Did Bush cause 2008 the Financial Crisis?

[JakeStarkey]

Did Bush cause 2008 the Financial Crisis?

The GOP caused the 2008 recession with its congressional policies from 1994 to 2006 with assistance of complacent president.

This is what college and secondary school text books teach.

Won't change, because it's true.

 

[bedowin62]

Did Bush cause 2008 the Financial Crisis?

The GOP caused the 2008 recession with its congressional policies from 1994 to 2006 with assistance of complacent president.

This is what college and secondary school text books teach.

Won't change, because it's true.

which policies?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did Bush cause 2008 the Financial Crisis?

The GOP caused the 2008 recession with its congressional policies from 1994 to 2006 with assistance of complacent president.

This is what college and secondary school text books teach.

Won't change, because it's true.

which policies?

Check the text book for that.

You are one of the more uninformed posters on the Board so that would be a good start to rectify your problem.

 

[bedowin62]

Did Bush cause 2008 the Financial Crisis?

The GOP caused the 2008 recession with its congressional policies from 1994 to 2006 with assistance of complacent president.

This is what college and secondary school text books teach.

Won't change, because it's true.

which policies?

Check the text book for that.

You are one of the more uninformed posters on the Board so that would be a good start to rectify your problem.

a youtube video?

you're a joke; and hence have no business commenting on who is one of the more uninformed posters or not

 

[Vigilante]

Did Bush cause 2008 the Financial Crisis?

The GOP caused the 2008 recession with its congressional policies from 1994 to 2006 with assistance of complacent president.

This is what college and secondary school text books teach.

Won't change, because it's true.

Now wouldn't you have thought that with all the video evidence posted here, that since 2001 Congress was warned about the collapse, and by the en masse voting of the Democratic Congress to prevent any examination or fixes to be presented, that if Bush did it, as you claim, why would it have happened after over 7 1/2 years of his administration?....

 

[g5000]

I looked through this entire article and NOT one mention that George W Bush single-handedly caused the crisis as many Bush bashers believe!

And while GWB was NOT single-handedly blamed as MOST unintelligent UNINFORMED idiots would have you believe..
Here are the Presidents that share the blame.
[Personal note: Unlike many of the posters here I am intellectually honest to include GOP as part of the blame... Yes GWB included!]

These people were appointed by US Presidents including Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush and Obama to top government positions, in part as a payback for campaign contribution by some of these Wall Street firms.

Who contributed to the creation to the financial crisis and the ensuing economic crisis?
The following is a general answer followed by a section naming the key players:

Regulators who relaxed risk management regulations required by the banks and for not regulating derivative investments (please, see more specific details below)
The Federal Reserve Chairmen who dismissed the build-up of the housing bubble from 2002 to 2007 until it was too late. They did not take actions to regulate mortgage companies or control the housing bubble

World Central Bankers who blindly copied the US Federal Reserve Bank policies

World Financial Regulators who blindly copied US financial market models and regulations

World Investment Banks who sold subprime (high risk) mortgage backed securities to their customers without fully understanding them and who hired credit rating agencies to rate them as high quality investment when in fact they included high risk loans. The same banks who sold the subprime investments later bet against their own clients without disclosing the conflict of interest to their clients

Credit Rating Agencies who overrated junk securities as investment-grade quality and misled investors about the risk and the value of these investments

Academic and Financial Economists who ignored the warnings and misjudged macroeconomic and financial market indicators

Award-winning Economists who designed flawed risk pricing models

Investment Analysts who used flawed risk pricing models and asset portfolio theories

Wall Street Banking Executives who ignored internal risk management policies out of greed to increase revenues and their bonuses in the short term at the expense of long term stability of their companies

Wall Street Boards of Directors who did not protect their shareholders against excessive executive compensation and ignored prudent risk management strategies
Wall Street Advisors who did not do their homework before advising their clients on bad investments

Investment Fund Managers who lost billions of dollars investing without adequate due diligence

Mortgage Brokers who sold loans to unqualified borrowers in order to collect more commissions

Homebuyers who took loans they could not afford to pay back and blamed the banks for predatory lending

US Presidents for hiring former Wall Street lobbyists as government policy makers who bailed out the banks without regard to the moral hazard. By doing so, they shifted the burden on the taxpayers and risked the future of the national economy

US Supreme Court Justices who ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections thus tightening the grip of Wall Street on government officials and skewing the balance of power in favor of Wall Street and big companies.

