Posted on 05/03/2009 12:49:37 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
(CNN) – House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said in an interview airing on CNN's State of the Union Sunday morning that the GOP wasn't directly responsible for much of the party's electoral misfortune in 2008.
"I frankly believe that much of what happened in the last election revolved around the fact that the economy fell apart at the time we were, if you will, holding the hot potato. Republicans and Democrats have been playing this game, passing the hot the potato, spending money like there was no tomorrow," Romney told John King.
"And the economy came crashing down while our party was holding the hot potato. And people said, hey, it's time for something else but I think if they took a good, hard look at what the — something else is planning on doing with regards to the massive borrowing, they are going to say, that is probably not the right thing for America's future."
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
I agree with everything you said... and I don’t see anyone in government who really gets why the GOP lost the last four years... now we have them all deciding to meddle in PA to oust Toomey because it seems it doesn’t matter what the voters in PA wants, it’s a matter of getting a senator the other 40 remaining GOP senators approve of.
The RINOs seriously continue to “not get it”, when it comes to the definitive explanations as to why the GOP lost in ‘08 as well as in ‘06! All RINOs really need to look in the mirror at themselves as part of the reason. When the GOP really equals a conservative political party, then conservatism and the GOP wins, as a whole political entity, but when the GOP really equals “Democratic Party Lite”, then conservatism as well as the GOP loses, as a whole political entity, no matter how many times it’s seriously tried.
Why don't you go to Bush's speeches?
"The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation will dramatically expand financial and home buyer education efforts to 380,000 minority families. The Neighborhood Housing Services of America will raise $750 million to promote homeownership initiatives in many communities. We're beginning to use the Internet better, so that realtors all across the country will be able to call up programs all designed to help minority home buyers understand what's available, what's possible, and what to avoid. The National Realtors Association will create a central data bank of affordable housing programs, which will be made available to agents, real estate agents, to help people." From here.
(See: White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire)
If Bush was so worried about what the GSE's in 2003 were buying, why did he increase the percentage of mortgages that Fannie and Freddie were required to buy to 56% in 2004?
Cuomo's predecessor, Henry Cisneros, did that for the first time in December 1995, taking a cautious approach and moving the GSEs toward a requirement that 42 percent of their mortgages serve low- and moderate-income families. Cuomo raised that number to 50 percent and dramatically hiked GSE mandates to buy mortgages in underserved neighborhoods and for the "very-low-income."
Snip
That June Post story focused its critical reassessment of HUD's affordable-housing goals on the department's 2004 decision—during the Bush re-election campaign—to juice them up again, pushing the target to 56 percent by 2007.
We've been through this. Bush wanted to leave a legacy of "ownership" and was willing to do a lot things to accomplish that.
From a speech on June 17, 2002: Now, we've got a problem here in America that we have to address. Too many American families, too many minorities do not own a home. There is a home ownership gap in America. The difference between Anglo America and African American and Hispanic home ownership is too big. (Applause.) And we've got to focus the attention on this nation to address this.From here.
Notice he refers to black Americans and Anglo Americans but simply hispanics and NOT hispanic Americans.
See Ol' Dan Tucker's page for more.
I agree. Romney pretty much nailed it.
It wasn't the left that exempted credit default swaps from regulation. It wasn't the left that pushed the notion that Wall Street could be largely self-regulating. And although the left pushed the notion of lowering credit standards for home ownership, the Bush Admin went along with promoting higher rates of home ownership at the expense of creditworthiness of mortgages.
As long as folks on the right deny the GOP's role in the financial crisis, we will have no credibility with independent voters.
The Bushites and Republican Party and about one half of Republican Congresscritters were DIRECTLY responsible for the 2007-2008 economic debacle.
They were stupid, incompetent, corrupt and most of all cowardly when confronted with truth.
These Congresscritters still don’t get it. They need to take a tutorial at a tea party. There will be some more held on July 4th
By that reckoning, Trent curdled in 1979.
The coffin lid shut, you mean ?
About right looking back. Just was a slower process...
Trent was in DC longer than a lot of folks realize. He was an AA to a Conservative Democrat Congressman, William Colmer, beginning in 1968 and Colmer gave Lott his blessing to succeed him in 1972 as a Republican (moving over to the Senate in 1988), and hence stayed in DC for 40 straight years.
1) Showed no backbone in fighting 'Rat propaganda
2) Reckless spending like Liberals
3) Traitor McLoser at the top of the ticket
4) 12 years of a GOP majority with little to show for it
5) Laid down with 'Rats and got up with fleas
Moderation after moderation isn't working. It is the STUPID party aka LACK OF LEADERSHIP.
It WAS the left who blackmailed the banks making bad loans in the name of “affordable housing”. Bush did NOT “go along”, he in fact protested twice, only to have Franks and Dodd suggest it was racist not to cooperate.
It WAS Paulson from Goldman Sachs that gave Bush such bad advice.
Wall Street regulation, or lack thereof is a red herring.
