President Bush

[ricco67]

Yeah, that's true...

I guess I'm thinking a mostly about the so-called "house flippers" who got in over their heads. From what I have read/understand, a lot of the people who now find themselves in trouble had homes they had no intention of actually living in.

I am sure that's not true in all cases...

When you're throwing the bath water out, be sure there isn't a baby inside.

Sticking to ones belief to ideology is admirable, as long as common sense doesn't suffer for it.

[Disastro]

What I fail to understand is that both Houses of Congress passed this bill, and Bush simply approved it, so why heap all the blame on Bush? Why not blame Congress?

That's been the story of Bush's terms in office. He doesn't make law. His job id to "execute" the law, thus the term "Chief Executive". Congress makes laws. Bush can only approve or veto. Yet Bush gets all the blame for everything.

I like Bush personally, and I think he has done a fair job. Not great, but fair. But he is not the monster many try to make him out to be. He's simply a convenient whipping boy for when people are unhappy about the way things are.

I don't hate Bush, but he DOES have the power of the veto and likely enough support in Congress to block any attempts to overturn it. That's my problem with him on this issue...

Then there's Ramos and Campean...and those Marines accused of murder in Iraq...Bush has a tendency to hang people out to dry...with the exception of Scooter Libby that is.

That's not a good character trait. And let's face it...he's a globalist. Plus, what's his thing with Mexico? He seems completely unwilling to do anything about the illegals.

So, yeah...not a good President in my book. But, you know what they say about opinions...lol!

When you're throwing the bath water out, be sure there isn't a baby inside.

Sticking to ones belief to ideology is admirable, as long as common sense doesn't suffer for it.

Whatchootalkinbout?

I said "I am sure that's not true in all cases..."

That was my baby-proof disclaimer! LOL!!!

So there!

[crunchtastic]

I guess I'm thinking a mostly about the so-called "house flippers" who got in over their heads. From what I have read/understand, a lot of the people who now find themselves in trouble had homes they had no intention of actually living in.

The terms of the provisions will not apply to flippers. Only owner occupied primary residences.

Sevfiv has kindly attached the actual bill. I recommend reading it.

[ricco67]

I don't hate Bush, but he DOES have the power of the veto and likely enough support in Congress to block any attempts to overturn it. That's my problem with him on this issue...

Then there's Ramos and Campean...and those Marines accused of murder in Iraq...Bush has a tendency to hang people out to dry...with the exception of Scooter Libby that is.

That's not a good character trait. And let's face it...he's a globalist. Plus, what's his thing with Mexico? He seems completely unwilling to do anything about the illegals.

So, yeah...not a good President in my book. But, you know what they say about opinions...lol!

Whatchootalkinbout?

I said "I am sure that's not true in all cases..."

That was my baby-proof disclaimer! LOL!!!

So there!

Nice try.

But I was referring to THIS quote:

I'm more for "let them fail". Government, banks and irresponsible borrowers all deserve the opportunity to experience failure.

But, such is the of the "accept no responsibility" society we have become.

[Disastro]

Nice try.

But I was referring to THIS quote:

yah...what's your point?

I stand by that one...

I'm tired of watching Uncle Sam bail out irresponsible idiots. It's ridiculous.

[ricco67]

yah...what's your point?

I stand by that one...

I'm tired of watching Uncle Sam bail out irresponsible idiots. It's ridiculous.

The point is that while you were aiming at the "flippers" you neglected to think that it also included the many "honest" homeowners that were tangled up in this mess.

[Disastro]

The point is that while you were aiming at the "flippers" you neglected to think that it also included the many "honest" homeowners that were tangled up in this mess.

Um no, go back and read the last line again... I haven't made any comment worthy of running from, dude...

[crunchtastic]

I stand by that one...

I'm tired of watching Uncle Sam bail out irresponsible idiots. It's ridiculous.

It may be ridiculous, but it is the American way.

Open the link in post #8. Ain't nothing new in fact, it's recurrent US policy.

Perhaps you have a garage full of gold bars, but I would not recommend letting the entire system fail.

[brian0123]

That is a bit harsh, you seem almost....I can't think of the word, but I'm sure someone will help me with that later...

I didn't vote for him (Bush) in his first term, but I voted for him on the 2nd term for several reasons, but I was NEVER a bush Fan.

I'm sorry my stance seems harsh, but it's true. Bush is only partly to blame for the mess we are in. The other people to blame are his enablers... voters. In 2004, Bush had already passed the Patriot Act, attacked Iraq, etc.. To vote for Bush back when it was popular and walk away now is crap, and a pathetic excuse for your own short-sightedness. Your judgment was completely wrong back then, and thus I do not trust your judgment in the future. I know it's harsh, but I want our nation to kick butt again... not crumble under the stupidity and excuses of an apathetic and misguided public.

