So tell me, just why do you hate Bush?

  • News
  • Thread starter MedLine
  • Start date
  • #1
7
0
Within my own circle of friends, many of them have an extreme hatred for George W. Bush, but when I ask them why, exactly, it is that they hate him they have given some pretty wild answers. So my challenge to you is, tell me why you hate/dislike/have a problem with him without having to look it up or fact check yourself; I am curious as to what the support for his hatred is. Some will be legitimate some will not, lets discuss.



MedLine
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Within my own circle of friends, many of them have an extreme hatred for George W. Bush, but when I ask them why, exactly, it is that they hate him they have given some pretty wild answers. So my challenge to you is, tell me why you hate/dislike/have a problem with him without having to look it up or fact check yourself; I am curious as to what the support for his hatred is. Some will be legitimate some will not, lets discuss.



MedLine
1) The Patriot Act
2) The Iraq War
3) Spewing propaganda to news outlets such as Fox News.
4) U.S. citizen eavesdropping
5) Worsening our economic status by giving the rich of all people a tax break.
 
  • Like
Likes einswine
  • #3
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
Lord, another one.

Stolen election [fraud]
Swift Boat scam
Rush to an unnecessary war based on misleading if not false information
Reckless, arrogant, inept foreign policy that left the US isolated
Abuse of the military [hyper-extended tours of duty, for example]
Abuse of the National Guard [used to fight a war abroad during a time of domestic threat]
Katrina - mind boggling incompetence. National Guard equipment needed was in Iraq
Lies lies lies lies lies - any day on the news
Illegal wire taps
Torture
Guantanamo
Enemy combatant [new status with no legal protections]
secret prisons
patriot act
Effort to pursue the use of tactical nukes for bunker busters
Dubai ports deal - selling our national security to a foreign country during a time of war
Failure to protect the borders during a time of war - well over 2 million people have entered the US illegally since 911.
Invocation of executive privilege to hide crimes
Refusal to cooperate with Congress

That was just what I could think of off the top of my head. We have at least hudreds of discussion about these and more topics. But generally speaking, it amounts to severe abuse of power, an illegal war, supreme arrogance and incompetence, and above all, war crimes.
 
  • Like
Likes einswine
  • #4
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
Oh yes, not only has he doubled the national debt to over ten trillion dollars, but we now have an economy in tatters.

Hopefully the mythical association between Republicans and prosperity is debunked forever!

His abusive Rovian tactics have left us a nation more divided that I have seen in my lifetime.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
7
0
So lets start talkings about lightbulbs points:
1.) The Patriot Act: I agree with you, I don't like this policy and I think it has an unbelievable susceptibility to being taken advantage of, which would also apply to 4.) Civilian Eavesdropping which goes hand in hand as I believe you are referring to the domestic terrorism clause of the Patriot Act.
2.) To be honest, I created this thread to bait people into this specific discussion. Do you think the WMD argument is false? It has clearly been proven so from the liberals and regurgitated on CNN that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Or has it? How about the enriched uranium, sarin, and cyclosarin that were found in Iraq. There are also reports of ricin and other WMDs that have been found in the country.
The point that I am trying to get across is that a huge number, if not the majority of people, that hate Bush hate him based on false beliefs and a fundamental misunderstanding of the term WMD.
3.) Get real, you hate George Bush because he spews propaganda to news outlets? My first instinct is to ask for a particular case, my second is to point out that it is customary of a president to spew propaganda (Immediately after the infamous, "I did not have sex with that woman" stunt by Clinton, what did he do? Invaded Yugoslavia to distract voters from the scandal and the impeachment that would soon follow. And don't even try to go into the human rights argument because the same could be used for Iraq. Politics is an image which politicians must hone and refine.
5.) Worsening our economic situation was based on a number of factors which least of all had to do with said tax cuts for the rich. Lets look at the downturn in the economy shortly after Bush took office which was considered the crash of the dot com bubble. Since the bubble began to burst before GB took office it can hardly be attributed to him. Then there was the economic turmoil after 9/11 which would also not be GB's fault and it surely wasnt due to said "giving rich people a tax break." The third major economic problem during his tenure would be the current crisis which current knowledge of the situation shows that it was caused by sub-prime loans predominantly and had a ripple effect throughout. I guess I should point out that sub-prime lending is a concept that was strongly pushed by the democrats.

