Flashback: In 2004 Bush Campaigned For Re-Election On The Backs Of Subprime Mortgages
Flashback: In 2004 Bush Campaigned For Re-Election On The Backs Of Subprime Mortgages
During the 2004 campaign, President Bush declared his pride in making America what he called “an ownership society.” He promoted expanding home-ownership as the best way to ensure a strong economy, campaigning constantly on the idea:
5/6/04: “Thanks to being the most productive workforce in America, and I might say, thanks to good policies, this economy is strong and it’s getting stronger. … Home sales were the highest ever recently. That’s exciting news for the country.”
8/28/04: See, I love an ownership society. It’s a hopeful society. It’s a society that provides stability in times of change.
8/9/04: If you own your own home, and building equity in your own home, and you’re changing from job to job, it provides great security and relief.
8/6/04: Home ownership is at an all-time high now in America. That’s fantastic news. Isn’t it wonderful to have somebody for the first time be able to say: welcome to my home; I’m glad you’re here at my piece of property.
Watch a 2004 campaign ad in which Bush fawns over the inherent value of ownership:
Of course, what the current enormous crisis — rooted in subprime mortgages — proves is that promoting home ownership without regulatory safeguards is inherently risky. As economist Paul Krugman explained, “[B]orrowing to buy a home is like buying stocks on margin: if the market value of the house falls, the buyer can easily lose his or her entire stake.” And that’s just what happened: More homeowners now owe more money than their homes are actually worth, while foreclosure filings in August rose 12 percent from July — and represented a 27 percent increase from Aug. 2007.
Further, the quest for an all-encompassing ownership society led to the policies that have created the crisis. From dramatically low interest rates to ignoring the warnings about predatory lending to quashing state regulations that would have helped prevent such massive Wall Street investment in subprime loans, Bush and his allies built an economy on a house of cards that was bound to collapse.
Today, Bush declared, “There will be ample opportunity to debate the origins of this problem.” That debate will need to focus on his own failed promise of an “ownership society” as an economic panacea.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Take ownership of your disastrous presidency, George.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:52 pmMaybe Dubya got his ‘brush ranch’ on a sub-prime.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:54 pmFlashback: In 2004 Bush Campaigned For Re-Election On The Backs Of Subprime Mortgages
Actually, the correct term is variable rate subprime mortgages. This also encompassed “interest-only” loans, favored by house-flipping entrepreneurs, as well as low-interest loans to low-income workers.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:01 pm.
Bush’s “REFORM AGENDA” brought us bank failure…
… Just what will the McBush/Failn’08 “REFORM AGENDA” bring?
.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:02 pmWell, in all fairness, Bush did tell us that he wanted to build an “ownership society”.
I just never realized that what that meant was using my tax dollars to “own” AIG, banks and brokerage houses.
Guess I should have been listening better.
PEACE
September 19th, 2008 at 3:03 pm.
Rep Marcy Kapture(D-Ohio,9th)
THEY WANT MAMA TO MAKE IT ALL BETTER!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbD62gNi9WE
.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:07 pmFannie Mae got into big accounting trouble in 2004. It took $9 billion in restatements and a complete management shake up to “set things right.”
A 2000 McCain Presidential adviser and the man who headed George W.’s White House transition team not only sat on the Board of Fannie during these troubled times, he kept the regulatory wolves at bay for over $1,000,000 in fees.
Kenneth Duberstein, McCain’s version of Obama’s James Johnson or Franklin Raines.
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2008/09/fannie-mae-mccains-duberstein.html
September 19th, 2008 at 3:13 pmI’m asking because I don’t know.
If we continue to attempt to prop up banks, or homeowners, or shareholders, or corporations, aren’t we just delaying an inevitable correction. Won’t continued efforts to artificially keep people from losing money, eventually be overwhelmed by market forces. Won’t those corrections eventually come to pass, regardless of the number of band-aids we use.
