George W. Bush’s Decision Points

@Aye

Firstly I don’t need to answer any of your questions as you aren’t true to your word…

As soon as you answer mine I will answer yours

I’ve answered your question.

However with the first two answers that is if all members vote – so just to clarify….

50% + 1 vote. So if everyone votes yes or no then currently I believe 218 votes are needed in the HoR and 51 in the Senate.

Let me ask you Gaffer…how confident are you that no reform legislation came to the floor of the House? How confident are you that no reform legislation was considered in the Senate?

As soon as you answer mine I will answer yours 🙄

@Cary

So, before we get to the next verse, you should get the lyrics right for this one. Here’s something for you to read up on….

Is that the easy read version they presented to Bush? Or did he get a pet goat to explain and have some colouring crayons as well? 😆

Personally I found the below books informative…

And when did I call Fort Hood anything? I haven’t mentioned it at all.

I never said you did.

And I doubt VA considered The Beltway Snipers international Jihad terrorists.

I never said VA considered The Beltway Snipers international Jihad terrorists.

@Antics

Read the below

A good summary of warnings…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_debate

The Fort Hood attack was perpetrated in a single, rash act of murder and mayhem, whereas the Beltway Sniper attacks were spread out over a considerable period of time and other than one lone court, not attributed to terrorism. And NO ONE attributed the Beltway Sniper attacks to Al Qaeda, Hamas, or any other terrorist sponsor.

NO ONE except one lone court and oh…Muhammad himself. lol

Investigators and the prosecution suggested during pre-trial motions that Muhammad intended to kill his ex-wife Mildred, who had estranged him from his children.

except….

However, Judge LeRoy Millette, Jr. prevented prosecutors from presenting that theory during the trial, saying that a link had not been firmly established.

pretty lousy shot if his far fetched scheme didn’t even manage to get his ex-wife.

At the 2006 trial of Muhammad, Malvo testified that the aim of the killing spree was to kidnap children for the purpose of extorting money from the government and to “set up a camp to train children how to terrorize cities”, with the ultimate goal being to “shut things down” across the United States.

Thanks – hmmm sounds like a terrorist doesn’t it?

Oh btw way since when does a terrorist need a sponsor now to be a terrorist? 😆

@GaffaUK:

A “good summary” that debunks the advanced warning conspiracy put together throughout the years since September 11.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Foreknowledge

Bush knew because of the August 6th presidential briefing:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/August_6_PDB

Army Ignored Warning Signs Fort Hood Shooter Classmate Says

The warning signs were all there: the justification of homicide bombings; the spewing of anti-American hatred; the efforts to reach Al Qaeda …

~~~~
“He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal, he had extremely radical jihadist views,” Finnell said. “When you’re a military officer you take an oath to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.

“They should’ve confronted him — our professors, officers — but they were too concerned about being politically correct.”

~~~~

Finnell recalled Hasan telling his classmates and professors, “I’m a Muslim first and I hold the Shariah, the Islamic Law, before the United States Constitution.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/11/09/army-ignored-warning-signs-fort-hood-shooter-classmate-says/

The Fort Hood Report: Why No Mention of Islam?

