What Grade Would You Give Bush?

I give Bush a B and I could debate myself as to whether it's a B+ or B-, so I won't. I do think the arguments tend more toward the plus side in that, frankly.

I want to be sure and thank former President George Bush today. Not because he did things just as I would have preferred, or even always got them right. He didn't. No president ever has.

Most especially I want to thank him for being the honorable man I believe he is and for trying to do what he believed to be right time and again in the face of incredible opposition - and at a time of great turmoil in America.

People forget that he inherited a recession and no sooner than his tax cuts were cutting into that, we experienced 9/11. Many predicted our economic collapse, if not demise, because of that tragic event.

Bush persevered and a President who came to DC to be mostly a Domestic President became an International President and a War President. And he never wavered from his belief in America as a force for good, including in its role in world affairs.

In that sense, I can salute him every bit as admirably as I did Reagan after his term. Unfortunately, Clinton did not provide such an opportunity.

I weigh a president against the challenges he faced, the effort, vision and character displayed in meeting them, and only partly upon results. Presidents do not get things done on their own in the modern age. They are almost products of their environment every bit as much as they are actors upon it.

In the end, I'd give Bush a B. Problems in execution and some differences in vision prevent an A grade. But an average man in the highly unusual times we lived through during Bush's eight years would have been an unmitigated disaster.

And liberal pundits aside, President Bush was most assuredly not that. I believe history will judge him rather well, much in the vein of Truman, who left office about as unpopular as has Bush.

So, thank you, President Bush. It has been an honor to be a citizen under your faithful watch. May the coming years be more kind to you than were the last eight.

Comments

[Anon]

While I don't think Bush is 'evil' or a bad man, he was a bad manager and a bad president who didn't understand the difference between resolve and stubbornness and who surrounded himself not with the best and brightest but with yes men who told him what he wanted to hear and never challenged him on any decisions.

Fiscal Policy: D

Monetary Policy: F

National Secuirty: C-

Domestic Economy: D

Tax Policy: C-

Environmental Policy: F

International Relations: F

[Bootstrap]

He earns an A- for keeping us safe after the terrorist attacks. He is a liberator and should be remembered as a great president, a poor conservative, but a great president.

[24AheadDotCom]

D-, with a recommendation that he be sent to detention. On his watch, 14% of Mexico's working age population now lives in the U.S., and if he'd lost in 2004 the GOP would have made sure that Kerry would have worked to prevent future attacks on the U.S. and perhaps with more international cover. The strawman argument against Kerry ignores the fact that he would have been strongly opposed by a revitalized GOP opposition.

[jharp]

I'll break it down.
Decision to invade Iraq. F
Handling of Katrina F
Fiscal Policy F
Handling of the Justice Department F
Regulation of Financial Institutions F
Protecting the Constitution F
Starting Daylight Savings Time earlier and ending it later A+
No child left behind D
Prescription Drug Benefits D
Keeping us safe F-

Overall. F. The worst President in the history of the U.S.

[SacTownMan]

Dan I would echo most of what you say.

In the war on terrorism I would give him an A. He has kept America safe after the attacks of 9/11 and took the battle to them. They now live like hermits in their caves and duck everytime a Preditor drone flies overhead. Despite every attempt to lose the war in Iraq he told the idiots like Obama and Pelosi/Reed to stick it everytime they tried. Only the dumbest of the dumb like Harpo and Lame-O would still try to say the surge wasn't succesfull.

In the domestic front he was at best a B-. With Katrina and the economy in the tank he could have done better.

Combined score would be a B+, mainly because he stood by his convictions and did what he thought was in the best interests of America.

Thank you for keeping my family safe for the past 7+ years President Bush!

[Terry Gain]

Bush: Security A, Economy C Communications F. It's not enough to do the right thing. You must persuade others of the rightness of your decisions. Overall C.

The Media F-. Not only clueless but vicious.

The Democrats F-. Clearly indistinguishable from the media.

Bush deserves a lot of credit for holding the line against the global warming hoax but it's noteworthy that he didn't try to explain to the American public that the notion that carbon dioxide, which comprises four one hundredths of one percent of the molecules in the atmosphere, somehow controls climate is pure lunacy.

[MarkJaeger]

Anon,

The fact that you used "Anon" automatically negates each and every one of your observations. In 50 years, Bush may well be the fifth face on Mount Rushmore...and you'll be just so much dust getting into everybody's eyes.

