> It was in Bush's clear interest make the economy appear to be strong in spite of the war and the resulting extremely high gas prices.
Yet he did nothing, except that he did (see below), and what he did was counter to the above claim.
> The question we need to ask is, why were there initial calls to attend to the GSEs in 1999, 2000, 2001 but none after? I'd argue that it's because a) the extent of the problem was realized and those in power figured they'd let another president deal with it, b) those in power wanted to focus on their own agenda which didn't involve cleaning up the GSEs, or c) both.
You're forgetting Bush's bid in 2003 and McCain's bid in 2005. (The 2005 bill was actually considered in 2006.) So much for the "none after" theory. (Google "2005 mccain fannie freddie")
The evidence suggests that neither of the above theories was a major factor, that the driving factor was that every effort to deal with GSEs showed that it was an unwinnable fight. The populists wanted folks to get mortgages even if they couldn't afford them.
FWIW, during their brief tenure in the senate, Senators Obama and Clinton got more money from Fannie and Freddie than the chairmen of the relevant committees. In fact, their totals (over their entire tenure) were approaching the totals of those chairmen, even though the chairmen had been getting such donations for decades longer.
I don't give campaign promises much weight in this discussion. You are correct that both McCain and Bush paid lip service to the idea, but Bush, the guy who could do something about it, didn't do anything.
You can try to argue that Bush -- the guy who had control of both houses of congress and was able to sell an unpopular war -- was politically powerless do do anything, but that's just not persuasive. He decided not to make it a major issue... and he benefited tremendously from that decision... America felt rich while we waged a very expensive war and paid $5 per gallon for gas.
To use an analogy, maybe it was a Democrat who lit the cigarette and fell asleep, but it was Bush who saw the smoke, mentioned that a fire might start and then completely ignored it until it became a blazing inferno.
(I am not a member of either party so I am not intending to absolve Democrats of their share of the blame... but in this case I think most of it rests firmly on Bush's shoulders).
By the way, this was right before Mankiw got fired:
> I don't give campaign promises much weight in this discussion.
Huh? 03 wasn't campaign season. And Mccain wasn't running for re-election every time he went after Fannie and Freddie.
I'm not claiming that Repubs, notably Bush and McCain, did a lot - I'm pointing out that they did do what you claimed that they didn't do. And, that they weren't pushing the other way, as Dems were.
As I've written before - manslaughter vs murder.
> You can try to argue that Bush -- the guy who had control of both houses of congress and was able to sell an unpopular war -- was politically powerless do do anything, but that's just not persuasive.
I'm not claiming that he was powerless. I'm claiming that he didn't care that much.
However, there's a huge difference between that and throwing gas on the fire.
> To use an analogy, maybe it was a Democrat who lit the cigarette and fell asleep
Except that that's not what happened. Dems insisted on pouring gas on the fire and fought anyone who tried to intervene.
Bush didn't fight back much. That's wrong, but it's not nearly as wrong as actively pushing bad policy.
> He decided not to make it a major issue
true
> and he benefited tremendously from that decision
false.
He didn't take a hit for trying to deal with it, but that's not the same as benefitting. And, Dems did benefit from it.
I don't think we share enough common ground to reach agreement. I am surprised you don't see how Bush benefited from deciding to ignore the GSE's misconduct.
I agreed in couple of messages that Bush benefited so it's disheartening to see you claim otherwise repeatedly. Do you find that misrepresenting what other people say is helpful in reaching agreement?
Lots of people benefited, but that doesn't make them as culpable as folks who pushed and defended the GSE's misconduct.
Plus, Bush did make some attempt to try to rein in the GSEs. Yes, he could have done more, but again, that distinguishes him from folks who opposed those efforts.
Surely you're not arguing that "Bush was a disaster on the war" implies "everything bad that happened is completely Bush's fault"?
Yet he did nothing, except that he did (see below), and what he did was counter to the above claim.
> The question we need to ask is, why were there initial calls to attend to the GSEs in 1999, 2000, 2001 but none after? I'd argue that it's because a) the extent of the problem was realized and those in power figured they'd let another president deal with it, b) those in power wanted to focus on their own agenda which didn't involve cleaning up the GSEs, or c) both.
You're forgetting Bush's bid in 2003 and McCain's bid in 2005. (The 2005 bill was actually considered in 2006.) So much for the "none after" theory. (Google "2005 mccain fannie freddie")
The evidence suggests that neither of the above theories was a major factor, that the driving factor was that every effort to deal with GSEs showed that it was an unwinnable fight. The populists wanted folks to get mortgages even if they couldn't afford them.
FWIW, during their brief tenure in the senate, Senators Obama and Clinton got more money from Fannie and Freddie than the chairmen of the relevant committees. In fact, their totals (over their entire tenure) were approaching the totals of those chairmen, even though the chairmen had been getting such donations for decades longer.