# "Bush policies drove the economy into a ditch" which policies exactly? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2010, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480 "2010-09-12T05:48:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/21 "2010-09-12T22:35:03Z")
A huge tax cut while starting 2 wars ,which were unfunded, guaranteed blowing the surplus and plunged us into a huge deficit. Then the drug bill, which he forced his people to lie about cost us billions more. Of course blowing billions on mercenaries with Repub political ties was not much help. TARP is another Repub program. It cost 3/4 of a trillion. It of course enriched the bankers who blew up the economy. It could have been worse. Paulson made a move to takeover the recovery and be answerable to no authority. That was scary ,because he almost pulled it off. Bush’s tax cut haunts us today. It is like writing a 3.1 million dollar check to the top 1200 richest people in the country, year after year. Some people are dumb enough to think it is a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/22 "2010-09-12T22:54:46Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As for the Bush administration’s failures - yes, there were failures. But why does it escape people’s attention that Bush was basically engaging in Keynesian stimulus? Not just in 2008, but all the way back to the start of his presidency. He enacted big tax cuts and big spending increases, and paid for it with borrowed money. The Fed under his watch carried out a very loose monetary policy. That is almost pure textbook Keynesianism. It didn’t work then for the same reason it’s not going to work this time. I thought the idea of Keynesianism was for the government to save money during the good times and spend during the bad. Was the economy in bad shape during the entire Bush presidency, such that it required a Keynesian stimulus? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/23 "2010-09-12T22:57:14Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > > > Here’s a link to Time magazine’s list of [25 people to blame for the financial crisis](http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350,00.html). Plenty of blame to go around, but relevant to this thread are the entries for Hank Paulson and Chris Cox, both appointed by the Bush administration, and George W. Bush hiimself. > > Any list of the top 25 people responsible for the economic crisis which does not manage to include either Barney Frank or Chris Dodd is a joke. Both of them actively impeded attempts to correct the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Both of them actively pushed policies designed to put more mortgages in the hands of people who were ill-equipped to handle them. Both put the government stamp of approval on mortgage-backed securities and vehemently denied there was any problem with them when questioned. > > As for the Bush administration’s failures - yes, there were failures. But why does it escape people’s attention that Bush was basically engaging in Keynesian stimulus? Not just in 2008, but all the way back to the start of his presidency. He enacted big tax cuts and big spending increases, and paid for it with borrowed money. The Fed under his watch carried out a very loose monetary policy. That is almost pure textbook Keynesianism. It didn’t work then for the same reason it’s not going to work this time. > > What it did do is probably moderate the initial downturn from the first recession, making it relatively mild, at the expense of growth and job creation in the out years of his presidency. The loose money policy encouraged the formation of a bubble in real estate. When that popped, the situation became more dire because Bush had already dug a bigger hole for the economy. > > And so it will go with this round of attempts to stave off the fundamental correction the economy has been trying to undergo for a decade now. The stimulus may have slightly eased the depths of this recession, at the expense of setting everyone up for an even bigger crash in a few years. Since the marginal propensity to spend is lower for rich people, Keynes would probably turn over in his grave. Given that we had excess capital to invest and insufficient demand it was not what a Keynesian would propose. Either increasing Federal spending or tax cuts for the lower 75% of taxpayers would have created more stimulus. The correct thing to do of course, would have been to not cut taxes on the rich and continue to pay down the deficit so that we had breathing room to increase spending during the downturn. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/24 "2010-09-12T23:40:29Z")
Ignoring budget deficits, starting wars that will cost trillions on borrowed dollars, ignoring the credit debt swap derivatives market and cutting taxes pretty much covers the broad strokes. The Republicans controlled the executive branch, including the SEC and Justice Department the entirety of this time and filled both with people less qualified than Mike Heckuva Job Brownie was to run FEMA pretty much insured what happened. The Democrats are as responsible as the general electorate for not stopping any of this. Enforcement of the laws and administering balanced budgets were solely Republican responsibilities from Jan 20, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009. Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in office. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/25 "2010-09-12T23:56:58Z")