People talk about shutting down short sellers. If we shut down the short sellers, won’t companies that have failed to operate soundly be artificially propped up? If there is demand to short the stocks, isn’t it an indication of mismanagement that the market needs to address?
If the short sellers reduce the value of the shares of incompetent companies (and those companies go out of business) aren’t they doing their job by freeing that capital for those that could be more effective?
The constant shouts for government to save homeowners from the bad loans they took, lenders from the bad loans they made, companies from their own mismanagement, and employees that work for unprofitable industries; are artificially fixes that will probably come to just additional future negative unintended consequence.
In the temporary frenzy to save anyone and everyone from loss, we abandoning the concepts of risk and responsibility, that should be at the foundation of a reasonable economy.
Republicans are just as bad, or worse, at the pandering. There are not many, if any, champions for market forces. I honestly do not get it. But, I’ll listen to anyone that can convince me that there are government policy that can address supply/demand/profitability/risk/etc, more effectively than the market.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:14 pmHow ironic that socialism, long thought dead and buried by the bourgeois media, has now been resurrected. Yes, when capitalism is in crisis due to its inherent excesses and abuses the barons of finance and industry want the government of, by and for the people to bail them out, no strings attached, resulting in the now iconic phrase, “privatize the profit, socialize the risk.” First the S & Ls in the 1980s, now the entire financial sector (the bulwark of advanced monopoly capitalism) in the 2000s. Soon the automobile industry with $50 billion in low-cost bridging loans. Wars on drugs and terror are actually simply means to subsidize the prison-industrial and military-industrial complexes. Of course socialization of human needs (health care, child care, drug prevention and rehabilitation, education, rebuildoing our infrastructure, home ownership subsidies, etc.), which costs a fraction of the current corporate bailouts, is anathema. So socialism for the rich and declining living standards and increasing poverty for everyone else. What needs to be done is to put strings on the bailouts. Require public representatives on corporate boards that have true oversight responsibilities and can direct the auto companies to produce products that meet public needs, that require financial institutions to create mortgages that allow the working and middle classes to own homes at reasonable rates, shift spending from bombs and jails to bricks and books. If only Obama would present a real program of change. Take corporate socialism off the table, put democratic socialism on the agenda!
September 19th, 2008 at 3:22 pmToday, Bush declared, “There will be ample opportunity to debate the origins of this problem.”
He continued, “… after I’m outa here and settled in at my ranch in Paraguay where the cable system doesn’t carry CNN…”
September 19th, 2008 at 3:24 pmRalph – the point I was gonna make.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pmYou’re absolutely right, backup.
If Republicans are gonna stand tall for an unregulated market, then let them embrace ALL the excesses of that market as well — the exaggerated losses as well as the exaggerated profits. After all, those losses may represent the financial stability for millions of Americans, but they’re still, more importantly, the device through which the almighty market self-corrects, right?
I would be very relieved if some free-market capitalist had the integrity to take ownership of the downside of his philosophy as well as the upside.
They don’t seem to do that very often, do they? Maybe because the voting public would likely reject their bids for electoral power if they were honest.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:31 pmHow interesting that we are on the same wavelength today.
Earlier today I posted videos of 2 different Bush campaign ads from 2004. One of them was specifically about the economy, and the other one made him sound like a Democrat, with promises to decrease dependency on foreign energy and strengthen social security.
If it feels like deja vu, it is because they look exactly like John McCain ads.
If you would like to see them, I have the videos up at:
September 19th, 2008 at 3:33 pmhttp://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-2004-political-ads-sound-familiar.html
Hey, I know! Let’s privatize Social Security, too!
/snark off
September 19th, 2008 at 3:35 pm.
Doh!!!
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/09/mortgage_chaos_nabs_white_hous.html
September 19th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
latest mcsame ad
goes racist.
