George Bush: we want everybody in America to own their own home. That's what we want.

[holla221]

LOL! But for some odd reason Fox News doesn't blame any part of the real estate depression that caused this economic mess on President Bush. They place the entire blame on none other than Jimmy Carter LOL! He deserves some of the blame too but wow I'm shocked Bush was not blamed for the housing crises at all.

[profnasty]

When we figure out how to compete against $5/day foreign workers, we'll be all right. "Is our children learning?"

[RequiemForChange]

funny...cause now they are taking everyones homes.

[mediaxpuppet]

interesting. on my way to home ownership (first time) via a Fannie Mae loan.

[limppimento55]

Why cant the "poor low income" (like I was) save their money and get two jobs like I did to earn enough to buy their first house or condo? Clinton started this crazy idea to be the benevolent one at the taxpayers expense. His way to get votes. And look at the mess it made. Stop the subsidies. Look how welfare has destroyed a people and now a nation.

[lurchutube]

@limppimento55 Holy criminey! Clinton was the one who got tough on welfare! Nobody, Repub or Dem, before him was able to pass welfare reform. Look it up.

And nobody loves subsidies more than Bush and the Repubs. Take a look at any major bill during the Bush era - guaranteed it was not fully funded and the majority of the benefits went to special interests, which is what is really destroying our nation. Social safety nets strengthen nations.

[Gracelandification]

The debt when George W. Bush took office was $5.727 Trillion when he left it was $10.627 Trillion. The total debt that George W accumulated in eight years of office is $4.9 Trillion The debt right now is $13.736 Trillion. In approximately 666 days in office, he has accumulated $3.066 Trillion. Using simple algebra you'll find by Dec 2011, Obama will have accumulated more debt in three years than George W. did in 8 years.

.

Allen West 2012

[lurchutube]

@Gracelandification Nobody ever said cleaning up after George W Bush and the corrupt Republicans would be quick, easy, or cheap.

Anybody with their thinking caps on knows it will take a least a generation, if not more, to recover from the Bush era.

[Gracelandification]

@lurchutube

.

Wow, they don't teach critical thinking skills in college anymore. It's sad.

[formalcon9]

@Gracelandification: Not quite. Bush's spending request for 2009 left a $1.4 trillion deficit, Remember that the FY runs from Oct of the previous year to Sep. of the following year. Clinton's budget for 2001 left a $127 billion dollar surplus that Bush blew for a budget deficit of $157 billion for FY 2002, $375 billion for FY 2003, and $413 billion for FY 2004. From FY 2003-2007, the national debt increased approximately $550 billion per year on average. Every Bush budget was deficit spending

[Gracelandification]

@formalcon9

.

A President's debt is counted by the year they were President. I know that Obama tries to make you believe that the $3.7 Trillion he spent was Bush's fault, but it wasn't. Now, Clinton did not leave a surplus, because every year he was in office the Treasure reported a deficit. I have the links on my profile. Also, the debt when he took office was $4.1 Trillion and when he left it was $5.7 trillion implying a $1.6 Trillion debt.

[Super5358]

George Bush is my neighbor he lives in dallas tx and me to omg

[Bub26]

free houses for everybody! and not just crappy homes, but mansions for everybody!

put your mind to it and you can fly. i bet when bush was a child he put on a superman costume, jumped off the roof and landed on his head. you know this happened and explains a lot.

[bluekarma]

Bush tried several times to go before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and tell them to be more careful in loaning money.(the Feds money) but they said boohoo go away! Google it or YouTube it. The EVIDENCE is there!

[lurchutube]

@bluekarma Bush fought successfully to loosen the CRA rules for banks and fought successfully to loosen the subprime requirements per the requests by his masters in the financial industry. That's why subprimes went from 13% of all mortgages in 2000 to 20% in 2004, which is a huge increase considering the size of that industry. Now, with a Repub dominated House and Senate, are you saying Bush could get the Patriot Act passed unread but not handle F&F if he really wanted??

[nicolerowan]

1:02 "You don't have to have a lousy home for first time home buyer for first time home buyers, you put your mind to it - the first time home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else."

