What did GWB do to cause the great recession? DJIA crash? Financial meltdown?

Dont forget the book written by the countrys top terror expert on how he was treated by Bush for trying to get him to focus on the problem
 
hmm...since we KNOW that fannie and freddie caused all this shit, and we KNOW that Bush tried to fix fannie and freddie and was stopped by DEMS, there is pretty much indisputable proof this crap is all the fault of the DEMOFUCKINGCRATS

Not true in the slightest.
 
Don't forget President Bushes vision for protecting America was Missile Defense. And he was pushing it hot and heavy before 9-11. They mostly ignored the warnings from the Clinton Administration about what the most pressing threat there was.

Blind Boo you link me to one warning that stated that
19 insane Saudis
with legal tickets
legal pass ports
box cutters
where going to turn 4 passenger jets into scud missiles on the morning of 9-11-2001
WOULD YOU DO THAT OR STOP LYING ABOUT THE EVENTS OF 9-11 PLEASE

There were plenty of indications something big was coming:

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pan Am Flight 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Khobar Towers bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
USS Cole bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
EgyptAir Flight 990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIpEwGmSsmM]YouTube - ‪Condoleezza Rice asserts 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack' wasn't a warning. thumpandwhip.com‬‏[/ame]

really?
your trying to say that a boat running into the side of the USS Cole full of explosives should have prevented 19 insane terrorist from boarding passenger jets on the morning of 9-11-2001 @ 0600?
The simplicity of the event made it impossible to stop. There where no laws broke until they attacked the crew
what the hell could you have done
conspiracy?
The patriot act? you could forget that in 2001, prior to 9-11
there was nothing in place to have prevented that and if there was it would have been a miracle
you gave all of those links and none have any warnings in them about the morning of 9-11-2001
none of them address passenger jets being turned into scud missiles with box cutters
 
Bush and team caused this economic mess , lied us into a war after dropping the ball on watching AQ.
 
really?
your trying to say that a boat running into the side of the USS Cole full of explosives should have prevented 19 insane terrorist from boarding passenger jets on the morning of 9-11-2001 @ 0600?
The simplicity of the event made it impossible to stop. There where no laws broke until they attacked the crew
what the hell could you have done
conspiracy?
The patriot act? you could forget that in 2001, prior to 9-11
there was nothing in place to have prevented that and if there was it would have been a miracle
you gave all of those links and none have any warnings in them about the morning of 9-11-2001
none of them address passenger jets being turned into scud missiles with box cutters

I provided you with events that should have made anyone alarmed that was responsible for national security. Almost everything pointed to the fact that there were terrorists, escalting violence against the US, using bombs and seeking an attack on the homeland. And it's almost a given they are going to use planes to accomplish that, whether it be blowing one up..or hijacking one. It's absolutely stunning that security was so lax at our major airports that terrorists managed to grab not one, not two, not three..but four airplanes from a major US airline. Couple that with the fact that the Clinton administration had pushed for a bill to upgrade security at airports but Republicans in congress, at the behest of the airline lobbies, determined it was to costly.

Bush changed the national security focus from terrorism (swatting mosquitoes) to pissing off former cold war enemies. Pure and simple.
 
Press Release: Agencies Adopt Final Rules to Implement the Bank 'Broker' Provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; 2007-198; Sept. 24, 2007


Joint Release
Securities and Exchange Commission
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
2007-198

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Agencies Adopt Final Rules to Implement the Bank 'Broker' Provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
Washington, D.C., Sept. 24, 2007 - The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) on Monday announced the adoption of final joint rules to implement the "broker" exceptions for banks under Section 3(a)(4) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These exceptions were adopted as part of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLB Act). The SEC and the Board approved the final rules at separate open meetings held on September 19, 2007, and September 24, 2007, respectively.

The Board and SEC issued proposed rules for comment in December 2006. The final rules are similar to the proposed rules in overall scope and approach. In response to comments, the agencies also have modified the rules in several important respects to make the rules more workable and less burdensome. These changes are discussed in detail in the attached notice, which will be published in the Federal Register shortly.

No more just denying cold hard facts.

This is the only way to save this country.

Insist on facts and NO political talking points which are devoid of facts.

They will not be allowed to stand ANYMORE
 
really?
your trying to say that a boat running into the side of the USS Cole full of explosives should have prevented 19 insane terrorist from boarding passenger jets on the morning of 9-11-2001 @ 0600?
The simplicity of the event made it impossible to stop. There where no laws broke until they attacked the crew
what the hell could you have done
conspiracy?
The patriot act? you could forget that in 2001, prior to 9-11
there was nothing in place to have prevented that and if there was it would have been a miracle
you gave all of those links and none have any warnings in them about the morning of 9-11-2001
none of them address passenger jets being turned into scud missiles with box cutters

I provided you with events that should have made anyone alarmed that was responsible for national security. Almost everything pointed to the fact that there were terrorists, escalting violence against the US, using bombs and seeking an attack on the homeland. And it's almost a given they are going to use planes to accomplish that, whether it be blowing one up..or hijacking one. It's absolutely stunning that security was so lax at our major airports that terrorists managed to grab not one, not two, not three..but four airplanes from a major US airline. Couple that with the fact that the Clinton administration had pushed for a bill to upgrade security at airports but Republicans in congress, at the behest of the airline lobbies, determined it was to costly.