Like in many of my posts, there is a caveat. I am not some huge Bush fan or neo-con, although I do tend to side with many conservative policies I also side with numerous liberal ideas also. It just really irks me when people gang up on someone because it is the popular thing to do. This is what I feel has happened to Bush. Yes, he has made bad decisions, yes he often sounds like a buffoon, but the main reason people dislike him (in my opinion and personal experience) is the war on Iraq and the urban legend that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. I guess I also should have pointed out the prominent democrats that were in favor of the war to begin with but later jumped shipped.

Medline
 
  • #6
Source for WMD claim?

Asking mainly because I assume I will hit several links refering to lack thereof if I search myself.

By the by I defended the admin from what I found to be overzealous attacks on here myself many times. Primarily I try to poke holes in what I see as bad arguements because I feel that liberals and democrats making bad arguements makes them (and myself by association) look bad.
 
  • #7
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
This is what I feel has happened to Bush. Yes, he has made bad decisions, yes he often sounds like a buffoon, but the main reason people dislike him (in my opinion and personal experience) is the war on Iraq and the urban legend that there were no WMDs found in Iraq.
The Bush claim was not that there were WMDs left over from the 80s, but that Saddam had started new WMD programs.

See, for example:
Fox said:
WASHINGTON — The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
...
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

I guess I also should have pointed out the prominent democrats that were in favor of the war to begin with but later jumped shipped.
Please do name them, along with specific quotes where they expressed such favor. If you don't have any actual quotes, don't bother.

PS: A few things that were missed by others - the 2000 Republican Primary campaign, nearly peeing (in) his pants on the morning of 9/11, ignoring the repeated recommendations of counter terrorism czar Richard Clarke for the political ideology of PNAC, lying to the public on the rationale for the war, not knowing who a Sunni is before invading Iraq, staffing the CPA with unqualified nutjobs based on religio-political litmus tests, lying to the public about warrantless wiretaps, the corruption of the Justice Dept, staffing administrative positions with unqualified cronies (resulting in gross negligence/subversion by EPA, HSA, FDA, NOAA and several other agencies), signing statements, and the rape of science, reason and competence at the altar of political loyalty are a few that come to mind.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Evo
Mentor
23,172
2,914
Medline, there are lengthy threads on this topic already. Did you bother to read any of them?
 
  • #9
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2020 Award
11,093
1,295
to quote a line from sleepless in seattle, "how long is your show?".
 
  • #10
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,979
2,322
2.) To be honest, I created this thread to bait people into this specific discussion. Do you think the WMD argument is false? It has clearly been proven so from the liberals and regurgitated on CNN that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Or has it? How about the enriched uranium, sarin, and cyclosarin that were found in Iraq. There are also reports of ricin and other WMDs that have been found in the country.
The point that I am trying to get across is that a huge number, if not the majority of people, that hate Bush hate him based on false beliefs and a fundamental misunderstanding of the term WMD.
Unsubstantiated claims and misinformation.

MedLine said:
The third major economic problem during his tenure would be the current crisis which current knowledge of the situation shows that it was caused by sub-prime loans predominantly and had a ripple effect throughout. I guess I should point out that sub-prime lending is a concept that was strongly pushed by the democrats.
One should provide the evidence to support these statements.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
81
2.) To be honest, I created this thread to bait people into this specific discussion. Do you think the WMD argument is false? It has clearly been proven so from the liberals and regurgitated on CNN that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Or has it? How about the enriched uranium, sarin, and cyclosarin that were found in Iraq. There are also reports of ricin and other WMDs that have been found in the country.
The point that I am trying to get across is that a huge number, if not the majority of people, that hate Bush hate him based on false beliefs and a fundamental misunderstanding of the term WMD.

......

Like in many of my posts, there is a caveat. I am not some huge Bush fan or neo-con, although I do tend to side with many conservative policies I also side with numerous liberal ideas also. It just really irks me when people gang up on someone because it is the popular thing to do. This is what I feel has happened to Bush. Yes, he has made bad decisions, yes he often sounds like a buffoon, but the main reason people dislike him (in my opinion and personal experience) is the war on Iraq and the urban legend that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. I guess I also should have pointed out the prominent democrats that were in favor of the war to begin with but later jumped shipped.

