Did Bush cause 2008 the Financial Crisis?

[I.P.Freely]

Reagan and Thatcher the Batman and Robin of deregulation started it, The changes in the 80s removed constraints on bankers, and made them more important than the manufacturing side.

your neighbours never bought into the deregulation crap.
Know Thy Neighbor: What Canada Can Tell Us About Financial Regulation | Brookings Institution

 

[Interpol]

This thread is working under the operating theory that we should revise history and let the failed policies of George W. Bush off the hook.

Dubya did not represent the beginning of the structural problems of our financial instruments, but he did aggravate the problem which finally put us on the fast-track to a financial meltdown.

I blame first the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations for beginning a culture of deregulation.

I then blame the Clinton administration for allowing powerful financial institutions to speculate more freely and to widen their reach into things like investment banking and insurance. We now know the repeal of Glass-Steagall was wrong.

Despite that repeal happening under Bill Clinton's watch, we then must blame Wall Street's overzealous ways when it came to lending.

Enter George W. Bush as President. He did not come billed as a hardcore conservative, but a "compassionate" and moderate one. His initial plan was to listen to economic experts, many of whom were moderate Clintonites (Dubya wanted to continue the good times and early on they had his ear, but to no avail). The advice given to him initially was to tighten regulations on lending practices that had been deregulated too heavily by Clinton 2 years prior and the Republican controlled Congress.

The 107th House of Representatives (the first one under Dubya's watch) was controlled by Republicans who refused to budge on any of Dubya's proposals. They and a majority of senior Bush administration officials argued the free market would simply take care of business.

George W. Bush changed course and decided to go with his Republican-led congress instead of economic experts who advised otherwise. In 2005, his pick as SEC head (William Donaldson) resigned because the administration and the Republican controlled congress refused to do anything, including holding hearings on what could and should be done to help avert a potential collapse, which included a proposal to steer the responsibility for a collapse away from us, the taxpayers, who had increasingly been put in the position of backing risky Wall Street dealings.

The 107th Congress under Dubya passed Sarbanes-Oxley as a response to the Enron crisis (Enron was not the only one, but the one we remember best) but to their fault was the cynical move to only allow the kinds of regulators and public auditors who would look the other way instead of stepping in and addressing problems. Although it passed by a wide majority, it was simply a cosmetic plan to make it appear like we were doing something when in fact the Republican controlled Congress and White House only allowed for corporate lobbyist types to "regulate themselves".

Just like how the "Patriot Act" was not patriotic, the idea that major corporations should police themselves was boneheaded and not real regulation.

So the SEC chairmen resigned in 2005, a year after George W. Bush was pushing hard for what he called "The Ownership Society". He did nothing to dissuade lenders to keep lending and to not take any responsibility for totally confusing or screwing over 15 million potential homeowners who were making their payments but were fooled by a scheme by Wall Street that was clearly betting against those 15 million to pay for their homes.

Just like on immigration reform, George W. Bush was for regulations before he was against them and his administration clearly oversaw what eventually led to risky financial deals that were made by "too big to fail" Wall Streeters who knew that the public would be on the hook for bailing them out if they sold us down the river.

George W. Bush's first term was key. President Clinton admitted he would've acted upon the advice of economists to correct prior mistakes. Bush talked about it at first but went with the cynical plan to misregulate, which is more accurately what happened. Of course, the 107th, 108th and 109th Republican-controlled Houses of Representatives were cynical. They pretended to pass meaningful "regulations" but what they really did was allow for corporations to police themselves and have since tried to absolve themselves from any responsibility by saying, "See, we regulated and THAT was the cause of the collapse, therefore regulations that Democrats wanted were the culprit".

But just like allowing for BP to police itself, we now know that corporations could care less about the public interest and care only for increasing their bottom line.

Meanwhile, Wall Street understood that with increasing powers to speculate and to broaden their risky investments, they could get away with practically anything because the "regulators" were appointed by none other than themselves and endorsed by the Republican controlled Congress, which had free reign for almost 6 years under President Bush, safe for a short while when there was a Democratic switch in the Senate.

I sincerely believe that Bill Clinton would not have caved in the way George Bush did, who completely upended his entire presidency by repeatedly ignoring sound financial experts in favor of Republican ideologues, the like of which gave us Trickle Down economics, the worst failure of economic policy in America's existence since it has only helped to multiply the wealth of very wealthy individuals and corporations while wages stayed stagnant or fell across the board.

