# Economic Meltdown/Correcting the Bush Legacy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2008, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economic-meltdown-correcting-the-bush-legacy/471370 "2008-11-05T23:06:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**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:** [November 6, 2008, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economic-meltdown-correcting-the-bush-legacy/471370/21 "2008-11-06T22:16:34Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > But personally, I think a democratic administration would have gotten suspicious when **banks suddenly descended on Washington, begging for new laws making it harder to declare bankruptcy**. That should have been a tip-off about the nefarious activity going on. Bolding mine. This is an interesting point, and one I haven’t heard before. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention & Consumer Protection Act of 2005 made declaring bankruptcy more difficult. The timing of it is now suspect, in my view. Obviously, the banking industry is glad to make bankruptcy more difficult at any time. But did the they make an extra push leading up to BAPCPA because of the shenanigans with repackaging bad loans? Were they just covering their asses knowing what was going to happen? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economic-meltdown-correcting-the-bush-legacy/471370/22 "2008-11-06T22:21:19Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Sure. You’ve already seen the information about the deregulation-friendly Treasury Secretaries and Federal Reserve Chairmen whose appointments and reappointments Bush supported. So what. Your characterization of these people tells me nothing. Especially when you characterize 2006 Committee on Capital Markets Regulation as anti-regulatory. > [@](#): > > Specific deregulation-friendly measures that these Administration members advocated are too numerous to list, but for starters, consider Treasury Secretary Paulson’s endorsement of the 2006 Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, whose report on capital markets reform was strongly anti-regulatory. Well I went and looked it up and I understood the main thrust was to clean up conflicting regulations and unify SRO control to make regulation more effective given the deregulation of financial institutions by the feds before Bush took office. > [@](#): > > And have you forgotten the Enron debacle? The Bush “business-friendly” mantra was constantly decrying government “interference” in markets and pushing for a more “hands-off” approach to let markets police themselves. If you say so > [@](#): > > Even the official Treasury plan in March 2008 nominally advocating regulatory reform of financial markets was more about [removing regulatory pressures](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/32050.html): It was characterized as such in the column, but what is your problem with increasing self regulation which is what the SROs do? How does increasing self regulation by the SEC mean deregulation? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economic-meltdown-correcting-the-bush-legacy/471370/23 "2008-11-06T22:28:48Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > We will never know if a democratic administration would have avoided the crisis. But personally, I think a democratic administration would have gotten suspicious when banks suddenly descended on Washington, begging for new laws making it harder to declare bankruptcy. That should have been a tip-off about the nefarious activity going on. Did the banks descend on the Bush administration ? I didn’t know the administration could make new laws. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2008, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economic-meltdown-correcting-the-bush-legacy/471370/24 "2008-11-06T22:42:12Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > what is your problem with increasing self regulation which is what the SROs do? Whether or not I have a “problem” with increasing self-regulation is irrelevant. The point is that shifting from oversight of companies by a regulatory agency to voluntary self-regulation counts as deregulation. > [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > So what. Your characterization of these people tells me nothing. Sorry, but I think you’re being willfully obtuse if you refuse to admit that O’Neill, Paulson, and Greenspan have been advocates of deregulation. In Greenspan’s case in particular, he’s notoriously the poster boy of financial-markets deregulation, and has been for several decades. Where do you get off starting a thread asserting that the Bush administration bears no responsibility for the financial crisis, when you admit that you know “nothing” about the regulatory views of these prominent members of the Bush administration with significant oversight responsibility for financial markets? > [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > Well I went and looked [the 2006 Report of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation] up and I understood the main thrust was to clean up conflicting regulations and unify SRO control to make regulation more effective given the deregulation of financial institutions by the feds before Bush took office. If you somehow wound up with the notion that the overall thrust of the report was not in favor of loosening regulations, then I don’t think you quite understood it. Consider [this typical article](http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-11-29-sarbox-usat_x.htm) on the Report: > [@](#): > > A group of prominent business executives and academics is planning to issue a call Thursday for government regulators to ease up on the enforcement of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The group, dubbed the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, asserts that some elements of the stringent law, which was passed in the wake of accounting meltdowns at Enron and WorldCom, have threatened the USA’s leadership position in the global capital markets. […] > > Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson gave his blessing to the group in September, saying it was important for U.S. capital markets to remain competitive. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economic-meltdown-correcting-the-bush-legacy/471370/25 "2008-11-07T00:26:20Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Whether or not I have a “problem” with increasing self-regulation is irrelevant. The point is that shifting from oversight of companies by a regulatory agency to voluntary self-regulation counts as deregulation. What regulatory agency are you referring ? > [@](#): > > Where do you get off starting a thread asserting that the Bush administration bears no responsibility for the financial crisis, when you admit that you know “nothing” about the regulatory views of these prominent members of the Bush administration with significant oversight responsibility for financial markets? Why do you think I started this thread ? I had been presented with facts surrounding Bush’s plea for congressional help to get oversight and what I’m getting back is characterization on how the Bush people think, as if that had a bearing on the meltdown > [@](#): > > If you somehow wound up with the notion that the overall thrust of the report was not in favor of loosening regulations, then I don’t think you quite understood it. Consider [this typical article](http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2006-11-29-sarbox-usat_x.htm) on the Report: I think more likely I found a different report by Paulson that I can’t retrieve at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2008, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economic-meltdown-correcting-the-bush-legacy/471370/26 "2008-11-07T01:20:19Z")
> [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > What regulatory agency are you referring ? The recommendations that Paulson made in the March 2006 report about shifting emphasis from official regulation to “increased self-regulation” referred to the SEC. > [@The Flying Dutchman](#): > > I had been presented with facts surrounding Bush’s plea for congressional help to get oversight and what I’m getting back is characterization on how the Bush people think, as if that had a bearing on the meltdown Of course it has a bearing on it. It puts in context Bush’s so-called “plea for congressional help to get oversight” on GSE’s. GSE’s, as we’ve discussed, formed a comparatively small part of the financial meltdown. The views and policies of Bush administration members on **other** aspects of financial markets regulation also need to be considered, if you want to get an accurate picture of what happened and who’s to blame. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economic-meltdown-correcting-the-bush-legacy/471370.md?page=1)