My impression is certain policies intertwined to help create this situation: A deregulated housing market that resulted in unsustainable trillion dollar bubbles A middle class that cannot survive w/o large amounts of debt Large amounts of public debt Much of our current problems seem due to these problems and all the side effects of them (trillions in lost equity, fear of economic insecurity, lack of confidence, lack of consumer demand, massive unemployment, etc) I don’t know if Bush personally played a ‘huge’ role in them. I know that Elliot Spitzer of NY tried to sue the federal government to get them to to regulate the housing market better, but was stopped by the Bush admin. > **[How Eliot Spitzer Tried to Stop the Subprime Crisis As Attorney General --...](https://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/51831/)** > > Is it already time for Spitzer nostalgia? Recently, bankers and government officials have insisted that they were blindsided by the subprime-mortgage cataclysm. “Nobody, including me, anticipated” this crisis, Richard Fuld, CEO of bankrupt Lehm \[...\] However the policies of massive deregulation which created a financial system that is dangerous interdependent (meaning if one large company goes down it creates a domino effect) supposedly started under Clinton. I was watching a PBS documentary not long ago that said the global economy almost collapsed in the 90s (I forget when, maybe 97) because one financial company was about to fold and it would create a domino effect. And people like Rubin and Summers were involved in that too. Luckily I guess Rubin and Summers convinced other financial interests to buy up the company and disband it rather than let it fold. But the collapse of 2008 could’ve happened a decade earlier, that was my impression. I think Reaganomics is to blame for these problems, and has had its day in the sun and needs to be retired. Bush promoted Reaganomics but I don’t think he can be totally blamed for what happened. However the GOP will push for more Reaganomics which will further destabalize the middle class (and destroy consumer demand with it) and allow trillion dollar bubbles to happen in the financial markets. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/26 "2010-09-13T00:07:48Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in office. Wars end; entitlement programs and bureaucracies only get bigger. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/27 "2010-09-13T00:18:00Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > > > Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in office. > > Wars end; entitlement programs and bureaucracies only get bigger. Funded wars could end. Unfunded wars linger forever. The largest amount of health care dollars for WW2 soldiers was about 50 years after the war ended. Do you dream that all the wounded soldiers will just disappear from the budget? That “entitlement” cost will bury your grandchildren. ---
**Author:** ![Llama\_Llogophile](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@Llama\_Llogophile](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Llama_Llogophile)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/28 "2010-09-13T00:31:49Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > > > Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in office. > > Wars end; entitlement programs and bureaucracies only get bigger. Oh, well - that makes foolish spending on unnecessary wars OK then. Now it’s just the senseless bloodshed that bothers me. ---
**Author:** ![WmJames](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a6a055/32.png) [@WmJames](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WmJames)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/29 "2010-09-13T00:55:15Z")
I understand much better now what the Democrats are saying about Bush policies. Many of the comments are directed toward deficits and the role that the wars played in the deficits. If the wars cost about 800 billion in the last 9 years (from what I have read), that does not seem to be enough of the about 23 trillion our government has spent in the past 9 years to “drive the economy into a ditch”. the wars account for 1/25th of the spending during this period of time (and less that 1% of the gdp for 2001-2009) from what I can determine, the statement about the ditch/cliff, basically comes down to two thing: 1, deficit spending, including not raising taxes to pay for the wars. I see here a strong consensus of Bush’s critics that the “tax cut for the wealthy” is the main culprit. I am having trouble finding out what the tax cuts to the wealthy actually cost. The Bush tax cuts, as I understand them, lowered taxes for everyone, lowered taxes on dividends and capital gains, and got rid of the estate tax. When people write about the cost of the Bush tax cuts, they don’t differentiate, as far as I can tell, between the tax cuts everyone seems to favor (the parts that Obama wants to continue) and tax cuts for the wealthy that most seem to find so odious. The total cost of all the tax cuts (tax cut bills of 2001 and 2003 together) to date is, from what can determine, is 1.2 trillion, but that includes all the tax cuts. Does anyone know what number for tax cuts “to the wealthy” (how many dollars per year income is considered “wealthy” by those who use the phrase “tax cuts on the wealthy?”) all that said, I don’t see how the deficit from the wars or tax cuts on the wealthy “drove the economy into a ditch”. from what I can determine, in 07 the entire deficit was 1.2 percent of the gross domestic product. 1. lack of regulatory foresight. it seems pretty clear that the recession was not caused by deficits. of the “25 reasons” (I also would include Barney Frank and Chris Dodd), lack of regulation in sub prime mortgage and in new financial instruments is seem to the only “Bush factor” that really can be called a proximate cause of the recession/meltdown (the recession caused the debt/deficit to be larger vis a vis the gdp. the debt/deficit did not cause the recession) so back to the second part of my original question: what legislation or steps did the Democrats recommend prior to summer of 2008 in these two areas, mortgages and finance industry, that would have keep the car out of the ditch? If they saw the economy being driven off a cliff, what did they do to stop it? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/30 "2010-09-13T01:04:07Z")