When a highly respected Republican resigns because the ideologues around him won't let corrections occur, that tells us there was a serious problem with how the economy was steered by Republican ideologues who did nothing but watch us fail instead of gathering facts, learning, and then acting upon those facts.

So in the end, though George W. Bush inherited a culture of deregulation, instead of correcting it he made it much worse by way of totally cynical misregulation and I put that blame squarely on Republicans in Washington who said that if we let Wall Street govern itself without government interference, that prosperity would reign in a way that would be historic.

They were wrong. They precipitated our collapse and did nothing to protect us from bailing out our own capitalistic system. Fannie and Freddie are simply red herrings used by these same people to place blame, when in fact they only represented about 10% of all the bad loans.

 

[Avatar4321]

Pretty sure 2008 would have occurred with or without Bush.

Nope, sorry, the mergers on speculation monies were all BushCo.

Even if that's true, how does that effect whether 2008 would occur? Seems like it would naturally follow 2007 even if Bush wasn't around.

 

[Politico]

Did Bush cause 2008 the Financial Crisis?

No the people buying shit they knew they could not afford caused it.

Bush was still president in 2008.

What a freaking liberal cop out.

Reagan and Thatcher the Batman and Robin of deregulation started it, The changes in the 80s removed constraints on bankers, and made them more important than the manufacturing side.

Yes. Those changes made it possible for the generation me needs to have it all right now folks to buy all the stuff they knew they couldn't afford.

 

[Claudette]

Pretty sure 2008 would have occurred with or without Bush.

Yup. The crisis was decades in the making and Bush just happened to be POTUS when it all finally collapsed. It would have happened no matter who was in the WH.

 

[The Rabbi]

They've spread the blame pretty thin here. It's like blaming the murderer, the murderer's parents, his teachers, the owner of the store where he bought his gun, the kid who was mean to him when he was three...

I would go a step further on W and say his role was actually pretty minimal. And I feel homebuyers can be taken off that list entirely. People weren't out seeking loans they couldn't afford, they were aggressively sold these loans. Even low-wage people were being sold on and signed up for these loans.

So greedy mortgage bankers held guns to people's heads to make them sign? You really believe this?

The point is that low interest rates by the Fed created incentives for everyone to act like that would continue forever and make incredibly risky bets in the market.

A bigger point is that people see the meltdown as a failure of some kind. I heard an interview with Soros once who said the problem with capitalism is that it doesnt regulate itself. That is totally wrong. The melt down was the regulation. It punished people who took outsized risks and should have rewarded people who didnt. Of course the gov't stepping in (under both Bush and Obama) and short circuiting that meant that we have a paltry recovery.

 

[waltky]

Rabbi...

... Fearless W gonna founder...

... on all dem kitties he's eatin'.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Only hardcore partisan ideologues could blame the most complicated and massive economic meltdown in history on one guy, party affiliation irrelevant.

The Meltdown had many contributors, it built up over decades, and was cultural in its DNA.

.

 

[occupied]

The people who caused this are still handling other peoples money and are simply amazed that they avoided any kind of punishment. Now emboldened they are absolutely free to do it all again. America could have taken the lead and put the financial world on notice that crashing the economy means the end of your career and maybe even your freedom and the dismantling of your institution but alas we sent them a message that we would suffer through any reckless thing Wall Street does and blame the poor. Now that the statute of limitations has passed on most of their crimes we have only to wait for them to disappear trillions from the economy again knowing for a fact that we lack the courage to hold them accountable.

 

[healthmyths]

This thread is working under the operating theory that we should revise history and let the failed policies of George W. Bush off the hook.

Dubya did not represent the beginning of the structural problems of our financial instruments, but he did aggravate the problem which finally put us on the fast-track to a financial meltdown.

I blame first the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations for beginning a culture of deregulation.

I then blame the Clinton administration for allowing powerful financial institutions to speculate more freely and to widen their reach into things like investment banking and insurance. We now know the repeal of Glass-Steagall was wrong.

Despite that repeal happening under Bill Clinton's watch, we then must blame Wall Street's overzealous ways when it came to lending.