*
September 19th, 2008 at 3:47 pmWhite House:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCj3TXDSERg
… So our tax dollars are being used to prop up poor private sector loans and all I got was this lousy non-existant health care…
Oh, BTW…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080918/pl_nm/usa_defense_senate_dc
Money to steal, money to kill, but no money to heal…
… America!!!
.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:49 pmWhile he was doing that, I marveled at the concept of the POTUS shilling the latest ponzi scheme brought to us by Phil Gramm and the gooper congress through deregulation. If I could figure it out from my rocker here at Poverty Acres, then either McCain and bush are scarily stupid, or more likely they took their cut and winked at the massive scale theft. Now that they’ve stole all the loose money and have it in a safe place, we taxpayers get to pick up the check. This is the second time for McCain. He was instrumental in the S and L robbery, as he is in this. Men have received capital convictions for less.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pmWhere do you think the money is coming from Cap? It’s either being borrowed or just printed as Germany did in the 20’s. Either way this is not a good thing and anyone who hails the rebound of the market as a sign that all is well is a fool.
Not that you said that but other trolls have today on the TP blogs.
September 19th, 2008 at 3:59 pmralph. I agree with you here. If a market is free to work on the upside, but regulated to avoid any potential downside, it’s not really a free market. I also want those on wall street to stand in defense of the market. What did they think it was? I don’t scream at my television, but this past week I’ve been absolutely dumbfounded, that those that profited by capitalism on the way up are crying the loudest for government intervention and protectionism. There is absolutely no reason behind it. Since when did the market place offer any guarantees?
I see no adult supervision anywhere. I see talking heads and politicians reacting to news as far back as the last 24hr news cycle. I’m obviously not an expert, but I’m more convinced that there is not a coherent message to be found.
Markets go up and go down. People make money and lose money. You by a house (that you should be able to afford). You hope it increases in value, but you could lose money. You work hard to try to get a good job. But, your company could go under; and you have to get another one. You hope for the best, but you insure yourself against loss. The more risk you take, the higher the chances you’ll make or lose money. You invest in a company with poor management, you lose money, and they go out of business.
But, lately, that’s not the game plan.
Different forces around the world have experimented with more government control of the economy. Sometimes it works. Cuba. But, mostly, it does not. Soviet Union. Pre-market reform China. I think it’s a mistake. I’m sure many will disagree.
But, Republicans should stand up for the market they are supposed to believe in. Good times and bad. Capitalists should take the bitter with the sweet. If they aren’t willing to do it, Obama and Democrats should, or explain why government intervention is the real long term answer.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:03 pmStupid stupid stupid
The most asinine statement I have ever seen uttered on a blog.
I guess freedom isn’t really freedom if we have laws to abide by.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:07 pmFred. you’re right that the thousand point rally in the past two days doesn’t mean there isn’t a long term problem. Just as a 500 point down day also isn’t that telling.
There are foreclosures, slower GDP growth, high deficits, high spending, moderate but increasing unemployment. etc. But, the numbers aren’t unprecedented. I dispute they are the worse since the Great Depression. But, in any case, why not let the market work.
Let the homes foreclose. Let the companies go out of business. Let the shares drop. It should be a free market. The tinkering is a short term effort to avoid the inevitable.
I understand that I will be accused of insensitivity. But, if someone loses their home, they won’t die. They’ll probably rent an apartment. Being a landlord might again be profitable. And the lower prices for the homes will attract new homeowners (maybe first time buyers that can’t afford an artificially inflated home). If a company fails, it probably wasn’t a profitable company. The money, employees and resources, will be freed up to a possibly more profitable enterprise. If a CEO losses a few billion in share price – how is that our problem? He made his decisions. And I’m pretty confident that he wasn’t going to share his profit with us, why should we share his loss?
I not trying to stir the post, but isn’t anyone concerned that if we try to take out the risk. And the responsibility. Won’t we be enabling that same future behavior? What incentive will greedy CEOs have to not making risky or bad decisions if we shield their interests? What incentive will future homeowners have to avoid risky loans, if we bail them out today? If it becomes government policy to insure stock prices – will there be any incentive for companies to operate profitably? Or shareholders to chose wisely?