John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 commission and Navy Secretary during the Reagan Administration, says a reluctance to cause offense by citing Hasan’s view of his Muslim faith and the U.S. military’s activities in Muslim countries as a possible trigger for his alleged rampage reflects a problem that has gotten worse in the 40 years that Lehman has spent in and around the U.S. military. The Pentagon report’s silence on Islamic extremism “shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,” he told TIME on Tuesday. “It’s definitely getting worse, and is now so ingrained that people no longer smirk when it happens.”

~~~~

The apparent lack of curiosity into what allegedly drove Hasan to kill isn’t in keeping with the military’s ethos; it’s a remarkable omission for the U.S. armed forces, whose young officers are often ordered to read Sun Tzu’s The Art of War with its command to know your enemy. In midcareer, they study the contrast between capabilities and intentions, which is why they aren’t afraid of a British nuclear weapon but do fear the prospect of Iran getting one.

Yet the leaders of the two-month Pentagon review, former Army Secretary Togo West and the Navy’s onetime top admiral, Vernon Clark, told reporters last week that they didn’t drill down into Hasan’s motives. “Our concern is with actions and effects, not necessarily with motivations,” West said. Added Clark: “We certainly do not cite a particular group.” Part of their reticence, they said, was to avoid running afoul of the criminal probe of Hasan that is now under way. Both are declining interview requests before their congressional testimony, a Pentagon spokesman said.

But without a motive, there would have been no murder. Hasan wore his radical Islamic faith and its jihadist tendencies in the same way he wore his Army uniform. He allegedly proselytized within the ranks, spoke out against the wars his Army was waging in Muslim countries and shouted “Allahu akbar” (God is great) as he gunned down his fellow soldiers. Those who served alongside Hasan find the Pentagon review wanting. “The report demonstrates that we are unwilling to identify and confront the real enemy of political Islam,” says a former military colleague of Hasan, speaking privately because he was ordered not to talk about the case. “Political correctness has brainwashed us to the point that we no longer understand our heritage and cannot admit who, or what, the enemy stands for.”

The Department of Defense Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is limited in scope. Despite the title of its report — Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood — there is only a single page dedicated to the chapter called “Oversight of the Alleged Perpetrator.” Much more space is given to military personnel policies (11 pages), force protection (six pages) and the emergency response to the shootings (12 pages).

Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut said he was “disappointed” because the inquiry “does not adequately recognize the specific threat posed by violent Islamist extremism to our military,” and added that the homeland-security panel he chairs will investigate. The Congressman whose district includes Fort Hood agrees. “The report ignores the elephant in the room — radical Islamic terrorism is the enemy,” says Republican Representative John Carter. “We should be able to speak honestly about good and bad without feeling like you’ve done something offensive to society.”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1954960,00.html

Malvo was a serial killer that acted on his own, he didn’t plot with the enemy, he randomly murdered across 4 states. Hasan conspired with a radical cleric to kill his enemy, members of our armed forces.

@Aye

So thanks for the scenic detour – your latest post unwittingly strengthens my central premise that Bush failed to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. before the crisis of 2008.

H.R. 1461: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005
Passed by the House of Representatives 331 to 90, with 12 not voting. Among the “Nay” votes were the names that one would suspect to see…Pelosi, Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Henry Waxman, Cynthia McKinney, Barney Frank…that whole “Fannie/Freddie have no problems” crowd.

a) You forgot to mention that it has taken 4 years since Bush has inherited Clinton mess that such a bill has been presented.
b) Whilst you point out the minority of Democrats who voted against you forgot to highlight that a majority of democrats voted for his bill.
c) You forgot to mention that this bill failed – it was never voted upon in the senate
d) You forgot to mention this bill died in committee which had a majority of Republicans on it
e) You forgot to mention that Bush was against this bill!

S. 190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005
This bill was considered on the Senate floor, then referred to Committee.
It passed the Committee vote on an 11-9 party line vote but was never raised on the Senate floor for final consideration because there were not enough votes to overcome the filibuster threshold.

a) So why didn’t this go to a vote in the Senate and see if the Democrats would filibuster it? Where’s your evidence this that there was a threat of a filibuster and that this would definitely of happened? Let’s here the lame excuse…