The September 15th run on U.S. Treasuries WAS in fact an orchestrated effort, when $550 Billion were called in less than 2 hours. That was the catylist for the banking problems.
I actually happen to agree with Romney here. The Republicans lost mainly because of the economy. That means they can come back if the Obama economy plummets."I frankly believe that much of what happened in the last election revolved around the fact that the economy fell apart at the time we were, if you will, holding the hot potato. Republicans and Democrats have been playing this game, passing the hot the potato, spending money like there was no tomorrow," Romney told John King.
BUT Republicans’ whole-hearted love affair for housing subsidies surely contributed to the financial meltdown. Bush and Jack Kemp (may he rest in peace) thought that free home ownership was nirvana on earth. No matter if the low income owners couldn’t pay for them.
Those certainly are valid points - but I don't like the suggestion that a senate lifer - any senate lifer, let alone John McCain - is anything other than a sure loser if opposed by anyone other than another senate lifer.
—Phil Gramm as an advisor - one of the men most responsible for the economic crisis
Yeah, you lost me when you wiffed out that lefty myth often heard on other websites.
________________________________________________________________________________
While not without controversy, the net effect of Gramm-Leach-Bliley has likely been to alleviate rather than further the current financial crisis.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2109.cfm
______________________________________________________________________
Meanwhile you manage to avoid mentioning Franks-Dodd-Raines OBAMA-ACORN Fannie Mae nexus which if you were intellectually honest, you would have included to support your “both parties” meme. Tarp wouldn’t have been necessary if Democrats hadn’t been forcing mortgagers to lend to illegal aliens and people in the innercity who don’t understand responsible credit.
I want to see both parties set forth the agenda you describe, but it won’t happen when the crystal truth about the root cause of the ‘mortgage meltdown’ is not hammered.
although the left pushed the notion of lowering credit standards for home ownership, the Bush Admin went along with promoting higher rates of home ownership at the expense of creditworthiness of mortgages
Under Clinton home ownership rates went from 63.7 to 67.5 NEARLY 4 percent. Under Bush those rates went from 67.5 to 68.4 or LESS THAN A percent.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/07/comparing-presidents-home-ownership.html
So, perhaps more of the blame goes to the lefties?
AND
Bush Called For Reform of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac 17 Times in 2008 Alone... Dems Ignored Warnings
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted.
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as 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.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae.html
In Bush's June 17, 2002 speech, he also called for the creation of the American Dream Down Payment Fund.
And so here are some of the ways to address the issue. First, the single greatest barrier to first time homeownership is a high downpayment. It is really hard for many, many, low income families to make the high downpayment. And so that's why I propose and urge Congress to fully fund the American Dream Downpayment Fund. This will use money, taxpayers' money to help a qualified, low income buyer make a downpayment. And that's important.
Bush's desire to leave an "ownership" legacy promulgated this:
Cuomo's predecessor, Henry Cisneros, did that for the first time in December 1995, taking a cautious approach and moving the GSEs toward a requirement that 42 percent of their mortgages serve low- and moderate-income families. Cuomo raised that number to 50 percent and dramatically hiked GSE mandates to buy mortgages in underserved neighborhoods and for the "very-low-income."
Snip
That June Post story focused its critical reassessment of HUD's affordable-housing goals on the department's 2004 decision—during the Bush re-election campaign—to juice them up again, pushing the target to 56 percent by 2007.From here.
In case you were wondering the GSE's they are talking about are Freddie and Fannie.
Are you being sarcastic when you say Bush caused Cuomo —a Democrat — to turn the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down...(as the conservative Village Voice says.....)
Andrew Cuomo, the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history, made a series of decisions between 1997 and 2001 that gave birth to the country’s current crisis. He took actions that—in combination with many other factors—helped plunge Fannie and Freddie into the subprime markets without putting in place the means to monitor their increasingly risky investments. He turned the Federal Housing Administration mortgage program into a sweetheart lender with sky-high loan ceilings and no money down, and he legalized what a federal judge has branded “kickbacks” to brokers that have fueled the sale of overpriced and unsupportable loans. Three to four million families are now facing foreclosure, and Cuomo is one of the reasons why.
http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234
Not happy with Bush in this area, in percentage terms I’d say he’s 10-15 percent at fault, an array of Democrats 85-90.
Yeah, I had hopes for Cantor. When he came out in favor of the TARP bailout last fall, he lost me. Now he’s just continuing to dig.
You’re delusional.
I never claimed that. I didn't even say the Village Voice claimed that. I am saying that Bush EXPANDED the program in 2004 through HUD.
Look, I know a lot of people here don't want to bash Bush for whatever reason. However, it was policies that Bush espoused and enacted that led to Obama. Bush pushed the country towards the left under the guise of conservatism. Do you think using taxpayer dollars to provide down payments for low income loans is admirable?
Did you read his speech where he calls for expansion of home ownership for minorities regardless of their ability to pay?
Like others have said, until we recognize that both parties have wallowed in the mud of power there will be no move to stop them.
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.