September 19th, 2008 at 4:20 pmbackup Says:
We are not anti-business cap. We want business to profit as much as anyone but regulations are essential.
deregulation was the buzzword of the 1920’s and the years of raygun/bush.
What we are seeing now is not capitalism that can work, it is designed to fail when you allow capitalists to do as they wish.(unleashed free market)
Socialism in itself is not an answer either. Most societies that are sucessful in the world today have incorporated the best qualities of both ideals and thier businesses flourish and their citizens live well. It can be done. Not doing it is a choice.
What in recent history tells you that republicans are interested in making a better society and stronger country here in the USA? Nothing is the correct answer. They answer only to the call of profit and have no conciense about who gets hurt in their quest for wealth. It is not healthy, in fact it is a sure sign of a sick society.
Republicans are not noble people, they are just greedy. If you want dedicated, loyal, patriots then you need to turn your back on the republican party and look elsewhere.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:39 pmwell said, Fred.
An unregulated market will not work for long, because it’s perfectly suited to reward fraud and corruption in the short term. Then there is no long term because an unregulated market will not last until the long term comes to be.
“The market” is not some abstract mechanism like the celestial spheres of Ptolemy. It’s a complex interaction of society, economics and even psychology. It should serve the society, not the other way around.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:01 pmThanks Ralph….it just seems like common sense and that seems to be what is missing from the equasion these days.
I don’t understand why folks think that business should be able to do anything they want for profit.
It begs the question: Is business here to serve our country or is our country here to serve business.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:11 pmWhat do you expect from the guy who was able to run two failed oil businesses…..and people voted for him anyway.
Let’s hope Obama raises the Keating 5 savings and loan scandal. That should kill the McBrain-drain/Palid campaign.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:24 pmFurther, the quest for an all-encompassing ownership society led to the policies that have created the crisis. From dramatically low interest rates to ignoring the warnings about predatory lending to quashing state regulations that would have helped prevent such massive Wall Street investment in subprime loans, Bush and his allies built an economy on a house of cards that was bound to collapse.
You hit the nail on the head. The finance companies are rapacious (the credit card companies the most so; good thing they got their favourite bankruptcy reform [read: "abolishment"] law passed the other year, eh?). They’ve been offering absurdly low teaser rates, knowing that they can and will raise the rates for any and no reason at all. They figure once they get you on the hook they can start squeezing for every cent of interest they can wring out until they wring you dry.
We don’t need to buy bad load to protect Wall Street.
What we need is legislation (say, something like a “Fair Lending Act” or “Truth-In-Lending Act”?) that forces fair and full disclosure of terms under which a loan’s conditions can be modified, and regulatory limits as to how much and how fast it can be modified. 0% teaser APRs that jump to 25+% on the first late payment should be banned. In fact, let’s put back the usury laws and ban any APR more than twice the prime rate (or over 5 percentage points over the prime rate). What we allow now (and what the predatory banks charge now) is nauseating, and would make even a Mafia loan shark gag….
Cheers,
September 19th, 2008 at 5:38 pmsatirev – thanks for posting the link to the Nation’s article (#4 and #6) regarding John McCain and the POW/MIA issue. These stories have been circulated for years, but no follow up by the mainstream media (as pointed out by the author of the article). There are videos on You Tube which are very interesting, from both committee hearings and testimony by the POW/MIA activists. McCain and his campaign have been using his POW status as some kind of magic, invisible shield to excuse ALL kinds of nonsense and the American people have a right to know, at least, of this controversy. These questions need to be raised and the pubic made aware.
September 19th, 2008 at 5:40 pmFred and Ralph. you’re right that there has to be some regulation. Some law for people to have confidence in the marketplace. It can’t be unregulated. Just like we can’t have function without laws and police in the broader society.
