The fact that some jobs have come to pass does not mean the Obama administration has had a viable plan for job creation. They do not have a plan, never had a plan, and have no idea of how to plan. Bush was an incompetent buffoon. While slightly more articulate, Obama has shown us the buffoonery continues.
you think republican policies are better for job creation?
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Bush left Obama an economy losing over 500,000 jobs a month-Fixed
Bush left Obama a free falling stock market-Fixed
Bush left Obama the Iraq war-Ended it
Bush left Obama Osama bin Laden-Eliminated
When Bushes polices no longer effect America he will no longer be mentioned (Except worse presidents ever lists).Unfortunately the next 4 or 5 presidents are likely to be cleaning up the shit he left behind
I know.His polices are still fucking this country though
I have no beef whatsoever in this discussion, but I do try to respond to questions about the housing crisis whenever I can, in order to prevent politics from clouding the issue any further. So here goes:
President Carter, in 1977, I believe. I suppose he's the one to blame for it all.
They pushed themselves, to keep market share.
Both Democrats and Republicans. Similar attempts to strengthen the GSE regulator were made by both Democrats and Republicans. All failed, because the opposing party disagreed with the specifics of the proposals.
I dunno, Newt Gingrich's? Just kidding... Both Democrats and Republicans were heavy users of the "special" relationship that existed between Congress and the GSEs. Just in the way of an example, FNM Senior VP for regulatory policy from 1998-2004 was Gingrich's ex-chief of staff Arne Christenson. Ken Duberstein, Reagan's ex-chief of staff was on the board of FNM and, apparently, received $1.8MM during 2002-2006 for "consulting on regulatory issues", wink-wink... There's countless other examples, which suggest that there's really very little reason to imagine that either party was any better than the other.
Well, this doesn't make a lot of sense. All banks were forced to comply with CRA and similar regulation. Only few failed. Does it make sense to claim it was all due to regulation? Was WaMu management somehow incapable of refusing to proceed with the mergers under the conditions imposed? The truth is that WaMu embarked on a massive acquisition spree from 1990 onwards (from what I have seen, at least 33 distinct transactions, with a sizable portion of acquired institutions targeting less than prime customers, e.g. Providian, Long Beach Financial etc). WaMu's CRA commitments didn't bring them down, especially in light of the fact that default rates on CRA-compliant loans were significantly lower than on subprime mtges in general.
I have nothing to say about ACORN itself, but I can find no evidence whatsoever of any banks being forced to fund ACORN. In fact, the only bank that I can see that ever funded ACORN is BoA, but that appears to be peanuts compared to the other funding sources (which are not entirely clear). So I am really not sure what evidence this idea is based on.
This is incorrect and there's a variety of evidence to prove it.