Bush changed the national security focus from terrorism (swatting mosquitoes) to pissing off former cold war enemies. Pure and simple.

Dude your living in dreamworld
How do you even debate with someone as over the edge as you are?
I goggled your claim, nothing
what was we suppose to do at these airports?
My god man
to start with try and blame the no good son of a bitches who did it
and if Bush was suppose to stop them, then why in the hell didn't Clinton?
I mean really
They were here long before GWB became president
swatting mosquitoes?
are you fucking kidding me?
the man was in office less than 9 months

Let me say this again
What was anyone suppose to do?
pocket knives
you Liberals are sick
you take an event that GWB had nothing to do with and you act like it was his fault, that he woke up on 9-11-2001 and said let er rip tater chip
why in gods name didn't Clinton stop the bombings?
how about the USS Cole?
you know why?
IT WAS NOT HIS FUCKING FAULT
 
Last edited:
I am so sick of hearing the libs blaming all of this on W
OK Libs lets hear it
what did GWB do to cause any of it?

Bush lowered taxes for the rich, and then charged two useless wars on his Chinese credit card. This doubled the National Debt. Reagan and the two Bushes are responsible for 93% of the National Debt. Click on this link for the figures...

No regulation of Wall Street. This allowed Wall Street to create a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme which destroyed the American economy.

Warren Buffett was the only one who warned that this would happen. You can read about it at this link...

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

So Bush doubled the National Debt and allowed Wall Street to run a Ponzi scheme which destroyed the American economy.
 
The facts are there even in light of the republicans spinning these peoples minds.

If they truely cared about this country they would accept facts instead of right wing spin.
 
I am so sick of hearing the libs blaming all of this on W
OK Libs lets hear it
what did GWB do to cause any of it?

Bush lowered taxes for the rich, and then charged two useless wars on his Chinese credit card. This doubled the National Debt. Reagan and the two Bushes are responsible for 93% of the National Debt. Click on this link for the figures...

No regulation of Wall Street. This allowed Wall Street to create a $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme which destroyed the American economy.

Warren Buffett was the only one who warned that this would happen. You can read about it at this link...

Derivatives are the new ticking time bomb Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

So Bush doubled the National Debt and allowed Wall Street to run a Ponzi scheme which destroyed the American economy.

Reagan and Bush added about 5 trilion to the debt in 16 years
I am not going to add the obvious of Carters mess, Clintons mess and 2 wars
please stop lying
Thank you
oh yea these are called links

Critics of President Reagan's budget deficits should answer one simple question: Would you trade the collapse of communism, your smaller tax burden, some of your income -- and possibly your job -- in exchange for eliminating that $2.1 trillion in added debt?
Defending the Reagan Deficits | The Heritage Foundation

The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog
 
In the Democratic party, there is a group of "conservatives" known as "Blue Dogs". Don't ask me why they are in the Democratic Party. They vote most of the time with Republicans. Every time a scuzzy Republican bill is passed that turns out to be terribly damaging, which, of course, is most of them, the right wing says, "See? It was "bi-partisan"."

Having a Republican branch in the Democratic party doesn't make votes "bi-partisan". It means there are some dishonest people in the Democratic party. Of course, you can't find such a group in the Republican party. Because they vote alike, they walk alike, at times they even talk alike. Republicans are "alike", 90% white and mostly Christian.
 
In the Democratic party, there is a group of "conservatives" known as "Blue Dogs". Don't ask me why they are in the Democratic Party. They vote most of the time with Republicans. Every time a scuzzy Republican bill is passed that turns out to be terribly damaging, which, of course, is most of them, the right wing says, "See? It was "bi-partisan"."

Having a Republican branch in the Democratic party doesn't make votes "bi-partisan". It means there are some dishonest people in the Democratic party. Of course, you can't find such a group in the Republican party. Because they vote alike, they walk alike, at times they even talk alike. Republicans are "alike", 90% white and mostly Christian.

What does being a christian have to do with anything?
do you feel that abortion is a christian issue?
how about the ten commandments?
Having morales, thou shall not steal, should be for every one?
how about your the father of an un born child that was concived out of concentual sex?
and the blue dogs are gone, there has not been a real bipatisan vote sense the Iraq war and Tarp, well come to think of it GWB style of stimulus and not supporting the Auto bailout was bi partisian also
Its Obama?
Hmmmm
 
Last edited:
Halving the capital requirements under the net capital rule didn't help.