[Disastro]

I'm sorry my stance seems harsh, but it's true. Bush is only partly to blame for the mess we are in. The other people to blame are his enablers... voters. In 2004, Bush had already passed the Patriot Act, attacked Iraq, etc.. To vote for Bush back when it was popular and walk away now is crap, and a pathetic excuse for your own short-sightedness. Your judgment was completely wrong back then, and thus I do not trust your judgment in the future. I know it's harsh, but I want our nation to kick butt again... not crumble under the stupidity and excuses of an apathetic and misguided public.

Well, it's not going to "kick butt again" with either Obama or McCain (sad to say)...

So what are ya gonna do? Obama will lead us to socialism and McCain is just going to continue as Bush III.

So, we're screwed.

[ricco67]

To vote for Bush back when it was popular and walk away now is crap, and a pathetic excuse for your own short-sightedness.

I didn't realize you had a crystal ball to show my intention on why I voted for Bush.

perhaps you care to illuminate my reasons for doing so? It might help me see the errors of my ways.

For the record: I'm voting for McCain, but I would have rather have had Clinton or Hucklebee.

[Fringe]

ne of the best reasons to vote for Bush was to keep Gore and Kerry out of office.

Isn't that the truth. Why is it that for most elections it comes down to voting against someone, instead of voting for someone?

[RedScare]

I read through this entire thread, hoping that I would find a little intelligent debate. Other than sevfiv, who posted a link to the actuall bill, and crunchtastic, who actually read the link....nothing. zip. nada.

Sure would be nice to see those throwing buzzwords around, and claiming failures all around by various institutions would show that they knew what the words they use actually mean, but that would probably be a bit much to ask.

[crunchtastic]

Well, Red, I tried. I should have known that as soon as we got to the "nanny state is synonymous with socialism" part, any chance of discussion on the credit crisis and the implications of the bill was not gonna happen.

[RedScare]

Well, Red, I tried. I should have known that as soon as we got to the "nanny state is synonymous with socialism" part, any chance of discussion on the credit crisis and the implications of the bill was not gonna happen.

Yeah, and don't forget, "which, by the way, is a failed system". Oh, I haven't forgotten, especially when you keep reminding me.

I am curious which ones provide proof of the failure, though.

[Disastro]

I read through this entire thread, hoping that I would find a little intelligent debate. Other than sevfiv, who posted a link to the actuall bill, and crunchtastic, who actually read the link....nothing. zip. nada.

Sure would be nice to see those throwing buzzwords around, and claiming failures all around by various institutions would show that they knew what the words they use actually mean, but that would probably be a bit much to ask.

Yeah, and personal attacks on posters is so "intelligent" -- isn't it? ::rolls eyes::

Typical liberal/progressive/socialist response to things the don't like to hear. Same old tactic, different day.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Disastro

[RedScare]

Yeah, and personal attacks on posters is so "intelligent" -- isn't it? ::rolls eyes::

Typical liberal/progressive/socialist response to things the don't like to hear. Same old tactic, different day.

I might point out that calling you an "idiot", or some other descriptive and diasparaging term would be a personal attack. Pointing out that your posts used single words or phrases as arguments or conclusions, and further, that the words and phrases are used incorrectly, is not.

Should I take your use of the term "personal attack" as an indication that you do not wish to define your usage of the terms?

Edited July 30, 2008 by RedScare

[RedScare]

Here's a little Qand A on the housing program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25932640/

[20thStDad]

Here's a little Qand A on the housing program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25932640/

Based on that, I am not sure this will help that much, but it sure will cost a whole lot. I think people should have to deal with the problems they made. Since when is ignorance, or even stupidity, an excuse to have someone else fix your problems?

[KinkaidAlum]

Thanks to Crunch for providing the link.

I wish I had just read the link and skipped the usual Chronicle forum responses in this thread!

You'll have to excuse me, I slipped into a Socialist State today and bumped my head.

Oh, and props to Sarahiki for seeing past the talk radio buzz calling this a handout to irresponsible individuals.

[RedScare]

Based on that, I am not sure this will help that much, but it sure will cost a whole lot. I think people should have to deal with the problems they made. Since when is ignorance, or even stupidity, an excuse to have someone else fix your problems?

I'm not sure that it will cost that much. Given that it is voluntary, and it requires that banks take a loss to participate, I doubt there will be very many takers at all. And, the threshold for homeowners is a very fine line between unable to afford the current mortgage, but able to afford the new one. Most people that attempt to save an unaffordable home tend to wreck their entire financial health in the process. It is nearly impossible to make every attempt at paying your bad mortgage while remaining a good risk for a slightly smaller one. So, if you combine a reluctant banker with a small group of qualified homeowners, you end up with few takers. Nice attempt, I suppose, and most all of us would have demanded all of the restrictions imposed, but the net result is very little help.

Besides, even if all 400,000 got new loans, that is only 10% of the 4 million foreclosures for 2007 and 2008.

