Obama Vs Reagan

[KRAM1]

With the "blank check" program in full swing in Washington DC these days, I thought I'd look at the last time the nation was in a real economic downturn and check to see who led us out and how he did it...You do recall Ronald Reagan, right? Well let's see...

1980 Reagan takes office with inflation in the double digits, unemployment higher than today's level, the top income tax rate approaching 70% and average mortgage rates at 14.7%...so what did Reagan do? Well he took four steps:

1) He reduced (REDUCED) the top income tax rate to 28%...with the second tier at 15% (I believe these were the only two brackets);

2) He drasticly reduced government spending;

3) Inflation was cut in half; and

4) he de-regulated (got government out of areas where private industry should function).

IT WORKED! The US entered the greatest period wealth building in the history of the world that lasted from 1980 to 2007!

Now, let's see where Mr. Obama seems to be taking the country;

1) New tax INCREASES announced;

2) Hugh new levels of government spending;

3) Rising INFLATION (you cannot pump up the money supply like Obama is doing without creating inflation); and

4) Increased government regulation and possible nationalization of certain private sectors.

So far, it appears that the so-called "Stimulus" bill will create 32 new government agencies! Do you really think we will be able to EVER eliminate these new agencies once established? Talk about wasting tax dollars. Government DOES NOT create wealth...it stymies wealth creation by its very nature. Government simply takes dollars from one part of the economy and places them in another part of the economy. Net result is NO new wealth creation.

So, the debate continues and I am sure there are folks who simply will continue to refuse to see what will work and what will not. It is time to stop comparing Mr. Obama to FDR and start comparing him the Ronald Reagan. History has proven that what Ronald Reagan did WORKED. It has not done so with the massive government spending programs enacted through the FDR years. Without WW II there is serious doubt that that FDR would have had any success in bringing the nation out of its economic woes.

We have already seen how throwing $ billions at the automakers has worked out...they are back asking for $ billions more of the taxpayers hard earned dollars! Anyway, this looks like a great study for some economist/poly sci student as I am certain the Obama Administration's policies will give us plenty of time for research.

Interesting comparisons developing. Yes, it is "early" in the Obama administration, so we will wait to see how it all develops. We all need to hope and pray that what has NEVER worked in the past will somehow work this time around. In the meantime, I remind everyone...policies are fair game to be attacked, but let's not personally attack this president as Mr. Bush was so attacked. He IS our president...all of us should remember that little fact.

[Quoner]

I agree!

EDIT: My plan to type "I disagree!" in the second posted identical thread has been cut off at the knees.

Edited February 24, 2009 by Quoner

[KRAM1]

??????????? So, you just don't like expressing an opinion one way or the other, right? I have found that to be the case...

[UNTLifer]

Another Step Towards Socialism

Anyone else uncomfortable with Nancy Pelosi making any kind of decisions or sitting on any committee?

"Is this happening or has it already happened?

..

Norman Thomas said this in a 1944 speech:

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."

[Censored by Laurie]

I can't believe what I'm reading. Don't you know that you're hurting the country with your constant anti-American comments? How are we supposed to recruit the best and brightest to take this country to a level we all expect and can all be proud of if you keep posting such drivel about our fearless leader? Politicians read this board! So do their aides and spouses and parents!

I've had enough...either get behind this country or get out!

IT'S ALL GOOD AND ITS ALL RED, WHITE AND BLUE!

Edited February 24, 2009 by Censored by Laurie

[Quoner]

??????????? So, you just don't like expressing an opinion one way or the other, right? I have found that to be the case...

Oh come on - we express divergent opinions all the time. I don't think my political beliefs expressed on the private forum of a sports message board do anything but create divisions between people whose opinions I mostly enjoy and bring out the worst in all of us as we start arguing issues that we will not change each other's minds on.

[greenminer]

I can understand in the general sense of this recession the analogy people are making to the Reagan administration.

Is it possible the environments are different and the same approach made by Reagan couldn't work today?

[KRAM1]

Oh come on - we express divergent opinions all the time. I don't think my political beliefs expressed on the private forum of a sports message board do anything but create divisions between people whose opinions I mostly enjoy and bring out the worst in all of us as we start arguing issues that we will not change each other's minds on.