Medline
Defining WMD has become as illusive as defining the Bush Doctrine?

Per Powell's address to the UN, WMD are:
We know that Iraq has at least seven of these mobile, biological agent factories. The truck-mounted ones have at least two or three trucks each. That means that the mobile production facilities are very few -- perhaps 18 trucks that we know of. There may be more. But perhaps 18 that we know of. Just imagine trying to find 18 trucks among the thousands and thousands of trucks that travel the roads of Iraq every single day.

It took the inspectors 4 years to find out that Iraq was making biological agents. How long do you think it will take the inspectors to find even one of these 18 trucks without Iraq coming forward as they are supposed to with the information about these kinds of capabilities.

Ladies and gentlemen, these are sophisticated facilities. For example, they can produce anthrax and botulinum toxin. In fact, they can produce enough dry, biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people. A dry agent of this type is the most lethal form for human beings........

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.....

Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly five times the size of Manhattan.....
Powell's comments on a nuclear program were weaker and more indirect (and did not include any mention of Nigerian yellow-cake uranium). Powell also clearly stated the Bush administration's second point - that Iraq's WMD program was directly tied to Al-Qaida terrorist operations:

Al-Qaida continues to have a deep interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. As with the story of Zakawi and his network, I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to al-Qaida. Fortunately, this operative is now detained and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now as he, himself, described it.

This senior al-Qaida terrorist was responsible for one of al-Qaida's training camps in Afghanistan. His information comes firsthand from his personal involvement at senior levels of al-Qaida. He says bin Laden and his top deputy in Afghanistan, deceased al-Qaida leader Mohammed Atef, did not believe that al-Qaida labs in Afghanistan were capable enough to manufacture these chemical or biological agents. They needed to go somewhere else. They had to look outside of Afghanistan for help.

Where did they go? Where did they look? They went to Iraq. The support that the describes included Iraq offering chemical or biological weapons training for two al-Qaida associates beginning in December 2000. He says that a militant known as Abdullah al-Araqi had been sent to Iraq several times between 1997 and 2000 for help in acquiring poisons and gasses. Abdullah al-Araqi characterized the relationship he forged with Iraqi officials as successful.

As I said at the outset, none of this should come as a surprise to any of us. Terrorism has been a tool used by Saddam for decades. Saddam was a supporter of terrorism long before these terrorist networks had a name, and this support continues. The nexus of poisons and terror is new. The nexus of Iraq and terror is old. The combination is lethal.

With this track record, Iraqi denials of supporting terrorism take their place alongside the other Iraqi denials of weapons of mass destruction. It is all a web of lies.
You also overstate the support of Democrats in Congress (and several Republicans, as well, for that matter) for the war. It would be more properly called "tap dancing to avoid any sort of accountability for anything I do in Congress" than being in favor of the war. Actually, that's even more reprehensible than being wrong, but claiming they were in favor of the war and later jumped ship is technically incorrect, none the less.
 
  • #12
2.) To be honest, I created this thread to bait people into this specific discussion. Do you think the WMD argument is false?
As far as Saddam restarting his WMD program is concerned, yes I think that has turned out to be false.

It has clearly been proven so from the liberals and regurgitated on CNN that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. Or has it? How about the enriched uranium, sarin, and cyclosarin that were found in Iraq. There are also reports of ricin and other WMDs that have been found in the country.
I am not a nuclear physics expert so I cannot comment on this part.

The point that I am trying to get across is that a huge number, if not the majority of people, that hate Bush hate him based on false beliefs and a fundamental misunderstanding of the term WMD.
There were a couple of Ivan's points that I forgot to mention in my original post, but I think my five alone stand as enough ground for hating the guy.

3.) Get real, you hate George Bush because he spews propaganda to news outlets? My first instinct is to ask for a particular case, my second is to point out that it is customary of a president to spew propaganda (Immediately after the infamous, "I did not have sex with that woman" stunt by Clinton, what did he do? Invaded Yugoslavia to distract voters from the scandal and the impeachment that would soon follow. And don't even try to go into the human rights argument because the same could be used for Iraq. Politics is an image which politicians must hone and refine.

You cannot compare the two.