At the same time, the House also introduced similar legislation, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 (H.R. 1461), in the Spring of 2005. The House Financial Services Committee had crafted changes and produced a Committee Report by July 2005 to the legislation. It was passed by the House in October in spite of President Bush’s statement of policy opposed to the House version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

While Senate and House leaders voiced their intention to bring about the needed legislation, no reform bills materialized. A Senate reform bill introduced by Senator John Corzine (D-NJ) (S.1656) never made it out of the 21-member (10D/11R) Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac

In 2005, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, sponsored by Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and co-sponsored by Senators Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), John McCain (R-AZ) and John Sununu (R-NH)[1], would have increased government oversight of loans given by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like the 2003 bill, it also died in the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, this time in the 109th Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_takeover_of_Fannie_Mae_and_Freddie_Mac

The fact is under Bush – the problem became worst!

That year, President Bush’s HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and “must do more.”

For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.

“That was a huge, huge mistake,” said Patricia McCoy, who teaches securities law at the University of Connecticut. “That just pumped more capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a disaster.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902626_2.html

So glad I could ‘edumakate’ you….you’re welcome. Snigger

@Gaffer – You are really showing your ignorance, idiocy and dogmatic adherence to ideology.

You say:

You forgot to mention that it has taken 4 years since Bush has inherited Clinton mess that such a bill has been presented.

Let’s just for a second PRETEND you have a point- which you don’t. Hmmm, and Obama has made Fannie/Freddie reform his TOP priority. Funny how you are upset with Bush about taking “4 years” to address the problem, yet give Obama a pass on doing the same thing for the last 2.

And BTW, your above statement just admitted that Bush DID present a bill and try to reform Fannie/Freddie, LOL!

You said this:

So thanks for the scenic detour – your latest post unwittingly strengthens my central premise that Bush failed to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. before the crisis of 2008.

Then, as pointed out above, you admit Bush DID try!

You forgot to mention that it has taken 4 years since Bush has inherited Clinton mess that such a bill has been presented.

As for the Beltway/Fort Hood comparison, Missy in #60 tore you to shreds on that one. Way to go Missy!

@GaffaUK:

a) So why didn’t this go to a vote in the Senate and see if the Democrats would filibuster it? Where’s your evidence this that there was a threat of a filibuster and that this would definitely of happened? Let’s here the lame excuse…

We have whips in both houses for both parties that count yea or nay votes before a scheduled vote, if it’s not close they don’t bother with bringing it to the floor.

Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

On September 30th of 2008, shortly after Rush Limbaugh had played on his radio program an 8 minute audio of Congressional Democrats obstructing the regulatory efforts of the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans, Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama (featured in the youtube video defending Fannie and Freddie) issued an apology on Fox News saying,

Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.

Since 2001, the Bush Administration issued 34 warnings to Congress about the need to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it caused substantial economic turmoil in the financial markets. However, they met continual opposition by Congressional Democrats who feared that tighter regulations on lenders would disqualify low-income applicants from affordable housing.

The detailed time-line of events below demonstrates that the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was preventable if Congress were more receptive and responsive to the warnings of expert analysis.

In 1938, Fannie Mae was established by an act of Congress to provide liquidity to the mortgage market during an economic crisis known as the Great Depression.

In 1970, over three decades later, Freddie Mac was established by an act of Congress to counteract Fannie Mae’s growing monopoly of the secondary mortgage market.

In 1977, the Carter Administration passed the Community Reinvestment Act that required banks to offer an even disbursement of credit throughout the financial market in an attempt to curb past lending practices that targeted more desirable markets. At the time, republican critics charged that such an act would impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on lending institutions and distort credit markets by forcing banks to offer loans to under-qualified applicants.

