How about some facts? First. The banking deregulation bill that many claim led to the crisis was Graham-Leach. It was signed by Bill Clinton, not Bush. I remember Bush making numerous attempts to reregulate the industry, particularly Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, only to be opposed by Democrats like Dodd and Frank who were ranking members of and then in charge of the Senate and House finance committees. I think they all wanted access to home ownership for lower income people, which is fine, but it's also easy with 20-20 hindsight to see that the regulation adjustments were, in fact, needed. I found a speech by W in 2002 where he proposed a plan for low income people to be able to afford home ownership. It included a fund to provide the down payment, $440B of loans by Fannie & Freddie, and most importantly, incentives to home builders to build homes the people could actually afford to make mortgage payments on. In 2004, Freddie and Fannie were in trouble. Not because of the housing crisis, but because of accounting practices. Fannie fired its CEO Franklin Raines and was pushed by Democrats to make riskier loans. Fannie paid a $400M civil fine in the matter as well. In 2005, Richard Shelby wrote a bill that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring the kind of mortgages that precipitated the crisis. This, in turn, would have led the banks to not make those loans, since they couldn't sell them to Fannie or Freddie. All republicans in the senate voted for the bill, all democrats voted against it. And that was after Fed Chairman Greenspan had testified and warned them that Fannie and Freddie were playing with fire and that stronger regulations were needed. I found this Senate bill from 2005 as well. This one was introduced by Chuck Hagel and cosponsored by 3 republicans, Liz Dole, John McCain, and John Sununu. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s190 The bill died in committee. It's sister bill http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr1461 passed the house 331-90. I found this 2003 NYTimes article where W had proposed and lobbied hard for housing regulation and oversight by a new agency in the treasury dept. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html Bush did sign reform in 2008, a bill his administration started crafting in 2007 - before the crisis came to a head. I also found this snippet of an interview with Bill Clinton after the crisis occurred: CHRIS CUOMO, ABC NEWS: A little surprising for you to hear the Democrats saying, "This came out of nowhere, this is all about the Republicans. We had nothing to do with this." Nancy Pelosi saying it. She signed the '99 Gramm Bill. She knew what was going on with the SEC. They're all sophisticated people. Is that playing politics in this situation? BILL CLINTON: Well, maybe everybody does that a little bit. I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Second, look at years 2000 and 2001. This is the economy W inherited. That's recession (negative GDP growth) in 3 of the previous 5 quarters. The GDP growth that followed might be directly attributed to those tax cuts, no? Tax cuts are an economic stimulus of choice by govt. Obama cut taxes in a targeted manner (like lowering FICA taxes twice) that had less positive results. Let's see more of your list.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/03/w...subprime-loans-to-chicagos-african-americans/ And of course, good folks like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd as well as Franklin Raines had zero say about mortgages. Yep, it's all on the Republicans. TARP has been largely repaid. The stimulus is on our current president. Sorry. President Bush inherited an economy going into recession, which began in March, 2001. There was this thing called the dot com bubble, which of course was the Republicans' fault. And it's all Bush's fault that those terrorists attacked on September 11th, 2001. It's not like Clinton passed on capturing or killing Bin Laden. Oh, wait... As for the death tax, when was it abolished? Hint: Check this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States You indeed have a keen understanding of the US economy. If it just weren't for those pesky facts, you'd have nailed it.
You and Chris in PDX seem to be the ones who are angry. I'm just sad at the breadth and depth of your ignorance. It doesn't bode well for this country. It's a good thing people like me have two votes while you have just one.
It doesn't matter who the republicans put out there. Its a cop out once again from the left. There's nothing really wrong with Romney, he's pretty stable. successful businessman, governor, etc. The knock on him is maybe he's not "flashy" enough. I was at a dinner last night and they asked a guy why he didn't like Romney and basically all he said was he wasn't "flashy enough". Obama is just the shiny ball that people look at. all flash no substance. at all. So basically you're rehashing the two basic talking points from the left. 1. Blame Bush 2. Romney isn't a good candidate of course you have to do this because you can't defend Obama's job performance. It has been horrendous.
Pretty much no president with Obama's numbers (approval rating/unemployment/etc) won a second term. Obama is going to because the Republicans have failed to put a candidate out there to beat them. The fact that Romney can't capitalize on it says a lot about him. Between people questioning his taxes, changing stances a million times and not being able to get his message across to the common man, he's just failed to jump on Obama and take control like pretty much every other candidate in his position has. Pick a better candidate next time.
I think this is mostly accurate. I strongly put the blame for a loss on the GOP's religious stance. They are too socially radical for the mainstream part of the country in addition to their fiscal policies.
I have no quibble with this. Though I still think it remains to be seen if 2008 Obama voters show up at the polls and vote for him in 2012.
you still don't get it. no matter who the republicans put out there Obama is going to get his votes due to his hipness factor and the fact he can speak well. despite his horrible job performance, he's still a "cool choice". sadly, this is how america chooses its candidates now. its a high school popularity contest.
I don't think that many care about Romney's tax returns. I think they care more that he's Mormon. I think Romney will start hitting hard soon with TV ads. Americans have a VERY short memory and you just jump at the right time. The debates should be good since Obama basically has nothing to say other than "blame Bush".
Like I said Pretty much no one with Obama's numbers has won a second term (I think there's been one but I forget who). If Romney can't capitalize on that it's his own.damn.fault.
I'm saying Romney can't capitalize when pretty much every other president in his position has. Put someone better out there next time.
not really. Romney is a fine candidate. certainly has a better pedigree than Obama. This whole thing from the left about him being "boring" or a "bad candidate" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
And yet he's not capitalizing on a situation where basically every other candidate in his position has. Mitt Romeny: Bucking the trend! Do better next time.