From Late April 2008:
Government Curries Favor With Military News Analysts

The Pentagon may influence the analysis of some retired military personnel who appear on television news programs, the New York Times recently reported. Media insiders discuss the details of this murky world of defense companies, the current administration and the war in Iraq. Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june08/tvgenerals_04-24.html

5.) Worsening our economic situation was based on a number of factors which least of all had to do with said tax cuts for the rich. Lets look at the downturn in the economy shortly after Bush took office which was considered the crash of the dot com bubble. Since the bubble began to burst before GB took office it can hardly be attributed to him. Then there was the economic turmoil after 9/11 which would also not be GB's fault and it surely wasnt due to said "giving rich people a tax break." The third major economic problem during his tenure would be the current crisis which current knowledge of the situation shows that it was caused by sub-prime loans predominantly and had a ripple effect throughout. I guess I should point out that sub-prime lending is a concept that was strongly pushed by the democrats.

Like in many of my posts, there is a caveat. I am not some huge Bush fan or neo-con, although I do tend to side with many conservative policies I also side with numerous liberal ideas also. It just really irks me when people gang up on someone because it is the popular thing to do. This is what I feel has happened to Bush. Yes, he has made bad decisions, yes he often sounds like a buffoon, but the main reason people dislike him (in my opinion and personal experience) is the war on Iraq and the urban legend that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. I guess I also should have pointed out the prominent democrats that were in favor of the war to begin with but later jumped shipped.

Medline
I'd like to see some evidence for this. My stepfather even thinks that Bush was the least likely cause for the economic crisis which I think is pure bunk. Doubling our national debt shows some serious incompetence on his part.
 
  • #13
93
0
How about the enriched uranium, sarin, and cyclosarin that were found in Iraq. There are also reports of ricin and other WMDs that have been found in the country.
Quoting from memory:

The enriched uranium was actually there under UN supervision until the weapons inspectors left, so the war made proliferation actually a BIGGER risk Fortunately, it wasn't looted and even if it was, it was not all that highly enriched and I think enough for only half a critical mass.

There were some mustard, sarin and cyclosarin shells found, in a number less than a dozen I believe. These may have been administratively lost or remnants from the Iran-Iraq war, all shells were in pretty bad state and the cyclosarin one was at least highly degraded after so many years, cyclosarin does have a rather limited shelf life I believe.

I also remember a botulinum vial found in a fridge of an Iraqi scientist, maybe some ricin there too (?). However, the botulinum strain wasn't one of the more weaponizable ones (maybe Saddam needed some botox shots), the vial was kept in the scientists home refridgerator and were ordered to be kept by him by the regime in 1991 or 2 or so, after which he never heard from the regime again, so they might have forgot. Also a not so useful part of a uranium centrifuge was hidden in a rosebush in his garden or so.

But some rightwing media trumped all of this up a lot bigger than it was and never bothered with retractions or corrections. Same thing of those "biowarfare trailers" that were most likely hydrogen generators for weather balloons for wind information for field artillery and probably even delivered to Iraq by the British.

In short, other than in some people's mind who WANT to believe the lies they were told, nothing really turned up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
7
0
Several of you have questioned the economic part of my argument any im not sure what exactly you are questioning. If you dont think that this current problem was largely started by the sub-prime market collapse and subsequent foreclosures than a quick google search should put your doubt to rest. If it is my claim that the democrats are the problem behind the subprime loan lending, take the Clinton Administration's push to expand the subprime market. You should also consider that the Bush adminstration tried to reign in the subprime market several times only to be met with considerable opposition from Barney Franks et al.

The first piece is about the Franks issue:
Democratic Fingerprints are all over crisis

This one is an old piece from 1999 about the Clinton administrations push for subprime lending:
Thank you Clinton for the subprime boom!


Unfortunately thats all the time I have right now. Have a good weekend everyone!


MedLine
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,105
276
Several of you have questioned the economic part of my argument any im not sure what exactly you are questioning. If you dont think that this current problem was largely started by the sub-prime market collapse and subsequent foreclosures than a quick google search should put your doubt to rest. If it is my claim that the democrats are the problem behind the subprime loan lending, take the Clinton Administration's push to expand the subprime market. You should also consider that the Bush adminstration tried to reign in the subprime market several times only to be met with considerable opposition from Barney Franks et al.