Quoner...agreed...I was just having a little fun with you. I thought you would enjoy the "idea" that you would not want to express an opinion on some topic...you are 100% correct thast there will be no "mind changing" when it comes to politics on this board. I was only hoping for a little critical thinking.

Enjoy! But, don't ever forget...good things are happening!

[Censored by Laurie]

I was only hoping for a little critical thinking.

You were hoping for critical discussion based on a comparrison of 8 years in office, and 21 more of historical reflection as opposed to 35 days?

[KRAM1]

Yep...sure was. Critical thinking is not limited by "number of days in office".

[Quoner]

Quoner...agreed...I was just having a little fun with you. I thought you would enjoy the "idea" that you would not want to express an opinion on some topic...you are 100% correct thast there will be no "mind changing" when it comes to politics on this board. I was only hoping for a little critical thinking.

Enjoy! But, don't ever forget...good things are happening!

If it helps, I just heard a good line on the MSNBC feed above my desk.

"This is like giving insurance money to the arsonists after a fire."

The joy of a boss who likes Hardball.

[KRAM1]

I can understand in the general sense of this recession the analogy people are making to the Reagan administration.

Is it possible the environments are different and the same approach made by Reagan couldn't work today?

Nope...I believe it could and would work again. The current policies of big government and nationalization have been tried many times...always have failed. But, we will definitely have to "wait" a bit to see in this case as the "die has been" cast as they say. And, it's a sure bet that we are in this thing until the end...and it will end. That's the good news in all this...this great nation of ours will, indeed, return to properity and probably a bit sooner than many people think...in spite of it all. USA-USA-USA!!!!! Oh, forgot, this isn't the Olympics, this is serious stuff!

[Green P1]

"Personally," I'm going to give Mr."Obama" at least another 4 weeks before I deem his "administration" a failure. That being said, "I" am hopeful that "things" will workout for the "best."

Edited February 24, 2009 by Green P1

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

Look, the situations are different because now, more than ever, we're giving welfare to corporations.

I burns me up that, with my tax money (and my kids' and grandkids'), I'm being asked to bailout:

(1) The wealthy graduates of Ivy League and Big Ten business and law schools who rans the banks, insurance companies, and financial institutions that caused this damn mess in the first place. They knew damn well that what they were doing was high risk and they did it anyway, lining their pockets along the way - first with private money, now with public money.

(2) The so-called "working poor" who didn't do what I did - go to college working multiple jobs, then go to grad school on student loans, so that I could better myself and my family. You aren't required to educate yourself after high school. But, if you chose not to, don't expect the same wage and spending power as those who do.

(3) The jealously "upwardly mobile" who couldn't wait until they could afford a house to buy a house. I didn't buy a house until I was in my late 30s. These morons who took ARM loans and zero down loans just so they could buy a house are reaping what they've sown.

It's not right for me, or any other taxpayer, to be on the hook for any of the three classes of people listed above. I pay the mortgage every month. I pay my utility bills, student loan bills, and whatever other bill may occur (this month, it's a new ignitor for the furnace...it's always something when you own a house).

I fully understand that there are disabled people with legitimate needs. However, that isn't the majority of what we're talking about here. We're talking about bailing out, with my tax money, every idiot from high school dropout to Wharton School of Business grad! And, that's not right.

If you don't want to put in the sacrifice for schooling for a better wage, that's your choice. Live with it. And, on the other end, if you f*ck up a business, it should fail and you shouldn't be given reprieve by the government on my dime.

Lunch time.

Edited February 24, 2009 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[UNTflyer]

“The closest thing to immortality on this earth is a government program."

-Ronald Reagan

[UNTflyer]

I can understand in the general sense of this recession the analogy people are making to the Reagan administration.

Is it possible the environments are different and the same approach made by Reagan couldn't work today?

The recession of 1981-82 was actually worse than it is today. All the talk about the "worst economic climate since the Depression" is just hype. It's not even the worst economic situation since Flock of Seagulls had a gold record.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

With the "blank check" program in full swing in Washington DC these days, I thought I'd look at the last time the nation was in a real economic downturn and check to see who led us out and how he did it...You do recall Ronald Reagan, right? Well let's see...

