Poor George

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Hmm we now have no less than 5 threads wailing on GW--all consisting of left wing authors opinion.

--a little personal observations with some supporting "facts"
Most americans primary concerns on their chosen leaders in elections past decade were--safty-economy and immigration.

#1 Keeping us safe--
Opinions will differ on whether how it was done but will wait for 1st rebuttal that GW did everything within his power to protect us--and again whether you agree with how it was done or not--let the 1st step forward that disputes success.

--we now have changing of the guard voted in by the same posting these liberal character assinations of the one that kept them safe- even wanting to go as far as bringing charges against them for very techniques that kept them safe.

I see yesterday of Pres elect/commander in chief whose been dead wrong on every opinion prior to being elected (retreat/surge won't/hasn't worked) and his attorney general Holder (famous for his conspiracy in pardons more so than prosecutions) have axed the coerced interrogations technigues--to the dismay of our intelligence and the :00hour of terrorists.

To avoid arguement on issue lets break it down to simple question. Here are numerous terrorist attacks averted since 911.
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/b...errorist-attacks-in-us-averted-since-911.html
Would our liberal friends give us which ones they would rather not have been averted by means of coerced interrogation? --and less say they used waterboarding in every instance--which do they think making a terrorist uncomfortable for 30 seconds trumps lives of U.S. citizens/our miltary?
--a little word of advice--1st time we get popped because someone didn't do everything in their power including coerced interrogation -you will see bounties put on liberal element.

#2 Economy
Other than collapse of mortgage/banking in last 9 months I am more than happy with economy last 8 years. Now if we want to debate who was responsible/what legislation or lack there of was cause the faiures I would be happy to go at length on the specifics--but will warn those who wish to do so I expect the specifics from and not one line opinions. A seperate thread will be needed to go into all the details so anyone wanting to discuss in detail--feel free to start thread.

Now basics of economy--personally believe free enterprise will take care of itself if politicians just get out of their way. Do believe the mortgage and banking crisis did need intervention because they are entities that effect everyone and their collapse would been catastophic--so have no prob with GW or O on their bail outs there--but do have significant reservations about other manipulations on the horizon. That being two persons that with have the most impact on economy for however long they remain at their position.
The 1st Steven Chu Obama's pick to head energy department. I can sum up his intent bin one statement--he said that gasoline prices should be raised "to the levels in Europe" to reduce consumption, and that coal was his "nightmare" - indicating that he was prepared to bow at least a bit to the political realities of the post he seeks.
2nd Janet Jackson O's "climate czar" and socialist leader of the gore greenie movement. Won't dwell on how ridiculous these fanatics have been made to look with their global cooling hysteria one decade followed by warming the next--and now opting for "climate change" so they can go either way in promoting their agenda.
However the consequences are severe--I'm with all environmentalist in keeping our plant as clean as possible but not at expense of economic chaos.
I'm all for alternate energy-when it can be done cost efficiently. --and GW admin was guilty of smaller scale- ethanol fiasco. Produced at higher cost than gas--burns less clean and inflated food prices--did they learn?
Will be drop in a bucket when energy prices double via instead of finding ways to make alternate energy prices more affordable--artificially raise (by taxes and credits) the cost of gas and coal to come in line with cost of alternatives.

Immigration: Quite obvious to me--over 90% of O's team including himself come from illegal amnesty cities--that refuse to enforce current laws.
Why--Hellen Keller can see that any increase in minorities make the Dem base stronger.
Heard O speaking yesterday of tackling entitlements programs--in case you missed he said he is beginning with Medicare ans SSN--duh what about welfare programs?

so in accessing outgoing admin--they met my objectives--which are quite simple--
Security and allow me to control my own life by less taxes--and not the gov doing it for me.
--and if O does the same I'll be happy to give him same allocades--and hope that is the case.

 

[Nick Douglas]

DTB,

Believe it or not I've grown to like Bush more over the last several years than I did at first. Still, I have some big problems with what you wrote.

Democrats are not for expanded immigration because minorities make the base stronger. Bush got something like 45% of the Hispanic vote in '04 and I don't have the stats to back it up but my sense is that Asian immigrants aren't heavily slanted towards the Democrats, either.