Enter George W. Bush as President. He did not come billed as a hardcore conservative, but a "compassionate" and moderate one. His initial plan was to listen to economic experts, many of whom were moderate Clintonites (Dubya wanted to continue the good times and early on they had his ear, but to no avail). The advice given to him initially was to tighten regulations on lending practices that had been deregulated too heavily by Clinton 2 years prior and the Republican controlled Congress.

The 107th House of Representatives (the first one under Dubya's watch) was controlled by Republicans who refused to budge on any of Dubya's proposals. They and a majority of senior Bush administration officials argued the free market would simply take care of business.

George W. Bush changed course and decided to go with his Republican-led congress instead of economic experts who advised otherwise. In 2005, his pick as SEC head (William Donaldson) resigned because the administration and the Republican controlled congress refused to do anything, including holding hearings on what could and should be done to help avert a potential collapse, which included a proposal to steer the responsibility for a collapse away from us, the taxpayers, who had increasingly been put in the position of backing risky Wall Street dealings.

The 107th Congress under Dubya passed Sarbanes-Oxley as a response to the Enron crisis (Enron was not the only one, but the one we remember best) but to their fault was the cynical move to only allow the kinds of regulators and public auditors who would look the other way instead of stepping in and addressing problems. Although it passed by a wide majority, it was simply a cosmetic plan to make it appear like we were doing something when in fact the Republican controlled Congress and White House only allowed for corporate lobbyist types to "regulate themselves".

Just like how the "Patriot Act" was not patriotic, the idea that major corporations should police themselves was boneheaded and not real regulation.

So the SEC chairmen resigned in 2005, a year after George W. Bush was pushing hard for what he called "The Ownership Society". He did nothing to dissuade lenders to keep lending and to not take any responsibility for totally confusing or screwing over 15 million potential homeowners who were making their payments but were fooled by a scheme by Wall Street that was clearly betting against those 15 million to pay for their homes.

Just like on immigration reform, George W. Bush was for regulations before he was against them and his administration clearly oversaw what eventually led to risky financial deals that were made by "too big to fail" Wall Streeters who knew that the public would be on the hook for bailing them out if they sold us down the river.

George W. Bush's first term was key. President Clinton admitted he would've acted upon the advice of economists to correct prior mistakes. Bush talked about it at first but went with the cynical plan to misregulate, which is more accurately what happened. Of course, the 107th, 108th and 109th Republican-controlled Houses of Representatives were cynical. They pretended to pass meaningful "regulations" but what they really did was allow for corporations to police themselves and have since tried to absolve themselves from any responsibility by saying, "See, we regulated and THAT was the cause of the collapse, therefore regulations that Democrats wanted were the culprit".

But just like allowing for BP to police itself, we now know that corporations could care less about the public interest and care only for increasing their bottom line.

Meanwhile, Wall Street understood that with increasing powers to speculate and to broaden their risky investments, they could get away with practically anything because the "regulators" were appointed by none other than themselves and endorsed by the Republican controlled Congress, which had free reign for almost 6 years under President Bush, safe for a short while when there was a Democratic switch in the Senate.

I sincerely believe that Bill Clinton would not have caved in the way George Bush did, who completely upended his entire presidency by repeatedly ignoring sound financial experts in favor of Republican ideologues, the like of which gave us Trickle Down economics, the worst failure of economic policy in America's existence since it has only helped to multiply the wealth of very wealthy individuals and corporations while wages stayed stagnant or fell across the board.

When a highly respected Republican resigns because the ideologues around him won't let corrections occur, that tells us there was a serious problem with how the economy was steered by Republican ideologues who did nothing but watch us fail instead of gathering facts, learning, and then acting upon those facts.

So in the end, though George W. Bush inherited a culture of deregulation, instead of correcting it he made it much worse by way of totally cynical misregulation and I put that blame squarely on Republicans in Washington who said that if we let Wall Street govern itself without government interference, that prosperity would reign in a way that would be historic.

They were wrong. They precipitated our collapse and did nothing to protect us from bailing out our own capitalistic system. Fannie and Freddie are simply red herrings used by these same people to place blame, when in fact they only represented about 10% of all the bad loans.

So it's all Bush's fault?

 

[Vermonter]

Reagan and Thatcher the Batman and Robin of deregulation started it, The changes in the 80s removed constraints on bankers, and made them more important than the manufacturing side.

Deregulating the banks came before Reagan was elected.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Not only did Bush not start it, he tried 17 different times to stop it.