1980 Reagan takes office with inflation in the double digits, unemployment higher than today's level, the top income tax rate approaching 70% and average mortgage rates at 14.7%...so what did Reagan do? Well he took four steps:

1) He reduced (REDUCED) the top income tax rate to 28%...with the second tier at 15% (I believe these were the only two brackets);

2) He drasticly reduced government spending;

3) Inflation was cut in half; and

4) he de-regulated (got government out of areas where private industry should function).

IT WORKED! The US entered the greatest period wealth building in the history of the world that lasted from 1980 to 2007!

Now, let's see where Mr. Obama seems to be taking the country;

1) New tax INCREASES announced;

2) Hugh new levels of government spending;

3) Rising INFLATION (you cannot pump up the money supply like Obama is doing without creating inflation); and

4) Increased government regulation and possible nationalization of certain private sectors.

So far, it appears that the so-called "Stimulus" bill will create 32 new government agencies! Do you really think we will be able to EVER eliminate these new agencies once established? Talk about wasting tax dollars. Government DOES NOT create wealth...it stymies wealth creation by its very nature. Government simply takes dollars from one part of the economy and places them in another part of the economy. Net result is NO new wealth creation.

So, the debate continues and I am sure there are folks who simply will continue to refuse to see what will work and what will not. It is time to stop comparing Mr. Obama to FDR and start comparing him the Ronald Reagan. History has proven that what Ronald Reagan did WORKED. It has not done so with the massive government spending programs enacted through the FDR years. Without WW II there is serious doubt that that FDR would have had any success in bringing the nation out of its economic woes.

We have already seen how throwing $ billions at the automakers has worked out...they are back asking for $ billions more of the taxpayers hard earned dollars! Anyway, this looks like a great study for some economist/poly sci student as I am certain the Obama Administration's policies will give us plenty of time for research.

Interesting comparisons developing. Yes, it is "early" in the Obama administration, so we will wait to see how it all develops. We all need to hope and pray that what has NEVER worked in the past will somehow work this time around. In the meantime, I remind everyone...policies are fair game to be attacked, but let's not personally attack this president as Mr. Bush was so attacked. He IS our president...all of us should remember that little fact.

How about some real stats instead of "generalized conclusions..??

National Debt

0.9 trillion ----end of Carter --- (1980)

3.7 trillion -----end of Reagan -- (1988) --- 311% gain or 38.9% per year

4.9 trillion -----end of Bush Sr. - (1992) ---- 32% gain or 8.0 % per year

5.6 trillion -----end of Clinton --- (2000) ----- 14% gain or 1.8% per year

10.7 trillion ----- end of Bush Jr. --(2008) ----- 91% gain or 11.3 % per year

Sourse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt...sidential_terms

Same info as treasury site but easier to read .. 2007 is listed on that site but 2008 was lifted from another sourse (US Gov. site) but accurate.

Hurts when you look at real stats and not just some crazy generalized statement.

_________________________________________

The Dow-- Dec 31 of those years

1,004 ---1980 end of Carter

1,988 ---1988 end of Reagan

3,168--- 1992 end of Bush Sr.

10,787 -- 2000 end of Clinton

8,777 --- 2008 end of Bush Jr. (ouch)

Look at facts and stats not some radio/TV freak's rants..

Sourse ---any financial site with charts... I used Yahoo.

Enjoy.... perhaps things aren't as you think they have been...or have been told.

Edited February 24, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Quoner]

_________________________________________

The Dow-- Dec 31 of those years

1,004 ---1980 end of Carter

1,988 ---1988 end of Reagan

3,168--- 1992 end of Bush Sr.

10,787 -- 2000 end of Clinton

8,777 --- 2008 end of Bush Jr. (ouch)

Look at facts and stats not some radio/TV freak's rants..

Sourse ---any chart... I used Yahoo.

So we reward Clinton super extra-trillion bonus points for happening to be in office during the internet boom?

[UNTflyer]

How about some real stats instead of "generalized conclusions..??