My first point on this is that Democrats believe in expanded immigration because we believe in multiculturalism and helping the oppressed, not because we are trying to expand the base. Now, you can argue that some in our party (environmentalists, protectionists, etc.) end up being oppressors based on the policies they support, but that is generally because they don't fully understand what they are supporting.

My other point about immigration is that Republicans have every opportunity to get huge immigrant majorities if they just learn to sell themselves correctly. Here in Los Angeles I'd say there's not one person I socialize with regularly who is a Republican (and this is a very diverse racial group). In fact, they almost all hate Republicans. But when you ask them about issues they all have very strong Republican tendencies in certain areas. The problem is that they see Republicans as a bunch of racist, selfish old white men. Republicans don't necessarily have to promote non-white leaders, but they do have to make it clear that they care about non-whites.

The other problem I have with your sentiments besides immigration is your unwillingness to blame Bush for our economic problems. He absolutely fueled the housing boom for these reasons:

-He supports the mortgage interest tax deduction, which makes housing prices artificially high.

-He appointed people to the Federal Reserve who kept the federal funds rate artificially low in an effort to subsidize credit

-He appointed a Treasury Secretary who supported easy money (lower dollar exchange rates) in an effort to reduce our trade deficit.

-He never made one speech during the housing boom cautioning people. In fact, he essentially used the artificial wealth creation of the housing boom as false proof that he was leading a burgeoning economy.

In summary, I actually give Bush credit for expanding domestic security measures, supporting Israel, attempting to get a sane immigration bill passed and cutting taxes on investment. Unfortunately, those things don't make up for the massive blunders of invading Iraq and fueling the housing bubble. Therefore, it's only fair to call this a poor presidency.

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

[x] Safety
[x] Low Taxes

:thumb:

 

[pd1]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/16/opinion/polls/main4728399.shtml

Dogs it looks like you are in the minority.


Bush's Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent
Jan. 16, 2009(CBS) President Bush will leave office as one of the most unpopular departing presidents in history, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll showing Mr. Bush's final approval rating at 22 percent.

Seventy-three percent say they disapprove of the way Mr. Bush has handled his job as president over the last eight years.

Mr. Bush's final approval rating is the lowest final rating for an outgoing president since Gallup began asking about presidential approval more than 70 years ago.

The rating is far below the final ratings of recent two-term presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who both ended their terms with a 68 percent approval rating, according to CBS News polling.

Recent one term presidents also had higher ratings than Mr. Bush. His father George H.W. Bush had an end-of-term rating of 54 percent, while Jimmy Carter's rating was 44 percent.

Harry Truman had previously had the lowest end-of-term approval at 32 percent, as measured by Gallup.

Views of Mr. Bush's popularity are highly partisan. Only 6 percent of Democrats approve of the job he has done as president, while 57 percent of Republicans approve. Eighteen percent of independents approve.

Interestingly, Mr. Bush also has the distinction of having the highest approval rating for a president, as well as the lowest.

In November 2008, just before the presidential election, only 20 percent approved of the job he was doing as president - the lowest of any president since Gallup began asking the question in 1938.

But Mr. Bush enjoyed a high approval rating of 90 percent -- the highest of any president -- following the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

Mr. Bush edged out his father for that highest rating. George H.W. Bush received an 88 percent approval rating in 1991 amid the success of the first Gulf War.

Truman comes closest to Mr. Bush's record low approval rating of 20 percent. In February 1952, just 22 percent of Americans approved of the job Truman was doing as president.

Evaluations Of The President

Half of all Americans, when they look back on Mr. Bush's eight years in office, believe he has been a poor president. Thirty-three percent think he has been an average president. Twelve percent say he has been a good president, and only 5 percent say he has been a very good president.

This evaluation is more negative than the ones Americans gave both the current president?s predecessor, Mr. Clinton, and the president?s father.

The president has also fallen short of expectations: As Mr. Bush was preparing to enter the White House in January 2001, 43 percent thought he would be a very good or good president. Only 12 percent thought he would be a poor one.