Really? Would you like to at least give a partial list of these efforts? Can't? Didn't think so.

He didn't do a damn thing, honey. He just got up on the podium and said, "Wall Street got drunk". Wow, yeah. That really put a halt to the Banksters.

 

[bedowin62]

Not only did Bush not start it, he tried 17 different times to stop it.

Really? Would you like to at least give a partial list of these efforts? Can't? Didn't think so.

He didn't do a damn thing, honey. He just got up on the podium and said, "Wall Street got drunk". Wow, yeah. That really put a halt to the Banksters.

yawn

you moron

speaking of lists; can you give me a list of bush/republican policies democrats actually opposed with a majority of the democrat partys' votes no matter what their status in congress was?

i'll give you a list of "bush" or "republican" policies that democrats voted FOR, EXTENDED, CONTINUED, FUNDED.....etc BOTH when Bush was in office; after democrats took BOTH chambers OF Congress; and LONG after Bush left office

who's list will be bigger letard?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This has been gone over ad nauseam. The federal reserve, congress of the Clinton admin and Clinton paved the way for the real estate bubble. When we left the NASDAQ bubble, the effort was to mitigate the fallout by priming a real estate bubble. Thats what happened. Thats who is responsible and it will happen again too.

 

[healthmyths]

This thread is working under the operating theory that we should revise history and let the failed policies of George W. Bush off the hook.

Dubya did not represent the beginning of the structural problems of our financial instruments, but he did aggravate the problem which finally put us on the fast-track to a financial meltdown.

I blame first the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations for beginning a culture of deregulation.

I then blame the Clinton administration for allowing powerful financial institutions to speculate more freely and to widen their reach into things like investment banking and insurance. We now know the repeal of Glass-Steagall was wrong.

Despite that repeal happening under Bill Clinton's watch, we then must blame Wall Street's overzealous ways when it came to lending.

Enter George W. Bush as President. He did not come billed as a hardcore conservative, but a "compassionate" and moderate one. His initial plan was to listen to economic experts, many of whom were moderate Clintonites (Dubya wanted to continue the good times and early on they had his ear, but to no avail). The advice given to him initially was to tighten regulations on lending practices that had been deregulated too heavily by Clinton 2 years prior and the Republican controlled Congress.

The 107th House of Representatives (the first one under Dubya's watch) was controlled by Republicans who refused to budge on any of Dubya's proposals. They and a majority of senior Bush administration officials argued the free market would simply take care of business.

George W. Bush changed course and decided to go with his Republican-led congress instead of economic experts who advised otherwise. In 2005, his pick as SEC head (William Donaldson) resigned because the administration and the Republican controlled congress refused to do anything, including holding hearings on what could and should be done to help avert a potential collapse, which included a proposal to steer the responsibility for a collapse away from us, the taxpayers, who had increasingly been put in the position of backing risky Wall Street dealings.

The 107th Congress under Dubya passed Sarbanes-Oxley as a response to the Enron crisis (Enron was not the only one, but the one we remember best) but to their fault was the cynical move to only allow the kinds of regulators and public auditors who would look the other way instead of stepping in and addressing problems. Although it passed by a wide majority, it was simply a cosmetic plan to make it appear like we were doing something when in fact the Republican controlled Congress and White House only allowed for corporate lobbyist types to "regulate themselves".

Just like how the "Patriot Act" was not patriotic, the idea that major corporations should police themselves was boneheaded and not real regulation.

So the SEC chairmen resigned in 2005, a year after George W. Bush was pushing hard for what he called "The Ownership Society". He did nothing to dissuade lenders to keep lending and to not take any responsibility for totally confusing or screwing over 15 million potential homeowners who were making their payments but were fooled by a scheme by Wall Street that was clearly betting against those 15 million to pay for their homes.

Just like on immigration reform, George W. Bush was for regulations before he was against them and his administration clearly oversaw what eventually led to risky financial deals that were made by "too big to fail" Wall Streeters who knew that the public would be on the hook for bailing them out if they sold us down the river.

George W. Bush's first term was key. President Clinton admitted he would've acted upon the advice of economists to correct prior mistakes. Bush talked about it at first but went with the cynical plan to misregulate, which is more accurately what happened. Of course, the 107th, 108th and 109th Republican-controlled Houses of Representatives were cynical. They pretended to pass meaningful "regulations" but what they really did was allow for corporations to police themselves and have since tried to absolve themselves from any responsibility by saying, "See, we regulated and THAT was the cause of the collapse, therefore regulations that Democrats wanted were the culprit".