National Debt

0.9 trillion ----end of Carter --- (1980)

3.7 trillion -----end of Reagan -- (1988) --- 311% gain or 38.9% per year

4.9 trillion -----end of Bush Sr. - (1992) ---- 32% gain or 8.0 % per year

5.6 trillion -----end of Clinton --- (2000) ----- 14% gain or 1.8% per year

10.7 trillion ----- end of Bush Jr. --(2000) ----- 91% gain or 11.3 % per year

Sourse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt...sidential_terms

Same info as treasury site but easier to read

Hurts when you look at real stats and not just some crazy generalized statement.

_________________________________________

The Dow-- Dec 31 of those years

1,004 ---1980 end of Carter

1,988 ---1988 end of Reagan

3,168--- 1992 end of Bush Sr.

10,787 -- 2000 end of Clinton

8,777 --- 2008 end of Bush Jr. (ouch)

Look at facts and stats not some radio/TV freak's rants..

Sourse ---any chart... I used Yahoo.

The National Debt is not the economy. The Dow is an OK yardstick, but it really only measures what investors believe to be the future value of publicly traded companies.

And the Dow numbers should reflect the changes...

1,004 ---1980 end of Carter (-4%)

1,988 ---1988 end of Reagan (+98%)

3,168--- 1992 end of Bush Sr. (+59%)

10,787 -- 2000 end of Clinton (+240%)

8,777 --- 2008 end of Bush Jr. (-18%)

There are only two things a President can do to the economy. Sign bills that lower taxes, or sign bills that increase spending (smart pro-growth spending). Reagan's tax cuts along with military and technology spending spurred investments that sustained a long term of economic growth, well into the Clinton years. The best thing Bill Clinton ever did was lose control of Congress to Republicans who kept him in check, forced welfare reform and balanced budgets. And despite raising taxes, Clinton gets credit for economic expansion that became a reality because of the pro-growth policies of Reagan/Bush. Flush with cash for investments, corporate America launched the Internet age which greatly increased productivity and efficiency. To be honest, Clinton would have had to work really hard to screw it up.

I'm not certain Bush can be blamed for leaving office with the Dow lower than when he went in, considering he came into office just as the Dot.com bubble was bursting, 9/11 happened, then the housing/credit market went bust. I know the Bush-haters love to blame him, but it's really reaching. Most economic policies take years, even decades, to have their effect on the economy.

Edited February 24, 2009 by UNTflyer

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The National Debt is not the economy. The Dow is an OK yardstick, but it really only measures what investors believe to be the future value of publicly traded companies.

And the Dow numbers should reflect the changes...

1,004 ---1980 end of Carter (-4%)

1,988 ---1988 end of Reagan (+98%)

3,168--- 1992 end of Bush Sr. (+59%)

10,787 -- 2000 end of Clinton (+240%)

8,777 --- 2008 end of Bush Jr. (-18%)

There are only two things a President can do to the economy. Sign bills that lower taxes, or sign bills that increase spending (smart pro-growth spending). Reagan's tax cuts along with military and technology spending spurred investments that sustained a long term of economic growth, well into the Clinton years. The best thing Bill Clinton ever did was lose control of Congress to Republicans who kept him in check, forced welfare reform and balanced budgets. And despite raising taxes, Clinton gets credit for economic expansion that became a reality because of the pro-growth policies of Reagan/Bush. Flush with cash for investments, corporate America launched the Internet age which greatly increased productivity and efficiency. To be honest, Clinton would have had to work really hard to screw it up.

I'm not certain Bush can be blamed for leaving office with the Dow lower than when he went in, considering he came into office just as the Dot.com bubble was bursting, 9/11 happened, then the housing/credit market went bust. I know the Bush-haters love to blame him, but it's really reaching. Most economic policies take years, even decades, to have their effect on the economy.

-- The dot.com crash was not the whole industry but one sector actually... The market in general quickly went back up. It happened because too many in that sector had crazy ecpectations that the tech area would continue to grow at that insane rate......which any thinking person and even most on CNBC was questioning. Once everyone had purchased good business and home computers, and no more rapid changes were occuring--- it was obvious to most that that sector would slow down and quickly. In simple terms... much like a chain letter... once every has one ... the market to buy them stops.... the difference was computers do wear out and some improvements are made so that sector will exist but not so crazy as it was after the internet opened up and business discovered all these new uses. That boom had to slowdown and ---- the dot-com crash had nothing to do with Clinton or Bush... just a mature saturated market finally appeared.

