Bush Says He's Not To Blame For Financial Mess
I can't speak to 2001 or 2002, but I can speak to 2003 and later. In a September post, Republican Congress Talked About Financial Reform, But Did Nothing, I detail what the Republican-controlled Congress did not do in 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 legislative sessions. The lack of action came despite a public show of solidarity between the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives in the fall of 2003.
The President -- and Republican party leaders -- gave only lip service to reform. That is, publicly they talked a good line, but back in the halls of Congress, they either sat on their hands or turned their attention to more "pressing" matters, like the costly and ill-founded invasion of Iraq.
Updated:
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 1461 - Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
The Administration has long called for legislation to create a stronger, more effective regulatory regime to improve oversight of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (”housing government-sponsored enterprises” or “housing GSEs”) and appreciates the considerable efforts of Chairman Oxley and Chairman Baker in crafting H.R. 1461. However, H.R. 1461 fails to include key elements that are essential to protect the safety and soundness of the housing finance system and the broader financial system at large. As a result, the Administration opposes the bill.
But are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the reason we're in the mess we are in today? Kimberly Amadeo says no:
[Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] didn't cause the housing downturn, the preponderance of exotic loans, and the use of derivatives instead of stock sales to cover potential risk. Instead, they were an example, not a cause, of the mortgage crisis.
Comments
It always humors me how you left wing ideologues spin these stories to make conservatives appear to be evil.
For those of you readers who don’t understand how congress works, be aware that even if congress has a majority party, that party can be stopped with fillibusters in the senate and a lack of votes. It goes both ways. But Ms Gill would like to spin this to make those evil Republicans the party who failed the U.S.
Many of these reforms may have died in committee with the full knowledge that Dimocratic enablers(Barney Frank and C. Dodd) would simply derail any attempts to reign in the FNMA giant. And it certainly appears that is the case.
Do not trust the blog.
C
Hi, Chuck
In the 2003-2004 session, the were no filibusters. No bill moved out of committee — where a straight party line vote would have done so.
In 2004-2005, the House passed legislation. It sat in committee in the Senate. Bush opposed it.
All of the details are on the original, three-week old post.
If the republicans are so scared of democrats that they won’t even bring bill up for a vote, then what good does it do to even elect republicans? Just vote for democrats and then blame them.
Facts are terrible, isn’t it…?
The Buck Really Did Stop With This Guy
Little Red Riding Wolfowitz: A Word About Cronyism
What ever happened to Wolfowitz? He sold us the war in Iraq as a two second venture with flowers in the morning, then went to the World Bank and was almost the first President to be fired by said bank. Now this same Wolfowitz who sheepishly slunk out of the limelight for most of this year is the sameWolfowitz, who as of today, isto lead Bush’s New International Security Advisory Boardformed to “give our government advice on Weapons of Mass Destruction.” On his first day up, he recommends spending money on nukes to keep us competitive with the damn Communists, Red China. The simple fact is that Wolfowitz has throughout his entire career demonstrated a penchant for cronyism and for smearing and marginalizing perceived rivals as tactics for getting his way. Soon after becoming head of the World Bank, Wolfowitz lapsed into his typical favoritism, even while he was, ironically, decrying the technique as practiced by governments of the global South. Instead of having an open search for some key positions and allowing for promotions from within, Wolfowitz simply installed Republicans from the Bush administration in high positions with enormous salaries.
Thus George W. Bush, the 43rd Still President of The United States allowed completely non competent people to be appointed into the group of Paid Consultants on Iraq Democratization (to the tuneof $17,000 a week). This latest appointee was just a secreatry who slept with Wolfowitz. I guess its all who you blow in the world of Bush.
AND YET, Still President Bush just recently signed an Executive Order demanding that “U.S. Persons” (to be named later) are to seize all property with NO NOTICE TO BE GIVEN of any person, group, subgroup, partnership, association, joint venture, trust or corporation who is said to be found to “threaten stability in Iraq.”
These same “U.S. Persons” are charged to seize all personal property WITH NO NOTICE TO BE GIVEN to any one who helps or talks to a disident. These agents of change are also to seize all personal property without notice of any person who migh be “owned or controlled” by anyone whose property has already been seized. Seizures of property are also be carrid out on any person known to provide a disident with “goods or services or any one who receives good or services from” said disenter. If you even “evade, avoid, or conspire to” fight this Executive Seizure Order you are to be considered a civilian disident.
