White House accuses NYTimes of “gross negligence”
The New York Times has published a series of articles under the heading “The Reckoning,” looking into the causes of the economic meltdown.
Sunday’s headline had the White House hopping mad.
“White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire.”
An excerpt:
There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.
But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.
From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.
…his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino issued a white hot statement in response – a rare move from an administration that doesn’t receive much positive press.
Most people can accept that a news story recounting recent events will be reliant on ‘20-20 hindsight’. Today’s front-page New York Times story relies on hindsight with blinders on and one eye closed.
The Times’ ‘reporting’ in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit their point of view.
She goes on,
The story also gives kid glove treatment to Congress. While the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and strengthening oversight and supervision of Fannie and Freddie, Congress for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.
But the White House staff weren’t done there. They also published what they considered The New York Times article’s “three most egregious claims.” From what I can tell, the nation’s largest newspaper hasn’t publicly responded to the White House accusations.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top108 Comments to “White House accuses NYTimes of “gross negligence””
I wish W and the White House had done more of this kind of fighting back. Now, if government would just prosecute some of the people that laid out national secrets for the world, and Al Qaida, to see, there might be some more responsible reporting done.
The NYT has often hurt the nation and shows no repentance, and is losing readership.
Report comment to moderator
I read this article in the paper yesterday and saw so many holes in it, I didn’t bother to finish.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, so the president should be holding our hands the whole way to make sure we don’t slip! Of course, that makes sense in a constitutional republic!
Report comment to moderator
W may very well be a Clueless Clem Kadiddle-hopper, but something tells me Sen Chris Dodd and Barney Frank had a prominent role in this fiasco. To those two statesman I’d also add the entire managemt team of FANNIE/Freddie along with the legion of lobbyists who worked for them.
I think the real Achilles tendon here is twofold. We lack newsmen today with solid reporting ability in the arcane world of Wall Street. And even if we had such, those stories would be buried in the big remaining metro papers. And if they made it onto TV news at all, too many of us would channel surf away to another network. There will never be a 9/11 style comission to investigate who caused the meltdown, but our electorate’s overall lack of basic accounting/finance understanding has surely contributed to our current big magilla
As for me, it seems to be the story of my life: I asked for Louis Ruckyser and wind up with .. Lou Dobbs.
Report comment to moderator
A two-fold tendon, Sawgunner? 8o
Report comment to moderator
For some strange reason the Sunday NYT appears on my doorstep free of charge, so I read the article — most of it since its a dry read. In the end the truth is somewhere in between.
The NYT does allude to other culprits but focuses on the executive for the feature article. And the White House, as it has done, is free to rebut. The second point of the rebuttal is rather amusing as it points out the rather generous campaign contribution Bush has received from the mortgage sector in comparison to the Democratic leadership. Not very convincing. Actually the whole rebuttal is not very convincing. A few quotes here and there are not good enough to absolve the presidency and blame the legislature. There’s enough blame for both.
Report comment to moderator
“I read this article in the paper yesterday and saw so many holes in it, I didn’t bother to finish.”
I saw the headline last night on Drudge and just laughed out loud. I didn’t even have to read the article to know it was ludicrous…
There’s so much blame to go around that you can’t just single out one person for this mess.
Report comment to moderator
I saw the headline last night on Drudge and just laughed out loud. I didn’t even have to read the article to know it was ludicrous…
I haven’t read the article. I don’t know if it is ludicrous.
However, I do consider the earnest efforts I see here by conservative Republican supporters to cast most of all the blame for the current Greater Depression on anybody but themselves as ludicour.
Report comment to moderator
“The story also gives kid glove treatment to Congress. While the Administration was pushing for more transparent lending rules and strengthening oversight and supervision of Fannie and Freddie, Congress for years blocked attempts at stronger regulation and blocked reform of the Federal Housing Administration.
Exactly! No one ever mentions Congress. Barney Frank a lifetime member of the banking oversight committee had a 10 year relationship with a Fannie Mae executive who created the Title One loans that started the economic meltdown. This is a conflict of interest of gigantic proportions. I’d like to see the White House mention that!
Aside from the usual suspects, greedy banks et al, I think part of the blame for the economic meltdown also rests with the NY Times itself. The left leaning press always cries recession in any election year where there is a Republican president. They play it day after day, night after night shaking consumer confidence. Eventually consumers begin to believe it and stop buying. Republicans are always blamed of course.
Report comment to moderator
Another view of the mortgage crisis.
http://reason.com/blog/show/130670.html
Report comment to moderator
“However, I do consider the earnest efforts I see here by conservative Republican supporters to cast most of all the blame for the current Greater Depression on anybody but themselves as ludicour.”
Not sure whether you’re targeting me or not, but I have to say that anyone who has no savings and thousands of dollars of credit card debt, auto loans, house payments, and the like, sure do deserve some of the blame for this.
However, I’m personally out of debt in two more payments. I don’t have enough savings to suit me though.
Perhaps you can blame me for something else, like not understanding the stock market, economic issues, or the Federal deficit. Or perhaps that I haven’t ridden my representatives to do something about the problems.
The truth is that the country is in deep debt, personal, corporate, and national. And there’s no savings to speak of in order to pay it off. Even worse, now there’s no real production to create real wealth in order to pay it off. Production has gone overseas…
Now tell me with a straight face, eye to eye, and man to man, can you really all of that on George W. Bush?
Report comment to moderator
That should have read: “can you really blame all of that on George W. Bush?”
Report comment to moderator
Buckles,
“The NYT has often hurt the nation and shows no repentance, and is losing readership.”
The nice thing is that rag is going downhill so fast, I doubt that even potential terrorists bother to read it anymore
Report comment to moderator
For the last eight years Bush has controlled the entire vast apparatus of the government intended to promote financial stability and trust in those who manage banks, securities firms and others whom we almost have to trust.
He utterly failed. His philosophy of always trusting and enabling the men he grew up with in Greenwich and Houston led to their enrichment and the worst economic crisis in 80 years.
To be sure, there is blame to go around, but the buck stops, in this case literally, with the executive.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
Bush is not the sole responsible for the financial situation this country or globally, that’s pure nonsense.