[MarkJaeger]

jharp,

That's okay. George Bush still likes you. And you still get my vote for "Worst Poster in the History of the Blogosphere."

[IslamoLlama]

"-- I give Bush a B --" J

The saddest thing about this website isn't the sophistry or the veiled bigotry or the open misogamy. It's not the willful ignorance or the petty whining or the pathetic insults.

The saddest thing about this website is Dan's hatred for Jimmy Carter mixed with his heroic worship of George Bush.

By any standard, the two men could be comparable. They were both on watch during a failing economy. They were both involved in Middle East debacles. They watched their parties crash and burn around them during their terms and both exited office more or less in disgrace.

But in the first case, with Carter, we had a conversion of faith as Dan developed a disdain for disappointing polices of the Democratic Administration and adopted the ideology of the incoming Republican President.

Meanwhile, in the second case, with Bush, we have a steep descent into denial, as Dan tries to rationalize incompetence or simply ignore the blatant incompetence and failure.

What we've seen over the last eight years is the death of a man's ability to change his mind. And that's a sad, sad thing.

In the face of Constitutional violations spanning the better part of the Bill of Rights, Dan embraced tyranny in exchange for a false sense of security. In the face of deficit spending in the trillions of dollars, Dan set aside fiscal responsibility in exchange for voodoo economics and pay-to-play pork spending. In the face of a mismanaged bureaucracy, Dan abandoned his love of small government to satisfy his party's "moral values" that intrude into every bedroom and every doctor's office. In the face of defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, Dan embraced empty campaign rhetoric and bogus propaganda rather than face horrible failure that has been the "War on Terror".

In the end, Dan abandoned whatever ideology that lead him from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party because he was too much of a coward to change his mind a second time. He's so immersed in FOX News Updates, Rush Limbaugh hate speech, NRO empty rhetoric, and campaign bullshit that he doesn't stand for much of anything anymore. There is no conservative or liberal left in him. Just a tattered flag with his team's mascot stitched into the front.

Rooting for the Republican Party, at this point, is like rooting for the Detroit Lions. There is no basis for your pride or your support. There is nothing but disaster in your past and disappointment in your future. And your turf has become little more than a graveyard for the has-beens and the never-will-bes. But you'll keep doing it, you'll keep handing out excuses and condolences because its your team and you can't let go.

That's truly the greatest tragedy on these boards.

[SacTownMan]

Shorter Lame-O/Harpo

BDS!! Blah...Blah...Blah BDS!! BDS!!

You and Harpo are without doubt two of the saddest tools on the planet and living proof of the need for birth control!

Should the two of you ever mate the result would be a strange and unhappy poop throwing monkey, at best!

[Philip McDaniel]

“I believe history will judge him rather well, much in the vein of Truman, who left office about as unpopular as has Bush.”

That’s my take as well, Dan. Time will tell, but of course the leftists will never agree having come down with BDS – apparently an incurable mental disease brought on by an overweening sense of their own importance, intelligence and grasp of history. If I had to classify it I’d call it ‘Barbara Streisand Syndrome, with a dollop of Nancy Pelosi ‘fuzzy fringe thinking’ and Harry Reid’s ‘Nevada hold’em logic.

[Philip McDaniel]

What are you, Jaime, one of jharp’s household, jharp in “disguise”, or just another sock puppet?

[Lala]

Lame-o acts like a spurned lover.

Anyway, I give Bush an A-

[Eyas]

I was going to actually post my opinion & give my grade of President Bush.

But, I see that the posters here - both Left and Right - haven't two neurons amongst them to rub together.

No thanks.

[SacTownMan]

"What are you, Jaime, one of jharp’s household, jharp in “disguise”, or just another sock puppet?"

Actually Phil, J-Me is another one of our lingering trolls who occasionally shows up to sling the monkey poop!

Oh and he claims he's "a dude", but I have my doubts!

[Philip McDaniel]

A dude?
LOL!

[nina]

Harpo ,Harpo u must learn to keep that mouth shut. If BO speech is a sample of what's to come. Forget Bush ,he will make Carter look like an economic genius as well as foreign policy maverick.
The MTV video just ended and reality is about to hit your boy in the head. What a worthless speech. This one was "written" by BO. The emperor has no clothes.
Get ur 3D glasses ready and a big bucket of the best popcorn u can find. CARTER II is about to start.

