why Republicans didn't do anything was because our culture, media, and academia are run by soft terrorist leftists and their liberal fellow travelers. Had Bush and Republicans tried to do something, we know the liberal media and Democrat Party would have raised a great fuss about 'racism'. To liberals, the poor and minorities are ALWAYS victims. When they were denied loans in the past, they were victims of 'racism'. When laws were changed and loans were made easy for the poor and minorities and illegal aliens, they were victims of 'predatory lending'. These people are ALWAYS said to be victims. If cops use tough measures to fight crime in their neighborhoods, they are victims of police brutality. If cops don't use tough measures, they are victims of police neglect. If schools set higher standards for their kids, the kids are victims of 'racist' standards. If schools lower standards, the kids are victims of 'bigotry of low expectations'. Let's face it, compassionate conservatism has been a total disaster. It's been soft-headed conservatism that utterly failed to guard the hen house against the radical fox posing as family dog.

When hard terrorists attacked us on 9/11, did we blame the American way and anoint Osama Bin Laden as our president? Did we blame the structural faults within the Twin Towers and Pentagon building for their collapse or destruction? No, we knew they were structurally fine. What destroyed them were airplanes flown into them by hard terrorists.

Are we so stupid, jaded, and moronic as to really believe that free markets caused the current disaster? No, it was socialist policies that were forcibly 'flown' into the free market system. They were not the sort of bombs that go off right away. They incubated and ticked slowly.

Today, many moronic Americans are about to elect Obama as President when it was HIS side that carried out soft terrorism against what had been our great free market system. It doesn't bother a great many Americans that Obama may have raised as much as $200,000,000 illegally from overseas.

This current mess ought to wake up Traditional Americans. They need to fight and win the culture war, the moral war, and the intellectual war. Because leftists and liberals own/run the media and academia, they've defined America's social and political morality. They've been brainwashing Americans about 'racism'. This is 'racist', that is 'racist', 'racist', 'racist'. Americans are so afraid of that word that any liberal or leftist can say 'racist', and conservatives sweat, pee in their pants, panic, and grovel to prove that "no, no, no, I'm not a racist. I'll do whatever you demand to prove that I'm not a racist." Since the liberals control America's social morality, conservatives have been too afraid to stand up to Fannie to Freddie, Ayers, Air America and Acorn. It's all soft terrorism to undermine the solid values of America.

This was not a natural free-market disaster. It was a man-made forced-market disaster. The question all Americans must all ask is 'who planted the bombs?' And, why didn't Bush stand up to these soft terrorists?

User avatar
aznyron
udonmap.com
Posts: 4997
Joined: November 4, 2006, 8:38 pm
Location: Udon Thani
Contact:

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by aznyron » October 11, 2008, 10:10 am

going all the way back to Carter well if I remember R.R was there for 8 years and GWHB was there for another 4 also remember we also had Nixon Ford for 8 years before Carter 4 years but they are Republicans so they can not be responsible only Democrats steal & lie and give a way money to those ugly poor people and give them food stamps so they can feed there babies what a disgrace we wealthy people have to burden our selfs on these ingrates and leeches on social programs
and all those hard hat workers who climb steel they don't need unions and good pay they smell when they come home from there duties and all they do is drink beer and get drunk and fight they don't need health bennies they can pay for it with there beer money this is how all you capitalism people think about us poor democrats we are nothing more than roaches to you and want to exterminate all of us and reduce us to working for almost nothing

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by WBU ALUM » October 11, 2008, 10:14 am

aznyron wrote:well if I remember R.R was there for 8 years and GWHB was there for another 4 also remember we also had Nixon Ford for 8 years before Carter 4 years but they are Republicans so they can not be responsible only Democrats steal & lie and give a way money to those ugly poor people and give them food stamps so they can feed there babies what a disgrace we wealthy people have to burden our selfs on these ingrates and leeches on social programs
and all those hard hat workers who climb steel they don't need unions and good pay they smell when they come home from there duties and all they do is drink beer and get drunk and fight they don't need health bennies they can pay for it with there beer money this is how all you capitalism people think about us poor democrats we are nothing more than roaches to you and want to exterminate all of us and reduce us to working for almost nothing
You didn't read it all, did you?

User avatar
BobHelm
udonmap.com
Posts: 18405
Joined: September 7, 2005, 11:58 pm
Location: Udon Thani

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by BobHelm » October 11, 2008, 10:36 am

Interesting piece of physiological writing WBU.

It mentions Bush 13 times, yet the Republicans only once. Clear indication that the present incumbent is to blame and not the party. It mentions Obama 8 times, therefore putting the blame now firmly on him and not McCain.

I won't comment on the details of the piece, only to say what conclusion I drew from it.
Democracy in America is obviously a failure. The people can vote for in the candidate they desire into the Presidency, Congress & Senate and this actually has zero impact on what happens in the country, as this is actually controlled by some other means. Makes me wonder two things:
Why does anyone bother to vote?
Why do people get so agitated as to who should be actually elected?

User avatar
aznyron
udonmap.com
Posts: 4997
Joined: November 4, 2006, 8:38 pm
Location: Udon Thani
Contact:

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by aznyron » October 11, 2008, 10:54 am

Bob I agree with you solely I also believe we have a Government behind the government of our elected
Presidents if they don't do what they want BANG BANG like they did to JFK I know my conspiracy theories are coming back so I will shut up adios amigos

User avatar
tamada
udonmap.com
Posts: 4588
Joined: February 21, 2007, 4:03 am
Location: down two... then left

Re: Carter and Bill Clinton caused the credit crunch

Post by tamada » October 13, 2008, 5:13 pm

I like this take on 'how it all began'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27121535/

Funnily enough, those that want to politicise human greed in the UK are pillorying Maggie Thatcher for the current fine mess.

Post Reply

Return to “Money, Finance & Investing”