This situation we face has been brewing for a long time, it didn’t just begin to take shape eight years ago.
Many people in this country have been sliding their plastic through the ledge until they had nothing left of their credit –
The banks and lenders aren’t all to blame – millions of people bought homes they KNEW they couldn’t afford – they gambled and many LOST it, this isn’t the banking institutions fault -
Report comment to moderator
arcadia -
As you are about to find out with Obama, the president can’t pass laws. If he suggests specific reform and a corrupt congress refuses he is not to blame. Indeed, the NYT is as much to blame as he is by not reporting on the blatant corruption that was hidden by congress behind racial politics.
That said, Bush could have used the bully pulpit a lot more on this one. If he really knew how serious it was, why didn’t he make a bigger deal about it? Expose what was happening in Congress. Hold their irresponsible feet to the fire. The complicit press would not have allowed word to get out, this article being a case in point, but he should have tried more.
Leaders communicate vision. There are reasons why he was not followed, reasons beyond partisanship and corruption.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 7,
whiule there is much blame to go around, Bush has been the undisputed leader during this period.
Either he accepts responsiblity for failures which occur on his watch OR he demonstrates quite nnicely the apparent one-way responsiblity mantra which seems to permeate the conservatvie dogma.
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 15,
since Bush has been the clear an dunambiguous senior leader in A,meriocan government during this period, why is he not responsible?
Perhaps you are referring to the additional culpability of the REpu8blicans who controlled congress during six of the last eight years while this problem was germanating.
But perhaps you are going to argue that Obama, who has not yet taken office, is to blame.
The failure of conservatvies to accept responsiblity for their failures would seem to belie their continued mantra of personal responsiblity: responsiblity is important unless it affects their leadership apparenty.
Report comment to moderator
Musing – 18
Eight misspelled words in your post, top that off with nonsense you quip in paragraph three, and you expect an answer?
Some old stuff!
Report comment to moderator
It’s simple, the New York Times is still in aggressive campaign mode. They were during the election, they still are now and they will be until and after the next political election. They are an ongoing organ for the Democrat Party. What else can you expect?
The NYT mission statement reads “All the news [that protects and worships liberal Democrats and excoriates Republicans] that’s [un]fit to print.”
Report comment to moderator
From the article; “…But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making…”
Beginning next month, will “President Obama” be referred to in the NYTimes as “Mr. Obama?” We’ll see.
Report comment to moderator
victorioas post 19,
and so you accept my thesis?
You obviously are either unwilling or unable to refute it!
Report comment to moderator
Skip it Musing -
Report comment to moderator
victoria post 23,
it is always delightful to watch you when you get caught on an argument you know you can’t win!
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Amphipolis. Bush could have used the Bully Pulpit a lot more. He is wrong to not have warned the country more emphatically. Of course, then he would have been accused of using scare tactics. You just can argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel.
Report comment to moderator
“I do consider the earnest efforts I see here by conservative Republican supporters to cast most of all the blame for the current Greater Depression on anybody but themselves as ludicour.”
Back at you.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: What makes that question so dumb is that you keep asking it, prosecutorially, without knowing the answer. For generations, the style of the NYTimes has called for the use of “President” in the first mention and “Mr.” thereafter. Thus, the first paragraph of this story began, “WASHINGTON — The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room . . . ” (Presumably, a female president will get to choose between Mrs., Miss, or Ms.)
The irony of the Republican vision of a small-government “Ownership Society” is that Mr. Bush has plunged the world into a depression economy which will demonstrate the unprecedented and unparalleled capacity of government to fix problems. All eyes will look to Washington and see the advent of government as deus ex machina.
Mr. Obama’s government will make a fortune off the housing crisis. Virtually nobody has the capacity and willingness to incur risk. The government, however, can mobilize all of society’s risk-taking capacity. Investors are mobbing the auctions for government securities, willing essentially to give away their money to the government without interest in exchange for security. As long as Mr. Obama can borrow at a Treasury rate of close to zero it can buy up and refinance the country’s stock of mortgages without paying a dime for them in the long run, at exceedingly low risk.
Mr. Bush has forced the government to nationalize housing finance.
Paul Krugman predicted all this. So did Marx, in a way.
Report comment to moderator
scroop moth post 27,
the key statement is:
“The irony of the Republican vision of a small-government “Ownership Society” is that Mr. Bush has plunged the world into a depression economy which will demonstrate the unprecedented and unparalleled capacity of government to fix problems. All eyes will look to Washington and see the advent of government as deus ex machina.”
with the irony being that it is a Republican president who lead the initial actions.
Small government conservativism would seem to be dead killed by an earnest conservative Republican president.
Report comment to moderator
. . . with the irony being that it is a Republican president who lead the initial actions.
Exactly, Musing. You can imagine that H.W. and Jeb told W. they would arrange for him not to return from his next bike ride if he made the name Bush synonymous with Hoover. Remember, the Bush family has a background in banking. Although W. talks like the Odessa Kiwanis Club, his papa H.W. and Jeb, too, most likely, talk to him like Prescott Bush.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, is that the Grand Teton?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth post 30,
it most certainly is. It is one of my favorite mountains.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
What makes your reply at #27 so uninformed is that I already knew the official policy for using titles for the President of the USA in much of the media. But in my reading and listening experience, Democrat leaders at the NY Times, NPR and elsewhere have not always consistently followed that official policy so well. Official policies aside, they tend to refrain from using honorable titles for those on the right and they tend to used them generously for those on the left.
I don’t know how they will approach this with President Obama in office and so I asked my question at #21. It’s just a small thing to note as time goes by. If they are consistent in the titles they use for Bush and Obama, then that would be a small improvement. And I would welcome it. I do NOT want to see President Obama disrespected to a fraction of the degree to which President Bush was grossly and unfairly disrespected by the Democrat Journalistic left.
And it was mostly the Democrat-led congress who “plunged the world into a depression economy.” They took control in 2006 and a fine and healthy economy soon went south, led by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Report comment to moderator
Joel mark post 32,
hmm, so securitized mortgage securities and defalt swaps only started in 2007 after the election of the Democratic congress!