As for the incoming president, the CBS News poll also asked about expectations of President-elect Barack Obama. Sixty-eight percent think Mr. Obama will be a good or very good president - 25 points higher than expectations for Mr. Bush.

Nine in 10 Democrats expect Mr. Obama to be a good president, including 48 percent who think he will be a "very good" one. Republicans are less hopeful, but 38 percent still say Mr. Obama will be a good president.

The Complete Final Bush Poll (.pdf)
Complete Poll: Expectations Of Obama (.pdf)
Interactive Graphic: Bush's Approval Rating Through The Years
Kathy Frankovic: Bush's Popularity Reaches Historic Lows
Search Recent CBS News Polling
Complete Coverage Of The Bush Legacy

Opinions of Mr. Bush personally have also taken a hit since his term began, and he receives his lowest favorability rating of his presidency in this poll. Just 26 percent of Americans view the president favorably, while 60 percent view him negatively. In February 2001, a month into his presidency, 42 percent of Americans had a favorable opinion of Mr. Bush.

Vice President Dick Cheney

Vice President Dick Cheney also leaves office amid negative perceptions, as his approval rating stands at just 13 percent. That matches his lowest approval since he assumed office.

Forty-four percent of Americans now view Cheney unfavorably, while 42 percent are undecided or haven't heard enough.

This is a reversal from March 2001, when CBS News took its first measure of Cheney?s favorability as vice president. Back then, 34 percent held a favorable opinion of the vice president and only 11 percent viewed him unfavorably.

On The Issues

Assessments of Mr. Bush's handling of two critical issues - the war in Iraq and the economy - are poor. He does better on the issue of terrorism - his strongest area during his years as president - but, even here, less than half approve of his handling of the issue.

In light of the Sept. 11 attacks and the U.S. military action in Iraq two years later, terrorism and the Iraq war have come to define Mr. Bush's presidency. The nation's struggling economy has recently had an impact as well.

Mr. Bush never received stellar ratings on the economy, but as the nation's economic concerns have become more severe, his rating on the issue has plummeted. Currently, 17 percent approve and 77 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy.

In September 2008, amid the collapse and subsequent bailout of some of the nation's financial institutions, just 16 percent approved of the president?s handling of the economy - a record low for him. His highest rating on the economy came in October 2001, shortly after the 9/11 attacks.

On Iraq, the public was behind Mr. Bush when the U.S. began military action nearly six years ago. In April 2003, a majority approved of the president?s action and 79 percent of Americans approved of the way Mr. Bush was handling the situation in Iraq - his highest rating ever on this question.

As the war continued and the U.S. casualties increased, public support began to wane. A year after the war began, 49 percent of Americans approved of the president?s handling of the war. In December 2006, only 21 percent approved of Mr. Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq - his lowest rating ever on this issue.

The last time a majority of Americans approved of the president?s handling of the Iraq war was immediately after the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003.

Currently, 25 percent approve and 71 percent disapprove.

Terrorism has been the president?s strongest area throughout his presidency. In December 2001, 90 percent of Americans approved of his handling of the campaign against terrorism - his highest rating ever. The president continued to receive positive marks on the issue throughout his first term. But an unpopular war began to taint even these evaluations of him.

In October 2005, for the first time, fewer than half of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's handling of terrorism. Now, 47 percent approve and 48 percent disapprove.

A Look Back

In February 2001, the CBS News Poll took its first measure of the job Mr. Bush was doing as president: 53 percent of Americans approved and only 21 percent disapproved. That rating soared to 90 percent a few weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

The 43rd president's overall ratings tapered off somewhat but remained high throughout the remainder of 2001 and 2002. And in March 2003, after the initial days of the U.S. war in Iraq, 68 percent of Americans approved of the job Mr. Bush was doing as president.

By the fall of 2003, as the fighting in Iraq continued, Mr. Bush's approval rating began to decline. In November of that year, 49 percent approved of the job he was doing. It was the first time his approval rating was below 50 percent.

The president's approval rating improved after the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, but it fell as the prison abuse at Abu Ghraib came to light in the spring of 2004. In May 2004, just 41 percent of Americans approved of the job Mr. Bush was doing as president - his lowest rating to date at that point in time.