But, what I’m seeing lately doesn’t seem to be healthy regulation. Strong rules for a confident market. I see bailouts. Bailouts from poor decisions. We are using government not to form a sound structure for people to do business. We are using government to protect people from their own bad decisions.
Corporations, shareholders, lenders, homeowners, etc.
The sentiment today is that those people are hurting because they are losing money. I agree they are hurting. They are hurting because they took on too much risk, they made poor business decisions.
It’s human nature to want to help them out in the short run. But, when you do, you send a detrimental signal to the future. If your concerned about risk, don’t be. The government will bail you out.
People will continue taking risky loans, lenders will continue to make them, shareholders won’t see the need to diversify or even scrutinize the stocks they buy. Corporations won’t fret over business decisions.
But, the money doesn’t grow on trees. The money is our money. If you are prudent – your efforts are in vain. Because someone much less prudent will eventually fail, turn to the government and tap your wallet to cover their carelessness.
Caving to every situation that suffers in an economic downturn, is very shortsighted. And looks more like election year pandering than rational economic policy.
I do agree that regulation is required.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:30 pmWell, that’s one way to look at it, but another, and I think more accurate way to look at it is that we’re seeing government intervention to try to stem the loss of blood from ill-advised deregulation. We’re not using the government to protect people from their own bad decisions; we’re using government to protect the common good from the bad decisions of a small sector of the economy who, coincidentally, profited mightily from those decisions, for a while, at least.
You see these steps as protecting the guilty. I see them as protecting the blameless who would otherwise be damaged by the mistakes of the guilty. If the guilty parties have their own consequences lessened, I’d rather live with that than with the opposite — having the consequences to the blameless magnified in order to give the guilty what they deserve.
September 19th, 2008 at 6:40 pmSen. Dodd said he will hold his tongue now, until we can see our way clear of the immediate problem, but when the smoke clears, he will name the names of the responsible parties.
September 19th, 2008 at 7:03 pmThe bill for this crisis will weigh us down for a generation if not longer.
September 19th, 2008 at 7:05 pmMcCain’s Economy
September 19th, 2008 at 8:29 pmwho said this?
“Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.”
*
3 guesses.
*
and the first 2
don’t count.
:)
thank you.
$
September 19th, 2008 at 9:29 pmTP posters: Please stop saying that George Bush and Dick Cheney have been failures – things have actually gone quite well for the Bush/Cheney families and all their little cronies – they were careless yes, but they know and knew the consequences of their actions. This administration is criminal not silly and careless.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:31 pmWhy will the average American eventually have to pay for the bailout? It makes more sense to penalize those who actually made off with all the money like Cheney’s cronies at H/B, etc. Somebody profited off all this but it wasn’t me and I doubt it was you or anybody you know. I am very suspicious of the rapid way they are cramming it down our throats.
September 20th, 2008 at 2:15 am…the origins of the problem. Ahh let’s see. George W Bush is the origin of many serious problems America faces today : Criminal War, Failed Economy, Outrageous Gas Prices, Stolen Elections, Staged Terrorist Attacks, Overstretched Troops, Katrina, Warrantless Wiretaps, Loss of Civil Liberties/Constitutional Rights, failed healthcare system, Torture, etc. The list is long and almost all of the problems stem from the idiot’s incompetence,ignorance,and lack of restraint … phucking idiot has torn this country to shreds!!!
September 20th, 2008 at 3:07 amThis good short article is about repugs and their greed.
VERY GOOD READ.
September 20th, 2008 at 4:32 amAh yes. This week we watch George “Hoover” Bush throw the mythical “free hand of the market” and “government is the problem” on the ash heap of history.
Good riddance.
Don’t believe for one second that “bad” people not paying their mortgage is the cause of this mess. Wall St has been a house of cards run by bandits ever since the GOP deregulated it. Capitalism only works in a transparent, regulated, fair market. We haven’t had that since the GOP’s been running things.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:34 pm