And of course the Democratic congress took control of the Federal Executive, I assume with Cheney’s encouragement and blessing?
Tell me about the SEC and Madoff?
Good try Joel, but there is literally no factual support for your suggestion here!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 32,
and it was the Republican Study committe which delayed the bailout plan and caused the DOW to drop below 10,000. Barney Frank by contrast was one of the key leadership roles which helped stabilize the situation by getting the bailout bill passed 4 days latter (amazingly with measureable Republican support and a Republican administration generated proposal!
).
Report comment to moderator
An interesting, if partisan, article germane to the ongoing discussion:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/myths_and_facts_about_the_real.html
Some excerpts:
“This reflected six consecutive years of economic growth from the Fourth Quarter of 2001 until the Fourth Quarter of 2007. From 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than 17 percent, a remarkable gain of nearly 2.1 trillion dollars. This growth was driven in part by increased labor productivity gains that have averaged 2.5 percent annually since 2001, a rate that exceeds the averages of the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s.”
“In April 2001, three months after taking office, the President warned in his first budget that the size of the two GSEs were a “potential problem” that “could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.” In 2003, the Administration began calling for a new GSE regulator, and over the next five years, the Administration continued to call for GSE reform only to be accused by Democrats in Congress of creating artificial fears and advocating for ill-advised proposals.”
Although George Bush has had the support of conservatives, he has never been a small government conservative in his policies. Although he was president, he never held dictatorial powers and despite some Republican congressional support, the reality is that there are people in congress wielding power over budgets and committees that can be very obstructionist. The “They’re still sound, let’s roll the dice some more,” on Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, Barney Frank for example.
Report comment to moderator
Before we get all bent out at the NYT, this article was one of a series on the crisis. In that light attempts to make it all-inclusive will stumble.
The desire to promote home ownership certainly facilitated the expansion of the housing bubble, if for not other reason than it let regulators take a more lax stance.
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone noticed that the financial crisis didn’t occur until McCain nominated Sarah Palin for VP?
Also, there is proof going around that she off’d Rudalph. How is she going to lie her way out of that?
Report comment to moderator
Chas post 37,
the economic ciris was becoming clear in the spring of 2008 with the actions regarding Bear Sterns. I think this precedes Palin as being seriously considered for Vice President.
Report comment to moderator
Ken post 35,
generally a reasonable discussion, although note that the Republicans controlled congress until 2007 so the 2003 actions and onward were presumably scuttled by Republicans.
Also, while the economy was growing, employment growth was very anemic.
More critically, however, the mortgage backed securities and the debt swap obligations grew dramatically through the 2000s and this leads to the collapes in 2008. I suggest that the ground work for the collapse was in place before 2007. Indeed it was arguably the increase in interest rates by the FED which caused what was initially a slow motion collapse.
Report comment to moderator
Harris post 36,
indeed expansion of husing ownership and resulting increase in housing costs was one of the key drivers for continued economic growth during the 2000s. Indeed there was little real economic activity to drive this expansion and it was predominantly fueled by low interest money and government policy (by Republicans I might add) to increase home ownership as widely as possible.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: The New York Times official style is to use standard courtesy titles for everyone except on first reference. You would be “Joel Mark” the first time you were mentioned and “Mr. Mark” every other time in that article.
Presidents get called “President” on first reference and “Mr.” thereafter. They’ve done it with every president up until now and there’s no reason to think they’re going to change.
Scroop Moth is right. The question is dumb.
Report comment to moderator
Ken is right on the money in #35.
Musing keeps repeating his tired old refrain, “note that the Republicans controlled congress until 2007 so the 2003 actions and onward were presumably scuttled by Republicans.”
Presumably? Presumably? Please reread #35 again.
Republicans aren’t blameless, but Fannie Mae was essentially an arm of the Democratic party. A Democratic congressman (you know who) spent his career on the banking commission and years fighting for unsecured loans. Instead of performing his banking oversight job, he figured out a way to create the Title One loans at Fannie Mae through a seedy back door affair (so to speak) and caused the worst financial crisis since the great depression. But its no big deal since he was a Democrat and Democrats never do anything wrong. That’s probably also why the NY Times didn’t mention it.
In other news, this same wretched scoundrel just blasted Obama for choosing Rick Warren. We are definitely slouching toward Gomorrah.
Report comment to moderator
Official policies aside, they tend to refrain from using honorable titles for those on the right and they tend to used them generously for those on the left.
That’s bull. You have no statistics for such a tendency whatsoever. You don’t even have a single documented case. Your general point is as spurious as your complaint about this specific instance.
You’ve made this paranoid point more than once. We’ve told you about it, so you’re the one who’s got to improve his reporting, not the NYTimes.
Report comment to moderator
Llama, come back!! We need you and I miss you.
Report comment to moderator
#43: It IS bull, because newspapers develop style guides specifically to prevent such things. The style is applied uniformly so that individual reporters and editors don’t have the freedom to exhibit the kind of favortism Joel Mark alleges. If they call George Bush “President Bush” the first time he’s mentioned and “Mr. Bush” every time thereafter, they will call Barack Obama “President Obama” the first time he’s mentioned and “Mr. Obama” every time thereafter.
Here is a story from today that demonstrates this.
(The NYT scrupulously adheres to this policy, even though it results in occasional absurdities such as referring to singer Meat Loaf as “Mr. Loaf” several times in a story.)
I challenge Joel Mark to find ONE case that supports his wild claim, let alone any kind of a pattern.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 42,
was Fannie Mae effectviely a semi-government agency? If it was, it was effectviely controlled by the government which until 2007 was totally controlled by the Republicans and until 2009 the presidency was controlled by the Republicans.
If it was not a semi-goveernment agency not effectviely controlled by the government, then it was only controlled byu Federal regulations.
Go back to paragraph 1.
Chronologies are so pesky.
And the Republkican clealry own the responsiblity for the problem.
What is amusing is that for conservatives respoinsiblity (comments on sub-prime mortgages, why we should not bail out Detroit) is apparently critical unless it places blame on them.