Well - I think he means if you DON"T put your mind to it. You put your ego to it and let delusions of grander guide your families' economic decisions instead of starting small and building wealth over time.

TIME! It takes time to own a home (unless of course you were born uber rich like Bush!)

[DeSwiss]

I wonder if I emailed this video clip coming from the lips of W over to Faux Snooze (a video I might add which PROVES beyond a doubt that it was his administration that created the subprime loan debacle), would they air this one as quickly as they aired Andrew Breitbart's video defaming Ms. Sherrod?

[jmbruno23]

Snake, idiot, dummy, moron! The list goes on and on!

[jalopotan]

worst frekin president evr

[dantheleo]

He said he wants everyone to own a home, NOT entitled to a home!

[dac8555]

@dantheleo- who ever said everyone was entitled to a home? You right wing nuts think that everyone else just wants to give away money and that nobody whould have to work. That is absolute BS. Even the most hard core of social programs (welfare) require that poeple seek employment, education and training in order to recieve just a couple hundred dolalrs for a child to have food.

[dantheleo]

@dac8555 Accorn, Organizing for America, obama and all the leftists of today, where the hell have you been, living under a rock?

[dac8555]

@dantheleo- actually you are dead wrong. Acorn was a private organization designed to teach people in the inner city to save, be self sufficient, educate them selves and not be relient on the government. Despite bad press from the conservative media, They were never found guilty of any crime but FOX did succeed in suspending enough funding to make the company go broke. After they went broke a federal court found them not guilty of any crime.

[dantheleo]

@dac8555 You clearly have no reliable source to base your comments. Accorn has been found gulity of fraud and racqueteering in four states and charges are still pending in five other states and my state is one of them. Lefists oraganizations do not believe in individual responsibilty or self-reliance, only in the status of victim!

[dac8555]

@dantheleo- i just googled "acron guilty of racketeering" giving you the benefit of doubt...no, didnt see it anywhere. They were found guilty of voter fraud becuse they paid people to register voters. Theses people doing the work did make up names to fill their quota. It was not an acorn policy to do so. The emplyees acted on their own accord. They pleased guilty as any responsible company would do. virtually everyone believes in personal responsability...you are just spouting neo-con junk.

[nuclearnemesis]

Well, it didn't start with Bush 2; but, he was part of the problem. He, if not a Marxist, also believed in economics -101. How did our enlightened "leader" intend to pay for his charitable gifts?

Maybe he believed there would an entrepreneurial revolution, where more people would invest their capital, and assume the risks associated with any new venture? Did this "elite" ever pass personal responsibility 101? Did he, like liberals/progressives, consider involuntary exploitation acceptable?

[impaler999]

they gave loans to black and latinos, who couldnt pay back and some were even ex convicts, thats what caused the housing crisis but the media isnt talking about it since its politically incorrect to point out that black and hispanics are lazy third world citizents that ruined their counry and will now ruin america...

[ItsudemoAibon]

No, dummy, the "crisis" hit the fan when the deregulation of the industry allowed institutions to "bundle" these loans and pass them off as AAA paper to unsuspecting banks around the world. Then, when people couldn't pay the mortgages (that's what happens when jobs disappear to the 3rd world) the banks were stuck with worthless paper.

[Ibringthetruth1]

@impaler999

Completely agree.

We all pay now. link revcom *** us/a/126/subprime-discriminati­on-en.html

[xerosisonek]

So here's the spokesman for the architects of the homeloan bust. 1st they raised the market artificially so they could charge more for homes & sell derivatives. Then they gave people who couldn't afford to buy a trailer, a home far beyond their means & told them they wouldn't have to make a payment for a year. This was all a set-up, & anyone taking Economics 101 could see it, but most of the Americans who aren't illiterate have never been taught how to think. What a great scam. U've been pimped!

[SoccerMU20]

why isn't there video of the speech?

[gnaples]

no, this is great!1 we need more home owenrship and free health care and free cars- what could go wrong?