The Financial Media who took no responsibility for promoting the illusions of a healthy housing sector and for not asking the right questions. Media outlets that favored a promotional business model at the expense of investigative journalism. In our research, we found a prevalent bias in allocating airwaves and print space to brand name experts. Most journalists and editors seem to ignore voices that are not well-known or those who have a story that do not fit their narrative or preconception. All we had to do is Google simple phrases like "US Economic Risks" to find a wealth of information that would raise so many critical questions. If equal media exposure was given to the voices that warned us about the housing bubble, the damage could have been mitigated.


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

It is a crying shame it took you six years after the fact to learn this.

 

[healthmyths]

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

NO you can't put it all on Barney and his ilk! Bush was at fault some but Bush had some very major distractions during his tenure
or else he would have been more effective.
Remember these events occurred which to date NO other president has ever experienced.
There are 4 major reasons why:
The Dot.com bust, the recession, 9/11 and worst hurricanes in history !
NO other President EVER had the combination of the above events occur in their presidency.
Total lives: over 5,000... 9/11 - 3,000, hurricanes.. over 2,000
Total costs:$8 trillion in losses of businesses, market values, revenues and taxes.
Total job losses: Over 3 million due to destroyed businesses bankrupt businesses,etc.

YET Bush at the end of 2000 the average for the year was 131,785,000 fully employed...
At the end of 2008 the average for the year was 136,790,000 full employed and THAT is A FACT!
That means from end of 2000 to the end of 2008 there were 5,050,000 more employed!
These are exactly what the Bureau of Labor Statistics REPORTED.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Historical_employment_data.pdf

But Bush bashers TOTALLY ignore those extraneous events that did a lot of physical (5,000 deaths) asset destruction $8 trillion,
and probably more then anything the psyche of Americans.
Almost all Americans alive in 2001 NEVER experienced what happened and a lot of people forget the following months of anthrax attacks which made EVERYONE open mail cautiously!

And all during this time NOT ONE time did you hear GWB blaming ANY Americans! He blamed the terrorists..not Americans!

Unlike our current Prez who told the terrorists our military "air raiding villages killing civilians"! Americans killing civilians!

And of course Obama was RIGHT! BUT only an idiot says these things in proximity of the open press so the world and enemies
can use those words against us! And he's proud of it!

Again not once did Bush EVER Blame Americans during these times.

 

[g5000]

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

NO you can't put it all on Barney and his ilk! Bush was at fault some but Bush had some very major distractions during his tenure
or else he would have been more effective.
Remember these events occurred which to date NO other president has ever experienced.
There are 4 major reasons why:
The Dot.com bust, the recession, 9/11 and worst hurricanes in history !
NO other President EVER had the combination of the above events occur in their presidency.
Total lives: over 5,000... 9/11 - 3,000, hurricanes.. over 2,000
Total costs:$8 trillion in losses of businesses, market values, revenues and taxes.
Total job losses: Over 3 million due to destroyed businesses bankrupt businesses,etc.

YET Bush at the end of 2000 the average for the year was 131,785,000 fully employed...
At the end of 2008 the average for the year was 136,790,000 full employed and THAT is A FACT!
That means from end of 2000 to the end of 2008 there were 5,050,000 more employed!
These are exactly what the Bureau of Labor Statistics REPORTED.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Historical_employment_data.pdf

But Bush bashers TOTALLY ignore those extraneous events that did a lot of physical (5,000 deaths) asset destruction $8 trillion,
and probably more then anything the psyche of Americans.
Almost all Americans alive in 2001 NEVER experienced what happened and a lot of people forget the following months of anthrax attacks which made EVERYONE open mail cautiously!

And all during this time NOT ONE time did you hear GWB blaming ANY Americans! He blamed the terrorists..not Americans!

Unlike our current Prez who told the terrorists our military "air raiding villages killing civilians"! Americans killing civilians!