> [@WmJames](#): > > so back to the second part of my original question: what legislation or steps did the Democrats recommend prior to summer of 2008 in these two areas, mortgages and finance industry, that would have keep the car out of the ditch? If they saw the economy being driven off a cliff, what did they do to stop it? Only a handful of people saw the great recession coming, and I don’t think the Democrats claim to have been in those ranks. Their argument is they wouldn’t have driven us off that cliff. But as you say, that’s a very hard thing to know for sure, and it’s not like Bush did anything radically different wrt oversight of the financial institutions. You’re over-analyzing a campaign slogan. Don’t take that personally. I’m not trying to rebuke your anything. It’s just that these things don’t lend themselves to the kind of scrutiny we are capable of here. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/31 "2010-09-13T01:09:51Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > > It’s likely that without the war racking up massive debts, people wouldn’t have been as nervous about the economy when the housing crisis occurred. They simply didn’t believe that the government had the financial strength after trying to buy itself out of the dot-com crash and launching two wars, to also buy ourselves out of the housing crash. > > > > Bush was also, essentially, a lame duck president his last year and a half in office. Instead of leading a charge towards cutting off the housing crisis, the presidential nominees were seen as being the only ones who could handle it. Without the real president leading the way, congress was about 6 months too late in passing the necessary legislation to stop the meltdown, and even once they did, no one realized that they had actually done so, so they all started pulling their money from the market. > > Which necessary legislation are you referring to, when you mention that it ‘stopped the meltdown?’ > > Fannie and Freddie continue to steam along nicely, costing us hundreds of billions each year, with more to come. And the government-backed student loan market is the next turd in the punchbowl. I’ve posted in several threads about the financial meltdown. Fannie and Freddie had little to do with it. Their current financial condition is the result of the meltdown, not the cause of it. And yet you still bring up with falsehood every time you have the opportunity. To the extent that direct federal lending of student loans is a turd in the punchbowl, it has been there since the beginning of the federal student loan program. What does it matter if we guarantee the student loans versus actually make the student loans? We have simply eliminated the middleman who did NOTHING but collect fees. The form that students fill out is provided by the government, the approval is based on government criteria, the interest rate is based on government prescribed rates, the only thing the bank does is collect an exhorbitant processing fee (without taking any risk) and a percentage of the itnerest payments (once again without taking any risk). ---
**Author:** ![Mozart1220](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Mozart1220](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mozart1220)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/32 "2010-09-13T01:34:09Z")
> [@Claverhouse](#): > > > [@Mozart1220](#): > > > > …catering to the wall street criminals… > > Mr. Obama then heaped fires of coal upon their heads, causing them to repent and cheerfully give up their lives of crime. Money given to banks which was supposed to go for loans, which would help the economy get going again, went instead for million dollar bonuses to CEO’s is hardly Obama’s fault. It only goes to show how corrupt the banks really are. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/33 "2010-09-13T02:31:46Z")
It’s clear (hey, if the OP thinks “it’s clear” is great reasoning, then why not use it?) that had Al Gore been president that he would not have proposed and passed unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy and wouldn’t have bought the bullshit about Iraqi WMD. Shit, he may have even read the Aug 6, 2001 memo warning “Bin Ladin determinted to strike in US”. It’s clear that if Al Gore had been president from 2001 to 2009 that Republicans in Congress would have criticized all deficits and all his proposals. The Democrats did fail to criticize Bush Administration proposals adequately, but the OP didn’t ask that. The country needs the Republicans in the minority and out of the executive branch because Republicans screw up being in charge and Democrats screw up being opposition. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/34 "2010-09-13T03:15:30Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > > [@Claverhouse](#): > > > > Mr. Obama then heaped fires of coal upon their heads, causing them to repent and cheerfully give up their lives of crime. > > Money given to banks which was supposed to go for loans, which would help the economy get going again, went instead for million dollar bonuses to CEO’s is hardly Obama’s fault. > > It only goes to show how corrupt the banks really are. “Not his fault” doesn’t mean it’s not his responsibility. He’d just watched the banks start going bust, one by one, so it’s not as though he shouldn’t have known they weren’t to be trusted. However, I do think TARP and ARRA were both necessary to restore public confidence and prevent an even worse drop in the short-term money supply. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/35 "2010-09-13T04:07:46Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > > [@Claverhouse](#): > > > > Mr. Obama then heaped fires of coal upon their heads, causing them to repent and cheerfully give up their lives of crime. > > Money given to banks which was supposed to go for loans, which would help the economy get going again, went instead for million dollar bonuses to CEO’s is hardly Obama’s fault. > > It only goes to show how corrupt the banks really are. The banks are getting money for almost free. They have discovered they can make a lot of money without risk by buying tbonds. They also can jack up interest rates and fees. They are assured of making a shit pot of money with no risk. Just gouge their customers. Should there be a way to force banks to lend money to small businesses? We know employment would raise if they did. But is it because the bankers are republicans and want them back in power. Should Obama have nationalized one of the banks to get lending on track? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/36 "2010-09-13T05:09:56Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Since the marginal propensity to spend is lower for rich people, Keynes would probably turn over in his grave. Given that we had excess capital to invest and insufficient demand it was not what a Keynesian would propose. Either increasing Federal spending or tax cuts for the lower 75% of taxpayers would have created more stimulus. The correct thing to do of course, would have been to not cut taxes on the rich and continue to pay down the deficit so that we had breathing room to increase spending during the downturn. The Bush tax cuts had a big effect on tax rates on the lower and middle classes. You honestly don’t believe Bush’s tax cuts applied to the lower 75% of the economy? The Bush tax cuts lowered the 15% tax bracket to 10%. They lowered the 28% tax bracket to 25%. They lowered the 36% tax bracket to 33%. And they lowered the 39.6% tax bracket to 35%. Three of the four bracket changes affected the lower 75% of the population. In addition, the capital gains and dividend cuts boosted many working class people’s retirement savings. Bush also increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1000, which was aimed directly at stimulating demand among the lower and middle class families. I also seem to recall at least one $400 rebate check being sent directly to lower and middle income families, and that this was specifically done to stimulate demand. This was very similar to the ‘helicopter drop’ demand stimulus idea. The fed’s low interest rate policy put a lot of extra money into the hands of the poor and middle class, who are often up to their eyeballs in debt and benefit disproportionally from lower interest rates. Mortgages were much cheaper, allowing poor people to buy homes. The subsequent spike in demand for housing cause house prices to skyrocket, which many lower and middle class people took advantage of by refinancing their homes to give them extra cash to spend. The last decade was one of continual attempts to stimulate demand through deficit spending. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/37 "2010-09-13T05:35:32Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Enforcement of the laws and administering balanced budgets were solely Republican responsibilities from Jan 20, 2001 to Jan 20, 2009. This is flat-out wrong. The Democrats took control of both the House and Senate in the 2006 election. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd controlled the powerful finance and banking committees. During their reign, many warnings about the impending collapse of the financial markets were brought to them, and they did nothing. Actually, they did worse than nothing - they flat out denied there was a problem and went out of their way to try to keep the real estate bubble growing. Not only that, but the Bush administration tried to sound the warning on financial regulatory issues many times right from the moment Bush was elected, and they were thwarted each time. And each time, the main opposition came from the Democrats, with just enough Republicans along to prevent action. For example, we have [this article](http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print) from the NY Times, from 2003: > [@](#): > > **New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae** > 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. So how come this didn’t happen? > [@](#): > > Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. > > ‘‘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.’’ > > Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed. > > ‘‘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,’’ Mr. Watt said. What happened in the 2000’s was that the Democrats were fully in favor of the loose money, loose regulatory policies in effect, because they were benefiting their constituents. Chris Dodd had a ‘friends of Angelo’ loan from Countrywide, which had him firmly in the tank. Every time someone tried to sound the alarm about an impending financial crisis, it was the _Democrats_ who pitched a fit. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/38 "2010-09-13T06:14:23Z")
You simply don’t understand American politics if you think that the Democrats had the power to pass legislation from 01 to 09. During that time Bush threatened to and did veto every reform and he certainly would have vetoed such a reform. I hold the Republicans and their piss on down economics solely responsible for the collapse. Anybody with the slightest intellectual honesty would give the Republicans nine out of ten parts responsibility for the reasons already stated in the thread. The fact that the Republicans and their policies and apologists accept zero responsibility for the collapse and try to blame it all on Democrats when they had control of every executive function of the government, a majority on the Supreme Court and could obstruct any measure in Congress that they wanted shows how utterly irresponsible Republicans are and why they should not be trusted outside the opposition until they learn to stop fucking 95 percent of the American people for the benefit of the richest 5 percent. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/39 "2010-09-13T07:06:53Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > You simply don’t understand American politics if you think that the Democrats had the power to pass legislation from 01 to 09. During that time Bush threatened to and did veto every reform and he certainly would have vetoed such a reform. Perhaps you could point just where in the following list of all the bills vetoed by GWB during his eight years in office he vetoed reform of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac, or any other economic reform bill for that matter: > [@](#): > > 1.July 19, 2006: Vetoed H.R. 810, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005, a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed). > 2.May 1, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1591, U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007. Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial legislation that the President disapproved of… H.R. 2206, was enacted as Pub.L. 110-28 with the President’s approval. > 3.June 20, 2007: Vetoed S. 5, Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. No override attempt made. > 4.October 3, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 976, Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (“SCHIP”). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed). > 5.November 2, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 1495, Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 79-14 (62 needed), and enacted as Pub.L. 110-114 over President’s veto. > 6.November 13, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3043, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed). > 7.December 12, 2007: Vetoed H.R. 3963, Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.[24] Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed). > 8.December 28, 2007: Pocket Vetoed H.R. 1585, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008[25]. A later version of the bill that changed a minor provision of which the President disapproved was quickly passed by Congress (H.R. 4986) and was enacted with the President’s approval as Pub.L. 110-181 on 28 January 2008. > 9.March 8, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2082, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.[26][27] Override attempt failed in House, 225-188. > 10.May 21, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 2419, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill.[28][29] Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate, 82-13 (64 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234 over the President’s veto. Due to a clerical error, this act was repealed by Pub.L. 110-246. > 11.18 June 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6124, 2007 U.S. Farm Bill, re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.[30] Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246 over the President’s veto. > 12.July 15, 2008: Vetoed H.R. 6331, Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.[31] Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). Enacted as Pub.L. 110-275 over the President’s veto. [Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_vetoes#George_W._Bush) > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I hold the Republicans and their piss on down economics solely responsible for the collapse. Anybody with the slightest intellectual honesty would give the Republicans nine out of ten parts responsibility for the reasons already stated in the thread. The fact that the Republicans and their policies and apologists accept zero responsibility for the collapse and try to blame it all on Democrats when they had control of every executive function of the government, a majority on the Supreme Court and could obstruct any measure in Congress that they wanted shows how utterly irresponsible Republicans are and why they should not be trusted outside the opposition until they learn to stop fucking 95 percent of the American people for the benefit of the richest 5 percent. Gee, one would think the 95% getting fucked don’t have a vote. I wonder how the Republicans managed to figure out they could fuck 95% of the populace and still garner votes. And yet from 1968 to 2008, Democrats managed to hold the Oval Office for only 12 years and saw their decades-long congressional monopoly broken in 1994. Looks like fucking over 95% of the American people has paid off well for the Republicans the last few decades…or perhaps, just perhaps, your claim that most of the American public are being deliberately and well fucked over by Republicans is nothing but partisan bias. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2010, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480/40 "2010-09-13T08:03:02Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The Bush tax cuts had a big effect on tax rates on the lower and middle classes. You honestly don’t believe Bush’s tax cuts applied to the lower 75% of the economy? > > The Bush tax cuts lowered the 15% tax bracket to 10%. They lowered the 28% tax bracket to 25%. They lowered the 36% tax bracket to 33%. And they lowered the 39.6% tax bracket to 35%. Three of the four bracket changes affected the lower 75% of the population. In addition, the capital gains and dividend cuts boosted many working class people’s retirement savings. > > Bush also increased the child tax credit from $500 to $1000, which was aimed directly at stimulating demand among the lower and middle class families. > > I also seem to recall at least one $400 rebate check being sent directly to lower and middle income families, and that this was specifically done to stimulate demand. This was very similar to the ‘helicopter drop’ demand stimulus idea. > > The fed’s low interest rate policy put a lot of extra money into the hands of the poor and middle class, who are often up to their eyeballs in debt and benefit disproportionally from lower interest rates. Mortgages were much cheaper, allowing poor people to buy homes. The subsequent spike in demand for housing cause house prices to skyrocket, which many lower and middle class people took advantage of by refinancing their homes to give them extra cash to spend. > > The last decade was one of continual attempts to stimulate demand through deficit spending. The first of Bush’s tax cuts was passed in 2001, and they are set to expire at the end of this year. Was Bush expecting, and preparing in advance for the economy to need 10 years of stimulus? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-policies-drove-the-economy-into-a-ditch-which-policies-exactly/553480.md?page=3)