Who damaged the economy?

katsung47

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
411
Who damaged the economy? (1)

When Clinton left the W.H. the Federal benchmark interest rate was 6.5%. In Bush's term, the rate drammatically dropped in 2001. Then to the bottom of 1% in 2003 and 2004. It's the low interest rate that pushes up the economy. You could see the result from income tax revenue chart that the Federal income tax started going up from 2003, 2004, but it also created a big bubble - the housing bubble. That bubble broke out in 2007, (You could see it's the peak of income tax revenue). It also caused the financial crisis next year.(2008)

Real estate industry is an important factor of GDP. The housing bubble is still hurting the economy right now. Even now they low the interest rate to nearly zero, they can't recover the housing industry. (Because of piled up fore-closured houses from that bubble)

It's evident that Bush created the housing bubble that damaged the US economy. That bubble is still there, continuely erode the economy.
 
Werbung:
Something I wrote several years ago, a summary of the show "Saving our Economy" (found on Youtube) answers your question pretty completely.

-----------------------------------------

Sept. 23, 2008: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson: "The events leading us here began many years ago, starting with bad lending practices by banks and financial institutions, and by borrowers taking up mortgages they couldn't afford."

-----------------------------------------

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA, or "Fannie Mae") was created in 1938 during the Great Depression. to create a market for mortgages where they could be bought and sold.

In 1968, Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress spun off Fannie Mae so that it would not show up in the Federal budget. But the Federal govt was always there, ready to bail out Fannie Mae if problems happened. This enables Fannie Mae to offer lower rates for the mortgages it bought, since it was not taking the risks that other banks and institutions had to. In 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") was formed, to create competition for Fannie Mae, since ordinary banks could NOT compete with the government-backed rates they offered.

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. It made sure banks were lending to people of all colors and income levels. But things quickly began going off the rails, as activist groups found a new weapon in the law: The could start suing lenders for discrimination if they didn't lend to enough minority families, regardless of the families' ability to pay the loans back as promised. Banks began making riskier and riskier loans for fear of having to fight expensive lawsuits.

Community groups began bullying the banks, especially one called the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now ("ACORN"). It hired several specialized lawyers, including a young man named Barack Obama, to teach its employees how to go to the homes of bank CEOs and senior officers, harassing and publicly embarrassing them while remaining within the limits of local law to avoid prosecution. At one point, ACORN brought a lawsuit against a thrift merger in Illinois, insisting that the lending institutions had not made as many loans to minorities as ACORN thought they should. The bank replied that such loans would be financially irresponsible, and would put ALL the bank's customers at unacceptable risk. ACORN prevailed in court, and banks began making more and more risky loans to home buyers who could have never qualified for those loans under ordinary circumstances.

In late 2000, in the last days of the Clinton administration, the government ordered Fannie and Freddie to increase the numbers of these risky ("sub-prime") mortgages they were buying from banks and lending institutions across the country. They did, lowering their rates and buying more and more, until fully half their portfolios consisted of these risky sub-prime mortgages, combined and packaged in various ways.

The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001. Their 2002 Budget Request declared that the size of mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is "a potential problem" because financial trouble in either one of them "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets".

In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie, was upgraded to a "Systemic Risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector".

As Fannie and Freddie continued to lower their rates and buy mortgages, lenders made more and more mortgages to buyers with questionable ability to pay, safe in the knowledge that they could immediately turn around and sell the mortgages to the government-sponsored Fannie and Freddie, thus avoiding any consequences if the loans were later defaulted. They were happy to make more and more such mortgages, collecting fees for each and selling the mortgages to F&F.

Countrywide Financial chairman Angelo Mazzillo literally started screaming at Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot, when Gigot asked him about the wisdom of making so many loans to buyers unlikely to pay them back. Mazzillo insisted loudly that Gigot had no idea what he was talking about, did not understand the first thing about mortgage lending, etc., etc. He failed, however, to answer any of Gigot's questions in even the simplest terms or explain why they were "wrong".

In Fall 2003, the Bush Admin was pushing Congress hard to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs.

At a Congressional hearing on Sept 10, 2003, John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury stated: "We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSE's, and the safety and soundness of their financial activities."
 
from "Saving our Economy" - continued

--------------------------------------------------------


At that same hearing, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee Barney Frank (D-MA) defended his practices with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis."

Frank said the Fed Govt should be encouraging F&F to do more to get low-income families into homes:
"The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up a possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury - which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially and can withstand some of the disaster scenarios - the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of 'affordable housing' ".

The top executives at F&F began cooking their books, exaggerating their sales in their quarterly reports, so that the company officials could claim they had met their companies' sales targets, and thus collect huge salary bonuses. They were finally caught in 2004. Several of them stepped down, but none was every punished, or even charged. One of them, Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae, later gave financial and housing advice to the campaign of Presidential contender Barack Obama.