[westguy76]

I heard Obama try to quantify today his problem with the Bush administration today.

He said something along the lines of 8 years of failed economic and foreign policy when going into his spill about change...four more years of the same...yadayada

I personally think this is revisionist history. What do you think? What has been your problem with the Bush administration regarding the job he has done.

I don't want to hear about your philosophical differances. We all have them. I want to hear about his supposed failed policies.

Of our or your current state of affairs, what do you attribute as being the administrations fault?

I'll say as a republican voter that I have been dissapointed with his weak stance on illegal immigration. However, I understand this is politics and things like this hot button issue will likely never change not in the abrupt sudden way I suppose there is too much at stake in this case.

[Native Son]

I don't like his dog!

[west20th]

1. Iraq war. IMO the war was unwarranted, however, if you are going to start a war you damn well better sell it to the American people and run it with a degree of competency.

2. Cut taxes in a time of war.

3. Wrecked our economy with his huge deficits.

4. Seven long years after 911 and Bin Laden is still free, Afghanistan is not yet stable and we are still stuck in Iraq. A record of incompetence.

Many more but those are the biggies.

Actually my dislike for the man started when he lobbied for the taxpayers to build him (Texas Rangers) a stadium. Nothing more than a leech sucking on the taxpayers teet.

Edited September 4, 2008 by west20th

[TheNiche]

What do you think? What has been your problem with the Bush administration regarding the job he has done.

Of our or your current state of affairs, what do you attribute as being the administrations fault?

He has not been sufficiently aggressive at promoting his policies on free trade or immigration. He was also unable to articulate the benefits of free trade, free movement of labor, or globalization in general. Same problems for medicare/social security reform. And he hasn't been sufficiently budget-oriented (EDIT: Mind you, I'm not complaining about deficits, just about the amount spending; that spending is financed primarily by debt was actually a terrific outcome considering how inexpensive treasuries are), or a particularly effective administrator.

Otherwise, he's just made a whole lot of critical tactical errors.

Edited September 4, 2008 by TheNiche

[BryanS]

Supreme Court.

[cottonmather0]

I heard Obama try to quantify today his problem with the Bush administration today.

He said something along the lines of 8 years of failed economic and foreign policy when going into his spill about change...four more years of the same...yadayada

I personally think this is revisionist history. What do you think? What has been your problem with the Bush administration regarding the job he has done.

I don't want to hear about your philosophical differances. We all have them. I want to hear about his supposed failed policies.

Of our or your current state of affairs, what do you attribute as being the administrations fault?

I'll say as a republican voter that I have been dissapointed with his weak stance on illegal immigration. However, I understand this is politics and things like this hot button issue will likely never change not in the abrupt sudden way I suppose there is too much at stake in this case.

He's done a great job and I think you are correct that (and I paraphrase) most of the criticism of him is unwarranted and unrealistic and not bounded in fact, not to mention unfair.

Similarly, I think Clinton did a very good job as well leading the country - and would have made many of the same decisions as Bush has made had he been forced to - the difference of my opinion (and most other Americans' opinions) of the two (in both directions) being grounded in what you would call "philosophical differences" and thus I won't go there.

Edited September 4, 2008 by cottonmather0

[houstonmacbro]

1. Unfunded or underfunded No Child Left Behind Act

2. Iraq War -misled and lied

3. Dick Cheney (hey ... he hired him, not me)

4. Condi Rice (another mistake)

5. Katrina and New Orleans - completely mishandled

I am sure there are more.

[TheNiche]

...Wrecked our economy...

No, that's really more of a pre-Bernanke Federal Reserve issue coupled with a rash of irresponsibility among homebuyers, mortgage brokers, commercial banks, investment banks, and investors. Everybody was working off of bad assumptions, got into a herd mentality, and ____ed up. And its hard to blame government for not catching it as it was happening, because after all, even sophisticated investors didn't really grasp the problem until it was too late not to have a very big financial correction.

To the extent that Bush engaged in damage control, it may have been high-profile and somewhat controversial, but it was effective in proping up confidence in all of the institutions in one relatively inexpensive bailout (and in the grand scheme it was an inexpensive bailout).

Some people would criticize him for inflation--primarily in terms of energy--but a lot of that just has to do with a weakening dollar. And that started ramping up in the late 90's. To the extent that Bush has publicly embraced a strong dollar policy, I think he secretly was pushing for even more weak dollar policies. The nice thing about a weak dollar is that recessionary periods are manifested by stagflation rather than by massive job losses. And while it isn't to say that there haven't been job losses, they have been offset by gains related to a sharp rise in exports.

The other part of inflation is tremendous economic growth abroad, which outpaced the rate at which the supply of raw materials could be brought on line. Clinton really set the stage for it...and kudos to him for what he did. A wealthier, more interconnected world is a better and ultimately more peaceful world.

[PapillionWyngs]

I guess it started in Florida...