Giving $5,000 downpayment assistance to poor homeowners didn't help.

Restructuring the definitions of qualifying mortgages didn't help.

Removing the teeth from regulatory entities didn't help.

All of those and other actions played window-dressing roles in a mess created by the financial sector.
 
I am so sick of hearing the libs blaming all of this on W
OK Libs lets hear it
what did GWB do to cause any of it?

It's not as though you weren't pre-warned of his intentions...

""Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

George Bush —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004
:lol:
 
Halving the capital requirements under the net capital rule didn't help.

Giving $5,000 downpayment assistance to poor homeowners didn't help.

Restructuring the definitions of qualifying mortgages didn't help.

Removing the teeth from regulatory entities didn't help.

All of those and other actions played window-dressing roles in a mess created by the financial sector.

How did GWB re structure the way a bank operates?
Removed what teeth exactly?
I was all ways under the understanding those items you described could only be changed in congress
Are you telling me all of this happened without any legislation from congress?
Thats interesting
 
Halving the capital requirements under the net capital rule didn't help.

Giving $5,000 downpayment assistance to poor homeowners didn't help.

Restructuring the definitions of qualifying mortgages didn't help.

Removing the teeth from regulatory entities didn't help.

All of those and other actions played window-dressing roles in a mess created by the financial sector.

How did GWB re structure the way a bank operates?

By halving the net capital rule of the largest banks.

Removed what teeth exactly?
The teeth of the SEC regulators.

I was all ways under the understanding those items you described could only be changed in congress

Well, you'd be wrong about that. both the above changes plus the changes to qualifying definitions were done under the executive branch departments

Are you telling me all of this happened without any legislation from congress?

The above? Yes. the $5,000 assistance for downpayments, probably not.
 
Halving the capital requirements under the net capital rule didn't help.

Giving $5,000 downpayment assistance to poor homeowners didn't help.

Restructuring the definitions of qualifying mortgages didn't help.

Removing the teeth from regulatory entities didn't help.

All of those and other actions played window-dressing roles in a mess created by the financial sector.

How did GWB re structure the way a bank operates?

By halving the net capital rule of the largest banks.


The teeth of the SEC regulators.

I was all ways under the understanding those items you described could only be changed in congress

Well, you'd be wrong about that. both the above changes plus the changes to qualifying definitions were done under the executive branch departments

Are you telling me all of this happened without any legislation from congress?

The above? Yes. the $5,000 assistance for downpayments, probably not.

to start with young man the Security and Exchange has what to do with a home owner getting a loan?
Please provide links to the legislation
What do the regulators have to do with a home owner getting a loan from a bank?

This entire process failed for two reasons
people stopped paying there bills because they got loans they could not afford and some got loans that after they got underwater they walked away from them
Ok, lets blame it on the congress who was in power when it began
the Dems
you want to?
it makes as much sense
we had no problems prior ti 2007 when GWB became a lame duck president

I wi
 
Last edited:
to start with young man the Security and Exchange has what to do with a home owner getting a loan?
Please provide links to the legislation

In 2004, the SEC - on a 3:2 vote along party lines, with Republicans in favour - approved an amendment which waived capital requirements for the five large Wall Street investment firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns and Lehman. Up until then, investment banks were restricted in their leverage of 12 to 15:1 assets to equity. They then proceeded to increase leverage to 30:1 or even 40:1, meaning that even a 2.5% to 3.33% decline in the net asset value of their balance sheet rendered the banks insolvent. The investment banks stuffed their balance sheets full of derivatives, which were comprised of mortgage loans, many of which were subprime and Alt-A. Given their "freedom" from capital requirements because "they knew better," Wall Street blew itself up. Wall Street was demanding mortgage loans to feed its structure products machine. That's why they bought subprime originators. Merrill Lynch bought a subprime originator at the end of 2006, just before the whole house of cards began to tumble down. Lending standards were lowered to virtually nothing so Wall Street could push its product into the market and onto its balance sheets so it could get paid gigantic fees and make employees rich. Had the SEC not approved of that rule, far fewer crap mortgages would have ever been written and the crisis would not be as bad. I put the Fed at the top of the culprits for this mess, but way down at #2 is Wall Street. It may be way down, but in my book, it is #2.

What do the regulators have to do with a home owner getting a loan from a bank?

Regulators control the standards at which mortgages can be written. Most states have predatory lending laws. One of the federal agencies - I can't remember which - explicitly over-rode states' laws to allow cross-border banks to ignore those laws. Also, the Federal Reserve regulated the quality of loans, i.e. subprime, Alt-A, and could have told the banks that they would not be allowed to write any more. But Greenspan thought the market knew best, and not only allowed banks but made it easier for them to write crap loans.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top