How did Bush ruin the economy?

[joe hx]

It seems that everyone says Pres Obama inherited the economy from Pres Bush. My question is How did Bush ruin the economy?

I want specifics. I don't want "well his policies were stupid".

Looking through the internet, I've only found two answers:

Bush said the economy was going down, so when everyone started spending less to ride the storm, the economy sank.

Bush grew government with things such as the No Child Left Behind Act, Homeland Security, and the Iraq War.

[the_std]

Bush grew government with things such as the No Child Left Behind Act, Homeland Security, and the Iraq War.

Those are pretty substantial arguments, if you think about how much money has gone into them and their relative effectiveness.

[Gravekeeper]

Honestly? The whole 3 trillion price tag on Iraq certainly did a shit load of damage and was Bush's fault of course. Not to mention a significant increase in spending in his initial years in office plus lots of tax cuts. Followed by the massive increase in defense spending after 9/11 and the utterly random invasion of Iraq which cost and is still costing an astounding amount of money.

But under that you had the weakening of regulations on financial institutions under a Republican majority congress as well. So you have a massive increase in government spending coupled with rampant unchecked lending from financial institutions. Leading to many Americans living beyond their means on borrowed dollars. ( Sub prime mortgage ftw? )

The house of cards simply collapsed I suppose.

Sure, not everything was rainbows and unicorn farts when Clinton left office, but he did leave the country with a budget surplus at least.

[AFPheonix]

The earliest thing he managed to do was rather than use that budget surplus to pay down debt, he tossed out tax cuts to his peeps, then proceeded to deficit spend to a point that would have made even Reagan blush.

He also didn't do many favors to the local economies down south when Katrina ripped through by having such an inept emergency response.

[Gravekeeper]

The earliest thing he managed to do was rather than use that budget surplus to pay down debt, he tossed out tax cuts to his peeps, then proceeded to deficit spend to a point that would have made even Reagan blush.

He also didn't do many favors to the local economies down south when Katrina ripped through by having such an inept emergency response.

Yeah, it was a 23% increase in spending in the first term and 1.8 trillion in tax cuts for the homies. Its not precisely wise to increase spending and decrease revenue. -.-

[tropicsgoddess]

A lot of deregulation with businesses (with special regard to the financial industry) as well as a lot of spending on the war in Iraq and such.

[Boozy]

Actually, most of the deregulation responsible happened during the Clinton administration. This whole thing is a bipartisan fuck-up if I've ever seen one.

However: It's the price tag of the Iraq war, funded on credit, that has really put the whole thing over the top. The US is not in good shape to fund the required stimulus packages needed to steer the economy through this recession smoothly. As a result of Bush's assinine spending on playing cowboy in the Middle East, what could have been a 1980's Savings-and-Loan Crisis-style recession is probably going to be a 1990's Japan's "Lost Decade"-style recession. Not good.

[protege]

Sure, not everything was rainbows and unicorn farts when Clinton left office, but he did leave the country with a budget surplus at least.

He did. But it wasn't without a heavy price--quite a few hospitals and health care systems suddenly found themselves in trouble when subsidies were cut.

As to Katrina...from what I understand, those levees and other systems had been neglected for years. It was only a matter of time before all of that failed. But, I do agree that FEMA fucked up.

[AdminAssistant]

*sigh*

FEMA always fucks up. There's been plenty of times that a tornado has wiped a small town off the map where I grew up, with basically no warning, and FEMA always took a week or so to respond. Katrina victims aren't really special in that regard.

[daleduke17]

*sigh*

FEMA always fucks up. There's been plenty of times that a tornado has wiped a small town off the map where I grew up, with basically no warning, and FEMA always took a week or so to respond. Katrina victims aren't really special in that regard.

There's steps you have to go through to get FEMA to respond. The state has to request FEMA assistance before they come. So, tornado hits... local EMA starts handling it... state EMA gets involved if it is more than local resources can handle... <i>then</i> FEMA gets involved once state EMA tells the governor it's more than they can control.

Plus, a lot of Katrina victims did it to themselves. Instead of sitting there crying about "The government isn't helping us", get off your ass and help yourselves. Did Moore, OK or Greensburg, KS bitch and complain about no government helpafter their tornados? Did the residents of Cedar Rapids, Waterloo or Iowa City sit and wait for help during the floods? No. They picked up the slack and helped themselves until the state and federal government could get there.