Heading into the 2004 presidential election, 49 percent of Americans approved of the president's performance. Just after he was re-elected, 51 percent approved - the last time a majority approved of the job Bush was doing.

But at no time during his second term in office would his approval rating reach 50 percent.

For the most part, the president's job rating continued to decline throughout his second term. In October 2005, with images of Hurricane Katrina still in the minds of many, his approval rating dipped below 40 percent for the first time, and in January 2007, fewer than 30 percent of Americans approved of the job Mr. Bush was doing.

In a poll conducted just before the 2008 presidential election, only 20 percent of Americans said they approved of the job President Bush was doing as president - the lowest rating for any president. Seventy-two percent disapproved.


This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,112 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone January 11-15, 2009. Phone numbers were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups is higher.

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

DTB: Come on.

#1 Safety: He has scattered our military all across the world. We are so weak in the number of available troops, that we are forcing our troops to extend their service stints. Why didn't we just bomb the living shit out of Afghanistan? With all of our military ability, we sent ground troops????????????? WTF?! Then, we attack a country that has nothing to do with 9/11......criminal, absolutely criminal.

#2 Economy: He presided over the current disaster, and he has his hands dirty.....thanks to spending billions on a war we have no business in. Irresponsibility at its finest.

 

[Jabberwocky]

"Dogs it looks like you are in the minority."

:mj07:

 

[spartan]

Just give me 30 seconds with poor billionaire george it would be very redeming.
In the end he would really be poor and one dead mother fuker .
Don't even respond you fuking right wing assholes because I would do the same to you.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

DTB,

Believe it or not I've grown to like Bush more over the last several years than I did at first. Still, I have some big problems with what you wrote.

Democrats are not for expanded immigration because minorities make the base stronger. Bush got something like 45% of the Hispanic vote in '04 and I don't have the stats to back it up but my sense is that Asian immigrants aren't heavily slanted towards the Democrats, either.

My first point on this is that Democrats believe in expanded immigration because we believe in multiculturalism and helping the oppressed, not because we are trying to expand the base. Now, you can argue that some in our party (environmentalists, protectionists, etc.) end up being oppressors based on the policies they support, but that is generally because they don't fully understand what they are supporting.

My other point about immigration is that Republicans have every opportunity to get huge immigrant majorities if they just learn to sell themselves correctly. Here in Los Angeles I'd say there's not one person I socialize with regularly who is a Republican (and this is a very diverse racial group). In fact, they almost all hate Republicans. But when you ask them about issues they all have very strong Republican tendencies in certain areas. The problem is that they see Republicans as a bunch of racist, selfish old white men. Republicans don't necessarily have to promote non-white leaders, but they do have to make it clear that they care about non-whites.

The other problem I have with your sentiments besides immigration is your unwillingness to blame Bush for our economic problems. He absolutely fueled the housing boom for these reasons:

-He supports the mortgage interest tax deduction, which makes housing prices artificially high.

-He appointed people to the Federal Reserve who kept the federal funds rate artificially low in an effort to subsidize credit

-He appointed a Treasury Secretary who supported easy money (lower dollar exchange rates) in an effort to reduce our trade deficit.

-He never made one speech during the housing boom cautioning people. In fact, he essentially used the artificial wealth creation of the housing boom as false proof that he was leading a burgeoning economy.

In summary, I actually give Bush credit for expanding domestic security measures, supporting Israel, attempting to get a sane immigration bill passed and cutting taxes on investment. Unfortunately, those things don't make up for the massive blunders of invading Iraq and fueling the housing bubble. Therefore, it's only fair to call this a poor presidency.

Thank You Nick --you presented your points well.

Some added points on immigration--agree on reb party projection to most minorities--and maybe you are correct that they need to change the image they project--but my question is how.
If you have one party building fences--and one providing sancuaries and promoting redistribution of wealth--who's going to be more appealing to minorities. Your point of GW getting 45% of hispanic (and winning) is well noted. In 08 Mac only got 31% and was deciding factor in election.
How does either party do what is necessary without alienating the hispanic vote--which will be huge in determining future elections. Will be curious to how O plays it--will he do what he knows in necessary--or go for the vote.

