Did Bush cause 2008 the Financial Crisis?

[bedowin62]

"unlawful invasion"
and other idiotic things left-wing nutjobs pull out of their ass



YAWN

 

[bedowin62]

reality check leftard

the economic prosperity of the Middle Class is falling faster under obama and progressives than under bush

on the other hand the rich are getting richer FASTER under obama and progressives too

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[MikeK]

"unlawful invasion"
and other idiotic things left-wing nutjobs pull out of their assYAWN

George W. Bush already has been found guilty in absentia by the World Court which, unfortunately, does not have the authority of the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

If Bush were brought before that court he would be judged by the same principles which convicted the Nazis at Nuremberg. Because he is clearly guilty of several of the same specifications.

Bush is not only a criminal, his crimes are exceptionally egregious in the eyes of the world, a fact which reflects on our once-proud Nation. It is unfortunate that people like you seem to be comfortable with that circumstance and are perfectly willing to allow this sonofabitch and his gang of conspirators to walk away smiling.



(Excerpt)

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, established by the United States and its allies to deliver justice to Nazi war criminals after WWII, called such acts of aggression "an evil thing."

"To initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole," the tribunal declared.

In the case of Iraq, "the accumulated evil of the whole" included extrajudicial killings, illegal imprisonment (sometimes of innocent female relatives of wanted insurgents), torture-- both authorized and otherwise-- and other violations of domestic and international law.

Among these laws are the War Crimes Act of 1996 (US), Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (US), Federal Anti-Torture Statute (US), United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush administration infamously said did not apply to individuals captured during the War on Terror because they were "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war.

(Close)

Bush terror czar Richard Clarke: Bush, Cheney are war criminals

 

[bedowin62]

"unlawful invasion"
and other idiotic things left-wing nutjobs pull out of their assYAWN

George W. Bush already has been found guilty in absentia by the World Court which, unfortunately, does not have the authority of the International Criminal Court at The Hague.

If Bush were brought before that court he would be judged by the same principles which convicted the Nazis at Nuremberg. Because he is clearly guilty of several of the same specifications.

Bush is not only a criminal, his crimes are exceptionally egregious in the eyes of the world, a fact which reflects on our once-proud Nation. It is unfortunate that people like you seem to be comfortable with that circumstance and are perfectly willing to allow this sonofabitch and his gang of conspirators to walk away smiling.



(Excerpt)

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, established by the United States and its allies to deliver justice to Nazi war criminals after WWII, called such acts of aggression "an evil thing."

"To initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole," the tribunal declared.

In the case of Iraq, "the accumulated evil of the whole" included extrajudicial killings, illegal imprisonment (sometimes of innocent female relatives of wanted insurgents), torture-- both authorized and otherwise-- and other violations of domestic and international law.

Among these laws are the War Crimes Act of 1996 (US), Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (US), Federal Anti-Torture Statute (US), United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush administration infamously said did not apply to individuals captured during the War on Terror because they were "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war.

(Close)

Bush terror czar Richard Clarke: Bush, Cheney are war criminals

oh goody leftard!1 in other words your just flinging poo out of your diaper?

 

[bedowin62]

didnt you morons say he was afraid to leave the country?
could have sworn i saw him at the funeral of mandela

 

[sealybobo]

didnt you morons say he was afraid to leave the country?
could have sworn i saw him at the funeral of mandela

In Europe he may be arrested and tried as a war criminal. I could be wrong and depends on the country but Bush is a piece of shit. And remember the lord talked to him?

 

[bedowin62]

didnt you morons say he was afraid to leave the country?
could have sworn i saw him at the funeral of mandela

In Europe he may be arrested and tried as a war criminal. I could be wrong and depends on the country but Bush is a piece of shit. And remember the lord talked to him?

in other words you're crying?

 

[bedowin62]

he may be arrested?


not sure leftard?

lots of people feel the Lord "talks" to them in a personal way

several hundred million in fact

go cry

 

[Vigilante]

[...]

President Obama's announcement of his plans for a restructured mortgage market was painful for those who remember the bubble and crash. It seems as though he learned nothing from this disaster.

[...]

Please pardon my licentious deletion of your substantive explanation of certain economic factors. I am relatively ignorant on that subject but I wish only to address the comment left standing (above).

Whether or not Obama learned anything about economics before or during his Presidency is not relevant. Because, like Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama is an actor whose performance as President occurs in accordance with a script. That script is written by the shadow government which financed Obama's candidacy and his campaign. Like Ronald Reagan, who was sponsored by the rising corporatocracy, Obama was effectively deposited in the Oval Office by the special interests of Wall Street and the banking industry. What he did during the economic crisis was exactly what those interests directed him to do.

If Obama's performance as President often seems confusing, surprising, unexpected, or downright peculiar, it's because he's trying to portray his character as he sees fit but his director has other ideas -- and he has to play it according to the script.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

President Obama's announcement of his plans for a restructured mortgage market was painful for those who remember the bubble and crash. It seems as though he learned nothing from this disaster.

[...]