[BlaqueKatt]

But under that you had the weakening of regulations on financial institutions under a Republican majority congress as well. <snip> Leading to many Americans living beyond their means on borrowed dollars. ( Sub prime mortgage ftw? )

Actually the senate finance comittee was run by Democrats-this was discussed in a previous thread (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=698) and quite clearly addressed By Fashion Lad



What Bush wanted to do is regulate these businesses that were losing money on these subprime loans. No longer would people with bad credit or no credit be able to get a house. Only people that would be able to pay for their houses would be able to own a home. That makes sense, right? In 2008 alone Bush brought this up 17 times, each time blocked by democrats.

Once again, with the bill that was signed in 1999, if banks did not issue enough subprime mortgages, they were either sued or fined. They had to issue these high-risk loans that got us into this mess.

Bush wanted this requirement of banks to be abolished. This is the requirement that put people into houses they could not afford. Now tell me, how is this bad policy? And tell me again, how is when the democrats blocked this 17 times in 2008 alone, and who knows how many times throughout Bush's entire presidency not their fault?

Every Republican voted for it. There is a "neat" little procedural element in lawmaking called committees. The "committee" that held hearings on the new regulations for Freddie and Fannie was the Senate Banking and Finance Committee. The bill never made it out of committee because EVERY single Democrat voted against it. Yep, the same guys throwing stones at glass houses today, Schumer, Frank and Dodd all voted against it and now say it is completely the Republican's fault.

That's why even though the Republicans held the majority the bill never finalized.

[PepperElf]

Followed by the massive increase in defense spending after 9/11
Um... gee i wonder why.

people were screaming left and right "you aren't doing enough, how could you let this happen!"
(tho ironically they then started screaming "how dare you increase security" etc)


but... yes, specifics would be nice. much nicer than generalizations like "bush sucks, he ruined hte economy!!!!11!!"

[Boozy]

Fine, here's something specific:

The economy was booming throughout most of the 90's, and the vast majority of economists were concerned about it overheating. This would cause a bubble (predictably, in the real estate sector), which in turn would burst (since they always do).

There are several ways to avoid overheating, and the central banks of most successful economies practice these tactics: First, you raise interest rates to slow inflation and encourage saving. Second, you avoid government stimulus or overspending.

Bush did neither of these things. He urged Greenspan to keep interest rates absurdly low following 9/11 (the Fed is supposed to be nominally independent, but in practice the President has a great deal of influence over their decisions). Bush also blew the entire budget surplus on tax cuts. This is unheard of when the economy is pumping along nicely.

Both actions inflated the sub-prime bubble, and more importantly, it was entirely predictable that these actions would eventually blow-up in our faces. Bush had dozens of people telling him this, but he didn't listen.

[BlaqueKatt]

Both actions inflated the sub-prime bubble, and more importantly, it was entirely predictable that these actions would eventually blow-up in our faces. Bush had dozens of people telling him this, but he didn't listen.

re-read the previous thread I linked to and pay attention to fashion lad's posts(he has links to the relevant articles)-by federal law passed in 1999(under Clinton)banks had to offer sub-prime loans or receive huge fines from the federal government-Bush tried to get this under control at least 17 times in 2008-the senate finance committee run exclusively by democrats voted against it every single time-how is the subprime mortgage crisis his fault again?

[Boozy]

First of all, it's incredibly silly to blame either party for the entire mess. I've made it clear that I consider this a bipartisan issue.

Second, I do not respond to articles from sites like NewsBusters whose tag line is "Exposing Liberal Media Bias". :rolleyes: Such a tag line only exposes that they are biased.

[Lachrymose]

I blame George Washington for being the start of it all. :p

[IDrinkaRum]

I blame George Washington for being the start of it all. :p

Technically, you have to blame King George III who, with his over taxation of the colonies and such, lead us to revolt against him, thereby coming up with the need of a new government. :p

[Gravekeeper]

Um... gee i wonder why.
people were screaming left and right "you aren't doing enough, how could you let this happen!"


Yeah....and the government went "OMFG YOU COULD ALL DIE AT ANY MOMENT FROM TERRORISTS SEE WE EVEN MADE A THREAT CHART".

If you tell people they could be killed ANY SECOND BY EBIL MUSLIMZ day in and day out they're going to start screaming for you to protect them.

Than you take all that and go "IRAQ!". >.>



First of all, it's incredibly silly to blame either party for the entire mess. I've made it clear that I consider this a bipartisan issue.

Second, I do not respond to articles from sites like NewsBusters whose tag line is "Exposing Liberal Media Bias". Such a tag line only exposes that they are biased.

