Posted on 05/01/2009 8:51:06 PM PDT by sickoflibs
GWB 2002 Speech :”More and more people own their homes in America today. Yet we have a problem here in America because fewer than half the Hispanics and African Americans own their own homes. That’s a home ownership gap; a gap that we got to work together to close. And by the end of this decade we’ll increase the number of minority homeowners (future Obama voters ) by 5.5 million families. “
“One of the major obstacles to minority home-ownership is financing. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac (who I will bail out in 2008) have committed to provide more money for lenders, they committed to meet the shortage of capital available for minority home-buyers. Freddie Mac just began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers (like income requirements) and create better opportunities for home-ownership. One of the programs is designed to help families with bad credit histories to qualify for home ownership loans (by faking their income) . You don’t have to have a lousy home for first time home-buyers. You put your mind to it the first time low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anyone else (till those adjustable rates go up). “
video at : economic crisis president bush mortgage speech
Being such a stalwart "conservative", who is your unblemished, blue steel candidate? Can't wait for this one.
Actually the opposite is true.
Years of speeches and press releases show the overwhelming efforts of the Bush administration to increase minority homeownership through massive government programs so that everyone would live the "American Dream."
Read the thread.
Start with post #12.
Hello? You called the poster a "liar" and "ignoramus" because they said:
"If you want to keep denying Bush's supoport for low-income housing, then have fun, but don't try to ignore the record. Whether he supported it or not, he sure took credit for it."
Go ahead and try to try to redefine the statement. Sheesh! What a spinster!
It figures you'd drag your soiled underpants in here. Is there a bell that goes off in your bathroom when a GOP-bashing thread goes up?
Always the class act, Deb. NOT!
I don't defend liberalism, no matter the party that is dishing it out.
Start with Bush’s plan from 2002... then work your way forward:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/homeownership/homeownership-policy-book-whole.pdf
Do you even read English or does your brain only recognize BS, before it puts you to sleep?
You’re one behind...try to catch up.
Like I said, always the class act. /s
When you can't support your posts, you launch into personal assaults. You owe nufsed an apology.
Home ownership and low income housing are completely different items.
The BDS crowd is completely ignoring arguments:
1. Bush 17 times advocated reforms to fannie mae and related programs to prevent the current crisis.
2. In 2007, the democrats gained control of the Congress and accelerated the crisis.
3. Low income housing and home ownership are different. Home ownership is capitalism. That is conservative. Less than 7% of mortgages are in some sort of default.
4. Bush’s TARP plan pays back taxpayers. Obama’s does not.
5. Bush spent only half of the original $750 billion TARP 1.
6. The BDS crowd is not offering alternatives and refuses to repudiate Obama’s actions.
It is completely legit to reject the BDS arguments as more efforts to stymie the conservative movement.
This is politics. W was chosen in 2000 because the alternative was McCain. W was and remains more conservative than McCain. There is nothing preventing anyone here from running for, supporting, or defending conservative candidates for Congress.
That is not what is being done here. This is a Bush bash fest which caters to the Left’s domination of the public sphere. All conservatives will be pilloried until they are unsustainable. Palin and others will be internally smeared to prevent the re-emergence of conservatism as a public cause.
You’re confusing everyone with facts.
DUH!
I didn't say they were.
He called for reforms... but not to prevent the current crisis.
2. In 2007, the democrats gained control of the Congress and accelerated the crisis.
The foundation was already built -- by both pubbies and dems.
3. Low income housing and home ownership are different. Home ownership is capitalism. That is conservative. Less than 7% of mortgages are in some sort of default.
Home ownership, funded with taxpayer money is not capitalism nor conservative.
4. Bush’s TARP plan pays back taxpayers. Obama’s does not.
They both suck.
5. Bush spent only half of the original $750 billion TARP 1.
Half of a bad idea is still a bad idea.
6. The BDS crowd is not offering alternatives and refuses to repudiate Obama’s actions.
I repudiate Obama's actions all the time. But that isn't the subject of this thread.