[Mark Turner]

I would rank him overall about a B-; I don't regard much of his tenure in office as particularly noteworthy with regard to his achievements. He did have some meteoric highs and lows; extremes of popularity at both ends of the spectrum. With regard to those that regard him as the "worst ever" -- I don't think these people know much about their own history. The WORST presidents in American history I would pick would be the run of one-termers in the 1850s shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War.

[Jake]

What Grade Would You Give Bush?

"The saddest thing about this website is Dan's hatred for Jimmy Carter mixed with his heroic worship of George Bush."

Posted by: IslamoLlama | Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 07:19 PM

Reading comprehension is all about the ability to think. Looks to me as if you get the F.

[jharp]

“I believe history will judge him rather well”

"That’s my take as well, Dan."

Try that one at the office. And Good Lord, is that the best you can come up with?

Bush was a monumental failure. Monumental. Did Truman lead us into anything close to the economic catastrophe we are facing today. Did he nationalize any banks? Did he blow $1 trillion dollars on an unnecessary war that got us nothing?

You two have got to be smoking dope. And you'd better give it up right now. You are delusional.

And just curious, who coined the phrase that Bush's monumental failures would be for the historians to evaluate?

Was it the drug addicted, limp dicked, three time divorced hero of the dittoheads, Limbo?

[Mark Turner]

Like Nixon, history with judge Bush harshly for the size of his mistakes, but will also note his achievements duly (though most academics who study/write about history tend to be Democrats). Being elected to a second term generally means one or a combination of two things: 1. The public likes you and generally supports the direction you are taking the country 2. Your opposition is disorganized and weak, or has no viable alternative vision. Such was the case with both Nixon and GW Bush.

GHW Bush, GW Bush, Carter -- all relatively lackluster presidencies.

Nixon and GWB dropped the ball in their second terms and history does not look kindly on that; Harry Truman had difficulties with Korea in his second term and the lowest approval rating of any president in office, but history seems much more forgiving.

Even JFK (consistently in the top 10 list of greatest presidents) had his embarrassment with the Bay of Pigs debacle and vicious opponents among the "Dixiecrat" Democrats in the Deep South who supported segregation. Even Nixon (often ranked near the bottom) had his positive moments, such as his state trip to China (the first President to do so -- an implicit acknowledgement that China would be an important economic and political player in the future -- which it now is).

[nina]

Harpo we spent that trillion so scum like u can open your latrine mouth and not get shot or put through a wood chipper( ala Sadam) or thrown into jail(a la Castro). To keep your ass safe at night or when ur wife gets back in a plane (Is she back yet or has she fled?) she won't be kidnapped and trashed into a building.
U wish u where the dirt under the shoes of the Dr. of Democracy. Come on...you hippie commie lib u probably smoked pot and a little of the white powder and some of the psychedelic pills in college . The 2 neurons left in your brain after all that dope are about to go kaput.
Taking of limp dicked ...ur wife has been telling some tales in D.C.....

[Mark Turner]

Another aspect that seems to greatly influence a president's legacy is how they handle the media. Reagan and Clinton knew how to play the media and make public compelling visions of their agenda; I expect that Obama will be similar along these lines, regardless of what errors he makes. GHW Bush, GW Bush, and Carter didn't really handle their PR very well, and seemed to let the media (especially with GW Bush) run away with every negative story they possibly could get their hands on. Weak PR skills don't help a president's legacy and often actively work against it, regardless of their positive accomplishments.

[Philip McDaniel]

"Try that one at the office. And Good Lord, is that the best you can come up with?"

LOL!
Looks like we're getting to you, nitwit. have another beer, bobo. Just think, there are bunches of people out here who thing Bush is A-1...they also think you are,...well,...you get the idea. Your still a twit.

[Todd]

Really? You'd give Bush a B or a B+? I guess you must love economic depressions.

All of Bush's other failings aside, the American economy has been left in tatters in the wake of George W. Bush's presidency. That alone merits giving him an F-. The minus is because the negative ramifications of Bush's presidency will linger like a bad rash, for years if not decades.

[Mark Turner]

Think about this:

FDR's positive legacy comes from his handling of World War II -- which we didn't get involved in until his THIRD term -- and which he wouldn't have even had if there were term limits back then. If judged solely on his handling of the economy during the Depression (first 2 terms of his presidency), it is extremely unlikely that FDR would be remembered fondly (certain not top 10 status) -- his policies are often credited with prolonging it, not helping us out of it.