In 1995, the Clinton Administration pushed even harder to increase the supply of affordable housing to low-income families by offering performance-based incentives. According to economist Stan Liebowitz, these developments led to a loosening of lending standards that required no verification of income or assets, little consideration of the applicant’s ability to make payments, and no down payment payments. The net effect was an inevitable collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the cost of its investors.

In April of 2001, the Bush Administration first red flagged Fannie and Freddie stating that “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

Video of Warnings to Congress
A Video of warnings from the Bush Administration to Congress can be seen here .

On September 10th of 2003, Treasury Secretary John Snow recommended to the House Financial Services Committee 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.

The new agency was a recommendation from the Bush Administration for a serious regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry. The plan was an acknowledgment of two things. First, more oversight was necessary for both institutions that have managed to accumulate over 1.5 trillion dollars in outstanding debt – averaging a 20% increase in residential debt per year. And second, the supervisory system in place did not have the tools to deal effectively with the size, scope, and complexity of Fannie and Freddie. Subsequently, the recommendation was staunchly opposed by Congressional Democrats and National Association of Home Builders who thought that tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie would reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

On September 10th of 2003, in response to the Bush’s regulatory overhaul proposal, Barney Frank, a ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, defended Fannie and Freddie 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 . . . I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger. . . I don’t think we face a crisis; I don’t think that we have an impending disaster. . . . Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country.

At a Congressional Hearing in 2003, Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat of California objected to the proposal of stricter regulations and stated,

I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn’t broke. [sic] …These GSEs have more than adequate capital for the business they are in: providing affordable housing. As I mentioned, we should not be making radical or fundamental change… If there is anything to fix or improve, it is the [regulators].

Rep. Gregory Meeks, Democrat of New York, agreed with Rep. Waters and demonstratively stated,

…I have to go to another hearing, I will try to be just real quick… I am just pissed off at [the regulator] because if it wasn’t for you I don’t think that we would be here in the first place. …we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you have given them an excuse to try to have this forum [to change the] mission of what the GSEs had, which they have done a tremendous job… There has been nothing that was indicated is wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae… The question that then presents is the competence that your agency has with reference to deciding and regulating these GSEs.

Rep. Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina said, ”

I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing.

Rep. Artur Davis, Democrat of Alabama, went a little further in his statement. Instead of defending Fannie and Freddie like his colleagues, he tried turning the tables on the regulatory agency saying,

A concern that I have… is you are making very specific… broad and categorical judgment about the management of this institution, about the willfulness of practices that may or may not be in controversy. You have imputed various motives to the people running the organization… That sounds to me as if you have gone from being a dispassionate regulator to someone who is very much involved and has a stake in this controversy… And I will follow up on Ms. Waters’s point because I think it is very well taken: Her observation is that the political context surrounding your investigation was that serious doubts were being raised about OFHEO… In fact, frankly, doubts were raised about your leadership of OFHEO. And all of a sudden, the response to that is to produce an enormously critical report.

Rep. Lacy Clay, Democrat of Missouri, followed suit by shifting the burden saying,

This hearing is about the political lynching of Franklin Raines.

And ranking Democrat Barney Frank stuck to his guns and concluded,

But I have seen nothing in here that suggests that the safety and soundness are at issue, and I think it serves us badly to raise safety and soundness as kind of a general shibboleth when it does not seem to me to be an issue.

In October of 2003, less than a month later, Fannie Mae disclosed 1.2 billion dollars in accounting errors.

In November of 2003, the Bush Administration upgraded their warning to a “systemic risk” that could very well extend beyond the confines of the housing market. In a July report, written by external investigators, it concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors. And other critics pointed out that Fannie Mae did not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

In November of 2003, Council of the Economic Advisers, Chairman Greg Mankiw, argued that “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” And in order to do such, 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.”

The 2003 Congressional Hearings resulted in democrats defending the management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