On financial crisis I agrree with you on some of GW's appointments but have to disagree with your primary premise his admin was main reason and he never made speech warning people.

No matter how you stack it up--the what allowed crisis to happen was repeal of Glass-Steagal act in 1999. This banking law was put in following deression to protect us from exactly what occurred.

Per your "He never made one speech during the housing boom cautioning people"

I give you--from nyt

By Stephen Labaton

September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ? which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt ? is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.---------------------------------------------------------

To which Barney Franks replied--

?These two entities ? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ? are not facing any kind of financial crisis,? said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ?The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.?

now less move a few years to 05 in another attempt and warning from McCain--

Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

The United States Senate May 25, 2006 Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]: Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae?s regulator reported that the company?s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were ?illusions deliberately and systematically created? by the company?s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal. The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight?s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae?s former chief executive officer, OFHEO?s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines? compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac. The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator?s examination of the company?s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

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. I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.


What happened to this bill??
The Democrats killed this measure in Committee preventing the full Senate Vote. Then we have Dodds- Chairman of Senate Banking Committee-who is under investigation for no less than 3 sweatheart deals from Countrywide on loans--and also top recipient of donations from freddie and fanny. Might be just a tad of smoke there.

So basically the events and time lines above are premise that to bulk of blame on this admin is a faaaaar stretch.

on a slightly diff tangent--is it not ming boggeling how a single element (subprime leanding in U.S.) set off change of events that caused the entire global economies to collapse?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Gary Hard to address your questions as it comes down to opinions on if Iraq war was right thing to do and can't see that be proven either way yet--but time will tell.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--and no comment on tripes from the sheep but will make note on media article from cheif promoter of liberal propaganda PD1

Heading article tells the story--
"Bush's Final Approval Rating: 22 Percent"

Real Clear politics consensus- % highlighted

RCP Average 01/07 - 01/15 28.2 65.0 -36.8
CBS News/NY Times 01/11 - 01/15 22 73 -51
FOX News 01/13 - 01/14 34 58 -24
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 01/09 - 01/12 27 67 -40
USA Today/Gallup 01/09 - 01/11 34 61 -27
Pew Research 01/07 - 01/11 24 66 -42

If you can't see the deception here you need to :grouphug: -- and confine yourself to his liberal talking points -turn up volumn please

http://www.soundboard.com/sb/Sheep_Sounds.aspx

 

[gardenweasel]

Just give me 30 seconds with poor billionaire george it would be very redeming.
In the end he would really be poor and one dead mother fuker .
Don't even respond you fuking right wing assholes because I would do the same to you.

"cluebat needed in aisle 7....troll clean-up "...

that`s nice,idiot...wishing death on a sitting u.s. president...not to mention threatening a decorated veteran(dtb)...

.if stupid were bricks you`d be the great wall of china...

 

[bryanz]

Just give me 30 seconds with poor billionaire george it would be very redeming.
In the end he would really be poor and one dead mother fuker .
Don't even respond you fuking right wing assholes because I would do the same to you.

Why so angry ? have you tried anger management for your issues ? hate is a devastating force against the hater... turn the page on bush, a new day is here... DTB, like it or not, bush changed the psychology of America.... Most Americans are not only dissatisfied with our government but all the institutions we need to trust... Perception is reality, when it comes to our economy, I liken the current psychology of America to jimmy carter final days. Reagan changed it, Obama will also. Before the crash, I posted about believing the #'s.. You still do .. figures don't lie, but liars figure.....that somes up the last *8* yrs on so many fronts .... say goog buy gw !

 

[Skulnik]

Just give me 30 seconds with poor billionaire george it would be very redeming.
In the end he would really be poor and one dead mother fuker .
Don't even respond you fuking right wing assholes because I would do the same to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzQMpOIHzzw&feature=related

GFY. LOL. JMO. FWIW. TIA.

:mj07: :mj07: :mj07:

 

[Chadman]

Since anyone not responding to spartans rant here is apparently condoning the message and theme...


I think it's in extremely poor taste, and just plain wrong to post. So, I guess I'm in the clear now with the current hand-wringers. I would think that these kinds of things don't need everyone to jump on, but whatever...