Now, while Bush does deserve some blame for the economic meltdown, he's certainly not the only one responsible for it (the Dems also played a pivotal role), and despite media rhetoric, economic conditions are nowhere near as bad as the Depression era. If people are expecting Obama to be a hero who pulls us out of "the worst economic crisis since the Depression" -- it won't be by applying FDR's policies to the situation.

[mark l.]

jharp-

"No child left behind D
Prescription Drug Benefits D"

anon-

"Fiscal Policy: D

National Secuirty: C-

Domestic Economy: D

Tax Policy: C-"

sounds like he got a few answers right. thanks for the kind words.

[ET]

jharp, please provide a link that says that we have spent $1 trillion in Iraq to date. Or, stop making the claim.

I give George Bush a B. Perfect on his response to 9/11. Right to invade Iraq, but the strategy was flawed. Thanks God he stood up for the surge. Not to blame for katrina...that's on the corrupt louisianna politicians (dem governor and mayor). His greatest failure is the lack of leadership at the outset of the credit crisis during the lame duck period of his presidency. The underlying problems were not his fault.

Overall, George Bush is a man of character, driven by principle. Obama is a narcissist driven by ambition. I pray that his ego will motivate him to protect his legacy by resisting all of the stupid liberal ideas he espoused in the campaign. If he continues to piss off the "code pink" pussies and the climate change creeps, we will be OK for 4 years.

[ET]

I love this take on the hollywood hypocrites:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/breitbart/2009/01/19/where-were-you-celebrities-after-911/

I share the sentiment of the last line:

"Good luck, President Obama. The rest of you can go to hell."

[Anon]

Bush's legacy will be largely defined by Iraq, while it is possible, though I don't think probable, that Iraq will eventually be a true U.S. friendly democracy, even that, if it happens, won't erase the 5 years of total bungling that went on...history doesn't like bunglers and no amount of time is going to roll back the clock and change any of those decisions. The best that history will judge is that "war planning and execution was terrible, but it all worked out in the end"

A few aspects of Bush's legacy that could and probably will look better in 10 or 20 years is the money he poured into Africa and the marine sanctuary that he established.

History may also record Bush as being among the most succesful in expanding the power of the president, I consider that a bad thing, but he was very successful in that regard and set a lot of precedents.

If global warming turns out to be a natural phenomenon, then his historic stock will rise exponentially, if it turns out to be largely due to CO2, then, he's going to take a huge, huge hit.

One thing he did accomplish was to make his father's presidency look a LOT better.

History is not going to blame Bush or the Bush Administration for the economic collapse since all of the trends that finally created the perfect storm had been in process for many years if not decades, it is too big to be blamed on the last 8 years.

[jharp]

"Just think, there are bunches of people out here who thing Bush is A-1."

Posted by: Philip McDaniel | Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 10:06 PM

I'm aware. They are known as 16% ers.

[North Dallas Thirty]

LOL....actually, jharp, America now gets to see the lies and corruption that define the Obama Party.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/04/16/frankentaxes/

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2008/12/11/opinion/doc4940f6490bdc7421638554.txt

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/13/uh-oh-obama-treasury-nominee-had-undocumented-housekeeper/

You yourself have stated these people are "excellent" and that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. You yourself have stated that cheating on your taxes and lying about it is acceptable. So has Barack Obama.

And now we have another example of the Obama Party's "excellent" behavior -- the Obama Party mayor of Portland admitting that he had a sexual relationship with a minor, then lied about and tried to cover it up, including ordering the minor to lie as well.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3510/12093/

Sometimes the best thing that can happen is for the world to see what happens when the Obama Party and its similar predecessors take power. Four years of Carter led to twelve years of Republican domination. Given that Obama makes Carter look intelligent and sensible, I like those odds.

[TheSpartan]

Ok, the next time I read a post from you complaining about grade inflation in our schools I get to reach out and smack you ok?