And of course Obama was RIGHT! BUT only an idiot says these things in proximity of the open press so the world and enemies
can use those words against us! And he's proud of it!

Again not once did Bush EVER Blame Americans during these times.

Gee, you let Bush off the hook for things which were far less economically disastrous than what Obama was facing when he took office.

 

[Jarhead]

The policies were designed to assist the American people to live the American Dream.
The problem was that many allowed their greed to take over.

When they saw they could refinance and pay next to nothing a month for 5 years with an ARM....they jumped on it....not worrying about what may happen when their rate jumps after 5 years.

When many saw an opportunity to get a mortgage without an income verification or employment verification....they lied to get it believing it didn't matter.

Now....sure...you can say that the policies were foolish and the congress and President should have known that people would do that....you know...game the game....

Bur if you ask todays democrats....people are honest and those who legally can not vote, will not vote if ID is not checked......criminals will not still buy guns if guns are made illegal....people will not abuse welfare and disability.

Bottom line is this.....the greed of the people is what caused the crisis.

 

[g5000]

When you combine all the investor wealth in the world together, there was tens of trillions of dollars available.

There were not enough good borrowers on the planet to invest all that money in, and so the underwriting laws of the Universe were tossed out the window. The lending standards were lowered in order to put all that cash to work. Lowered, and then lowered again, and then lowered some more.

The middle men (the bankers) get a fee every time they succeed in getting investor cash into a borrower's hands, and so they had every motivation in the world to keep the music playing.

It is as simple as that.

 

[Jarhead]

When you combine all the investor wealth in the world together, there was tens of trillions of dollars available.

There were not enough good borrowers on the planet to invest all that money in, and so the underwriting laws of the Universe were tossed out the window. The lending standards were lowered in order to put all that cash to work. Lowered, and then lowered again, and then lowered some more.

The middle men (the bankers) get a fee every time they succeed in getting investor cash into a borrower's hands, and so they had every motivation in the world to keep the music playing.

It is as simple as that.

Underwriters determine the validity of the transaction and whether or not it is a viable investment for the lending institution. An underwriter uses all information offered up by the lending institution and deems that information to be valid as an underwriter is NOT permitted, by law, to make judgment calls as to whether or not the borrower is lying.

It was not that underwriting laws were cast to the wind. The policies set by congress assumed people would not lie.....and so a short order cook making 30K a year was allowed to say he was making 100K a year and no one checked to see if it were true.

And so the underwriter saw 100K income and 20K year for mortgage payment and approved the transaction.

Blame the bankers all you want. It was the greed of the people that pushed them to lie.

They were not victims. They were greedy.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[JimH52]

2 wars and a tax cut;
All Bush's idea

Yup, no one could talk to recovering alcoholic out of it. He had his mind set and there was no going back. In his defense, it is true of many recovering alcoholics.

 

[bedowin62]

2 wars and a tax cut;
All Bush's idea

Yup, no one could talk to recovering alcoholic out of it. He had his mind set and there was no going back. In his defense, it is true of many recovering alcoholics.

who knew "change" meant record welfare and food stamps too?

you can lead a leftard to reality; but you cant make him think

 

[bedowin62]

obama first exended the bush tax cuts; ALL of them; and then made PERMANENT 98% OF THEM.
libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[g5000]

When you combine all the investor wealth in the world together, there was tens of trillions of dollars available.

There were not enough good borrowers on the planet to invest all that money in, and so the underwriting laws of the Universe were tossed out the window. The lending standards were lowered in order to put all that cash to work. Lowered, and then lowered again, and then lowered some more.

The middle men (the bankers) get a fee every time they succeed in getting investor cash into a borrower's hands, and so they had every motivation in the world to keep the music playing.

It is as simple as that.

Underwriters determine the validity of the transaction and whether or not it is a viable investment for the lending institution. An underwriter uses all information offered up by the lending institution and deems that information to be valid as an underwriter is NOT permitted, by law, to make judgment calls as to whether or not the borrower is lying.

It was not that underwriting laws were cast to the wind. The policies set by congress assumed people would not lie.....and so a short order cook making 30K a year was allowed to say he was making 100K a year and no one checked to see if it were true.