The first piece is about the Franks issue:
Democratic Fingerprints are all over crisis

This one is an old piece from 1999 about the Clinton administrations push for subprime lending:
Thank you Clinton for the subprime boom!


Unfortunately thats all the time I have right now. Have a good weekend everyone!


MedLine
Everyone blames Clinton because he pushed Fannie and Freddie to make more subprime loans, and then subprime loans are what caused the crisis. Except that most subprime loans weren't purchased by Fannie and Freddie. Private investment banks found that subprime loans were profitable, and started doing it to the extent of possibly even breaking laws in order to make more loans, because they thought it was good money.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html [Broken]

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.

During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

In 1999, the year many critics charge that the Clinton administration pressured Fannie and Freddie, the private sector sold into the secondary market just 18 percent of all mortgages.

Fueled by low interest rates and cheap credit, home prices between 2001 and 2007 galloped beyond anything ever seen, and that fueled demand for mortgage-backed securities, the technical term for mortgages that are sold to a company, usually an investment bank, which then pools and sells them into the secondary mortgage market.

About 70 percent of all U.S. mortgages are in this secondary mortgage market, according to the Federal Reserve.
It was banks taking advantage of regulatory lapses to overextend themselves that brought upon the crisis

Furthermore, Bush never really did anything to reign in the subprime market. He had six years of a Republican Congress, what was he waiting for? It's ironic that Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060407-1.html [Broken]

took credit for rising home ownership rates that were due to subprime loans being given out

More Americans own their homes than at any time in history. Minority home ownership has reached record levels. Consumer confidence is at its highest point in nearly 40 years, productivity is high, inflation is contained, manufacturing activity is growing and the small business sector is thriving.
He spent years telling us that rising home ownership rates was due to his tax cuts, but now that the **** has hit the fan Republicans are blaming Democrats for pushing higher home ownership rates. Does that make sense Nobody's innocent in this mess, but to say the Democrats caused all of it (some people even blame Jimmy Carter... because nobody ever had a chance to repeal any of his laws) while the Republicans were trying to fight it is pretty disingenuous
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
7
0
Maybe that came across wrong, of course the Republicans arent innocent here but due to the Democrats proactive role in pushing subprime loans, they take the brunt of the criticism.

MedLine
 
  • #18
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Everyone blames Clinton because he pushed Fannie and Freddie to make more subprime loans, and then subprime loans are what caused the crisis. Except that most subprime loans weren't purchased by Fannie and Freddie.
That is incorrect. Fannie and Freddie totally dominated the mortgage secondary market of the US,including less than prime loans, except for one or two years mentioned in the misleading McLatchy piece. By 2007 they were once again leading the pack:
IHT said:
NEW YORK: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, once derided as white elephants of the mortgage market, are benefiting from the subprime-lending debacle and trampling just about anything in their way.
...
The companies' shares also got a boost after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac told Congress in April that they had committed to provide money to subprime lenders as home prices weakened.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/05/bloomberg/bxmortgage.php?page=1

Furthermore, Bush never really did anything to reign in the subprime market.
Incorrect. The administration attempted to rein in the GSE's through legislative proposals, though they didn't try hard enough; IMO Bush could have taken direct executive action through the Treasury to stop them.
Statements in 2003 by Sec Treasury Snow, Chairman CEA Mankiw
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1884163&postcount=22
He had six years of a Republican Congress, what was he waiting for?
See S.190
...Nobody's innocent in this mess, but to say the Democrats caused all of it (some people even blame Jimmy Carter... because nobody ever had a chance to repeal any of his laws) while the Republicans were trying to fight it is pretty disingenuous
That's nearly exactly backwards. I'm unaware of any political leader saying the 'democrats caused all of it.' However, from the other side, the reverse:
TheHill said:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”
 
  • #19
Office_Shredder
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,105
276
That is incorrect. Fannie and Freddie totally dominated the mortgage secondary market of the US,including less than prime loans, except for one or two years mentioned in the misleading McLatchy piece. By 2007 they were once again leading the pack:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/05/bloomberg/bxmortgage.php?page=1
Did you read this?

