ADL Honors George W. Bush With Its Highest Award

BigNBushy said:

The economy fell because a bubble popped. The federal government had a policy of promoting home ownership. To do this, they gave loans to people who they knew couldn't afford them. My mom was a real estate agent in the 90's and she was baffled at some of the loans that were getting approved. People with income of 30/40k buying 300k houses. Bush did nothing to cause this bubble. The banks ate a lot of bad paper by command from the government.

Bush contributed to it, as did Reagan, bush 1, and Clinton. to blame one person for this is insane. A lot of hands were at work there.

Right now the issue is too political to get a clear answer. That is why I said wait a few decades and we will have a much more clear look at it as politics change.

Click to expand...

schuylaar said:

seriously? let me clue you in..i was looking for a house 2004-05 and had clients who were brokers..they tried to talk me into a non-stated adjustable with re-fi in "a year or two"..i asked them what would happen if i couldn't get that re-fi?..they had no answer for me..i didn't buy that house.

Click to expand...

BigNBushy said:

So what your saying is you were offered an inferior loan and were smart enough to no accept it?

I never said the industry didn't also share some culpability. The government encouraged them to offer loans to people who couldn't afford them, they made the loan mechanisms more beneficial to themselves as circumstances permitted.

There are so many reasons for it, spread across politicians, bankers, consumers, and other folks that to lay it all on the feet of Bush is unrealistic.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

There were never any WMDs BnB, the reason we went into Iraq was because Saddam decided to stop selling oil in US dollars and only accepted Euros. 'Tis the truth. WMD sounds like a way better reason than "we need to maintain our hedgemony at all costs!"

Click to expand...

Chemical weapons:

[FONT=&quot]The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for. [/FONT] [FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The investigation of these rockets is still proceeding. Iraq states that they were overlooked from 1991 from a batch of some 2,000 that were stored there during the Gulf War. This could be the case. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The finding of the rockets shows that Iraq needs to make more effort to ensure that its declaration is currently accurate. During my recent discussions in Baghdad, Iraq declared that it would make new efforts in this regard and had set up a committee of investigation. Since then it has reported that it has found a further 4 chemical rockets at a storage depot in Al Taji. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I might further mention that inspectors have found at another site a laboratory quantity of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas precursor.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Whilst I am addressing chemical issues, I should mention a matter, which I reported on 19 December 2002, concerning equipment at a civilian chemical plant at Al Fallujah. Iraq has declared that it had repaired chemical processing equipment previously destroyed under UNSCOM supervision, and had installed it at Fallujah for the production of chlorine and phenols. We have inspected this equipment and are conducting a detailed technical evaluation of it. On completion, we will decide whether this and other equipment that has been recovered by Iraq should be destroyed.

Biological Weapons:
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media,which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq’s submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq’s Foreign Minister stated that “all imported quantities of growth media were declared”. This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.

Missiles (yes, those are also WMD's, and Iraq had a SHITLOAD):

:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Al Samoud’s diameter was increased from an earlier version to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]During my recent meeting in Baghdad, we were briefed on these two programmes. We were told that the final range for both systems would be less than the permitted maximum range of 150 km. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]These missiles might well represent prima facie cases of proscribed systems. The test ranges in excess of 150 km are significant, but some further technical considerations need to be made, before we reach a conclusion on this issue. In the mean time, we have asked Iraq to cease flight tests of both missiles.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In addition, Iraq has refurbished its missile production infrastructure. In particular, Iraq reconstituted a number of casting chambers, which had previously been destroyed under UNSCOM supervision. They had been used in the production of solid-fuel missiles. Whatever missile system these chambers are intended for, they could produce motors for missiles capable of ranges significantly greater than 150 km.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Also associated with these missiles and related developments is the import, which has been taking place during the last few years, of a number of items despite the sanctions, including as late as December 2002. Foremost amongst these is the import of 380 rocket engines which may be used for the Al Samoud 2. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Iraq also declared the recent import of chemicals used in propellants, test instrumentation and, guidance and control systems. These items may well be for proscribed purposes. That is yet to be determined. What is clear is that they were illegally brought into Iraq, that is, Iraq or some company in Iraq, circumvented the restrictions imposed by various resolutions.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

too easy. i don't even have to say it.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

I would make loans to people who have no job and no income at all, as long as I can push it all off on someone else (Like the taxpayer), I will just take the billions in fees and then de-leverage from the risk by selling it to the Muppets (That be you guys). Then, because I know for certain those loans will fail, I make leveraged bets 40 to 1 that will indeed crash. All the while telling my clients (The Muppets) that those loans are 100% sure thing and will never default. Then when they default and shit falls apart, I move that profit off the books and pretend like I need govt handouts to stay afloat. Then I give the government money to my executives for their hand in the debacle. Afterwards I borrow from the American citizen at 0% interest and loan it back out to the American citizen at 6%.

Can't lose, hell can't even be prosecuted for crimes that would land others in prison for life, or I would destabilize the world economy.

It's fucking awesome to be a TBTF bank, let me tell ya. Guaranteed windfall profits.

Click to expand...

BigNBushy said:

The economy fell because a bubble popped. The federal government had a policy of promoting home ownership. To do this, they gave loans to people who they knew couldn't afford them. .

Click to expand...

BigNBushy said:

So what your saying is you were offered an inferior loan and were smart enough to no accept it?

I never said the industry didn't also share some culpability. The government encouraged them to offer loans to people who couldn't afford them, they made the loan mechanisms more beneficial to themselves as circumstances permitted.