Report comment to moderator
Republicans have controlled the regulatory environment since about 2001. A look at the Madoff situation, where Madoff registered in a process which I understood should have triggered a detailed SEC review in 2005, shows just how thorough the Republican dominated regulatory system operated.
But hey it was only $50B, how was anyone to know (wait this could have financed the Detroit bifeline about 3X over).
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps it is a bit naive, but doesn’t seem that given that Bush brought us this economics faisco, that he might just say once that he was sorry he screwed up?
Nah, it will never happen!
Report comment to moderator
Here is the article the NY Times should have written.
It shows quite clearly who was responsible. Sure Republicans were in charge for a time and share the blame, but that is quite different than active sabotage of the economic system through extortion and sleaze.
What is even more astounding is that we have put the saboteur in charge of the recovery. For that Republicans are without excuse.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 49,
so you mean incompetence of the peole in charge is a defense?
Republicans brought us the ecopnomic crisis.
Republicans established the basic bailout process to deal with the crisis.
The electorate appears to have concluded that perhaps one should not expect the people who brought you the problem to be able to effectively address the problem.
Report comment to moderator
Wanting people to have homes is not a crime on the part of GWB. The president is not responsible for ANY statute that REQUIRED banks and mortgage companies to lend. The NYT needs a scapegoat, and like all liberals, have used GWB yet again. This is brought to Americans by liberals who can’t elect a candidate who can make it to his inauguration without a scandal. Now there’s a first.
Report comment to moderator
Musing.
Would you please use the preview funtion? You’re clearly not an uneducated person. But your rampant mispellings and typos are a distraction from what you are saying. I find myself skipping over your posts because it takes too long to decipher them. Your points are copious and pedantic, and many times obfuscating, but you don’t have to make it even more difficult by careless typing.
Report comment to moderator
However, I do consider the earnest efforts I see here by conservative Republican supporters to cast most of all the blame for the current Greater Depression on anybody but themselves as ludicour.”
Oh. You mean the liberal Democrats on this blog are not alone in this?
For example:
Any liberal post on this thread. There were so many, I just didn’t have time to excerpt them all.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 512,
wanting people to have a home is not a crime.
Not properly regulating the mortgage industry and the ancillary securities so that it melts down the worlds economy is incompetent.
Report comment to moderator
#45 Steve G: I think the “Mr. Loaf” story is an urban legend. Here’s a story from the Times where “Mr. Loaf” is used jokingly in the headline http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE6DB103CF934A25754C0A967958260 and a discussion on Snopes where the NYT style manual is quoted allowing Meat Loaf and Little Richard to remain without the honorific: http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=80;t=000739;p=0 .
Not absolutely definitive, but good enough for me. And it’s not quite as sad as Santa going away, but it is a great legend!
Report comment to moderator
“Mr. Obama’s government will make a fortune off the housing crisis.”
HAHAHAHA…you do realize that you have to have a housing market to make a fortune off of it right? Where is the housing market??
It wont be back in 4 years.
No amount of lending banks money will bring it back.
No amount of lowering the federal interest rate will bring it back either.
This crash has taken 30 years to build. America as a whole has depended on credit and debt. The problem was compounded ten fold, when we accelerated the demand into the housing market. Handing out 500k loans left and right. When your demand crashes, there is no more money to support the debt.
There is no other market like the housing market. America abused it and is now paying the price.
Repulicans, Dems, the Bush Administration, Greenspan, the borrower, the lender are all responsible equally. Nobody was preaching that the sky is falling when its sunny outside.
By the way, I do find it funny that you liberals cant seem to grasp that no conservative here is pleased with Bush’s response to this. Why would the NYT bother to criticize Bush when he’s done nothing but act like a Democrat on the economy!! Welcome to 4 more years of that!
“The electorate appears to have concluded that perhaps one should not expect the people who brought you the problem to be able to effectively address the problem.”
Sounds more like the electorate chose someone who would follow Bush’s footsteps haha. And yes, McCain would have done the same thing, I’m not saying he would be a better alternative.
Frankly, no one in political leadership has a clue how to resolve this. I think thats a good thing. ALl their trying to save is their own pocketbooks anyway, not the American people’s in which they represent.
Report comment to moderator
NJ Lawyer: The president is not responsible for ANY statute that REQUIRED banks and mortgage companies to lend.
There is no such statute. I have no hope of killing this particular myth, but it is a myth.
There are laws that require lenders to apply the same standards to everyone who applies for a loan. You can’t grant a loan to Mr. Jones and deny one to Mr. Smith because Mr. Smith lives in a less affluent neighborhood, AS LONG AS everything else is equal. If Mr. Jones, however, has a stellar credit record and Mr. Jones has several defaults and a history of late payments, you can turn down Mr. Jones on that basis.
There is no law that says “you have to lend to Mr. Jones even though you know there’s a very good chance you’ll never see the money again.”
Report comment to moderator
SteveAubrey: Aw. I wanted the “Mr. Loaf” story to be true. But good to know.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn nails it. He’s not trying to pin the blame solely on one party or one person, unlike the clueless liberals. There’s plenty of blame to go around without repeating the liberal “It’s all Bush’s fault” mantra fifty million times…
Stop being so darn tiresome.
Report comment to moderator
“Indeed it was arguably the increase in interest rates by the FED which caused what was initially a slow motion collapse.”
Never heard that mentioned before. However, why isnt it saving the market now if thats one of the main cruxes?
The demand is gone, plain and simple, and banks arent lending to morons who cant afford a loan in the first place anymore.
Faulting the Bush Administration has some merit. However it doesnt excuse thsoe who abused the “lack of regulations”
For an analogy: My gas station doesnt have security cameras. Some theif abuses that and steals from my gas station. Yes, I’m partially to blame because I could at least have caught him sooner and possibly prevented the incident. However, it doesnt excuse the theif either way. He is still responsible for the theft.
To say this is Bush’s fault for lack of regulation is not the whole picture, nor is it fair. Yes, he coulda done better, and his bailout policies reek of grossness, but your full out blame is just as gross.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn post 60,
We of course have showon with Madoff most clearly but with other examples that there were thieves out there and they were not regulated and they should have been.