 

[Nick Douglas]

DTB,

You are focusing on the wrong things when it comes to housing. We all know that Bush didn't like Fannie and Freddie and that the Dems continually protected them. That's just a battle of one side preferring the markets and the others wanting subsidies for low income housing. I am no supporter of Fannie and Freddie, especially the fact that their goals were out of whack with the market. But they were only a small part of this problem.

This problem was not just low-income housing. Not in the least. The problem was that you got middle and even middle/upper income folks going crazy with their homes. And that problem was due to credit subsidies, trying to keep up with the Joneses and just a general feeling that housing prices would always rise. The President at the very least exacerbated all of those problems.

One thing I would recommend to Republicans if they want to rebuild the party is to stop trying to act like Fannie and Freddie were the central parts of the problem. The facts just don't back that up. They were a part, sure, but if credit wasn't subsidized, if the dollar wasn't weakened in the name of trade and if the President had tried to throw the breaks on housing instead of using it to take credit for a booming economy, we would be in much better shape no matter what happened to Fan/Fred.

As far as immigration goes, it's both the tone and the ideas. If Obama presented the Republican argument, he wouldn't get nearly the backlash. That's because he tries to keep it positive and he has great charisma. Repubs don't need Malkin, Hannity, O'Reilly, Tancredo, Hunter, et. al. talking about this. Those clowns just look like mean a**holes. They need someone who can speak well to lay out why they think it's a problem because a heck of a lot of Latinos I know (and let's be honest, this is all about Latinos) don't like open borders at all.

The other problem is that Republican ideas on immigration are bad. On the one hand they are impractical. You simply cannot deport this many people. You also simply cannot go building fences along borders with friendly countries. On the other hand, Republicans seem to want to choose this area to ignore the market instead of embrace it. Clearly there is a market for America that our immigration quotas is not satisfying. Republicans need to talk about raising quotas along with their security talk. If you want to come to America and you only have to wait a couple of years to do it legally, in most cases you'll wait. If you want to come to America and there is no chance that you'll be let in legally, you're just going to go. That's human nature. We have a big, big country with an entitlement problem that requires more citizens, anyway.

So there you go, DTB. If you want advice from a lifelong Democrat, you now have it.

 

[bryanz]

this is the type of leadership :

this is the type of leadership :

bush provided.... He knew the economy was based on Americans, not only poor Americans but many Americans, being leveraged by their homes. I posted it here moons ago... The only thing bush didn't count on : the collapse would come on his watch... The collapse was accelerated by bush policies.....http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/20/bush-shopping/.......

 

[Terryray]

I am no supporter of Fannie and Freddie......But they were only a small part of this problem.

good to see you back around here Nick Douglas!

The ex post tale of this financial meltdown is only just beginning to be analyzed, and I'm certainly not smart enuf to be as sure as you that Fannie and Freddie didn't play a big role. Especially when I see many top analysts going in a different direction than your opinion.

Like when you read that Columbia University economist Charles Calomiris, one of the most esteemed banking and money economist of our era, puts alot of blame on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

"If the Democrats had let the 2005 legislation come to a vote, the huge growth in the subprime and Alt-A loan portfolios of Fannie and Freddie could not have occurred, and the scale of the financial meltdown would have been substantially less. The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it."


an increasing influential paper by Markus Brunnermeier (warning pdf), Princeton Univ (an expert in financial bubbles), on how these sub-prime loans were a "trigger" to this crisis.


Peek at this excellent paper (warning pdf) showing how CDO's value tanked in 2004-5 right when these subprime loans were falling out.

there are a lot of contributing factors you do mention, and others you could have--like the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 that changed housing taxing, the rating entities, and fancy new financial instruments that hid real underwrighting risks (or were just so damn complicated). One interesting paper many economists are looking at is this one (warning pdf) that argues that many of the regular market participants who traditionally undertook the burden of these sub-prime debt got scared off and new folks, not so well educated in this area (but were in politics) stepped in to take on these risks (due to anticipation of bailout by gov't of gov't agencies if trouble happen perhaps?).


anyway, who really now knows? It took years afterwards before something simple, like the 1987 crash, was fully explained in papers by the specialists, and so much info still isn't even available--most especially the extent of Fannie and Freddie in these sub-prime markets. Data there is incomplete and unverifiable (despite what NYT and WA Post assert)

 

[pd1]

This problem was not just low-income housing. Not in the least. The problem was that you got middle and even middle/upper income folks going crazy with their homes. And that problem was due to credit subsidies, trying to keep up with the Joneses and just a general feeling that housing prices would always rise. The President at the very least exacerbated all of those problems.