[nina]

Hey Jaime we might decide to send u back to mejico in your burro with your fists in the air so we can make sure u don't take any dollars with u.
What are you going to do people now that you can blame GWB anymore? You all might need some of those drugs Harpo uses. Who cares what grade he gets. From now on BO will be the "ONE". The ONE to blame for wars ,global warming,harpo's need for viagra,Jaime's need for GPS to get back to Mejico. Look at the stock market since the ONE won the election. That is anticipating the next 6 month. Thank G-D BO will socialized medicine so that Harpo and JAIME can get the proper drugs to Rx BDS.

[Philip McDaniel]

"history doesn't like bunglers..."
True, Anon, but with time the bungles are forgotten in the general outcome -- if it is positive. The Second World War was filled with bungles – some generals should have been subjected to courts martial. Some members of Congress, the Senate and Cabinet should have been reprimanded at the very least. Yet we chose to remember the positives. The negatives fade with time. As far as expanding the power of the Presidency, at best Bush held the Congress at bay. The ongoing struggle between the Congress and the Administration did not start with him and will not end with Obama. THAT is a good thing.
You seem like a reasonable person, someone whom, though I may not always agree with, I would still listen to. Personally, I could be wrong but based on my understanding of history, and of the history of the United States of America in relation to the other Nations of the world, I believe President Bush will hold a position of honor in the future assessment of his presidency. When I was first in China…many years ago, I was surprised to learn that Nixon was considered a hero. They were not concerned with the political machinations surrounding his presidency and subsequent resignation. The saw him and by extension all of us as a people who had had opened a door for them.

[Mark Turner]

Even notice the "Top 10 List" of greatest American presidents?

It frequently consists of:

JFK: Although a visionary, his actual presidency was not that impressive. While he deserves kudos for his handling of the Cuban Missle Crisis, the Bay of Pigs invasion was certainly a taint on his record, and his Civil Rights Act legislation was met initially with severe resentment in his own party - the Dixiecrat faction of the Democrats, who controlled politics in the pro-segregation south for years.

Bill Clinton: popular, "feel-good" president, but little original noteworthy legislation

Harry Truman: Worst approval rating in history in 1952 (what would have opinion polls have said about him then?)

FDR: Great for his WWII leadership, poor for his handling of the Depression

So, what exactly are the criteria for making these "lists"? Certainly not approval ratings, not necessarily world-changing policies, or great achievements in America.

Note: I'm not saying any of the above are poor presidents, but if these are really among the top 10, in says to me that the "average" president that leads us is quite unremarkable.

[LOL]

If Bush's tax cuts were helping to make an impact on the recession he inherited, does he also deserve blame for the more severe recession at the end of his term?

If Bush deserves credit for preventing any attacks after 9/11/2001, does he not also bear some responsibility for the events of that day? Does he also bear responsibility for the slow and inadequate management of his own reorganized Homeland Security Apparatus during Katrina?

It is interesting to see how conservatives twist what was and was not beyond the president's control in their summary of his presidency.

[LOL]

"The WORST presidents in American history I would pick would be the run of one-termers in the 1850s shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War."

You mean Millard Fillmore, right?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"If Bush's tax cuts were helping to make an impact on the recession he inherited, does he also deserve blame for the more severe recession at the end of his term?"

No, for a very simple reason; his administration proposed regulations that would have significantly lessened the impact of said recession.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Of course, the Obama Party rejected it because doing so would put lowering the companies' market risk ahead of Obama Party ideology.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58839-2003Oct7?language=printer

Also because Barney Frank, like other Obama Party members, puts his need to reward his sexual partners ahead of the country's welfare.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080924145932.aspx

Pity that the Obama Party and its leftists had to force banks to make loans to people based on skin color rather than creditworthiness and then require horribly-mismanaged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite those loans.

As for 9/11, of course Bush bears SOME responsibility; he was, after all, the President, and he certainly could have done more in hindsight. As for Katrina, one must remember the fact that it was primarily Obama Party-controlled and dominated New Orleans that had the problems, primarily due to the fact that the city had no plan, that its corrupt structure had siphoned away the funds for emergency preparedness, the general incompetence of both the mayor and the governor, and the fact that, for years, the Corps of Engineers, under Congressional orders, had pursued a misguided program of canal and levee-building that actually intensified the problem of storm surge. Mississippi and Alabama, even though they took more direct hits, did not.

[Rolf]

I suppose some need folks need to have their noses rubbed into the massive pile of shit Bush left behind.

January 2001-budget surplus, unemployment 4.6%, Dow 10,575, twin towers grace note on Manhattan skyline...Peace and Prosperity.