Please pardon my licentious deletion of your substantive explanation of certain economic factors. I am relatively ignorant on that subject but I wish only to address the comment left standing (above).

Whether or not Obama learned anything about economics before or during his Presidency is not relevant. Because, like Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama is an actor whose performance as President occurs in accordance with a script. That script is written by the shadow government which financed Obama's candidacy and his campaign. Like Ronald Reagan, who was sponsored by the rising corporatocracy, Obama was effectively deposited in the Oval Office by the special interests of Wall Street and the banking industry. What he did during the economic crisis was exactly what those interests directed him to do.

If Obama's performance as President often seems confusing, surprising, unexpected, or downright peculiar, it's because he's trying to portray his character as he sees fit but his director has other ideas -- and he has to play it according to the script.

Obama has mastered the technique of two baby steps forward for every giant step backward. This is one of his baby steps.

 

[MikeK]

he may be arrested?


not sure leftard?

lots of people feel the Lord "talks" to them in a personal way

several hundred million in fact

go cry

Off you go to my Ignore list with the rest of the morons and time-wasters.

 

[Vigilante]

Please pardon my licentious deletion of your substantive explanation of certain economic factors. I am relatively ignorant on that subject but I wish only to address the comment left standing (above).

Whether or not Obama learned anything about economics before or during his Presidency is not relevant. Because, like Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama is an actor whose performance as President occurs in accordance with a script. That script is written by the shadow government which financed Obama's candidacy and his campaign. Like Ronald Reagan, who was sponsored by the rising corporatocracy, Obama was effectively deposited in the Oval Office by the special interests of Wall Street and the banking industry. What he did during the economic crisis was exactly what those interests directed him to do.

If Obama's performance as President often seems confusing, surprising, unexpected, or downright peculiar, it's because he's trying to portray his character as he sees fit but his director has other ideas -- and he has to play it according to the script.

Obama has mastered the technique of two baby steps forward for every giant step backward. This is one of his baby steps.

 

[peach174]

That one (the 2008 housing bubble) belongs to whomever helped to deregulate financial institutions.

Namely, William Jefferson Clinton and house Republicans.

It was bi-partisan all the way.

For which President Bush tried many, many times of get under control, but 3 Dems on the Housing committee refused to pass any bills and then when they got back in power in 2007 they wrote the bills and by then it was too late.

 

[edthecynic]

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

View attachment 30262

First of all, Bush was not president for any part of 2000. Second, an average does not tell you what is going on at the end of a year. And thirdly the number employed does not give the full picture of the overall employment situation, you also need to look at the change in the number of Unemployed over the period.

Here are the honest numbers:
132,694,000 total full employed Clinton's last month in office.
133,976,000 total full employed Bush's last month in office.

An increase of 1,282,000

6,023,000 unemployed Clinton's last month in office.
12,058,000 unemployed Bush's last month in office.

An increase of 6,035,000.

That is a net job loss of 5,753,000.

 

[edthecynic]

That one (the 2008 housing bubble) belongs to whomever helped to deregulate financial institutions.

Namely, William Jefferson Clinton and house Republicans.

It was bi-partisan all the way.

For which President Bush tried many, many times of get under control, but 3 Dems on the Housing committee refused to pass any bills and then when they got back in power in 2007 they wrote the bills and by then it was too late.

Obviously if the Dems were not in power they were powerless. The GOP House actually passed a housing reform bill 331 to 90, over the objections of the powerless Barney Frank and with a majority of House Dems voting FOR the bill. The reform bill went to the Senate where the majority GOP killed the bill. GOP Senate leader Bill Frist refused to even bring up the bill for a vote because of the 54 Republicans in the Senate more Republicans were against the bill, 29, then Republicans who were for it, 25. So Frist sent the bill to committee where it died.

 

[francoHFW]

Nice alternate universe, hater dupes. lol

 

[GWV5903]

Picky, picky!

The fact remains that the CRA, Fannie, Freddie loan rates adjusted DOWN and had nothing to do with the high rate, high risk, high profit loans that crashed the market.

BS, again Ed how many mortgages have you done?

You don't know crap about the subject Ed...

Stick to something you know...

I provided the link, you merely pontificated.

Stick to something you can back up!

I have done it for a living for over 23 years...

The program the NYT article refers to was not a popular product when at the time you could get a Zero Down FHA DPA loan at basically the same rate...

Nehemiah was the primary Non Profit at the time where the down payment and closing cost came from the seller via rolling it into the price, a nice little loop hole Clinton devised in late '96 and rolled it out in early '97. He revised CRA to help accommodate this product...

In essence the borrower was out anywhere from as little as $150 to as much as $800...

Not a bad risk for the buyer...

The lowest score I saw under FHA DPA was a 517 FICO that closed for about a $650 total investment on a 20 Year FHA DPA loan...

Today the hot loan for less than stellar financials is USDA, Zero Down, low MI and income caps are very liberal...

The Sub Prime market started as a 20% to 30% down payment with usually a 4% bump above par. Down the road Sub Prime was transformed into Zero Down, no MI, no escrows that you could easily get done with a 560 to 580 FICO...