Very good point Nick. I wish I could see a breakdown at income levels on this. I bet we would all be surprised

 

[baby johnson]

he'll go down as one of the worst presidents ever

 

[gardenweasel]

hope everyone enjoyed the "hopey/changey" train ride today....:toast:

my family and friends averted our eyes from the "hopeychangieness" and watched football as we worked on a plan to survive the coming years......

and enjoy the $160 million upcoming inauguration(that`s almost as outrageous as sarah palin`s clothing expenses!! )...it`s just like the bush inauguration that the media bitched about that cost a fraction of this one...

everyone can watch...literally every nook and cranny of the media is filled with "the one"....hbo is providing freebie`s to d.c. area peeps...

after all,it`s the largest gathering of porta-potties in one place in history!(7000 plus!)

it`s your time...be happy...."hopium all around!"....:00x30:toast:

 

[gardenweasel]

let`s see.....he was sworn in on the lincoln bible....took the lincoln train route to d.c....

wouldn`t it be a hoot if he wears the lincoln hat and bow tie?.....

:lol:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

--since the question of responsibity to fiasco seems to be cleared up (unless there are other facts someone would like to bring to table)
--it appears we have changed horses to who were the victims of fallout.
Since every article I read indicates it subprime loans was culprit maybe a definition of subprime loan is in order 1st. Take your pick--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Definitions of Subprime loan on the Web:

In general, subprime lending (also known as B-paper, near-prime, non-prime, or second chance lending) is lending at a higher rate than the prime rate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_loan

A loan made to a borrower who does not qualify for the lowest market interest rates due to credit problems or other underwriting deficiencies. ...
www.finweb.com/mortgage-loan-education/glossary-of-mortgage-loan-terms.html

A loan granted to a subprime borrower (an individual with less-than-perfect credit). The interest rate charged is higher than the prime rate obtainable by those with a good credit rating.
www.munibondadvisor.com/SubprimeGlossary.htm

A loan to a borrower with poor credit, income or assets that are hard to document, or other circumstances that would hinder loans from more ...
www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/asia_rising/AsiaRisingTerms.php

A loan offered to applicants with less than top-quality credit ratings
www.realestatebyrosann.com/pages/glossary.php

A loan that does not meet the credit underwriting guidelines of FNMA, FHLMC, FHA, VA or major-non conforming purchasers. Subprime loans allow borrowers to qualify with more severe mortgage delinquencies and higher debt ratios. Often referred to as "B/C Loans"
sacramentomortgage.com/glossary.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now would appear to me they were people that didn't qualify for loan under normal criteria--doesn't mean they were necessarily all indigent as included those who could qualify for one mortgage but thought they could leverage themselves to the hilt by taking out all their equity in home and trying parlay it into greater wealth.
I remember we had discussion thread couple years ago in general forum and a poster (I don't remeber who) made the statement one would be a fool to not borrow all equity out of house and invest it--wonder where he is today?

Today we have 6.99% of homes delinquent - 2.97% are in foreclosure--total bout 10%

That means 90% currently are in good standing.

So basically we have 10% singing the blues and 90% that have been able to reduce their interest rates about 30% from 90's rates.
http://www.hsh.com/mtghst.html

Bad news is banks took hits on both accounts--defaults on bad loans and loss of interest on the good ones.

Rather than hang noose around either political party the ones I like to hang are the ones that made profit everytime unwarrented loan was closed. I believe we can all agree on that

-- hopefully incoming admin will reinstate old law or write new one that will prevent this from happening again.

--and not penalize the 30% of americans that have no mortgage or those paying their mortgage on time with increased property taxes--to compensate-"the others".