And so the underwriter saw 100K income and 20K year for mortgage payment and approved the transaction.

Blame the bankers all you want. It was the greed of the people that pushed them to lie.

They were not victims. They were greedy.

The bankers were able to convince the regulators they had eliminated the risks of lending to short order cooks through the use of derivatives.

Yes, the short order cook was greedy, but if there is a banker schooled in high finance on one side of the table, and a short order cook on the other side of the table, which one bears the most fiscal responsibility for a loan?

The banker does.

Wall Street preyed on the ignorance of the borrowers, and on the ignorance of investors.

 

[bedowin62]

When you combine all the investor wealth in the world together, there was tens of trillions of dollars available.

There were not enough good borrowers on the planet to invest all that money in, and so the underwriting laws of the Universe were tossed out the window. The lending standards were lowered in order to put all that cash to work. Lowered, and then lowered again, and then lowered some more.

The middle men (the bankers) get a fee every time they succeed in getting investor cash into a borrower's hands, and so they had every motivation in the world to keep the music playing.

It is as simple as that.

Underwriters determine the validity of the transaction and whether or not it is a viable investment for the lending institution. An underwriter uses all information offered up by the lending institution and deems that information to be valid as an underwriter is NOT permitted, by law, to make judgment calls as to whether or not the borrower is lying.

It was not that underwriting laws were cast to the wind. The policies set by congress assumed people would not lie.....and so a short order cook making 30K a year was allowed to say he was making 100K a year and no one checked to see if it were true.

And so the underwriter saw 100K income and 20K year for mortgage payment and approved the transaction.

Blame the bankers all you want. It was the greed of the people that pushed them to lie.

They were not victims. They were greedy.

The bankers were able to convince the regulators they had eliminated the risks of lending to short order cooks through the use of derivatives.

and that was true genius; the derivitive market didnt collapse and cause the housing bubble to burst; house prices did. no; or very few; derivitives were called to be paid out


the problem was always the idea of giving trilion in taxpayer-backed mortgages to people that couldnt pay them. the derivitives sprung from bankers trying to MITIGATE THE RISK of that mostly liberal policiy

 

[g5000]

Underwriters determine the validity of the transaction and whether or not it is a viable investment for the lending institution. An underwriter uses all information offered up by the lending institution and deems that information to be valid as an underwriter is NOT permitted, by law, to make judgment calls as to whether or not the borrower is lying.

It was not that underwriting laws were cast to the wind. The policies set by congress assumed people would not lie.....and so a short order cook making 30K a year was allowed to say he was making 100K a year and no one checked to see if it were true.

And so the underwriter saw 100K income and 20K year for mortgage payment and approved the transaction.

Blame the bankers all you want. It was the greed of the people that pushed them to lie.

They were not victims. They were greedy.

The bankers were able to convince the regulators they had eliminated the risks of lending to short order cooks through the use of derivatives.

and that was true genius; the derivitive market didnt collapse and cause the housing bubble to burst; house prices did. no; or very few; derivitives were called to be paid out


the problem was always the idea of giving trilion in taxpayer-backed mortgages to people that couldnt pay them. the derivitives sprung from bankers trying to MITIGATE THE RISK of that mostly liberal policiy

Derivatives were the central cause of the crash. Without derivatives, the crisis would have been several factors of ten less dire. So much so, there may not have even been a crash if they did not exist.

 

[bedowin62]

The bankers were able to convince the regulators they had eliminated the risks of lending to short order cooks through the use of derivatives.

and that was true genius; the derivitive market didnt collapse and cause the housing bubble to burst; house prices did. no; or very few; derivitives were called to be paid out


the problem was always the idea of giving trilion in taxpayer-backed mortgages to people that couldnt pay them. the derivitives sprung from bankers trying to MITIGATE THE RISK of that mostly liberal policiy

Derivatives were the central cause of the crash. Without derivatives, the crisis would have been several factors of ten less dire. So much so, there may not have even been a crash if they did not exist.

good. prove that

 

[g5000]

It is precisely because it was thought that derivatives eliminated risk which caused more and more risk to be taken.