Oh my gosh…

Filed in National by on December 22, 2008

it wasn’t Clinton’s fault…

As for Mr. Bush’s banking regulators, they once brandished a chain saw over a 9,000-page pile of regulations as they promised to ease burdens on the industry. When states tried to use consumer protection laws to crack down on predatory lending, the comptroller of the currency blocked the effort, asserting that states had no authority over national banks.

The administration won that fight at the Supreme Court. But Roy Cooper, North Carolina’s attorney general, said, “They took 50 sheriffs off the beat at a time when lending was becoming the Wild West.”

The president did push rules aimed at forcing lenders to more clearly explain loan terms. But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.

In the 2004 election cycle, mortgage bankers and brokers poured nearly $847,000 into Mr. Bush’s re-election campaign, more than triple their contributions in 2000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The administration did not finalize the new rules until last month.

don’t read the entire article. It may take you 30 minutes to be informed about the truth and require you to learn.

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (5)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. jason330 says:
    December 22, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    But the White House shelved them in 2004, after industry-friendly members of Congress threatened to block confirmation of his new housing secretary.

    Carper?

  2. nemski says:
    December 22, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    Now this is funny.

    Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Mr. Bush chose to oversee them — an old prep school buddy — pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

  3. RSmitty says:
    December 22, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    As my wife and I struggle to regain footing after the debacle of fighting the insurance company for her being hit head-on by a person crossing the double-yellow, I have to ponder a thought.

    We, too, are heading towards insolvency, or incredibly horrible credit, so pick my poison. Can I, then, also qualify for a bailout? I promise I will declare it as income and pay taxes (over time, of course). Wait a second…does that mean I would actually give more back to the government than the banks will with bailout money?

  4. cassandra m says:
    December 22, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Oh this is good:

    He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.

    BushCo wanted to get people to buy houses who couldn’t afford them! That is the right talking point, yes?

    Great article. It reads like a compilation of much of my own blogging and commenting on the subject without the administration sources.

  5. Unstable Isotope says:
    December 22, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    There’s still a focus on F&F. While F&F definitely aren’t angels, they didn’t lead the way in issuing subprime mortgages. It was led by normal privatized banks, who got addicted to securitized derivatives and needed more and more mortgages to feed the hunger.

«
»