January 2009-record budget deficits, economic meltdown, unemployment 7.2%, Dow 7949, crater remains in lower Manhattan...two wars and economy in collapse.

Take your "B" and shove it really far up your stupid sychophantic ass. You truly are one of GW Bush's shining stars.

[Anon]

I agree that a lot of sh*t went on in WWII that doesn't make it into the documentaries and most of that doesn't speak too well of several of our generals. But, come on, WWII was a global war on two fronts thousands of miles apart against a real enemy w/state of the art weapons, comparing WWII to Iraq is really stretching things. Also, the media were mighty cooperative back then, and so none of the negatives and mistakes that were made got any play until years later.

Like most of the rest of my generation I love JFK, but let's be honest here, if JFK had been president in the 80's or the 90's he would never have been able to carry on, oh say, a sexual affair with the most famous actress on the planet or any of the other activities he got up to in the WH. Part of his legacy also rests on the fact that at the time the media simply didn't 'go there'... You can look at the reverse, what if Clinton had been president in the 60's when the media didn't care about your private life and 'white water' would never have seen the light of day, how much more effective would he have been?

There are a very, very few people who really get a reprieve from history, Harry Truman is one, but again, let's be realistic, he didn't go from 'failure' to 'great' he has gone from 'failure' to 'okay, not so bad'...

There is too much solid information already out in public about the many, many mistakes that were made in the Iraq War for it ever to be airbrushed the way WWII has been.

[North Dallas Thirty]

LOL....what's funny is that, after Rolf's whining, one remembers that the Bush administration's policies already drove us out of the Clinton recession, pushed the Dow to never-before-seen heights, and kept the country safe from further terror attacks for seven years.

Once you consider how much the Democrats did to try to destroy this country, from their support and endorsement of terrorists, through their attempts to protect Saddam Hussein's regime of torture, bloodshed, and starvation, including their hatemongering against US troops and attempts to sabotage their every move, plus their demanding that banks make loans to people based on skin color and not on creditworthiness, what we see is that Bush should not be criticized for what he did, but for what he allowed these hate-filled leftists like Rolf to do.

[Todd]

Gimme a break. Bush sucked on the economy. He had all his supply-side tax cuts and all the deregulation he could possibly have wanted and we end up with the worst economic crisis since the 1930's. This is a full 7 years after 9/11 and the shallow Clinton recession that Bush inherited. 7 years later, those can't be blamed for any of this. The laissez-faire supply-side philosophy that the private sector can solve every problem obviously failed gigantically, and it wasn't the Democrats who had any responsibility for that. So, you can either blame supply-side philosophy or you can blame Bush. I blame both.

If you think this whole housing meltdown is due to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Fannie and Freddie, you sure have a lot to learn. Not that I believe that the Democrat's big government philosophy is a good philosophy either. My point is that both these philosophies suck, the political system in this country is broken, and only centrist policy can rescue us from this meltdown.

[me]

You suck.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Notice the difference, Todd; I provide clear links that show both that the Bush administration took steps to regulate the overheated housing market and reduce the market risk -- and that the Obama Party torpedoed it.

I show clear recognition and response by the Bush administration that Fannie and Freddie were engaging in illegal and dangerous behavior -- and that the Obama Party was in complete denial of the fact.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58839-2003Oct7?language=printer

I will now show just how large the impact of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is on the mortgage and mortgage securitization market.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are so big — they own or guarantee roughly half of the nation’s $12 trillion mortgage market — that the thought that they might falter once seemed unimaginable. But now a trickle of worries about the companies, which has been slowly building for years, has suddenly become a torrent.

Virtually every home mortgage lender, from giants like Citigroup to the smallest local banks, relies on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to grease the wheels of the mortgage market. Virtually every Wall Street bank does business with them. And investors around the world own $5.2 trillion of the debt securities backed by the companies. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/business/11ripple.html?ex=1373515200&en=8ad220403fcfdf6e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

And whose idea was it for these companies to engage in risky mortgage purchases and securitization?

"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.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

You see, Todd, the Obama Party blasts businesses as being irresponsible -- when, in fact, businesses were threatened with government sanction if they did not make loans based on skin color and instead used intelligent business metrics like credit scoring.