[lisabob22]

everybody: google 1.4 QUADRILLION in derivatives and see why we are close to another great depression.

also google CRA financial crisis and see that the conservatives are full of feces, CRA had nothing to do with the housing bubble. Nothing at all so stop drinking the koolaid

[lisabob22]

It's time to stop the scapegoating: According to a study by the Federal Reserve, 94% of high-cost loans originated during the housing boom had nothing to do with Community Reinvestment Act goals. Lending to poor didn't spur crisis -Fed's Kroszner

[Ibringthetruth1]

@lisabob22 revcom ***** us/a/126/subprime-discriminati­on-en.html <- remove *** add DOT.

The CRA and Congress pushed for everyone to own homes. They made the Bubble worse.

[the1337k1ng]

Clinton started with this nonsense.

[lisabob22]

Actually Reagan policies are directly responsible for all of our financial problems today. Clinton didn't help, but until the parasites in the top 5% stop getting a unhealthy share of the wealth labor creates, then we will continue to have problems. It's Republican's socialistic transfer of wealth from most of us to the top thats is causing all of our problems now. The last time the gap was so high we had a great depression, which was caused by the same Republican policies.

[abbadabbadolittle]

@lisabob22 Exactly ...the only thing that "tricles down" is sh#t.

[jcvjcvjcvjcv]

@lisabob22

Republicans and Democrats are both pieces of the same cake.

Go read something on the Federal Reserve!

[jonhdoehe1]

@lisabob22

I kinda like your post because it looks like you studied this a bit more than most. But funneling money from the lower class to the rich is not socialism, it's fascism. Anyway, political parties are irrelevant these days. Just take a look at the top 10 campaign contributors to any presidential candidate and you will realize the bankers are just putting on a puppet show for us.

[desidol22]

YEA NOW LOOK WHAT U DID MORON!!!!!

[csskid]

why blame him for this? he was doing exactly what most people wanted at the time. he wanted to help give minorities part of the american dream by making it easier to pruchase a home. the economy was strong at the time and no one expected the recession to happen.

why bitch about him when you should be bitching about how the American factories are all being shipped over seas. we import more than we export with the exception of agriculture. thats part of the reason why we are in a recession.

[tewerst666]

youtubeDotcom/watch?v=GkAtUq0O­J68

I am so sorry the other link didn't work maybe this one will.

[Renegen1]

But even deeper than the housing bubble is the credit bubble. House prices were ahead of the decade averages in the mid 90s, almost all assets were being inflated by an easy money policy. The money was just jumping from bubble to bubble. The reason for the need to sustain USA with asset bubbles of course, is because the economy has been dismantling itself since the 1980s with job outsourcing, anti labor practices and "globalization". It's all been pushed by the elites and we better be ready.

[icouce]

Anti-trust laws are not concerned with the existence of one provider in a market. It's the ability to arbitrarily manipulate prices that legally defines a monopoly. That can only happen when legal proscription inhibit competitors from entering the market. Competitors will drive down margins until perhaps there is only one provider in a market, but it will be because no one else can be anymore efficient, not because government - local, state and federal - create barriers to competition.

[wahhwahhh]

im sorry i dunno why that posted 3 times =\

[jodecy]

I'll see ya in hell bushy.

[icouce]

Free markets did not fail, government intervention did. The regulatory effect of taxes is overlooked. One mans incentive is another mans loophole et vise versa. Moreover, profligate credit, deficits, Keynesian monetary expansion and the 1992 Community Redevelopment Act mandating loans to borrowers of dubious financial merit were all actions of government not of capitalism. Markets are punishing exactly the kind of behavior one expects them to punish yes Mr. Friedman, you did warn us.

[Renegen1]

The hell free markets failed, what do you call the UNREGULATED credit default swap market? The market exploded in 7 short years to 55 trillion dollars, and now they are the primary reason of the credit crisis, not the housing bubble. "Counter party risk" learn what that means, it means anyone owning money for those CDS is insolvent and cannot lend anything. It only it was regulated to restrict it's explosive growth the banks would have copped better with the new products.

[icouce]

Again, the tax code has an undeniable regulatory effect. All institutional transaction take this into account. In turn, government intervention is interfering with a vital component of free markets losses the markets way of saying, Stop doing that! When losses are removed, unintended consequences are inevitable. The question is how to dissuade future bad behavior: letting the market punish bad behavior or having the taxpayer eat the losses resulting from bad behavior.