And this same man, Wolfowitz, this man who encouraged, placed, arranged, transfered, and oversaw the career of said woman who gave him a Riza, is now going to run our International Security Advisory Board to give our government advice on Weapons of Mass Destruction (appointed 10/13/08).
Is Wolfowitz really a bad choice for this postion? Well, during his tenure at World Bank, a special subcommittee of the executive board of the bank found that Wolfowitz had in fact broken ethics rules. He insisted that he would not resign, even though large numbers of his own employees were openly signing petitions against him.
The management techniques that got Wolfowitz in trouble at the World Bank mirrored those he used at the Pentagon to get up the Iraq war. Without cronyism, tag-teaming, and running circles around opponents of the war such as Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet, the pro-war cabal could never have persuaded Bush to launch the conflict or persuaded the American public to support it. State Department officials have complained bitterly about meetings called by Wolfowitz and others on Iraq in 2002, to which some relevant officials were pointedly not invited, or where the agenda was prearranged and rigidly stage-managed so as to ensure that only neoconservative points of view were heard. Other officials have spoken of being spied on by the neocons at the Department of Defense, to the point where they were reprimanded for cartoons or posters that they had hung on their office doors. This is not acceptable.
And the spin goes on. Many bills do not come forward for a vote and die in committee if the threat of a fillibuster or a lack of votes looms. But you knew that didn’t you? I see you have plenty of likeminded ignorant liberals who agree with you? Must be bliss to go through life without a clue?
“Bush opposed it.”
Hmmm? Don’t see any documentation to back that assertion? I do see you agree with my assertion that it could have been fillibustered.
Alphast, you wouldn’t know a fact if it was boldly printed on your white flag.
Hank, Most disciplined Republicans would want to spend their time more effectively debating laws that actually have a chance to pass. Gotcha politics is the handywork of the left. Simply bringing up bills to hammmer the opposition does no one any good. Look at what the current leadership has done for proof.
C
Chuck, the documentation for “Bush opposed it” is in the comments field of the ORIGINAL POST … AND was appended to this post on Monday, before you asked for documentation Tuesday night. But I’ve linked to it again for you in this comment.
“Alphast, you wouldn’t know a fact if it was boldly printed on your white flag.”
That smells of desperation, bitterness and the realization that I was right all this time…
As for our white flag, I am happy to see that your historical knowledge goes as far as our “Ancien Régime” (our flag was indeed white until 1789). However, I would like to point out that we have added two extra colors since then.
Seems Chuck is very ignorant and he is projecting his inability to learn on our esteemed hostess. Kathy always sites her data. She’s one of the best researchers I’ve met on line. Don’t you know by now that you can’t play “gotcha” with someone who does their homework?? McStupid keeps trying to play it with Obama and it keeps flying back in his own face. Obama does his homework too. Smart is good. I’m stick of stupid people running this country. i want the most elite, educated, intelligent person in the world running our country. I don’t care if he drinks beer or wine or yogurt smoothies, i want brains. I’m sick of guys like Chuck who believe they’re smart when they’re just another dumb ass with another opinion to fart off at us.
liberal? does that mean truth? because the truth does have a liberal bias. (stephen colbert)
Thanks for the compliment, Shelley!
And Alphast, I really don’t think that’s the white flag Chuck is referencing, but thanks for the chuckle!
@ Shelley, thanks for your support. However, I know for sure (and after more than a year “fencing” with him on this forum) that Chuck is not an ignorant. He is just doing what we all do to support our points: choosing the elements that fits best his view of the world. I would certainly not make the mistake to disrespect Chuck (even if I like to mock him from time to time, but that’s meant in a friendly way). I’d like to think that the fact he comes back to taunt me is a sign of his acknowledgment.
@ Kathy, you are welcome. I know that he meant the surrendering one. But I thought it was funnier to go this way… And less provocative than pointing out that if it would not have been for the French support, your flag would still be some version of the Union Jack.
hi alphast. nice to meet you.
i’m so sick of reading conservatives who don’t even bother to check the references and data before attacking the messenger. I don’t have patience for willful ignorance. If you feel his tactics show intelligence, you’ve seen what i haven’t. maybe I’ll see it someday as i plan to spend more time here. But as of my first encounter, i’m not impressed. He didn’t even bother to read her references.