At a House Financial Services Committee Hearing on Feb. 17, 2005, Alan Greenspan warned against one of the fundamental ideas of modern liberalism, the idea of putting all our eggs in one basket by concentrating financial activity into just a few big agencies in central government: "... Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
He later added at another hearing on on April 6, 2005: "If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis."

Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) ignored any possibility the F&F might be in trouble at that hearing, and simply pointed to the advantages some people had gotten from the government's activities: "I think Fannie and Freddie ... are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world... if you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they have done a very, very good job."
Schumer also complained, "Things are good in the housing market. Why are people entertaining radical change?"

On April 7, 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow warned again: "These large portfolios, unchecked in their growth over the last decade or so, pose a real problem." The Senate Banking Committee adopted strong regulation that would have prevented Fannie and Freddie from acquiring these bad mortgages. All of the Republicans on the committee voted for it, and all the Democrats voted against it, and it passed out of the committee on a straight party-line vote. But Democrats then filibustered the bill on the Senate floor, preventing it from being brought to a vote.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was active in making campaign contributions to politicians, from money that ostensibly was for low-income mortgages. The top two recipients were:

Christopher Dodd (D-CT): $165,000
Barack Obama (D-IL): $126,000

The highest-receiving Republican was Bob Bennett (R-UT), who got $108,000. Further down the list was John McCain (R-AZ), who accepted $25,000.

On May 25, 2006 in the Senate, John McCain (R-AZ) sounded more warnings over the huge size and lack of discipline in the government companies, and sponsored a bill to regulate the companies more firmly: "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market... the GSEs need to be reformed without delay." McCain's bill was voted out of committee on a straight party-line vote: All Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats voted against. Democrats then announced they would filibuster the bill in the Senate, as they had the previous year's regulatory legislation. Republicans knew they did not have enough votes to achieve the 60% needed, and so never brought the bill to the Senate floor.

By the beginning of 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had bought up over $4 trillion in mortgages, roughly one-quarter of which was risky sub-prime mortgage paper. With interest rates rising, these rickety homeowners started defaulting on their loans. Only about 2% of them defaulted by January 2008, but the effect was disastrous. Banks began to get leery of lending money to each other, knowing that their fellow banks held substantial assets that might default and become worthless, thus making the banks unable to pay back their loans to each other.

Banks and lending institutions began collapsing or seeking emergency help: Countrywide Financial, Lehman Brothers, insurer AIG, Bear Stearns, IndyMac bank, etc. buckled to their knees as paralysis spread. The huge numbers of risky subprime mortgages, had become like a "poison pill" that choked the institutions that had swallowed them. The Fed finally took over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the damage had long been done.

Congress appropriated nearly $1 trillion in emergency funds to loan to, or otherwise prop up, failing financial institutions. But none of the original legislation that had spurred decades of risky lending, has been repealed in all the "bailout" frenzy, and there are no bills pending to do so.


-------------------------------------------------------

Anything else I can help you with?
 
It is amazing to me that the American people have not demanded action against those responsible for the housing crisis. What further amazes me are the number of people who have no clue about what happened when that information is readily available...thanks for posting the above LA.

Amazingly no one is in prison for what happened and many in Congress who share the responsibility for the crash, are still there and completely unaffected.

In a sane nation, dozens of politicians, bureaucrats, and business leaders would be wallowing away their time in a prison cell next to Madoff.

Is there even one political leader discussing this terrible injustice and demanding action?

The Dodd Frank bill has only made matters worse...which is no surprise. Two of the most corrupt fools ever to walk the halls of Congress and both heavily responsible for the crash, write a bill to fix things. How could anyone think that would work? Apparently Congress and POTUS thought so.
 
Damage the house (2) (9/18/2011)

Blame others for the mess they had made.

Normally, president and his administration have annual revenue income, like a salary income for a family. He spends it for mortgage and other expenditure. They used to overspend the income, then they borrow the money by issuing bond.

But Bush damaged the house with a leaking roof and big hole on wall. (Housing bubble and financial crisis)

Obama not only has to pay monthly mortgage, but also must change the roof and repair the wall. That repair cost is much more than the normal monthly mortgage. The income remains the same. (salary unchanged or decreased) Expense increase drammatically. (save the firms too big to fall, help the unemployed people, help the drowned home owners....) That become a huge increase of national debt. Who should be responsible for that repair money?

Damage the house is easy. To repair it cost much. Republicans attacked Obama for the mess their own president (Bush) had made.

The fact is Bush inherited a surplus from Clinton, he left a deficit for Obama. Worse, he left a big financial crisis to Obama. Now they accuse Obama because he spend a lot of money to repair the roof. You know, to repair a roof costs more than to pay monthly mortgage.
 
motivational_bush_miss_me_yet.jpg

THIS MAN!
 
Damage the house (2) (9/18/2011)

Blame others for the mess they had made.

Normally, president and his administration have annual revenue income, like a salary income for a family. He spends it for mortgage and other expenditure. They used to overspend the income, then they borrow the money by issuing bond.

