First of all Bush was not a conservative, more like a progressive republican, yes they exist. Wow, I love those made up numbers you have there..
x1524807:en gwb cut taxes supposed ly to create jobs, but when he left office we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. When he left he created a total of 7 trillion in debt, and regaens 5 and the conservative movement can be held responsible for 12 trillion debt,
1. President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama's budget will add $4.9 trillion to the debt. A staggering number.
President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has increased that by 20%
3. In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
4. The job loss comes from congresses attempts to create parity through social engineering traces all the way back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. It’s true that the CRA requirements were relaxed during the Bush administration. But at this point the lax lending standards were already in place. Throughout the nineties , as banks lowered their mortgage standards, mortgage rates remained high. The laxity was spreading but the incentives for borrowers to re-finance even under relaxed standards remained low. New buyers often still didn’t know that some of the loosey-goosey mortgages existed. Speculators had an internet bubble, so they weren’t yet attracted to real-estate. Treasury rates were not yet so low that investors seeking yield would pour into mortgage backed securities. Securitization levels were low enough that banks weren’t yet willing to fully embrace the loose standards. The historical data on default and loss rates from the lax lending were not yet available, so they weren’t embraced by banks or the broader market.
But as the years went by, these factors changed. The Fed pushed interest rates down. This made refinancing more attractive, and created an investor demand for yield. Fannie and Freddie popularized low-income securitization. Low defaults and loss rates from lax loans made them seem not as risky as previously expected. A shrinking consumer asset base thanks to the dot com bust created a demand for home-equity loans and high loan-to-value loans, as consumers exchanged high-interest credit card debt for low interest home debt. Speculators seeking higher returns and ordinary home buyers became aware that lax lending standards would allow them to buy bigger homes with little or no money down.
In short, the lax lending standards created in response to the CRA had dug a pit that was waiting to get filled when the circumstances were right.