A video from these hearings can be found here .

In February of 2005, President Bush’s Budget plan emphasized the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their sub-par levels of capital. The Budget plan called for the creation of a new, world-class regulator saying, “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.

On February 17th of 2005, Alan Greenspan suggested that Congress limit the growth of Fannie and Freddie saying, “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 substantial risk.”

In April of 2005, Treasury Secretary John Snow called 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.”

On April 6th of 2005, Chairman Alan Greenspan told the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate,

The strong belief of investors in the implicit government backing of the GSEs does not by itself create safety and soundness problems for the GSEs, but it does create systemic risks for the U.S. financial system as the GSEs become very large. Systemic risks are difficult to address through the normal course of financial institution regulation alone and, as I will stipulate shortly, can be effectively handled in the case of the GSEs by limiting their investment portfolios funded by implicitly subsidized debt . . . When these institutions were small, the potential for such risk, if any, was small. Regrettably, that is no longer the case. From now on, limiting the potential for systemic risk will require the significant strengthening of GSE regulation and the GSE regulator . . . The GSEs will have increased facility to continue to grow faster than the overall home-mortgage market; indeed since their portfolios are not constrained, by law, to exclusively home mortgages, GSEs can grow virtually without limit. Without restrictions on the size of GSE balance sheets, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership.

On April 6th of 2005, Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer said in response to Alan Greenspan,

I think Fannie and Freddie have done an incredibly good job and 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’ve done a very, very good job.

In May of 2006, Senator McCain co-sponsored the legislation for more regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, however it never became law because it lacked the sufficient amount of votes.

In June of 2005, Deputy Secretary of Treasury, Samuel Bodman, highlights the risk posed by the increasing GSEs and subsequently called for reform. He said,

“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.”

On May 25th of 2006, Senator John McCain made his statement,

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

In August of 2007, President Bush calls upon Congress to push through 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.”

In December of 2007, President Bush warns Congress 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.”

In March of 2008, President Bush calls on Congress to

“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.”

In April of 2008, President Bush urges Congress to

“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.”

On May 3rd of 2008, Bush pleads with Congress to make legislation before Fanny and Freddie start to collapse. In his radio address, Bush says,

“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.”

On May 19th of 2008, Bush pleads with Congress again with his radio address saying,

“The government ought to be helping credit-worthy 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.”

On May 31st of 2008, Bush makes yet another radio address saying,

“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 sub-prime loans.”

In June of 2008, Bush told Congress,

“We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

In July of 2008, Congress finally passed a reform bill addressing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only after it became clear that the institutions were failing.

On September 10th of 2008, after the economic turmoil set in, Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd sat down for an interview with Bloomberg. In an astounding display of manifest hypocrisy, Senator Dodd said,

Why weren’t we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years.”

However, Senator Dodd failed to mention that the Bush Administration had warned Congress 34 times about the economic risk that Fannie and Freddie posed on our financial systems, while in 2008, the Bush Administration pressed Congress harder than ever by issuing 17 warnings in just 6 short months.

On September 30th of 2008, shortly after Rush Limbaugh had played on his radio program an 8 minute audio of Congressional Democrats obstructing the regulatory efforts of the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans, Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama (featured in the youtube video defending Fannie and Freddie) issued an apology on Fox News saying,

Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.

I think something ought to be said about Congressman Artur Davis. It takes intellectual honesty and political courage to admit a mistake concerning the regulation of Fanny and Freddie, especially when it can be linked to the economic downturn that has lead to an unprecedented bailout. We hope that his Congressional colleagues, featured in the 2004 Congressional Hearings video above, are noble enough to come forward and fess up to their mistakes as well.