--Gore did not invent the internet (he never said he did) but he was the Senator that responsible for the legislation that put it into the public domain and not just for government use which it had been . I am sure he never realized what would happen as a result but he is largely responsible for that boom... doubt me.. just look it all up.

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/03/18390

Others are far more complimentary, but this a tech industry publication (considered conservative) .... so maybe you will accept it as true.

--I am sure you may try to spin thast into something else but I am speaking the truth.... and you know it.

.

Edited February 24, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Quoner]

That boom had to slowdown and ---- the dot-com crash had nothing to do with Clinton or Bush... just a mature saturated market finally appeared.

--I am sure you may try to spin thast into something else but I am speaking the truth.... and you know it.

.

You just agreed with everyone's refute of your post, so that's cool.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

You just agreed with everyone's refute of your post, so that's cool.

Not at all..... the market growth occured under Clinton...not all the GOP guys and the debt increased under them not Clinton. . The national debt did not increase like the others... the value of the dollar was stable (actually imporved) against other currencies. Check out the rate of exchanges in 2000 and look at them now... awful.

---All I agreed to was the dot-com Crash was not the fault of either President.... it was going to happen when the sector matured... I try not misrepresent the truth as some do. The Dow continued at 10,000+ after a short mostly unwarranted scare (only one sector really had a problem). This situation appears to be very different and if you read--it is rapidly spreading world wide. I am not preaching "doom and gloom" but it might be and was triggered by financial problems with banks and Wall Street. You get to blame who you want ... but when did it start....? Yep. !! Stick your head in the sand if you want but it is not smart.

Edited February 25, 2009 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Quoner]

Not at all..... the market growth occured under Clinton...not all the GOP guys and the debt increased under them not Clinton. . The national debt did not increase like the others... the value of the dollar was stable (actually imporved) against other currencies. Check out the rate of exchanges in 200 and look at them now... awful.

---All I agreed to was the dot-com Crash was not the fault of either President.... it was going to happen when the sector matured... I try not misrepresent the truth as some do. The Dow continued at 10,000+ after a short mostly unwarranted scare (only one sector really had a problem). This situation appears to be very different and if you read--it is rapidly spreading world wide. I am not preaching "doom and gloom" but it might be and was triggered by financial problems with banks and Wall Street. You get to blame who you want ... but when did it start....? Yep. !! Stick your head in the sand if you want but it is not smart.

Oh God - you lumped me in with everyone. Gross.

You agreed with my tiny refute of your post then.

Handshake?

[UNTflyer]

Bush warned about the problems at Fannie and Freddie years ago, starting in 2001. Those problems were caused by various executive orders, regulations, and laws passed and signed by Democrats and Republicans. But.. Bush was the President that practically begged Congress to do something about it.

2001

April: The Administration’s FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

2002

May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

2003

January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (”Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03).

September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO’s review found earnings manipulations.

September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact “legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises” and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.

October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.

November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any “legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk.” To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have “broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards” and “receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03).

2004

February: The President’s FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: “The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator.” (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to “not take [the financial market's] strength for granted.” Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by “ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator.” (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, “Keeping Fannie And Freddie’s House In Order,” Financial Times, 2/24/04).

June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying “We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System.” (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04).

2005

April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying “Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system.” (Secretary John W. Snow, “Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee,” 4/13/05).

2007

July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.

August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying “first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options.” (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07).

September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.

September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.

December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying “These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I’ve called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon.” (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07).

2008

January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.

January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.

February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says “A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully.” (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08).

March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.

March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and “move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08).

April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and “modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08).

May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.

• “Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08).
• “[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator.” (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08).
• “Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans.” (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08).

June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying “we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08).

July: Congress heeds the President’s call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.

[UNTflyer]

Who pushed these mortgages? Not Bush...

New York Times, 1999

...Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region --

will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans

. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under

increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people

and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. ...

... at least one study indicates that

18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market. ...

Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk

, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But

the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn

, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.