I'm not sure what you're looking for here. But perhaps if I tell you that Bush never actually took any action to make loans easier to get, that will clear it up. Actually, Bush tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie in the mid2000s but Barney and Dodd blocked it in Congress. But Bush touting higher levels of home ownership than ever before, other than ignoring the danger in the reasons for it, did nothing to facilitate it. From a truly technical perspective, Bush, when he had majorities in the House and Senate, could have tried to put a vise grip on lending guidelines, but from a practical perspective it would have been impossible at that point and probably too late anyway.
On Aug 20, 10:56 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > Zeb, > > And the 2nd half of your answer is? > > On Aug 20, 8:56 am, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The difference between encouraging easy credit and "taking specific > > action" is enacting laws like the Community Re-investment Act and > > attacking banks as "racist" if they didn't lend to minorities, despite > > the fact that the minorities didn't meet the lending standards and > > even siccing your justice department on them and threatening their > > borrowing ability with the government. Its pressuring Fannie and > > Freddie to lower lending guidelines (credit score, down payment, debt > > ratio) to include risky borrowers and in doing so, inadvertently open > > the door for these poisonous loans to permeate the entire financial > > system. > > > On Aug 19, 7:06 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Zeb, > > > > And the difference between "encouraging easy credit" and "making > > > credit easily available" is what? > > > > On Aug 19, 3:42 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I just did. > > > > > >Ownership Society. The immediate root of the current financial >crisis > > > > >lies in Bush’s encouragement of easy credit to everybody and > > > > >>inflating the housing market. > > > > > This point is total bullshit as I pointed out in my previous post. > > > > Moreover, it is OBVIOUSLY bullshit as the President "encouraging" easy > > > > credit is meaningless. Specific action was taken by the people I named > > > > to make credit easily available to high risk borrowers. > > > > > >Katrina. A total disaster of bureaucratic mismanagement, featuring > > > > >>martial law. > > > > > The lion's share of the blame for the aftermath of Katrina goes to the > > > > Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana. The dubious claim > > > > that Bush should have done something about the levies in advance is > > > > even more laughable now considering that no one is even discussing it > > > > as a priority. Just like no one is screaming about getting out of Iraq > > > > or Afghanistan or Gitmo anymore. > > > > > On Aug 19, 3:49 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > You intend to dispute or refute any of the points asserted in the > > > > > article or not? We already have plenty of brainless twits to hurl > > > > > insults at the messenger because they don't like the message. You feel > > > > > free to point out the "lies" you seem to find so objectionable. > > > > > > On Aug 19, 1:46 pm, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Who is this homo, Doug Casey? Another limp wristed lib liar who cums > > > > > > in his pants, like Chris Matthews, when he says "OBAMA!" And on top > > > > > > of > > > > > > his disgusting man-crush on Obama, he tries to blame Bush for the > > > > > > Democrat's destruction of our financial system by lowering lending > > > > > > standards to accommodate their pathetic voter base. Is this satire? > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 2:18 pm, studio <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 19, 9:39 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Baby Bush: The Worst President in History?by Doug Casey > > > > > > > > Most of our subscribers toThe Casey Reportappear to be > > > > > > > > libertarians or classical liberals – i.e., people who believe > > > > > > > > in a maximum of both social and economic freedom for the > > > > > > > > individual. The next largest group are "conservatives." It’s a > > > > > > > > bit harder to define a conservative. It’s unclear to me what, > > > > > > > > if any, philosophical foundation conservatism, by whatever > > > > > > > > definition, rests on. > > > > > > > > And even harder to define a neo-con. Unless of course it means to > > > > > > > bring stupidity the new heights. > > > > > > > > > Which leads me to the question: Why do conservatives seem to > > > > > > > > have this warm and fuzzy feeling for George W. Bush? I can only > > > > > > > > speculate it’s because Bush liked to talk a lot about freedom > > > > > > > > and traditional American values, and did so in such an > > > > > > > > ungrammatical way that it made him seem sincere. Bush’s > > > > > > > > tendency to fumble words and concepts contrasted to Clinton’s > > > > > > > > eloquence, which made him look "slick." > > > > > > > > Perhaps conservatives do after all have a soft spot in their > > > > > > > hearts > > > > > > > for ignorance. After all, the very concept of conservatism is to > > > > > > > keep > > > > > > > things as they are, and that also means keeping a stagnant IQ. > > > > > > > Neo- > > > > > > > cons take the concept one step further and believe in lower IQ's > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > everyone. > > > > > > > > > Is it possible that Bush was actually the worst president ever? > > > > > > > > I’d say he’s a strong contender. He started out with a gigantic > > > > > > > > lie – that he would cut the size of government, reduce taxes, > > > > > > > > and stay out of foreign wars – and things got much worse from > > > > > > > > there. > > > > > > > > A George Washington he was not. For if Bush Jr. was our first > > > > > > > ruler, > > > > > > > the United States would most likely be called Bushistan, the > > > > > > > Presidency be called the Bushidency, and the form of government be > > > > > > > called Bushocracy where he gets more votes the richer you are, > > > > > > > and the > > > > > > > opposition gets less votes simply because their the opposition. > > > > > > > > > And he’s left OBAMA! with a fantastic starting point for what I > > > > > > > > expect to be even greater intrusions into your life and > > > > > > > > finances. Eventually, the Bush era will look like The Good Old > > > > > > > > Days. But only in the way that the Romans looked back with > > > > > > > > nostalgia on Tiberius and Claudius after they got Caligula. And > > > > > > > > then Nero. And then the first of many imperial coups and civil > > > > > > > > wars. > > > > > > > > Obama as Caligula or Nero I don't see. I can see Bush Jr. in > > > > > > > either > > > > > > > role though simply because he likes the idea of absolute power and > > > > > > > ignoring real internal problems in favor of perceived ones.- Hide > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
