- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,130
- Reaction score
- 33,469
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Bush admits it was a mistake to have govt overinvolved in the private sector (i.e., bailouts).Originally published 03:00 p.m., November 12, 2009
Joseph Curl
Former President George W. Bush, outlining plans for a new public policy institute, on Thursday said America must fight the temptation to allow the federal government to take control of the private sector, declaring that too much government intervention will squelch economic recovery and expansion.
With the Obama administration establishing far-reaching controls in the auto, real estate and financial sectors, Mr. Bush said that "the role of government is not to create wealth, but to create the conditions that allow entrepreneurs and innovators to thrive."
"As the world recovers, we will face a temptation to replace the risk-and-reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control. History shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too little government involvement, but too much," said Mr. Bush, who has remained largely out of the limelight since leaving office and rarely criticizes his successor.
Delivering a speech on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, future home to the George W. Bush Presidential Center, the former president sought to explain his decision to have the federal government intervene at the beginning of the economic downturn last fall.
"I believe in the power of the free enterprise system, which made the decision I faced last fall one of the most difficult of my presidency. I went against my free market instincts and approved a temporary government intervention to unfreeze credit and prevent a global financial catastrophe," he said.
While many economists credit that early action with halting the economic freefall, Mr. Bush said the only answer to returning America to prosperity is to remove government controls on the private sector and continue to force open markets to U.S. goods.
"Trade has been one of the world's most powerful engines of economic growth, and one of the most effective ways to lift people out of poverty. Yet a 60-year movement toward trade liberalization is under threat from creeping protectionism and isolationism," Mr. Bush said.
I guess that after causing the mess we're in, Bush should be considered an expert.
no bank was never forced to lend money to people who didn't qualify. are you at all familiar with CRA? it's ridiculous to write that, and it's ridiculous to believe that. THAT'S intellectually dishonest.Yes, and ramping up handouts, and freebies with regards to the CRA and forcing banks to loan to people they knew damned well couldn't afford the homes they were underwriting had NOTHING to do with it.
Investigating the regulators instead of the heeding what they had to say about the situation, then proclaiming to the rest of us that things were strong, while they took 'sweetheart deals' from the CEO's of those making money hand over fist, Yeah, nothing wrong there.
Get outta here with this lay everything at Bush's feet crap. Did he do some things in the financial sector that didn't help? hell yes. Is he alone responsible for the collapse? NO!!!!! When you are intellectually honest enough to say the 'the ONE' has blown into office on the promises of empty pledge, and to date spent, or wants to spend 4 to 5 times what Bush did in his entire Presidency. When you can say that Obama has a plan for change that involves destroying the United States as we know it. Then maybe we have the start of an honest debate. Until then, talking points are tiresome.
j-mac
no bank was never forced to lend money to people who didn't qualify. are you at all familiar with CRA? it's ridiculous to write that, and it's ridiculous to believe that. THAT'S intellectually dishonest.
again, no bank was ever forced to make a loan. seriously. and please, please remember who boasted about the level of home ownership under his administration.So, when I lived in Baltimore, and watched as ACORN would gather shower banks with threats, then meet with them and all of the sudden loans were freed up in those neighborhoods, there was no coercion right? Or when demo members of congress were threatening banks with the force of the US Congress to make more loans, and then selling Fannie and Freddie as quasi Government entities, and telling regulators to back off, yeah that's ok eh?
pfft!
j-mac
Name the elected officials who are advocating for the federal government to take control of the private sector.The Man Who Lied Us Into War said:America must fight the temptation to allow the federal government to take control of the private sector
Give us a few examples of present government intervention that will squelch economic recovery and expansion.too much government intervention will squelch economic recovery and expansion.
again, no bank was ever forced to make a loan.
If you still doubt the role of the Community Reinvestment Act in encouraging lax lending practices, you should check out this 1996 pamphlet published by the Comptroller of the Currency. It discusses "some activities undertaken by small national banks that demonstrate exemplary performance under the Community Reinvestment Act." Those activities now look a lot like the creation of toxic loans.
How The Government Used The CRA To Push Crappy Lending Standards
and please, please remember who boasted about the level of home ownership under his administration.
greed drove those loans.
it's not so much that people couldn't afford the loans when they were made
it's that when refinance time came the property values had plummeted.
That's only one of the many roles of government in the economic affairs of the Nation."the role of government is... to create the conditions that allow entrepreneurs and innovators to thrive."
there is no cra regulation that required banks to make loans to people who did not qualify, nor were there statutes that required banks to look the other way on proof of income. please show some actual proof that cra regulations caused the mortgage meltdown.Sorry, you are just plain wrong about this.
yes, and who was smacked down when he offered any change to the system that was making these loans?
YouTube- Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
partially yes. But greed alone was not the enabler of those who wanted to give their constituents something they couldn't afford, regardless of the damage that would do. That was demo's.
:rofl Really? So qualifying to by a half million dollar home with no proof of income, and then buying the house on an interest only bubble loan was affordable? When?
If the home was affordable to them when they purchased it, there shouldn't have been a need to refi it.
j-mac
no bank was never forced to lend money to people who didn't qualify. are you at all familiar with CRA? it's ridiculous to write that, and it's ridiculous to believe that. THAT'S intellectually dishonest.
there is no cra regulation that required banks to make loans to people who did not qualify, nor were there statutes that required banks to look the other way on proof of income. please show some actual proof that cra regulations caused the mortgage meltdown.
your link does not provide a single shred of proof.
these are not talking points. i don't play that way. and where did i try to pin anything on anyone? i think your hyper-partisanship is showing.....better pull up your slip.:rofl Even if your talking points are true, which there is a severe measure of disingenuousness to them, you don't think that the thugs in congress or the pressure groups like ACORN, and the SEIU would put anything like that in writing do you? What do you libs take the American people for?
You so obviously didn't watch the clip I gave to you that shows how the liberal demo's went after the regulators for even daring to suggest that something was wrong with Fannie, or Freddie.
It is obscene that you would defend, and worse yet try to pin the entire debacle of Bush, or the republican party alone, and shows that instead of actually researching what happened, and what caused this meltdown, you prefer to take the word of people looking to cover their own asses politically, and feed you talking points that you lap up like a sheep.
j-mac
it wasn't. it's ridiculous to believe so. ;-):lol:
Newsflash: There was a housing bubble. And for some reason, i find it hard to believe that the housing bubble was primarily caused by lower income defaults.
If the bold was truly the case it would not have been a bubble....
That's only one of the many roles of government in the economic affairs of the Nation.
That is unless you've actually READ the Constitution and enough of the Founding Fathers to understand it!
these are not talking points. i don't play that way. and where did i try to pin anything on anyone? i think your hyper-partisanship is showing.....better pull up your slip.
i work for a bank and have some insight
and you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence that the cra regs required banks to make shaky loans. not a shred.
the re market is in miserable shape for a multitude of reasons. seems you believe democrats are to blame, and that's pure partisanship.
Nice, maybe he should admit that his lack of oversight, regulation and transparency lead in part to the problem as well.
That's only one of the many roles of government in the economic affairs of the Nation.
The American people overwhelming reject that idea, bro.No, tha's the only economic role of government.
Yes it can, bro. However, that's not the best way to do it.Government can't create wealth.
The American people overwhelming reject that idea, bro.
Yes it can, bro. However, that's not the best way to do it.
The American people overwhelming reject that idea, bro.
Yes it can, bro. However, that's not the best way to do it.
Nice, maybe he should admit that his lack of oversight, regulation and transparency lead in part to the problem as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?