Was Bush's 'ownership society' cause of world economic meltdown?

When he was testifying before Congress the other day about the world's economic crisis, former Bush Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said that too many unqualified people got loans. He suggested that one of the culprits might have been George W. Bush's "ownership society."

Borrowing the concept from conservative thinkers, President Bush began touting an ownership society early in his first term. The idea encompassed a range of policies -- from healthcare to house buying -- in which Republicans believed government should get out of the way and empower individuals to make their own financial decisions. In a fact sheet, the White House said:

The president believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security.

Challenging the real estate and mortgage finance industries to "close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities," the president argued that increasing homeownership would enroll everyone in the fabric of their communities, thus decreasing crime, improving schools and cementing a sense of local civic pride.

So today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was asked if the initiative went too far. Maybe, a reporter suggested, it was the president who encouraged the bad lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage mess.

In a rare moment of bipartisanship, she not only defended President Bush but President Clinton as well. In fact, she more or less blamed Congress, saying:

The president did promote homeownership, especially minority homeownership, which went up at an amazing rate. The president never recommended risky loans. And in fact, we were trying to put the kibosh on that for a long time, and we didn't have a willing partner in Congress.

We do think that people being able to own their homes is a way to help establish good communities, good families and help improve the economy. So we did support that. But no one in this administration, nor the previous administration, would have supported people getting into situations that they weren't going to be able to -- where they weren't going to be able to pay for their own mortgages.

-- Johanna Neuman

Photo credit: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press

Comments

[Ted]

Dana Perino doesn't know jack. She is paid to say whatever they tell her to say.

**Bush began pushing hard for relaxing rules for home ownership in 2002. It was his response to terrorists.

[bkmur]

Perhaps the real economic plan was to install all those $150,000 a year truck drivers Iraq in 20 year careers in Baghdad, while the wifey and kids got memberships in the country clubs and ran off all the liberal educated attorneys & other professional riff raff....

Or perhaps this current economic crash is Bush's clever plan for ending America's obesity crisis. ...

Or...maybe Dana Puffino is just a really uppity dumb chick working for a really dumb guy who can't wait to get the hell out of Washington.

[Pom POm Girrrrrl]

Who Prevented Fannie Regulation?
4 years ago this could have been addressed and the Democrats stand up one after another to protect Fannie while the Republicans struggled mightily to fix the problem. Perhaps the fact that Franklin Roosevelt created it and Lyndon Johnson privatized it made it difficult for the Democrats to tighten regulation on it but in the end the Democrats stalling in 2004 and their recent prevention in the past two years of George Bush's efforts to get them to tighten controls on Fannie and Freddie, may have generated a Depression.

Every American should watch the youtube clip on the Fannie Mae hearings from 2004. If you do you will be as outraged as I am. At least we know who to blame and there is no hiding from the facts. Seek out this info on youtube and get ready to get angry.

[Alan Jacobs]

The underlying Republican mantra since Trickle Down Reagan is to allow the wealthy classes to pay lower taxes which will result in increased business investment and more employment opportunity for average people. I'm a Republican small business owner and investor. This is a HUGE lie. Investment money flows towards towards the quickest and most certain way of making a high rate of return- not towards job creation. In fact, as an investor, I am rewarded with greater profits and special tax treatment for laying off my employees and sending the work offshore. I can make more money in Merger/ Acquisition speculation than making and selling products. A river of money was invested in Enron because of absurdly high growth rates- not job creation. GM is not facing bankruptcy ( and lost jobs) because of a lack of investment capital but rather crummy products which are over priced.