[Renegen1]

Oh please, letting the market punish bad behavior? You have no idea what you're talking about. If I can make $40 millions from a bubble and fraud and then run away with my money, I don't care if the company goes bankrupt! Don't you understand, the market rewards so much in the short term that no one cares of the long term! You laissez faire apologists are pathetic, always trying to rationalize things differenty. You're being taken for a ride by big business and fraudsters.

[icouce]

First, grow up and act civilly. Personal attacks are not welcomed.

Second, how is the government's no punishment at any interval of time - indeed, reward if the malfeasance is of a sufficient magnitude - is superior market's punishment at some interval of time. You seem on the verge of defending the notion that command economies - the epitome of regulated economics - don't suffer from these weaknesses. A review of 20th century economic history should dissuade you of this most elementary error.

[macpipkin]

Renegen1,

Sorry so late on this. Haven't been on YT in a while.

Weren't these credit default swap run-ups a result of the bundling of the same high risk mortgages Fan & Fred were buying? Essentially, weren't they selling insurance in the form of these contracts in the CDS market to hide the risk of the mortgages?

The CDS market became a dumping ground for for high risk debt. The high risk debt being dumped were these mortgages the government and an ACORN lawsuit forced banks to make.

[macpipkin]

Part 2 to Renegen1

Yes, the CDS is a free market mechanism, but you can not ignore two multi-billion dollar government backed giants and a national community group with their lawsuits telling banks to make these loans or else.

Yes, some banks, like WaMu seemed to love these loans, but all lending banks were being told to not deny anyone or else. Free markets are not perfect at all, I have never said they were, but this system failed because of the promise of something for nothing.

[Renegen1]

The subprime market was a few trillions big, it wasn't ACORN that pushed for all of this. It's true they support housing for those who have trouble getting it, but what's the problem with that? As you know, the subprime mortgages had resetting rates, these rates were so high even a middle class family couldn't pay them. The same is true if the mortgage you buy is 50% inflated, that comes out of your pocket. Everyone is getting hurt, it's not just a problem caused by lending to poor people.

[macpipkin]

We could likely go back and forth for weeks. I just want to address two points.

"...but what's the problem with that?"

The problem is not that "the poor" were buying houses. They were buying houses they couldn't afford with no down payment and shoddy credit. Simple, if someone can't pay a loan back, they shouldn't get one. Were banks like WaMu predatory in writing sub-prime loans wanting the houses after the buyer defaulted? Yes, but no one held a gun to anyones head to accept the loan. (more)

[macpipkin]

Point 2

Before the Community Reinvestment Act home values edged just above inflation most of the time. After passage, home prices shot up. It's simple supply and demand. No, no one can blame all of this on F & F, but without the CRA homes wouldn't be "an investment" they would be homes and nothing more.

The housing market has been a market out of whack because of government telling banks to toss sound lending practices aside for the sake of the poor...

(more)

[macpipkin]

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I am not a lese-fare, no regulation, markets are perfect person. From time to time free markets need direction. I don't want to abolish child labor laws or anti-trust laws.

I do believe we should recognize when market distortions have not served the public good. The CRA is an example. Instead of easy money, why not tax deductions for lending institutions that get money poor people into loans they can pay? IMO, the keeping the CRA is folly...

[Renegen1]

Also in 2 months I've changed my stance a bit. Fannie and Freddie you can't blame it all on them, because a corporation will lobby the government, that's the nature of business. Furthermore, Fannie and Freddie always had the implicit guarantee of the government, so its CEOs fully well knew if it didn't work out, the company wouldn't fail. Just like your CDS, they had insurance and it created moral hazard.

