Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Matt Taibbi: 'Hands Down' Bush Was Tougher On Corporate America Than Obama (REALLY?) [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)49. Maybe
"Matt Taibbi: 'Hands Down' Bush Was Tougher On Corporate America Than Obama"
...he means the time Bush ignored the problem until the economy was at its breaking point, and then forced the government into having to bail out the banks.
Maybe it was when Bush triggered the mortgage crisis by gutting the Community Reivestment Act.
The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity "largely came to an end by 2001." In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.
http://prospect.org/article/did-liberals-cause-sub-prime-crisis
http://prospect.org/article/did-liberals-cause-sub-prime-crisis
As the housing bubble burst and the ensuing economic crisis gained steam, conservatives set about trying to find someone to blame for the meltdown of the mortgage market. First, it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then loans made to low-income people through the Community Reinvestment Act.
As The Wonk Room has noted, the problem was actually the Bush administrations failure to regulate the mortgage markets, while financial institutions developed ever-more sophisticated instruments for securitizing mortgage debt and selling it around the world.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/12/01/172489/bush-warnings/
As The Wonk Room has noted, the problem was actually the Bush administrations failure to regulate the mortgage markets, while financial institutions developed ever-more sophisticated instruments for securitizing mortgage debt and selling it around the world.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2008/12/01/172489/bush-warnings/
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush
by Joseph E. Stiglitz
December 2007
<...>
Whoever moves into the White House in January 2009 will face an unenviable set of economic circumstances. Extricating the country from Iraq will be the bloodier task, but putting Americas economic house in order will be wrenching and take years.
The most immediate challenge will be simply to get the economys metabolism back into the normal range. That will mean moving from a savings rate of zero (or less) to a more typical savings rate of, say, 4 percent. While such an increase would be good for the long-term health of Americas economy, the short-term consequences would be painful. Money saved is money not spent. If people dont spend money, the economic engine stalls. If households curtail their spending quicklyas they may be forced to do as a result of the meltdown in the mortgage marketthis could mean a recession; if done in a more measured way, it would still mean a protracted slowdown. The problems of foreclosure and bankruptcy posed by excessive household debt are likely to get worse before they get better. And the federal government is in a bind: any quick restoration of fiscal sanity will only aggravate both problems.
And in any case theres more to be done. What is required is in some ways simple to describe: it amounts to ceasing our current behavior and doing exactly the opposite. It means not spending money that we dont have, increasing taxes on the rich, reducing corporate welfare, strengthening the safety net for the less well off, and making greater investment in education, technology, and infrastructure.
<...>
Some portion of the damage done by the Bush administration could be rectified quickly. A large portion will take decades to fixand thats assuming the political will to do so exists both in the White House and in Congress. Think of the interest we are paying, year after year, on the almost $4 trillion of increased debt burdeneven at 5 percent, thats an annual payment of $200 billion, two Iraq wars a year forever. Think of the taxes that future governments will have to levy to repay even a fraction of the debt we have accumulated. And think of the widening divide between rich and poor in America, a phenomenon that goes beyond economics and speaks to the very future of the American Dream.
- more -
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712
by Joseph E. Stiglitz
December 2007
<...>
Whoever moves into the White House in January 2009 will face an unenviable set of economic circumstances. Extricating the country from Iraq will be the bloodier task, but putting Americas economic house in order will be wrenching and take years.
The most immediate challenge will be simply to get the economys metabolism back into the normal range. That will mean moving from a savings rate of zero (or less) to a more typical savings rate of, say, 4 percent. While such an increase would be good for the long-term health of Americas economy, the short-term consequences would be painful. Money saved is money not spent. If people dont spend money, the economic engine stalls. If households curtail their spending quicklyas they may be forced to do as a result of the meltdown in the mortgage marketthis could mean a recession; if done in a more measured way, it would still mean a protracted slowdown. The problems of foreclosure and bankruptcy posed by excessive household debt are likely to get worse before they get better. And the federal government is in a bind: any quick restoration of fiscal sanity will only aggravate both problems.
And in any case theres more to be done. What is required is in some ways simple to describe: it amounts to ceasing our current behavior and doing exactly the opposite. It means not spending money that we dont have, increasing taxes on the rich, reducing corporate welfare, strengthening the safety net for the less well off, and making greater investment in education, technology, and infrastructure.
<...>
Some portion of the damage done by the Bush administration could be rectified quickly. A large portion will take decades to fixand thats assuming the political will to do so exists both in the White House and in Congress. Think of the interest we are paying, year after year, on the almost $4 trillion of increased debt burdeneven at 5 percent, thats an annual payment of $200 billion, two Iraq wars a year forever. Think of the taxes that future governments will have to levy to repay even a fraction of the debt we have accumulated. And think of the widening divide between rich and poor in America, a phenomenon that goes beyond economics and speaks to the very future of the American Dream.
- more -
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712
Why can't Obama be more like Bush?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
99 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Matt Taibbi: 'Hands Down' Bush Was Tougher On Corporate America Than Obama (REALLY?) [View all]
SunsetDreams
Apr 2014
OP
What I've read from The eXile has been pretty bad, with a cartain brand of expat arrogance
Chathamization
Apr 2014
#48
A lot of it is just racist and sexist shit, too--the idea that being "degenerate" is hip or
MADem
Apr 2014
#59
The dumbest fucking comment since Cenk Uygur said Obama was more conservative than Reagan...
Drunken Irishman
Apr 2014
#9
I'm thinking Taibbi is a fucking libertarian moron. cenk, taibbi and the rest make their $$$$$
Cha
Apr 2014
#17
"This category can refer to crimes committed both within and against banks"
Chathamization
Apr 2014
#53
Is Taibbi taking a paycheck from the RNC, or his is judgment impaired for other reasons? nt
MADem
Apr 2014
#16
Matt Taibbi is taking a paycheck from Pierre Omidyar who employs other libertarians making
Cha
Apr 2014
#26
He is a performing monkey who needs to do his schtick on a semi-regular basis
KittyWampus
Apr 2014
#54
Don't expect a response any time soon, information on bad appointments are blocked transmissions
Dragonfli
Apr 2014
#39
The OP is full of historical facts of the Obama Admin going after Corporate Malfeasance and all you
Cha
Apr 2014
#33
Your title nailed it. If you do that, people who want to see that won't drill down into the details.
stevenleser
Apr 2014
#57
it does have a strong libertarian side to it because liberals/democrats are not going
JI7
Apr 2014
#70
that's what I've been saying.. Huge money in throwing out anything against the President
Cha
Apr 2014
#79
It's actually embarrassing to watch the same old apologists reflexively tossing the same old
Marr
Apr 2014
#71