Amazing. Despite all the evidence we have of government interference in the markets, we have the free market taking the blame. We did not, and do not currently, have a free market. When you have government-created organizations that are beholden to politicians and make up 80% of the market for mortgages, we blame the free market? We have the collapse of two government corporations which then sets off a tidal wave of bankruptcies because of mark-to-market and the resulting disappearance of the mortgage-backed securities market and that's the free market?
Look up mark-to-market and you'll see how this government overreaction to Enron and WorldCom has cost us dearly. Perhaps this is why Mike Oxley is so sensitive these days as he's half-responsible for Sarbanes-Oxley. (No, mark-to-market is not part of SOX, but it was part of the overreaction)
Now take a look at privatized GSE's like Sallie Mae (student loans former GSE), which no longer have connections with the government. They are well-run, profitable, and trouble free.
The age of Fannie Mae and CRA is irrelevant. The CRA was passed during the Carter Administration but was redefined by the Clinton Administration when it began to use the threat of financial sanctions to force lenders to lend against their better judgment in their attempts at social engineering. Every time government has tried social engineering, it has always turned out to be a disaster. Just look at the failed Great Society, which failed to reduce poverty and destroyed the family structure among minorities in the process, wasting $7 trillion in taxpayer funds. Fannie Mae essentially created the subprime market, a recent phenomenon not from the 30's, encouraging lenders to give out these loans to unqualified borrowers with a promise that it would buy up those risky mortgages and pass them off to other buyers. Countrywide Mortgage, which offered many perks to Democratic Senators, was the biggest lender of subprime mortgages with Fannie Mae as its biggest buyer.
We have yet another example of social engineering that has led to disaster, yet for some strange reason, some are blaming the free market.
The mortgage-backed securities were not the problems either. The underlying loans to unqualified people were the problem. People buy AAA paper for a reason. If they cannot trust AAA paper issued by quasi-governmental organizations, then that's a huge problem. It means government cannot be trusted and that's bordering on a catastrophe.
By the way, there are no conservatives in Sweden, at least how Americans define conservatism. You have a left wing, a far left wing, and a fringe left wing. My relatives in Sweden would be considered ultra-conservatives in your country. That's what they call themselves. If I were to place their ideology in America, they would place left of most Democrats. Unfortunately, our Democrats are controlled by our fringe-left, which would be your centrists. From your point of view, you could probably say America has no liberals as our left wing and your right wing probably intersect.
I don't know how well or how badly your "conservatives" govern, but I doubt they would govern as ours do. For instance, conservatives would not support universal health care. Conservatives would not support a mandatory 6-week vacations. Conservatives would not support a 25% VAT or the extreme taxes paid in Sweden. They also support all the other social issues that would be an anathema to American conservatives. If they actually support tax cuts, that's good, but that's necessary but not sufficient.
You also say Democrats have adopted Reaganomics. They have not by any stretch of the imagination. Perhaps they seem conservative to you, but as I said, there are no conservatives in Sweden. Your right wing is left of our left wing. Witness Obama as a poster child for non-Reaganomics. He is promising tax increases in the face of a declining economy. His tax cuts are phantoms. Democrats always promise tax cuts and don't deliver. Obama promised one in his Senate campaign as well and never even bothered to offer one for a vote. Democrats talk about tax cuts for the middle class only to get votes but never deliver. They always deliver on tax increases. Bill Clinton did the same, promising a middle class tax cut. Instead, he raised taxes on everybody including the elderly. Even if he were to enact them, which I doubt, then he would be enacting demand-side tax cuts, always ineffective when boosting an economy. Job producers would see their taxes skyrocket.
Even worse today, Obama showed his total ignorance on the economy. He promised a zero capital gains rate for investments in small businesses after McCain accused him of killing job growth by taxing small business. Say what? Does he have any idea what a small business is? Virtually all small businesses HAVE NO PUBLICLY TRADED STOCK. Any profits are reported by small businesses on their 1040's as INCOME as they file as proprietorships, partnerships, and S-Corps. Basically he is proposing a zero tax cut because SMALL BUSINESSES DON'T GENERATE CAPITAL GAINS for investors.
Maybe he does understand. If he does, then he's purposely offering what sounds great, but any person who actually knows a thing about small business knows he's talking utter nonsense, so he's offering a non-tax cut only to buy votes, knowing he never has to follow through. Unless he actually doesn't know what he's talking about, which I can believe.
Meanwhile, in the real world, small business will be socked by twin tax increases, first on their income, then with the lifting of the Social Security cap on income. Most small business pay double on Social Security taxes, the 6.2% personal portion and the 6.2% employer-matched portion. So that 12.4% plus the rise in the top rate of 6.6% will kill jobs as many small businesses will see their effective tax rate rise by 19% (that translates to 58% higher taxes). Put yourself into the mindset of a business person. If somebody decided to take 19% (58% higher) of your income on top of what taxes you already pay, would you feel like expanding your business or hiring more people? Or would you retrench and try to figure out ways to avoid paying those onerous taxes?
That is not Reaganomics when you're raising taxes by 58%.
On Iraq, the Bush Administration never tried to blame Saddam Hussein for 9/11. I have no idea where you got that from, but it has never been the case. Hussein was considered a danger only because he had a history of using WMD and for harboring terrorists and the fear was that he would provide terrorists with WMD.
If your news media reported otherwise, they were flat-out wrong.
Remember that in the president's speech on September 20, 2001, he explained the new global war on terror. All countries that sponsor terrorism would be considered threats. That was the Axis of Evil speech where North Korea, Iran, and Iraq were identified as the axis members. This also became what some in the press have called the Bush Doctrine, version 2.0. Sorry Charlie Gibson.
Never did President Bush blame any of those three countries for 9/11. The blame was always on al Qaeda.
The three countries were to be handled differently as well. Iran would be pressured through the UN to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons and would be discouraged from sponsoring terrorism. That hasn't worked terribly well with weak support for real sanctions from most Security Council members.
North Korea would be handled through the Six-Party Talks that have been going on for quite a while, the biggest hangup there being that North Korea is the largest counterfeiter of US currency and wants us to stop pursuing their counterfeiting operation in exchange for concessions.
Iraq would be dealt with within the framework of the seventeen UN resolutions violated by Iraq.
But at no time did the president ever identify Iraq as a responsible party for 9/11. Some point to a single speech by Dick Cheney where it seemed as if he was, but when asked immediately afterwards the Administration said that was not the case. The Administration said that people had misinterpreted Cheney's words.
So please stop saying that the Administration tried to blame Saddam for 9/11. It never happened.