There are so many reasons for it, spread across politicians, bankers, consumers, and other folks that to lay it all on the feet of Bush is unrealistic.

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

I would make loans to people who have no job and no income at all, as long as I can push it all off on someone else (Like the taxpayer), I will just take the billions in fees and then de-leverage from the risk by selling it to the Muppets (That be you guys). Then, because I know for certain those loans will fail, I make leveraged bets 40 to 1 that will indeed crash. All the while telling my clients (The Muppets) that those loans are 100% sure thing and will never default. Then when they default and shit falls apart, I move that profit off the books and pretend like I need govt handouts to stay afloat. Then I give the government money to my executives for their hand in the debacle. Afterwards I borrow from the American citizen at 0% interest and loan it back out to the American citizen at 6%.

Can't lose, hell can't even be prosecuted for crimes that would land others in prison for life, or I would destabilize the world economy.

It's fucking awesome to be a TBTF bank, let me tell ya. Guaranteed windfall profits.

Click to expand...

ChesusRice said:

Banks gave loans not the goverment

Click to expand...

ChesusRice said:

Goverment didnt underwrite any loans
Banks and investors did

Click to expand...

Fannie Mae was established to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise levels of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing

Click to expand...

NoDrama said:

So you never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie mac?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

Click to expand...

ChesusRice said:

Banks gave loans not the goverment

Click to expand...

Uncle Ben said:

For 6 years Bush warned Congress not to push "free money" or easy loans on those who could not afford them

Click to expand...

Uncle Ben said:

penis smokin' liberals like Barney Frank that said every American was "entitled" to home ownership. The rest is history and once again GW and conservatives were right.

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

his technique for doing so was as unique as my masturbation technique then, because here he is pushing home ownership during that time:

[video=youtube;ZVdTzPEYvH4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVdTzPEYvH4[/video]







barney frank was in the minority in congress, he controlled nothing. shrub and the GOP congress did.

your history lessons are as unique as my masturbation technique, and you are clearly a bigot.

but hey, at least this time you just lied instead of spamming.

Click to expand...

ChesusRice said:

Woooooops!

Click to expand...

Dr Kynes said:

owning a home is a good thing.

even Booooosh knew that, "owning" a mortgage you cant pay, on a house you cant afford is a BAD thing, boosh knew that too.

lefties however felt that a mortgage you cant afford was not a bad idea, and pushed a huge number of people ill equipped to become homeowners into mortgages they could NEVER pay, and the only ones to benefit were the banks and real estate brokers.

whoops, the congress failed.

the congress that was dominated by the left for 60 years, that created labarynthine rules and laws designed to fuck the country over.

republicans didnt fix 60 years of bullshit in 4 years, this is not a surprise.

even less surprising when you consider than a good portion of the "republicans" in office were little more than democrats in drag.

Click to expand...

Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs.

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 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 142)
2002


May: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in the President's 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003


February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market.




September: Then-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.




September: Then-House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Barney Frank (D-MA) strongly disagrees with the Administration's assessment, saying "these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." (Stephen Labaton, "New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae," The New York Times, 9/11/03)




October: Senator Thomas Carper (D-DE) refuses to acknowledge any necessity for GSE reforms, saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." (Sen. Carper, Hearing of Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 10/16/03)




November: Then-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 calls 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: Then-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)




April: Rep. Frank ignores the warnings, accusing the Administration of creating an "artificial issue." At a speech to the Mortgage Bankers Association conference, Rep. Frank said "people tend to pay their mortgages. I don't think we are in any remote danger here. This focus on receivership, I think, is intended to create fears that aren't there." ("Frank: GSE Failure A Phony Issue," American Banker, 4/21/04)




June: Then-Treasury Deputy Secretary Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and calls 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: Then-Secretary 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)




July: Then-Minority Leader Harry Reid rejects legislation reforming GSEs, "while I favor improving oversight by our federal housing regulators to ensure safety and soundness, we cannot pass legislation that could limit Americans from owning homes and potentially harm our economy in the process." ("Dems Rip New Fannie Mae Regulatory Measure," United Press International, 7/28/05)
2007


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)




August: Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Chairman Christopher Dodd ignores the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. (Eric Dash, "Fannie Mae's Offer To Help Ease Credit Squeeze Is Rejected, As Critics Complain Of Opportunism," The New York Times, 8/11/07)




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


February: Assistant Treasury Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, saying "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, 2/7/0




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, 3/14/0




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, 4/14/0




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, 5/3/0




"[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, 5/19/0




"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, 5/31/0


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., 6/6/0




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




September: Democrats in Congress forget their previous objections to GSE reforms, as Senator Dodd questions "why weren't we doing more, why did we wait almost a year before there were any significant steps taken to try to deal with this problem? … I have a lot of questions about where was the administration over the last eight years." (Dawn Kopecki, "Fannie Mae, Freddie 'House Of Cards' Prompts Takeover," Bloomberg, 9/9/0

Click to expand...

MuyLocoNC said:

Stop raining of Uncle Buck's revisionist history game. He likes to trot out pictures of Bush making speeches about the benefits of home ownership as proof he was complicit in the housing collapse. Never mind that he wasn't telling people to get mortgages well beyond their means.

Maybe our liberal friends would like a history lesson. Apparently they misremember anything beyond two weeks that is damaging to their little agenda.



Now, that's a cheesy size C&P.

WHOOPS!

Click to expand...