[wahhwahhh]

Free markets would always fail if the government left it without intervention. Thus there is a thing called market failure. If the government let the market forces of demand and supply on its own to determine what is going to be produced and what is going to be consumed, things like monopolies, failure to produce public good and negative externalities, etc. thats why a good government should have microeconomic reforms in place(i.e. intervention) to prevent market failure

[icouce]

I DEFY YOU TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE, NOT ONE MONOPOLY HAS EVER OCCURRED WITHOUT COLLUSION WITH, AND COERCION BY GOVERNMENT ON MARKETS. Monopoly is not produced by free markets. It's the product of protectionism non-market barriers to trade. Economic intervention in a command economy doesn't prevent economic and government failure. Furthermore, the US abandoned exclusive reliance on free market forces long ago, and nothing remotely like laissez fair capitalism has existed in an equally long time.

[jaralero]

Great clip, thanks for posting!

People ought to recognize that the financial hole is obviously much bigger than Fanny&Freddie, it includes a gigantic Administration lurking completely out of control in and out the US, that it has been a bipartisan effort to sqeeze every $ from the system, the -raison de'etre- for both major parties acting de facto like trade unions, and that the mother of all lending is called M2! No inflationary growth of M2, no F&F do-gooders, no bailout-rape of taxpayers.

[mikebode1]

That's odd??? "Democrats scuttled it in the senate" Republicans were in the majority!

[macpipkin]

Are all Democrats this stupid? Being "in the majority" isn't enough. You need 60 votes just to close debate.

Also, if you are going to reform institutions that help Democrats get elected, I mean, help the poor buy homes you had better have the other side on board before you proceed.

Pull your head out of your back orifice and look at the people who ran these institutions straight to hell and then tell me all about how this is the fault of the President...

[parousia70]

No Party needs 60 votes to get a bill out of committee, genius.

[macpipkin]

Republicans needed bipartisan support to reform agencies that help Democrats get elected, again I mean, help poor people buy houses they can't afford, genius.

Many bills don't get out of committee even when they are sponsored by the majority party, genius.

Again, find the Republican fingerprints on Fannie or Freddie. These SOCIALIST institutions are run and have been run into the ground by DEMOCRATS, genius.

Sure it's the President's fault, genius?

[bullsox]

amen

[Nanzien]

This problem began with Clinton, not GWB. I fault GWB for not doing more to clean up the mess but to post this video as a response shows a lack of knowledge on the subject of the original post.

[macpipkin]

You left out the part where President Bush proposed an overhaul of these two government entities in 2003. Democrats scuttled it in the Senate.

Sen. McCain co-sponsored another overhaul proposal in 2005 and predicted the current mess from the floor of the Senate. This second attempt was again scuttled by Democrats in the Senate.

Look at who ran these institutions into the ground. Look at who they gave political contributions. The President gave a speech on this, he didn't buy the bad loans.

[parousia70]

Democrats scuttled it in the Senate?

LOL!

The fact is, that Bill NEVER made out of Committee, where the Repubs had an unstoppable majority. The Dems had NO power to stop it when it died in committee. It was "scuttled" due to lack of Republican Support, pure and simple.

[macpipkin]

The only "unstoppable" majority is 60 votes in the Senate. Do the math.

If Fannie and Freddie were going to be corrected it had to come from both political parties. If Republicans had tried to pass these reforms on their own idiots like you would have called them racists and told everyone the bad ol' Republicans wanted just the rich to own a home.

Please tell me where the Republican fingerprints are on these institutions. Democrats ground them into the ground. Now we get to pay for it...

[parousia70]

Did you even read my comment?

As I said, THAT BILL DIED IN COMMITTEE because the Majority Republicans Killed it there.

Keep whining about it though, it makes you look smart!

[macpipkin]

Again, you are wrong. The bill had Republican support, but it wasn't going to the floor without a bipartisan effort. Idiots like you would have had a field day calling Republicans racists for daring to reign in Fannie and Freddie alone.

Rep. Frank's gay lover, Herb Moses, was an executive at Fannie while Frank was writing the laws governing these socialist institutions, yet you say this is a Republican failure.

One more time, moron, find the Republican fingerprints on these two institutions...

[parousia70]

LOL! You are trying to tell me that the party that ram-rodded the middle of the night Terry Schiavo legislation was somehow incapable of getting a bill out of a committee they dominate?

What a load of BS

c'mon, you are smarter than that.... you just have to be... luckily the rest of us certainly are.