The administration is presumably proferssionals. If so they are incompetent professionals.
The people who took out sub-prime mortgages were in general amateurs.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn post 56,
and why is there no housing market?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn post 56,
and of course it does appear that the electorate repudiated the Republicans apparently in part because they concluded that the Republicans had caused the problems and were unlikely to fix it.
McCain’s behaviors during the bailout negotiations did much toe confirm this sense.
The Republicans broke it (in eight years I suggest, not 30: but do look at who the presidents were for the 28 years going back!
).
If Obama makes even modest improvements, he will have done better than Bush and his administration.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn post 56,
and I assume you really hated the growing economy, the new businesses, the increased employment, and the decreasing federal deficit of the Clinton administration.
We can compare this with the shrinking employment, the collapsing economy, the shrinking industries, and the balooning deficits of the Bush administration.
Enjoy your revisionism!
But the public ain’t buyin’ it!
Report comment to moderator
And if there is no law, there is no logical reason to blame George Bush for the mortgage crisis. None whatsoever. Thank God in a few weeks Bush Derangement Syndrome will be old hat. No man deserves a vacation more than GWB.
Report comment to moderator
This problem was caused by greed, and greed knows no particular political party.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 65,
well that would be the case except:
1) there was law for certain of the issues: c.f. Madoff
2) the Bush administration did not push for th necessary laws
- yup failing to pass necessary regulation does indeed count as in competence
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 66,
of course greed knows no party.
HOwever the regulations and the enforcement of those regulations is the responsiblity of the party in power.
And the chronology is clear here (it sure hurts having all the power and then screwing it up!).
Good try though, next futile attempt at ducking the responsiblity of the Bush administration and the Republicans?
Report comment to moderator
NJL
It’s good to see you back, I missed you
Report comment to moderator
“The administration is presumably proferssionals. If so they are incompetent professionals.”
Politicians are overwhelmingly actors and actresses. My cousin is actually studying drama and theater at Michigan to be a POLITICIAN….
They are professionals at misleading you and doing the wrong thing. But its not limited to the Bush administration. Dont be so naive
“and of course it does appear that the electorate repudiated the Republicans apparently in part because they concluded that the Republicans had caused the problems and were unlikely to fix it.”
We’ve also concluded that what doesnt click with them yet, is that Bush was acting like a Democrat
In simple terms youve continued to repeat that this is all Bush’s fault because he acted like a liberal.
“and I assume you really hated the growing economy, the new businesses, the increased employment, and the decreasing federal deficit of the Clinton administration.”
Not at all, but how much of that was really Clinton’s doing and how much of his policies have affected the Bush administration? If your completely seperating administrations, then in 4 years Obama is fully responsible for whatever the current economy will be at that time. No excuses, no if and or buts according to how you wish to look at things.
The foundations for this were laid long before Bush, and they will have implications far into the future. Especially if we keep acting like liberals
So why you think the Dems are here to save us is beyond me.
“and why is there no housing market?”
See above posts, did you read anything I said? No demand, no more lending to those who cant afford. Over surplus of houses and not enough people to go around. That will take a much longer time to rebalance, than tech stocks.
Funneling money back into a dead market when there is no demand will not bring us out of the recession. Regardless of whose fault this is, the number 1 thing we should have learned is:
DONT MANIUPLATE THE MARKET FOR POLITICAL GAIN
Yet, politicians still are trying too.
“We can compare this with the shrinking employment, the collapsing economy, the shrinking industries, and the balooning deficits of the Bush administration.”
Bush started at what, 8000 or so in the Dow 8 years ago? Gas prices about 1.50? Where were we in 2006? 14k in the dow almost?
What was all that “growth” from? Were back to wear we started from basically. The housing bubble burst under his administration, but he was not the one who laid the foundation. It would have burst under anyone else as well.
It needed to burst, it was all greed and debt.
“If Obama makes even modest improvements, he will have done better than Bush and his administration”
The modest improvements wont be more than the actual reality of a steadily growing economy. Not a bubble. Thats what an economy does when its not built on greed and debt. Now if Mr. Obama returns to the last few decades and attempts to rebuild this on greed and debt, then be vary wary of another bubble. But its more likely he’d drown us to a real Great Depression.
“there was law for certain of the issues: c.f. Madoff”
So lack of regulation cant be blamed here. You expect criminals to stand outside and wave a flag at what they are doing? You expect them to phone ahead just because you have a sign (law) asking for them too? HAHA…naive.
really Musing, we found out, its still the Bush Administration, would it be Obama’s fault if Madoff got away with it another 3 years? Nah, youd be championing him for having an internal team review it internally.
Report comment to moderator
“HOwever the regulations and the enforcement of those regulations is the responsiblity of the party in power.”
Its the responsiblity of everybody…you cant just wash your hands because your Pilate.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, you are not a “proferssional” [sic] speller.
In fact though you have many tools at your disposal, you continue to mangle the king’s english.
Get Firefox or Word; USE a spell check. Or just use your preview.
Otherwise, GWB isn’t the only incompetent.
Report comment to moderator
“We’ve also concluded that what doesnt click with them yet, is that Bush was acting like a Democrat In simple terms youve continued to repeat that this is all Bush’s fault because he acted like a liberal.”
And THAT is ironic- and hilarious. They call him a failure, and incompetent, because he acted like a liberal.
Does this mean that you all finally admit that liberal fiscal policy is a failure?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn post 90,
so let me get this straight.
Bush is nominated by Republicans and elected by a conservatvie Re[publican coalitiuon (two times I might add).
He has a Reublican moajority in congress
As seen many times in this blog, he gets near kneee jerk support form conservatives for the majority of his administration (there was the Harriet Meiers incident).
And after all of this conservative and Republican nailing their flag to Bush’s mast, it turns out that he is secretly a Democrat?
Are you seriously suggesting that Rep[ublicans and consevratives in this country are that gullible?
Next you will tell make that conservatives did not support McCain buy were secretly voting for Obama.
The problem is of course that the Bush administration, strongly supported by most Republicans and conservatives, has clealry established the conservative and Republican brand.