[LOL]

The housing market is only a small fraction of the wealth lost in this economic crisis. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac amount to tens of billions, but the unregulated credit default swap industry amounts to tens of trillions! This is an industry where, thanks to Phil Gramm, it became ILLEGAL to regulate.

Furthermore, loans given out under the community reinvestment act, (the skin color loans as you might call them) actually have performed better on average than other loans right now.

http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
Community Reinvestment Act loan Data

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901
On the whole thing really.

It's funny that you pretend to know everything about the economic meltdown, and then act as if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac where the start and totality of the meltdown. They were only a small part of it. The fact that you continue harping on the democrats responsibility for this small fraction of the meltdown really just illustrates how little you can actually pin on them.

[Todd]

NorthDallasThirty, I am not saying that Fannie, Freddie are blameless in this,and some Democrats that blocked reform on Fannie and Freddie are definitely culpable.

What I am saying is the Republican laissez-faire free market approach which was completely embraced by George W. Bush, as well as the rest of the GOP, is most responsible for the mayhem in the housing and mortgage market. The let Wall Street and mortgage brokers to run wild with virtually no oversight and no regulation. You want a link? I'll give you tons of links. Here's one for starters:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/bush-administration-ignored-mortgage-meltdown-warnings/

[Todd]

Another link for you with money quotes:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/01/karl-roves-revisionism/

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the principal culprits of the housing crisis” Wrong. Fannie and Freddie were cogs in the giant mortgage machine, but they had nothing to do with the abdication of lending standards from 2002-07. That was a function of the Lend-to-Securitize business model of the sub-prime mortgage originators. THAT was the primary cause of the housing boom and bust, along with Ultra-low rates and a lack of Fed regulation of these sub-prime lenders."

"Bush thwarted attempts to make lenders behave responsibly: Gee, somehow Mr. Rove forgot this one. Bank regulators had proposed new guidelines for writing risky loans. These were internal administrative rules; had they been enacted, the worst of the housing and credit crisis might have been avoided. The Bush administration backed away from proposed crackdowns on the subprime, no-money down, interest-only mortgages that were critical contributors to the credit and housing crisis."

[Todd]

And this, NorthDallasThirty:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/10/quote-of-the-day-aggressive-lending-to-1st-time-buyers/

with money quotes:

"One other thing I’ve done, is I’ve called on private sector mortgage banks and banks to be more aggressive about lending money to first-time home buyers. And the response has been really good. There’s a lot of people in this — our communities around the country that deeply care about the issue of homeownership, and they’ve been responsive."

- George W. Bush, U.S. President, March 26, 2004.

and this, which explains the many reasons which were unleashed due to a largely unregulated free-market approach:

"The credit crisis was caused by 1) the above securitized mortgage paper, that was 2) rated triple AAA by Moody’s and Standard & Poors, which then 3) Which was then "insured" by credit default swaps (CDS) — the unreserved for, shadow insurance products 4) whose exemption was made possible by the Commodities Futures Modernization Act. That legislation exempted these derivatives from any supervision or regulation. The lack of reserve requirements is why there is now $62 trillion in CDS, many of which will never pay their counter parties the promised insurance."

[Todd]

You see, Todd, the Obama Party blasts businesses as being irresponsible -- when, in fact, businesses were threatened with government sanction if they did not make loans based on skin color and instead used intelligent business metrics like credit scoring."
-----------------------

That is utter nonsense. Most of the foreclosures that happened were not in minority communities, where CRA rules applied at all. This was due to wild-eyed speculation let loose by free market forces leading to a speculative bubble - exactly the philosophy embraced by George W. Bush. And, that is why he is enormously to blame for the housing market crisis. Barry Ritholtz explains again why: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/more-cra-idiocy/

California leads the nation in foreclosures. The state’s foreclosure activity was up 51% from a year ago. These are not CRA communities, they are what were hoped to be surburban bedroom communities east of the major cities (San Diego and L.A.)

Next up is Florida; The state’s foreclosure activity was still up 68 percent from November 2007. The enormous overbuilding of Condos, and not CRA, is to blame. These weren’t inner city loans to minorities, as Dan Gross pointed out, they were “WCI Communities — builder of highly amenitized condos in Florida (no subprime purchasers welcome there)” WCI filed for bankruptcy in August. “Very few of the tens of thousands of now-surplus condominiums in Miami were conceived to be marketed to subprime borrowers, or minorities—unless you count rich Venezuelans and Colombians as minorities.”