[macpipkin]

Yes moron, that is what I am saying. Standing up for life in the face of questions that had not been answered is a lot easier than attempting to reign in two socialist institutions that funnel huge sums of money to Democrats and allow people to get homes they can't pay for.

Again moron, Republicans never "dominated" the Senate or its committees. The Senate banking committee was 11 to 9 Republican. That's domination?

Again moron, where are the Republican fingerprints on Fannie and Freddie?

[parousia70]

11-9 IS domination in Committee, Einstein.

You'll convince few that the party that brought us the "Nukeular option" threats to force democratic capitulation on legislation as pivotal as FISA, was scared of the big bad democratic minority when it came to Fanny & Freddie. But you're cute when you try ;-)

[macpipkin]

As you are an unthinking idiot...

FISA was bipartisan. The Democrats will never admit it, but look at the votes. The Democrats have been in the majority for two years and FISA is still there largely untouched.

BTW, what I have been saying is not just my opinion. The truth of Fannie and Freddie is coming out. I don't know what political ramifications this will have, but people are looking into this and the "it's all Bushes fault" crowd is falling short.

[parousia70]

Your whole argument is built with chewing gum and baling wire. The truth is that an ethic of greed, coupled with increasingly arcane financial instruments against a backdrop of trickle-down, deregulation got the big boys in trouble. That the Dems didn't stick their thumb in the right hole in the dike wasn't the problem. The problem is Republican values of greed, deregulation, trickle-down and borrow-and-spend. Any fool can see it.

[macpipkin]

BTW, where are the Republican fingerprints on Fannie and Freddie?

[macpipkin]

Here it is, moron. Rep. Frank is attempting to shield himself from criticism by charging racism:

w3 breitbart com / article php?id=D93LAKT01&show_article=­1

"Rep. Barney Frank said Monday that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated."

Now, where are the Republican fingerprints on Fannie and Freddie?

[parousia70]

~Now, where are the Republican fingerprints on Fannie and Freddie?~

What, aside from your Stallion GWB in this video?

Try here Socrates, these prints are fresh and messy:

w3 nytimes com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22m­ccain.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=­slogin&ref=politics&pagewanted­=print&adxnnlx=1222107834-7VPd­RGOYks+tf4/MeWfqaQ&oref=slogin

[parousia70]

Freddie and Fannie were originally purely governmental entities.

It was guess who - privatization loving Republicans - who felt they would function better as quasi-private entities with a corporate board and less government oversight.

Nobody at Freddie or Fannie told Countrywide or the other creeps to issue mortgages to people they knew couldn't repay them back.Freddie and Fannie collapsed because of the Ponzi get-rich games private mortgage lenders were engaging in.

[macpipkin]

And again, moron, tell me you idiots on the left wouldn't have cried racism if the Republicans had tried on their own to reign these two institutions in on their own in 2003 and 2005.

Tell me the mantra from the left wouldn't have been "These nasty racist Republicans just don't want poor people to own a home."

Fact: Republicans pushed reforms in 2003 and 2005 and Democrats would not join them.

In a committee or on the floor these bills could not pass if the Democrats weren't on board.

[JohnnyGeologist]

Nice Video. I knew I remember George Bush saying things like this! owning a home is the american dream, it isn't fair for poor people to be left out of that dream, and so on.

Although I have no doubt that there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle, as you say.

[cowcatute]

Lots of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle on this mess. But, in the spirit of Harry Truman, looks to me like "the buck stops here..."

[Jnmcda0]

Thank you for posting this. I remember him making speeches like this during his campaign and early in his administration.

[groundcontrolcz]

or in other words let the banks loan as much as possible to anyone who walks in the door and the first time home buyer can have a house BETTER than everybody else, at least until that adjustable rate kicks in and they can't keep up with the payments. Wait, what if millions of people do that all at the same time? Oh... I get it.

[idaltuguy]

Exactly. The fault is on lending companies, and their use of "creative lending." Let's not leave the borrower out though; It may seem like a great deal to get a variable loan (even having the interest rate lower at times), but that can also come back to kick you in the butt, when interest rates jump. It's always better to have a fixed loan, where you pay the same rate all of the time.