What If Bush Were President Today? Would He Be Re-elected?

[gekaap]

Bush did inherit a Recession. He just didn't whine about it as much as this current President has. This President has been a whiner from day one. It's actually kind of annoying. That being said,this is a Bush Third Term. I'm gonna do my best to make sure he doesn't get a Fourth Term. See ya in 2012.

Perhaps you should note the above provided examples of Bush "whining" about inheriting a recession. After that, perhaps you should note The National Bureau of Economic Research identifying the start of the 2001 recession as March 2001. And after you've finally assimilated all the facts, perhaps you can stop whining about things that are false.

 

[gekaap]

When where the loans taken out? Under what government law did Bush sign forcing bank's to make loans to lower income people? Before 2006?

I'm sure you think you're very clever for this, but the reality is that it's not a matter of anyone signing a law forcing banks to make such and such loans. Nobody has ever contended that the housing market crash was due to loans being forced. Therefore, the question becomes why did the loans get approved? The answer is that deregulation and government reluctance to regulate sufficiently led to banking practices that involved high risk loans, and banking practices that were high risk regarding over extending themselves, in hopes of a super high pay day and executive bonuses all around. If Bush hadn't been so adverse to sufficient regulation, then things would likely have been very different. But, you know, Bush just loved the sound bite that more people were buying their first houses than ever before. It was good politics for two seconds. Who cares if it all falls apart in a few years, right?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Thankfully, George Bush is not president today so we don't have to worry about it.

 

[L.K.Eder]

judging by the awareness of most of the posters on this board all the troubles of 2001-2009 would be clinton's or the dem congresses fault anyway, so OF COURSE they would elect the guy who is a real american. a compassionate conservative who does not believe in nation building and will restore dignity to the white house. did you know that mccain has a black child?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm sure you think you're very clever for this, but the reality is that it's not a matter of anyone signing a law forcing banks to make such and such loans. Nobody has ever contended that the housing market crash was due to loans being forced. Therefore, the question becomes why did the loans get approved? The answer is that deregulation and government reluctance to regulate sufficiently led to banking practices that involved high risk loans, and banking practices that were high risk regarding over extending themselves, in hopes of a super high pay day and executive bonuses all around. If Bush hadn't been so adverse to sufficient regulation, then things would likely have been very different. But, you know, Bush just loved the sound bite that more people were buying their first houses than ever before. It was good politics for two seconds. Who cares if it all falls apart in a few years, right?

The federal government "encouraged" (with the threat of accusations of redlining if they refused) banks to loan to low qualified applicants to boost housing numbers, particularly among the poor and minority classes. That, along with the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, opened the door to the sub prime mortgage market and the greed of the bankers that followed. So as you can see, both the government and the banks are at fault. It's not at all one-sided the way you make it out to be.

 

[gekaap]

The federal government "encouraged" (with the threat of accusations of redlining if they refused) banks to loan to low qualified applicants to boost housing numbers, particularly among the poor and minority classes. That, along with the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, opened the door to the sub prime mortgage market and the greed of the bankers that followed. So as you can see, both the government and the banks are at fault. It's not at all one-sided the way you make it out to be.

Oh, I'm not trying to suggest that the banks are not at fault also. It's the reason I wish all those banks had been allowed to simply fall under and not get a bail out. Just pointing out that the earlier argument was very flawed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When where the loans taken out? Under what government law did Bush sign forcing bank's to make loans to lower income people? Before 2006?

I'm sure you think you're very clever for this, but the reality is that it's not a matter of anyone signing a law forcing banks to make such and such loans. Nobody has ever contended that the housing market crash was due to loans being forced. Therefore, the question becomes why did the loans get approved? The answer is that deregulation and government reluctance to regulate sufficiently led to banking practices that involved high risk loans, and banking practices that were high risk regarding over extending themselves, in hopes of a super high pay day and executive bonuses all around. If Bush hadn't been so adverse to sufficient regulation, then things would likely have been very different. But, you know, Bush just loved the sound bite that more people were buying their first houses than ever before. It was good politics for two seconds. Who cares if it all falls apart in a few years, right?

It's a simple question
When were the loans given out because if the loans were given out before 2001 theres no way in hell it can be blamed on Bush.

Another simple question What legislation did Bush sign that forced the banks to lower their standards to give loans to people who would never quialify by normal standards.

If people like you can give him the blame then you can show how he did it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Perhaps it is, Regular republicans would have likely won those seats anyway.
but still does not support your origional statement.
Nor correct your incorrect statement alluding that Crist was a congressional incumbent.

Without the tea party the democats would have won. period. Without the tea party people would not have known about what the government was doing.

Bull we have Fox and all of the right wing talkinig heads don't we?
People are gullible and things did not get better fast enough to suit them.

Right like fox had any control over the tea party. Are y'all still trying to pin that on FOX?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Without the tea party the democats would have won. period. Without the tea party people would not have known about what the government was doing.

Bull we have Fox and all of the right wing talkinig heads don't we?
People are gullible and things did not get better fast enough to suit them.

Right like fox had any control over the tea party. Are y'all still trying to pin that on FOX?

damn, you a re full blown retard. never go full retard. you have been told before.

 

[mudwhistle]

No. The groundwork for the recession was there. The prpblem was the Dems did nothing to stop it. They did nothing but make it worse.

By 2007 there was nothing anyone could have done to stop it. The damage had already been done. The subprimes had already been made, the derivatives sold, and the national debt had already been sold off to China.

The real estate bubble was already obvious to anyone paying attention in 2006, just to name that. NPR was doing stories on the dangers of the derivative market by that point too IIRC. Truth be told, it was probably too late as early as 2005, though some action might have helped prevent the worst of it.

Our debt has doubled since 2007. Our deficit was riding at $169 billion and shrinking. Now the deficit is $1. 9 trillion. We have to pay over $600 billion per year in interest alone.

You say nothing could have been done? That's total horseshit. Doing nothing would have been better then what the Dems did. They tightened lending regulations, started spending like drunken sailors and put us in this jam. Let's not forget that Obama promised changes and instead we just got more, much more of the same wasteful spending. Instead of a $9 trillion dollar debt on Jan. 09 we now have almost $15 trillion in debt.

The simplest solution was to cut spending. Instead they spent more then any congress in US history. And what do we have to show for it?

 

[gekaap]

Doing nothing would have been better then what the Dems did.

Guess someone should have told that to Bush before he lobbied Congress for a massive stimulus bill and signed it into law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Doing nothing would have been better then what the Dems did.

Guess someone should have told that to Bush before he lobbied Congress for a massive stimulus bill and signed it into law.

It seems that oibama did another stimulus?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

You say nothing could have been done? That's total horseshit.

By 2007 the economic crash was a done deal. You don't have to like it for it to be true.

In 2007 it didn't matter who controlled Congress. Debt was going to spike. You had two ongoing wars paid for out of discretionary funds and an economic collapse. You can debate the reaction that Bush and Obama had, but yeah, government debt was going to happen.

Did the Democrats increase the debt that was already going to happen. Possibly. But TARP did save what was left of the economy and it's been mostly repaid, so at least that was an appropriate response. The stimulus kept most of the states, red and blue, afloat. In Louisiana stimulus money kept hospitals, schools, police departments, and road crews working. In my mind that makes the stimulus justified.

 

[gekaap]

It seems that oibama did another stimulus?

He sure did. Idiot followed right in the footsteps of the idiot Bush. But that wasn't the point. It was argued that the debt has increased since 2007 and that it's all the Democrats faults. But the blame actually goes two ways.