But Bush damaged[] Clinton, he left a deficit for Obama. Worse, he left a big financial crisis to Obama. Now they accuse Obama because he spend a lot of money to repair the roof. You know, to repair a roof costs more than to pay monthly mortgage.

Were it only that simple.

Yes Bush damaged the economy, he also helped it. But Clinton damaged and helped it too and so did a score of other presidents before them.

And of much more importance is the role of congress - it is they who make the laws and make the budget - not the president.

That is too simply because all it does is play into the hands of parties who only seek to blame the other party.

But if you want simple then one only need look at the types of laws that hurt the economy and avoid making those laws - laws for example that reward bad decision making and punish good decision making. Like all the bailouts that have been enacted by both Bush and Obama.
 
Didn't even read the answers you got, to the question you originally asked, did you?

Is there any reason we should keep answering your posts?

You may not have a reason to answer his posts. . .but I certainly appreciate his posts and his point of view.

But it doesn't matter to you, right?
Because. . .let's face it, just like Fox News, it doesn't matter what the REAL majority of people want, if it doesn't matter to you, it doesn't matter as an opinion!
 
Bush’s legacy is still hurting economy (10/24/2011)

Some people say that after three years, Obama can’t blame Bush on economy failure any more. But the housing crisis still hurts economy and looks like will continue to damage the economy for several years. The problem he left for this country is huge and long-lasting.

The main expense is to bail out the firms too big to fail, especially the mortgage giant Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The program to help unemployed, incentive to promote car sale and house sale, program to help the home owners whose house value now are underwater. Here is the real expense, that's the real hole you try to avoid of. Three years after sub-prime loan crisis, the roof is still leaking. Here is the some recent "leaking" result:

Fannie Mae Posts $8.7 Billion Loss, Requests More Fed Aid

WASHINGTON -- Mortgage buyer Fannie Mae reported a loss of $8.7 billion for the January-March quarter, and asked for an additional $8.5 billion in federal aid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_858812.html

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Seek $3.1 Billion Amid Improved Earnings
QBy Lorraine Woellert - Feb 24, 2011 9:01 PM PT

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...-earnings.html

Fannie Mae needs another $5.1 billion in aid as more loans sour
.Date: Friday, August 5, 2011,

http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...1-billion.html

Bank Of America To Cut 30,000 Jobs As Part Of Restructuring Plan
9/12/11
Bank of America stock was up 2 cents at $7 at midday. The stock has lost half its value this year, largely over problems related to poorly-written mortgages it acquired with its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial Corp. The bank faces lawsuits from investors and regulators over the sales of mortgage-backed securities that lost value after the housing boom collapsed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/bank-of-america-to-cut-30_n_958432.html

Three years after the break-off of the housing bubble, it still hurts economy and causes unemployment.
 
Bush’s legacy is still hurting economy (10/24/2011)

Some people say that after three years, Obama can’t blame Bush on economy failure any more. But the housing crisis still hurts economy and looks like will continue to damage the economy for several years. The problem he left for this country is huge and long-lasting.

The main expense is to bail out the firms too big to fail, especially the mortgage giant Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The program to help unemployed, incentive to promote car sale and house sale, program to help the home owners whose house value now are underwater. Here is the real expense, that's the real hole you try to avoid of. Three years after sub-prime loan crisis, the roof is still leaking. Here is the some recent "leaking" result:

Three years after the break-off of the housing bubble, it still hurts economy and causes unemployment.


The Troubled Asset Relief Program did nothing to address the troubled assets, just money to financial concerns. Its not like they would just go away.
 
Werbung:
4. How Bush blew up the Housing bubble.

Here is a Federal bench interest rate in Bush's term.

17fed.graph.190.gif

you can see how the interest rate dropped to the bottom from 6% to 1% in his first year administration. That low interest rate created a housing bubble. Bush boasted in his administration, America developed an ownership society. The fast growing up bubble without any restriction was finally boken up in 2007, caused the financial crisis in next year. It is still hurting the economy and likely will continue for years.

End of the ‘Ownership Society’
Oct 10, 2008

Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower. Absurd though these all were, they paled in comparison to the financial innovations that grew out of the mortgages—derivatives built on other derivatives, packaged and repackaged until no one could identify what they contained and how much they were, in fact, worth.

As we know by now, these instruments have brought the global financial system,

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/10/10/end-of-the-ownership-society.html

One thing else you can see from that interest rate chart. Clinton left his a nice interest rate tool to control the economy. The interest rate was 6%. With that interest rate tool, Bush did push up a economy. But he didn't regulate the economy, loosen the bridle of housing loan for his homeowners' society, that caused today's foreclosure problem. What did he leave for Obama? The Federal interest rate was below 1% which left little space for obama to operate. Without that tool, Obama had to borrow money, or do QE (quantitative easing) to push the economy.

Clinton left for Bush a surplus budget and a nice financial tool. What has Obama got from Bush?
 
Back
Top