Although it’s fairly clear that Fannie and Freddie aren’t the only reason our economy is in the proverbial toilet, their excessive mortgage debt, less than stringent credit and down-payment requirements, and their eventual spread of risk throughout the financial system certainly contributed to our current mess. Couple this with legislation like “The Community Reinvestment Act” that forced banks to lend to consumers who lacked credit-worthy qualifications and the “moral hazard” that encouraged lenders to make high-risk loans due to the expectation of federal bailout, Congressional Democrats played a significant role in today’s economic crisis by their refusal to recognize the troublesome signs and symptoms of Fannie and Freddie’s demise.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/10/04/the-story-of-freddie-and-fannie/

Don’t Blame Bush for Subprime Mess
By Investor’s Business Daily

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/12/dont_blame_bush_for_subprime_m.html

@Antics

Let’s just for a second PRETEND you have a point- which you don’t. Hmmm, and Obama has made Fannie/Freddie reform his TOP priority. Funny how you are upset with Bush about taking “4 years” to address the problem, yet give Obama a pass on doing the same thing for the last 2.

* As you can see we are debating Bush’s ‘Decision Points’ and I was responding to your preposterous statement “Like him or hate him, the man kept us safe, stuck to his principals and did the right thing, even when the polls said otherwise.”
* By the time Obama was president – the crisis already happened, a bill (too late to stop the damage) was in place signed by Bush in a congress controlled by the Democrats and Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae had already been seized by federal takeover.
* So any President after Bush – whether it would of been McCain or as it is Obama – has to mop up the mess left by his predecessor.

And BTW, your above statement just admitted that Bush DID present a bill and try to reform Fannie/Freddie, LOL!

As B-Rob points out a President doesn’t present bills. Of the two bills that Aye mentions – one bill which did have a vote in the HoR – Bush was against (hmmm wonder why he failed to mention that?) and both bills died in committees where the majority were Republicans.

Then, as pointed out above, you admit Bush DID try

Oh I don’t doubt he tried. But trying is not the same as having dealt with the issue – as what he feared happened. So obviously the issue wasn’t dealt with as it happened. Pontificating about it isn’t dealing with the issue. His administration was unable to get through legistration through a congress they controlled and nowhere have I seen any bill that would have reformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae successfully vetoed by the Democrats. The one example Aye gives – actually passed in the HoR had a majority of Democrats voting for it! lol. His trying was weak and ineffectual. Indeed as I have mentioned his own administration greatly added to the problem with the HUD ratcheting up the main affordable-housing goal. You don’t deal or even try to deal with a problem by making it worst!

As for the Beltway/Fort Hood comparison, Missy in #60 tore you to shreds on that one. Way to go Missy!

lol right – 90% or more of Missy post was about how the Fort Hood terrorist was indeed a terrorist in contact with an islamic cleric. Except I don’t dispute that. However the finally line – which only deals with the Beltway shooting is telling that it doesn’t make sense. Malvo didn’t act alone – he was actually the minor along with John Allen Muhammad, a member of the Nation of Islam.

A series of trial exhibits indicated that Malvo and Muhammad were motivated by an affinity for Islamic Jihad.[34]

Exhibit 65-006: A self-portrait of Malvo in the cross hairs of a gun scope shouting, “ALLAH AKBAR!” The word “SALAAM” scrawled vertically. A lyric from Bob Marley’s Natural Mystic “Many more will have to suffer. Many more will have to die. Don’t ask me why.”
Exhibit 65-016: A portrait of Saddam Hussein with the words “INSHALLAH” and “The Protector,” surrounded by rockets labeled “chem” and “nuk.”
Exhibit 65-043: Father and son portrait of Malvo and Muhammad. “We will kill them all. Jihad.”
Exhibit 65-056: A self-portrait of Malvo as sniper, lying in wait, with his rifle. “JIHAD” written in bold letters.
Exhibit 65-067: A suicide bomber labeled “Hamas” walking into a McDonald’s restaurant. Another drawing of the Twin Towers burning captioned: “85 percent chance Zionists did this.” More scrawls: “ALLAH AKBAR,” “JIHAD” and “Islam will explode.”
Exhibit 65-103: A lion accompanies chapter and verse from the Koran (Sura 2:190): “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you and slay them wherever ye catch them.”
Exhibit 65-109: Portrait of Osama bin Laden, captioned “Servant of Allah.”
Exhibit 65-117: The White House drawn in crosshairs, surrounded by missiles, with a warning: “Sep. 11 we will ensure will look like a picnic to you” and “you will bleed to death little by little.”
Exhibit 65-101: Malvo’s thought for the day: “Islam the only true guidance, the way of peace.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_shootings

Clearly they were inspired by Jihad and they were enemies of the country they lived in. And as I say you don’t need a connection to a cleric or ‘sponsorship’ from a terrorist group to be a terrorist – it’s not like a work visa 😆 Isn’t Theodore Kaczynski a terrorist? Or doesn’t he qualify either?