If you don't believe me I could care less, take it or leave it Ed...

 

[Indeependent]

BS, again Ed how many mortgages have you done?

You don't know crap about the subject Ed...

Stick to something you know...

I provided the link, you merely pontificated.

Stick to something you can back up!

I have done it for a living for over 23 years...

The program the NYT article refers to was not a popular product when at the time you could get a Zero Down FHA DPA loan at basically the same rate...

Nehemiah was the primary Non Profit at the time where the down payment and closing cost came from the seller via rolling it into the price, a nice little loop hole Clinton devised in late '96 and rolled it out in early '97. He revised CRA to help accommodate this product...

In essence the borrower was out anywhere from as little as $150 to as much as $800...

Not a bad risk for the buyer...

The lowest score I saw under FHA DPA was a 517 FICO that closed for about a $650 total investment on a 20 Year FHA DPA loan...

Today the hot loan for less than stellar financials is USDA, Zero Down, low MI and income caps are very liberal...

The Sub Prime market started as a 20% to 30% down payment with usually a 4% bump above par. Down the road Sub Prime was transformed into Zero Down, no MI, no escrows that you could easily get done with a 560 to 580 FICO...

If you don't believe me I could care less, take it or leave it Ed...

Back to PAPER Approval reality...
As of 2006 through September 2008, janitor earning 20K/year gets a call from a Mortgage Broker telling said janitor that he has been approved for a 30 year, 6.5%, 600K Loan.
And please don't respond with a fairy tale that this wasn't happening by the hundreds of thousands.

 

[edthecynic]

BS, again Ed how many mortgages have you done?

You don't know crap about the subject Ed...

Stick to something you know...

I provided the link, you merely pontificated.

Stick to something you can back up!

I have done it for a living for over 23 years...

The program the NYT article refers to was not a popular product when at the time you could get a Zero Down FHA DPA loan at basically the same rate...

Nehemiah was the primary Non Profit at the time where the down payment and closing cost came from the seller via rolling it into the price, a nice little loop hole Clinton devised in late '96 and rolled it out in early '97. He revised CRA to help accommodate this product...

In essence the borrower was out anywhere from as little as $150 to as much as $800...

Not a bad risk for the buyer...

The lowest score I saw under FHA DPA was a 517 FICO that closed for about a $650 total investment on a 20 Year FHA DPA loan...

Today the hot loan for less than stellar financials is USDA, Zero Down, low MI and income caps are very liberal...

The Sub Prime market started as a 20% to 30% down payment with usually a 4% bump above par. Down the road Sub Prime was transformed into Zero Down, no MI, no escrows that you could easily get done with a 560 to 580 FICO...

If you don't believe me I could care less, take it or leave it Ed...

So no link and just more pontification.

I'll leave it!

 

[healthmyths]

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.

First of all, Bush was not president for any part of 2000. Second, an average does not tell you what is going on at the end of a year. And thirdly the number employed does not give the full picture of the overall employment situation, you also need to look at the change in the number of Unemployed over the period.

Here are the honest numbers:
132,694,000 total full employed Clinton's last month in office.
133,976,000 total full employed Bush's last month in office.

An increase of 1,282,000

6,023,000 unemployed Clinton's last month in office.
12,058,000 unemployed Bush's last month in office.

An increase of 6,035,000.

That is a net job loss of 5,753,000.

HEY NOTICE any difference between what you wrote and what I wrote???
I PROVIDED FACTS... where are you f...king facts!!

So let's look at the END of 2000.. employed people because was NOT PRESIDENT in 2000 RIGHT?
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Historical_employment_data.pdf



LOOK AT the
2000...................131,785,000
Now look at the end of 2008.
2008...................136,790,000

136,790,000
-131,785,000
5,005,000 MORE PEOPLE Working at the end of 2008 then at the beginning of 2001!
F-K case closed you dummy!

NOW ANSWER me you dumb f...k!

What President had these 4 external events NONE of which he could do anything about except RE-ACT???
The Dot.com bust
SOURCE:The dot-com bubble: How to lose $5 trillion ? Anderson Cooper 360 - CNN.com Blogs
2)4) And of the 10 Costliest Catastrophes..
SOURCE: 10 Costliest Catastrophes in the U.S. - Slide Show-Kiplinger
10. Hurricane Rita 2005
8. Hurricane Ivan 2004
7. Hurricane Charley 2004
6. Hurricane Wilma 2005
5. Hurricane Ike 2008
3. 9/11 Terrorist Attacks 2001
1. Hurricane Katrina 2005...
GEEZ notice something similar??? All during 2001 to 2008!!! GEEZ think that had ANY affect on people losing their jobs???
400,000 jobs lost due to worst hurricane SEASONS 7 of the top 10 hurricanes occurred during 2001 to 2008!
3) and of course NOT ONE of you Bush basher seems to realize A minor event --- 9/11!
800,000 jobs lost directly in travel/transportation businesses due to closures which means UNEMPLOYMENT!!!
SOURCE:The Top 10 Financial Events of the Decade
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.

Really what is the problem with you idiots? Why do you have any problems with simple math!