Good luck now trying to explain after all of your support of Bush that he wasn’t really either a Republican or conservative.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn post 90,
now when you say:
“Not at all, but how much of that was really Clinton’s doing and how much of his policies have affected the Bush administration? ”
IU do have to laufgh. Admittedly the Clinton ecponomic propserity was built upon the internet bubble. HOwever, Google, Yahoo, eBay, and this blog remain to show some substance from the boom.
Lehman Brothers is out of business, and AIG is a near wholly owned subsidiatry of the Federal government. this is what the buish economy will have to sjhow for itself.
I don’t think many will believe that the Clinton internet econhomy and the Bush housing based economy are the same thing.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn post 90,
now when you say:
“Bush started at what, 8000 or so in the Dow 8 years ago? Gas prices about 1.50? Where were we in 2006? 14k in the dow almost? ”
I ask where are we today? You can see the staying power of Bush’s influence. If we factor in inflation we are behind.
Oh, and you haven’t mentioned:
- the millions of jhobs lost on Bush’s watch
- the number and size of the financial scandals on Bush’s watch
- the near collapse of Americna manufacturing on Bush’s watch
And I could continue. Bush is a consumate politician and his economy was indeed all appearances and no substance, consistent I believe with your comments on politicians in general.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn posy 70,
now you and I agree here:
“The modest improvements wont be more than the actual reality of a steadily growing economy. Not a bubble.”
noting that since prices are at thius point depressed we will have the opportunity for small rebound.
And this behavior will be so unlike the Bush economy which in the end ended up effectviely behind where the economy was when Bush started.
If Bush was a Democrat does that mean Obhama is a Republican?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn post 70,
actually your comment:
““there was law for certain of the issues: c.f. Madoff”
So lack of regulation cant be blamed here.”
would seem misleading. What we have is an administration which seemed to hate regulation. They tried to have as little enacted as possible and failed to effectively enforce the little regulation they had. The problem with mortgage backed securities and debt default swaps appears to have been almost entirely due to the lack of regulation.
Report comment to moderator
Dunno how many times we’ve pointed out that we don’t agree with Bush’s fiscal policy, and wished that he’d used his veto pen quite a few more times than he did.
But, y’know, what we say here usually falls on the deaf ears of strawmen builders…
Report comment to moderator
Thorn posyt 70,
when you comment on the housing market with:
““and why is there no housing market?”
See above posts, did you read anything I said? No demand, no more lending to those who cant afford”
you say what has happened, and I agree, but you have not said why.
There are as many or more people needing housing as today as there were a year ago, so base demand has not dropped.
And why are the mortgage defaults coming now and not say a year ago?
You are providing excellent description of the symptoms, but no explanation of the etiology of the disease.
I suggest that we had a kaleidscope of actions which came together to cause the challenge.
First as ree as noted, owning houses is in essence good (a lovely discussion in and of itself) and is certainly not bad. People have to live somewhere and if the markets are stable renting and owning should be of approximately equal cash flow cost.
And the number of people needing houses hasn’t changed.
What has changed is that short term interest rates went up.
Why the impact here? Because the financial institutions were borrowing short term money at cheap rates and using it to finance long term debt in the form of mortgages at higher rates. This was nicely discussed in the Princeton lecture I posted in WMB some time ago.
Now what happens if short term interest rates rise? I suggest that the financial institutions will be in a squeeze: they can’t raise the interest rates on their long term mortgages (unless the are adjustable rate mortgages) but the money they have used to finance these mortgages is now more expensive.
So the FED rate rise perhaps a year ago begins to put the pinch on financial institutions.
But there is a second effect: if the financial institutions are to grow their business they must continue offerring mortgages. And further these mortgages need to on paper at least be more profitable: I think I see sub-prime mortgages making their entrance and it seems to be correlated modestly well with the rise in short term interest rates.
Hmm, but there is no risk in risky mortgages because the home owner can always flip the house for a profit, unless of course the cost for mortgages is going up so there are fewer buyers.
Opps, I do see now a potential for a cascading problem driven nearly only by short term interest rate increases as the triggering action.
And it would seem that the timing is about right.
I suggest the model has enough initial support to consider it a reasonably supported hypothesis.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 73,
actually as thorn has nicely described, Obama’s policies (and remember he is the most liberal person in the senate) have the potential of being reasonably successful, while Bush’s policies have easily been shown to fail.
I sense perhaps certain people seem to be confused on what is liberal and what is conservative. It does seem that moving forward Obama will not be following Bush’s economic policies.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 79,
you don’t agree with Bush’s economic policies now.
But what about for the last eight years?
Oh wait, I am sure you were castigating Bush as the worst president we have had in decades and I am sure you can find the references for these in your posts.
I am sensing 20-20 hindsight political support.
Report comment to moderator
I am seeing an excellent opportunity here.
Lets all have a self criticism session (well all conservatives perhaps, this is a non-liberal ting to do, but the conservatives seem to be enjoying it).
Every conservative can explain how they disagreed with Bush and provide evidence of what they disagreed with and when they disagreed!
For completeness we can have each conservative explain as well where they were in error in not diagreeing with Bush.
And when we are done we can show conclusively that conservatives never supported Bush, and when they did it was only because he totally mislead them!
Report comment to moderator
“There are as many or more people needing housing as today as there were a year ago, so base demand has not dropped.”
Hold on there…we dont “need” to own a home. Renting is fine if you cant afford a home. We also dont “need” homes bigger than we can afford.
The demand has dropped for OWNING a new house, and lenders have returned to more conservative lending practices. Therefore, the money is not flowing in like it was, and the monster that was the housing market has toppled.
“You are providing excellent description of the symptoms, but no explanation of the etiology of the disease.”
The difference in renting and owning..is a 100 grand or more loan. The difference in failure is not only yourself, but the lender is out 100 grand or more.
“So the FED rate rise perhaps a year ago begins to put the pinch on financial institutions”
Wasnt the fed dropping the rate a year or more ago? I mean we did have a negative quarter last year. I cant remember it being raised since the “housing crisis” began.