While subprime mortgages got battered, the fixed-rate loans that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prefer to package into bonds and guarantee increased to 82 percent of new mortgages from 63 percent in mid-2005. The amount of mortgage bonds sold or guaranteed by the companies rose by a net $93 billion this year, up 38 percent from the same period in 2006, according to estimates by Credit Suisse.
It's almost like it says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't prefer subprime mortgages in the article. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. It goes on to say how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't get mired in the subprime mortgage crisis that was afflicting some banks. I never said they didn't hold a lot of mortgage debt, just that they clearly weren't forced into buying up debt that they didn't want, and a lot of the subprime mortgages were given out because they were believed to be proiftable, not because a government agency was forced to pick up the debt.

Incorrect. The administration attempted to rein in the GSE's through legislative proposals, though they didn't try hard enough; IMO Bush could have taken direct executive action through the Treasury to stop them.
Statements in 2003 by Sec Treasury Snow, Chairman CEA Mankiw
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1884163&postcount=22
See S.190p
Well, the Treasury department took direct action... to limit states from reigning in predatory lending practices (read: subprime mortgages) via the OCC
http://www.realtor.org/government_affairs/gapublic/occanalysis [Broken]

That's nearly exactly backwards. I'm unaware of any political leader saying the 'democrats caused all of it.' However, from the other side, the reverse:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...the+financial+crisis&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

There are plenty of people saying the democrats caused it all. Just because Pelosi doesn't say that (why would she? That would be a juicy soundbite) doesn't mean everyone thinks like her
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Did you read this?



It's almost like it says Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't prefer subprime mortgages in the article. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. It goes on to say how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't get mired in the subprime mortgage crisis that was afflicting some banks. I never said they didn't hold a lot of mortgage debt, just that they clearly weren't forced into buying up debt that they didn't want, and a lot of the subprime mortgages were given out because they were believed to be proiftable, not because a government agency was forced to pick up the debt.
Again you are singling out one or two years when other players outpaced Frannie and Freddie. Before, and especially after, as the graph and article make clear the GSE's dominated mortagages in the US. Cumulatively over the last 15 years the GSEs bought FAR more mortgages prime and subprime than anyone else. Certainly the GSE's were not forced to buy subprime, they trumpeted the fact in 2007 that they were buying subprime to help us all out! They willingly 'trampled' into the market, as the piece says, to make money. In addition, because of their auto documentation practices that became common practice, many of the loans they bought (on paper) as prime could easily be, and probably were, subprime.

...Well, the Treasury department took direct action... to limit states from reigning in predatory lending practices (read: subprime mortgages) via the OCC
http://www.realtor.org/government_affairs/gapublic/occanalysis [Broken]
That OCC rule preempted some state rules with federal ones for national banks. If there's evidence that the federal restrictions were poorer, and not better, than the several states, then that was a blunder.

The GSE's were the cause celeb of the Democrats in Congress, they encouraged the madness. But this mostly went down on the Bush administration's and R. Congress's watch; they more or less had the power to stop this and failed to do so. But it is dangerous to pretend that the GSE's were not a primary cause of this mess, otherwise we're doomed to see more of the same.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
mathwonk
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2020 Award
11,093
1,295
this reminds me a little of the threads entitled "why is 1 = .999....?" or as i have said before, bill cosby's famous album, "why is there air?"
 
  • #22
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616
this reminds me a little of the threads entitled "why is 1 = .999....?" or as i have said before, bill cosby's famous album, "why is there air?"
Yep, I'm with you on this, mathwonk. Seems self-evident, to anyone who has been awake for the last 8 years.
 
  • #23
Evo
Mentor
23,172
2,914
We've had enough threads and discussion on this, I really don't see the point of doing it again.

Anyone?
 
  • #24
18,354
8,148
Not that I like Bush, but I hope if Obama wins and turns out not to be that great that he'll receive plenty of criticism here.
 
  • #25
Evo
Mentor
23,172
2,914
Not that I like Bush, but I hope if Obama wins and turns out not to be that great that he'll receive plenty of criticism here.
Oh you know he will.

People have to be able to criticize the person in power. If Obama wins, he's inheriting one of the worst messes of any President. I'm sure the criticism will start day one.
 

Related Threads on So tell me, just why do you hate Bush?

Replies
88
Views
10K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
8K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
34K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
57
Views
5K
Top