So Gaffer admits I was right, Silly Bob chimes in with his usual rubbish and Missy STILL tears them both to shreds.

LOL

Silly Bob: You said:

Now keep forgetting, which party was in power from 2004 through 2007 a NEVER offered a single bill concerning Fannie and Freddie? Want to take a wild guess?

WRONG, this was covered already. Scroll up and read, that is if you aren’t too lazy.

Gaffer, thanks for admitting I was correct:

First you said:

Was failing to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doing the right thing and was the subsequent government take over of those companies part of Bush’s principals?

Then you admit I was correct when you said:

Oh I don’t doubt he tried.

@Missy

We have whips in both houses for both parties that count yea or nay votes before a scheduled vote, if it’s not close they don’t bother with bringing it to the floor.

And this is the achilles heal of the whole Bush and his administration & party tried to avert the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae disaster. We have already seen the the majority of Democrats in the HoR had voted for reform in the vote for the H.R. 1461: Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005. So how do we know that enough Democrats would have combined to defeat the S190: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005? Why didn’t the Republicans go ahead anyway – what would have been further lost if the bill have been defeated rather than lamely giving up? They might have won – and if they did lose by Democrats filibustering they could legitamately claim the Democrats blocks reform and so precipitated the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae disaster. Instead you can’t – as there is no evidence to show that Democrats blocked the bill by voting against reform.

Indeed it seems that a number of Republicans were against the bill…

In the midst of DCI’s yearlong effort, Hagel and 25 other Republican senators pleaded unsuccessfully with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., to allow a vote.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,440681,00.html

So by all means print as many quotes from individual democrats as you like – but it’s irrelevant because the Republicans were the party in power who failed to put any reform package through and none of the reform bills we have discussed were voted down by the Democrats.

How come your timeline doesn’t mention H.R. 1461 – Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2005 and Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1427 – Federal Housing Finance Reform Act of 2007? Two reform bills Bush opposed?

@Antics

Gaffer, thanks for admitting I was correct:

Except those two statements aren’t contradictory… 🙄

I’ll post this again and maybe you could re-read it slowly and see if any comprehension sets into your brain…

Oh I don’t doubt he tried. But trying is not the same as having dealt with the issue – as what he feared happened. So obviously the issue wasn’t dealt with as it happened. Pontificating about it isn’t dealing with the issue. His administration was unable to get through legistration through a congress they controlled and nowhere have I seen any bill that would have reformed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae successfully vetoed by the Democrats. The one example Aye gives – actually passed in the HoR had a majority of Democrats voting for it! lol. His trying was weak and ineffectual. Indeed as I have mentioned his own administration greatly added to the problem with the HUD ratcheting up the main affordable-housing goal. You don’t deal or even try to deal with a problem by making it worst!

So points out of 10 in trying to deal with the issue (a.k.a effort)? 5/10
Points out of 10 in actually having dealt with the issue (a.k.a attainment)? -5/10

So I reiterate that Bush comprehensively failed to deal with the issue of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Or in your world – if Obama simply points out issues then you are automatically satisfied that he has satisfactory dealt with the issue???? 😆

Ummmm Gaffe, all it took was for key dems to vote against it and the reforms went down. In fact, look at what dems voted against it. Unsuprisingly, the ones taking money from FM/FM. The GOP did not have a supermajority. At best it was a slim majority. Trying to comapre it to what the Dems have had until recently is a joke, but you know that.
In other words the claim stands. The GOP tried to pass the reform, and dems stopped it from happening. Your liberal dementia is tiring.
As for the warning about using airliners as weapons, I’ve seen a bit of it. It was SO VAGUE as to be useless. Your efforts to say he should have known only display your BDS.

I’m betting that next you’ll want to argue that Bush stole the 2000 election. 🙄

Antics, Gaffe will never admit his views were built on a house of cards. Remove one and it all comes tumbling down.

@Cary:

He has wheels on his goal posts. 😉

@Gaffer: You said:

Clearly the Bush administration wasn’t concerned about Al Qaeda nor were they listening to those in the intelligence community…

And you are privy to the internal workings of any President of the United States’ inner circle of advisers, national security briefings (of which Bush had every morning by 6:30), Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings, etc… how?