“Admittedly the Clinton ecponomic propserity was built upon the internet bubble. HOwever, Google, Yahoo, eBay, and this blog remain to show some substance from the boom
I don’t think many will believe that the Clinton internet econhomy and the Bush housing based economy are the same thing.”
I’m not equating them. But who flipped the switch? You had a recession at the tech burst, so whered they drive the demand, into the mortage, housing, lending, etc dept. which is a far greater monstrosity than the techs. So all that foundation of short term, debt swaps, arm’s, etc became the prominent investments in a vast sea. That foundation has been laid over the decades and now it got abused. It was abused on the techs as well, its just a smaller less influential market in comparison with housing. There will be plenty of investment groups and banks that will survive this mess too.
“The problem is of course that the Bush administration, strongly supported by most Republicans and conservatives, has clealry established the conservative and Republican brand.
Good luck now trying to explain after all of your support of Bush that he wasn’t really either a Republican or conservative.”
What I voted for 4 years ago wasnt a fiscal democrat. Your own words claim thats how he’s acted over the last couple of years. I’m just saying, very few conservatives agree with Bush’s economic policies and bailout at this time. He’s acted like a Democrat lately.
“the number and size of the financial scandals on Bush’s watch”
How many were going on during the Clinton admin that we dont know about? Is Obama really that blind to chicago politics?
“If Bush was a Democrat does that mean Obhama is a Republican?”
I doubt it. Obama will continue this same trend of bailouts and whatever the Dems hand feedhim without much objection.
“The problem with mortgage backed securities and debt default swaps appears to have been almost entirely due to the lack of regulation.”
No the problem is the theif, the abuser. Greenspan once thought the debt swaps were great….except he later admitted not realizing that people would ABUSE them.
People will always attempt to maniuplate the market for their greed. I’m not saying we cant have more “regulation” or they shouldnt have done a better job, but that NEVER excuses the criminal from abusing the system. Which you sound like your repeatedly doing.
Report comment to moderator
thorn post 84,
as I noted, in a stable environment renting and owning should be approximately cash flow neutral.
And if I rent, someone must own it. So all you seem to be arguing is who should own it. I find it peculiar that you argue that it should not for example be me.
So yes, base housing demand remains approximately from about one year ago.
There is an interesting argument here, but I don’t believe you have raised it yet.
Report comment to moderator
thorn post 84,
and when you make this statement:
“The demand has dropped for OWNING a new house, and lenders have returned to more conservative lending practices. Therefore, the money is not flowing in like it was, and the monster that was the housing market has toppled. ”
You actually demonstrate that the demand is still there, they just can’t get money, which of course has been my point.
The correction approach would seem to be to get new money into the housing market and things will start improving.
Report comment to moderator
thorn post 84,
but again when you say:
““You are providing excellent description of the symptoms, but no explanation of the etiology of the disease.”
The difference in renting and owning..is a 100 grand or more loan. The difference in failure is not only yourself, but the lender is out 100 grand or more. ”
you are neglecting the fact that someone must own the housing and they hold the mortgage due amount. No basic change other than who owns the mortgage.
Report comment to moderator
tjhorn post 84,
actually I have never claimed that:
“What I voted for 4 years ago wasnt a fiscal democrat. Your own words claim thats how he’s acted over the last couple of years”
I don’t consider Bush a democrat you do. I have pointed out that Obama’s policies would seem to be very different than Bush’s hence if you insist that Bush has been acting like a Democrat, I wonder what it means to act like a Republican.
It is worth noting that you cloaim voted for Bush 4 yrears ago: are you so gullible then that he was able to con you?
Report comment to moderator
thorn post 84,
when you comment on bmyu observation:
““the number and size of the financial scandals on Bush’s watch”
How many were going on during the Clinton admin that we dont know about? Is Obama really that blind to chicago politics?”
I merely note that Clinton was one of the most investigated president in history. It does not seem that there were any $50B scams under his adminstration, for example.
If yo0u are going to insist that Obama is also crooked, I will ask you to provide your evidenjce and note that it has been clearly demonstrated by Fitzgerald’s material and the Obama contact re[port that the Obam,a campaign is ot involved in the present Blago scandal. Do you have nay other evidence? If you do not, then this would seem to be hyperventilation on your part. A paper bag may help here.
Report comment to moderator
thorn post 84,
so a table of the historical prime rate can be found at:
http://www.moneycafe.com/library/primerate.htm#chart
The minimumn rate of 4% occurred in about 2004 and then started slowly rising with a jump to the approxcimate peak of 8.25% in July 2006 or so. I thas held there until mid-2007 or so when it started dropping again. It is of course now at record lows below that of the low in 2004.
I suggest this maps reasonably well to the crisis assuming you accept that there is a delay between interest rates and the impact on the financial institutions.
What is most interesitng is to watch the rate in 2001 as Bush comes into office.
Now compare this to the rate under the last years of the Clinton administration.
It would seem that the economy is behaving very differently under the Clinton administration than the Bush administration.
Report comment to moderator
“Oh wait, I am sure you were castigating Bush as the worst president we have had in decades and I am sure you can find the references for these in your posts.
Because I have repeatedly stated here on this blog that I do not support Bush in his fiscal policy does not mean the same thing as “castigating Bush as the worst president we have had in decades”. But yes, you can go back and find those references in my post. Be my guest, but as you always say, I’m not gonna do your work for you.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 91,
ah but you areopening yourself yup here.
What is fundamental to our national security?
No, based on the material I have seen from you so far you are ajohnny come lately to Bush bashing and it really doesn’t seem credible that you have become a new convert.
But I am willin got let you give it a try: what is your decomposition of the Bush economic failures since he entered office?
Report comment to moderator
I am not, I repeat, I am not, Bush bashing. And you can naysay by calling me “ajohnny come lately” [sic] all you want, but it still doesn’t change the fact that I’ve always said for at least the last four years that I really dislike Bush’s fiscal policies. All his reaching across the aisle got him was a kick in the teeth anyway. The No Child Left Behind act spent more money than ever before on “The Chilren” and education, and was cosponsored by Grandfather Liberal himself. And that’s what I meant by Bush acting like a liberal. I opposed it then, and I opposed it now.