This is a Bush bash fest which caters to the Left’s domination of the public sphere.
As I said earlier, I oppose liberalism whether it comes with an R or a D attached. Defending it just because it was offered by a Republican is simply denial and of no value, IMO.
Yeah. I have an affection for truth. It's a gift and a curse. ;-)
Bush also made a speech “apologizing” for America’s history while he was in Africa. He acted like a Democratic liberal idiot in a number of ways.
Keep drinking the koolaid.
Apparently in your world posting Bush’s old speeches qualifies as rewriting history and denigrating Bush. It’s tough for you to give up the imaginary Bush for the real one.
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
The speech has no negative content. It is okay to own a home. The program was a huge success in every way.
The problems in the Mortage industry were foreseen by bush and 17 times he instructed congress to take action. He even provided frameworks and policies for acting.
On the other hand we have the bush reactionaries here who have zero effe I’ve advocacy.
It is the BDS crowd that ignores the evidnce here.
Why?
No, my point was that I got no break whatsoever. In taking on a second job to afford braces on my teenagers, wisdom teeth out, and other sundry big ticket items, I earned more taxable income and was taxed heavily for my efforts.
I do not know who Bush gave tax cuts to, but my federal tax contribution went up in 2004 by several thousand and has remained higher. Hence, my sarcasm that Bush’s tax cuts did not include single moms.
Its fine though. I learned a valuable lesson about the republican party. One I will not forget.
Bush’s reforms were exactly about the current crisis. I question whether you even read the descriptions of what W was asking for. And those are brief descriptions of hours of testimony given to Congress on what was necessary to prevent an exact crisis of the nature we are having now.
Not only that, but Barney Frank pitched his usual hissy fit in 2007 saying that there definitely was no crisis and that if anyone said there was they were causing a crisis. This is highly indicative of the same behavior we see on this thread. Denial Denial Denial and then when the crisis comes— just blame it on Bush as if he had no advocacy against the problem.
That is more than ridiculous— its pathological and designed to increase the presence of tyranny in the country. By January of 2007 when Democrats took full control of Congress there was still ample time to reverse course in the lending community and head off the current crisis. The democrats pushed the problem further ahead. The Republican Congress certainly does share some blame but only the BDS crowd of Leftists would insist that Bush get no Credit and total blame. The premise of this thread is 100% Bush blame and no credit for advocating and proposing policies to fix the problem.
Do you own a home calcowgirl? because most mortgages involve government backing such as FHA. You seem to stick to purist absolutism as if we are debating philosophy rather than politics. If all loans lacked government support there would be few people owning homes. The system has worked well for decades and was prevented in places such as Texas where the banking system crashed in the 1980s and the reforms Bush sought had already been implemented. The overwhelming majority of these bad loans took place in Florida and California. Where again, local authorites like the ones in Texas could have implemented lending practices requiring legitimate applicaitons for loans.
It reminds of Katrina where Blanco and Nagin refused to issue emergency orders like those issued in Mississippi because they knew that the deaths of local people would be blamed on Bush. The mortgage crisis had local roots that are quite discernible.
Tarp 1 sucks a lot less than Tarp 2 and again you are unresponsive. This is not philosophy class— this is politics. You have to choose and refusing to choose is part of the problem and promotes Democratic dominance.
That’s not the subject of the thread— well then the Bush advocacy for reforming mortages ought to be germane.
Bush did not invent government backing of mortgages. Home ownership with federal backing is capitalism and conservatism. Home ownership is the acquisition of capital and exposes citizens to the concepts of property taxes which are another severe imposition on our freedoms.
Bush did win an election in 2004. You and your friends had an opportunity to be purists then and failed. McCain also made all of your arguments— bashing Bush to the hilt. Even Palin joined in.
These arguments have not won a single election. That is fair criticism of your arguments.
You are doing much better on rebuttals than sickoflibs but you are still on the wrong side of this debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.