But just like allowing for BP to police itself, we now know that corporations could care less about the public interest and care only for increasing their bottom line.

Meanwhile, Wall Street understood that with increasing powers to speculate and to broaden their risky investments, they could get away with practically anything because the "regulators" were appointed by none other than themselves and endorsed by the Republican controlled Congress, which had free reign for almost 6 years under President Bush, safe for a short while when there was a Democratic switch in the Senate.

I sincerely believe that Bill Clinton would not have caved in the way George Bush did, who completely upended his entire presidency by repeatedly ignoring sound financial experts in favor of Republican ideologues, the like of which gave us Trickle Down economics, the worst failure of economic policy in America's existence since it has only helped to multiply the wealth of very wealthy individuals and corporations while wages stayed stagnant or fell across the board.

When a highly respected Republican resigns because the ideologues around him won't let corrections occur, that tells us there was a serious problem with how the economy was steered by Republican ideologues who did nothing but watch us fail instead of gathering facts, learning, and then acting upon those facts.

So in the end, though George W. Bush inherited a culture of deregulation, instead of correcting it he made it much worse by way of totally cynical misregulation and I put that blame squarely on Republicans in Washington who said that if we let Wall Street govern itself without government interference, that prosperity would reign in a way that would be historic.

They were wrong. They precipitated our collapse and did nothing to protect us from bailing out our own capitalistic system. Fannie and Freddie are simply red herrings used by these same people to place blame, when in fact they only represented about 10% of all the bad loans.

WHERE ARE YOUR sources/substantiations that back up YOUR OPINION???

Like I've done below! I know it is ALWAYS so much easier to exaggerate, blow out of proportion WHEN YOU don't use any substantive linking to prove your
subjective personal anecdotal opinion!
NOT ONE of your comments can be verified.


-- Many prominent Democrats, including House Finance Chairman Barney Frank, opposed any legislation correcting the risks posed by GSEs.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) criticized the President's warning saying:
"these two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are not facing any kind of financial crisis.
The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."..
(Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," New York Times, 9/11/03)

-- Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd also ignored the President's warnings and called on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," New York Times, 8/11/07)

Barney Frank's Fannie and Freddie Muddle - US News


Pelosi Caught In Major Lie- Says Bush Didn't Warn Congress About Financial Crisis… Records Show He Warned Congress 17 Times in 2008 Alone

The White House released this list of attempts by President Bush to reform Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac since he took office in 2001.
Unfortunately, Congress did not act on the president’s warnings:

** 2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

** 2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

** 2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (“Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)

** 2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04)

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)

** 2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05)

** 2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)

** 2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation
and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

“Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)

“[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)

“Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
Pelosi Caught In Major Lie- Says Bush Didn't Warn Congress About Financial Crisis? Records Show He Warned Congress 17 Times in 2008 Alone | The Gateway Pundit

 

[healthmyths]

Also if you critics read closer I'm not making the suggestion it was All BUSH's fault as you said!

I did a search of economists opinion regarding Bush the primary reason for economic crisis...
AGAIN read this web page for NOT MY opinion but a collection of experts...

Who is to Blame for the Financial Crisis and Ensuing Economic Crisis

 

[Vigilante]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR;=1]Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Avatar4321]

Pretty sure 2008 would have occurred with or without Bush.

Yup. The crisis was decades in the making and Bush just happened to be POTUS when it all finally collapsed. It would have happened no matter who was in the WH.

Not what I meant. Clearly I was unclear

 

[whitehall]

The funny thing is that the left never stops whining about Obama only controlling 2/3 of the federal government. Bush had to deal with a hostile congress with democrats controlling both houses for his last two years. Congressman Barney Frank was chairperson of the House Banking Committee which had oversight responsibility for Fannie Mae and he told America that Fannie Mae was solvent while it was under the verge of collapse. Sure enough Fannie Mae went under taking the entire financial network. Later on Frank confessed that he was blinded by political motivation. Nobody in the media or the democrat majority ever asked him the important questions. Did Frank intentionally cause the collapse of Fannie Mae as the biggest October surprise in history?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Barney Francis and his ilk caused the crash. Bush was just a spectator.