Take your JohnnyComeLately rhetoric and shove it.
Report comment to moderator
That’s the problem with conservatives acting like liberals. They don’t do it right.
Report comment to moderator
MIM post 93,
pardon my skepticism here, but I have not seen anyh fundamental critique of Bush’s fiscal policy from you and I am finding it hard to believe that this concern predates the bailout.
Can you exapnd?
Do you have references (yes I know the search option in the new WMB is weak and can sympathsize)?
Report comment to moderator
Republicans were to blame for lack of oversight and as Musing points out, for being at the helm. The captain must take responsibility for the whole ship.
But what is a genetic impossibility for Musing to admit is that there was active sabotage from the Democratic party. Of course one can blame the captain of a sinking ship, but how ignorant can the NY Times be to completely ignore the saboteur and the gaping hole in the hull that Democrats caused? Musing and the NY Times are not ignorant. They are deliberately obscuring the facts and rewriting history to their own liking.
This article clearly identifies the stalling and strong arm tactics used by Democrats to purposely damage America in order to win the White House. Bush’s repeated calls year after year for more regulation of Fannie Mae were scoffed at by the same people who are now accusing Bush of not calling for regulation.
Well, you’ve got to hand it to the Dem(olition) party. It worked! And with a favorable press they have also succeeded in shifting blame to everyone else. Congratulations are in order.
“The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and “redlining” because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.”
“The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to “meet the credit needs” of “low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods.”
And one member of Congress went further than any one to circumvent the system and to create the NINJA loans for people with No Income, No Job and No Assets. It has got to be illegal for the banking oversight committee to sleep with the banks. Is there a lawyer in the house?
Report comment to moderator
xion post 96,
I will agree with the following statement with modification:
“there was active sabotage from the Democratic party.”
noting that it was active sabotage by both parties.
And as you note, it was Republicna who own the problem: they were in a position for 6 years to effectively pass any regulations they would like.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 96,
now your comment here:
“Democrats to purposely damage America in order to win the White House.”
does not stand scrutiny when we consider the damage that the Republican study committee inflicted on the U.s..
It is Democrats who have increasingly had to provide leadership to address the economic crisis: Bush and Paulson appear to have retired in place.
Report comment to moderator
xion posy 96,
and of coiurse this false canard by conservatvioes:
““The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and “redlining” because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.””
is easily refuted by noting that the crisis, as xion notes, occurred on Bush’ watch, not on say Clinton’s.
It is a great line, but forcing banks to not discriminate does not itself lower loan standards and as usual, the chronology does not work.
Report comment to moderator
“The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and “redlining” because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.”
This has been thoroughly refuted numerous times, but of course it will not die.
The laws have never required lenders to lower their standards. They have only required them to apply to same standards to everyone.
Report comment to moderator
Threatening banks to give out Ninja loans or be slapped with discrimination lawsuits is extortion, not fairness.
Report comment to moderator
xion post,
allowing banks to redline is blantant toleracne of discriminatory behavior.
But of course you still have not addressed the 2 decade delay.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Please hold your breath while I go search for my past posts where I decry Bush’s fiscal policy….
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
I seldom hold my breath waiting for you to provide documentary evidence for any of your assertions.
I will be happy to apologize, however, when you clearly show that you have been consistently against Bush’ fiscal policies over an extended period of time (lets be fair and say perhaps four years), not that you have been against his fiscal policies since he began bailing out various companies.
Report comment to moderator
I really think you’re irritating, not to mention rude, to say I’m lying about it. Still, I don’t have to prove it to you, and I’m not going to waste my time on a futile WMB search. As you say the search engine is worthless. I know I didn’t approve of the spending like a drunken sailor, and don’t give a hoot if you think I’m just now squawking about it. He failed to use his veto pen at all in the first four years, and only sparingly used it in his final four. His very first move right out of the box was the NCLB fiasco, and I wasn’t for that as I said in the first post about it. Very little has improved over the span of time between now and then… The bailout highlighted and exacerbated an ongoing problem.
As for the Iraq war, I have very mixed emotions about that one… A very deserving despot was removed, but replaced with what? A tenuous democracy has emerged that is beset withing and without by warring factions, and the future looks rather dim. And we’ve spent, and continued to spend, a ton of money on that. Transplanting Democracy rarely works…
Report comment to moderator
MIM post,
but I think you make assertions with our factual or logicval support.
We are seeing this develop right now.
The spending bike a drunken sailor was led by majority Rebpulcian congressmen many of wom call themsevles conservatives. As far as I can Bush did little to try to rein theem in.
Your statments on Iraq, however seem honest and well thought out. I am suspicious, howeverr, that if we had had this conversation say two years ago what your resppnse would have been, but I do agree that you analysis of the situation now is reasonable.
But we are back to the question of whether you disapproved of Bush’ policies say 4 years ago.
Report comment to moderator
MIM,
right now nearly every conservatvie hasd disavowed Bush, for a variety of reasongs, not the least of which was Bush led the Republican party and the conservatvies into an electoral debacle of first magnitude.
So I suggest that mose of these are “death bed” conversions.
I take little stock in the sincerety of such conversions!
Report comment to moderator
You can certainly be curious about my position on the Iraq war, and I’m not sure I could have told you what I thought about it two years ago. I’m still in a rather tenuous state of mind about it. The really aggravating thing is that many of the Christians who lived there have been driven from their homes and businesses…. So much for freedom of religion.
As for the financial issue, I’m as aggravated with the Republican led congress, as I am with George Bush. There was absolutely no reason to go hog wild on the budget and pass every pork barrel project from Miami to Kenai…
I think at this point (after this experience) that it’s possibly a good idea to do our utmost to keep any one political party from having total control of the government. The Republicans had a very good chance to overturn or implement quite a few things, (term limits and line item veto come to mind) but did nothing of the sort. Instead it seemed to be business as usual. Of course I don’t recant from my other position that there’s enough blame to go around. I don’t hold the Democrats innocent of wrongdoing and incompetence either. I have very little trust in our “representatives” at this point….
I really did begin to be disgusted with the financial practices of our Congress and president George Bush after that first four years.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!