(03-04-2019, 07:29 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(03-04-2019, 05:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: There was more collegiality and respect for the system then. Senators would vote for cloture even when they did not like the bill and had no intent of voting for the actual bill. They saved their filibuster for stuff that they really found outrageous, not just disagreeable. Nowadays they tell us that everything is outrageous though.

That said I don't think you have your history right regarding subprime mortgages. I don't think Bush made any kind of push to change those laws and regulations. And he could have changed the regulations mostly on his own. He did not do so.

Timeline of Bush warnings

---

BTW, more winning.

Crime drops under Trump

I think this has more to do with the drop in unemployment than any anti-crime action. Still, Trump gets credit for the full employment, with workers again getting raises because of the competitive job market.

First of all, the general trend of investment bubbles and loose lending standards was international. Somehow, globally, people became taken by the idea that they should be able to get a really high yield at no risk. So there's an aspect of all of this was way beyond the Bush administration's control. They really were unlucky.

But there's also an aspect that was within their ability to control via regulation. Simple regulations can loosen and tighten lending standards without Congressional intervention. The Bush administration actually did many bailouts of the housing market, starting in about 2003. Their goal was always to keep the loose cash flowing rather than tighten lending standards. And Bush's public statements repeatedly praised the increase in home ownership which attended the laxity in lending standards. He called it part of his "ownership society" goals.

the bush administration's warnings are at once too vague and too specific to really be considered prescient in hindsight. They are too specific in the focus Fannie and Freddie but, where are the comments about what bear Stearns and AIG were doing? and they were too vague in the sense of, what reforms did the Bush administration even want?
there is a reason that most of the press did not take this kind of thing seriously before or after.

A lack of credibility.
And a lack of actionability.

He's not really worse than those who came before him in this regard. But he gives himself too much credit.

---