I'm with Boozy on this one. I read the article in question but it was a little....yeah. zomigawd liberalz and minorities.

[Rapscallion]

Technically, you have to blame King George III who, with his over taxation of the colonies and such, lead us to revolt against him, thereby coming up with the need of a new government. :p

Technically, you might have to blame the pilgrim fathers (and mothers), or even the people oppressing them... (This could go back quite a bit further :p)

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

Stupid Charles II....it's all HIS fault.

:p

[Slytovhand]

<sigh>



It was the Greeks, I tell you!, and more precisely, the Athenians under Cleisthenes - if he hadn't've come up with this whole 'democracy' thing, we wouldn't be having governments to elect, and then spend the money, on other attacking other governments that weren't democracies... like Sparta! :D

[BlaqueKatt]

Second, I do not respond to articles from sites like NewsBusters whose tag line is "Exposing Liberal Media Bias". :rolleyes: Such a tag line only exposes that they are biased.


I suppose the washington post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html) is biased as well-as is a news story from 2003 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea8_1221606601)--those are both from the thread

[Estil]

Actually up until about 2006 or so the economy was doing just fine. The D's got control of Congress that year because the Iraq War wasn't going over so well, NOT because of the economy. Since then, the Iraq War has gone better while the economy has of course gone into its current recession. Congress, not the President has the power of the purse and the economy didn't really begin to go south until the D's got control of Congress. Coincidence?

[BroomJockey]

Coincidence?

Probably. It takes a long time to turn a big ship, after all.

[guywithashovel]

Actually up until about 2006 or so the economy was doing just fine. The D's got control of Congress that year because the Iraq War wasn't going over so well, NOT because of the economy. Since then, the Iraq War has gone better while the economy has of course gone into its current recession. Congress, not the President has the power of the purse and the economy didn't really begin to go south until the D's got control of Congress. Coincidence?

As a registered independent, I think that for the most part, that was a coincidence. As several people here have pointed out, this mess has been a bipartisan thing.

Also, I would like to point out two things.

1. In 2007 and 2008, the Dems only had hairline majorities in both houses of Congress. In fact, they only controlled the Senate by (I think) one seat.

2. Bush still had to give his signature to anything they passed, so unless any destructive measures were passed with enough votes to override a veto, I think he would still deserve part of the blame.

[AFPheonix]

There were warnings before 2006 that crap was going to go down. The housing market bubble simply was untenable.
The roots of the problem were grounded in several administrations before Bush, but he didn't do a whole lot to stop the process, and in fact exacerbated it with dropping taxes while increasing his deficit spending. You do not deficit spend during good times. You pay down debt and improve infrastructure during good times.

[guywithashovel]

Also, Congress doesn't have 100% control over the economy. There's also the Federal Reserve.

It actually kind of amuses me that when bad things happen in this country, the Dems and GOP will always find ways to blame it on each other. For example, many Republicans are saying that all the crap we're dealing with now is because of Bill Clinton's policies.

In response to that, I always ask if Jimmy Carter should get credit for Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America."

For those who may not know, "Morning in America" was the theme of Reagan's re-election campaign in 1984.

[Caveat Emptor]

He turned the first budget surplus in decades into the biggest deficit EVER by being in the pocket of the corporate fatcats, not restraining their malfeasance, greed and giving them tax breaks, and compounding lie after lie to "justify" invading Iraq, which as mentioned has cost hundreds of billions. He oriented his entire cabinet at the beginning around neoconservative warmongers so he could find some kind of "justification" for the war; if 9/11 hadn't happened, dollars to donuts he, Rummy, Dicky and Wolfy would have focused entirely on "WMD WMD WMD."

[Pagan]

Plus, a lot of Katrina victims did it to themselves. Instead of sitting there crying about "The government isn't helping us", get off your ass and help yourselves. Did Moore, OK or Greensburg, KS bitch and complain about no government helpafter their tornados? Did the residents of Cedar Rapids, Waterloo or Iowa City sit and wait for help during the floods? No. They picked up the slack and helped themselves until the state and federal government could get there.

Exactly. After the Cerro Grande fire in 2000 that burned half of Los Alamos and threatened LANL, people didn't sit around whining about how the government has to help them. The gov declared an emergency and FEMA came in. The fire started on 5/4 was declared a major disaster on 5/13 (by Bush), and within about a week FEMA was there doing what they do. http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=17417

Part of the problem with Katrina is that the mayor of New Orleans and the Gov of LA waited too long to tell people to evacuate. They knew where that storm was heading for almost a week. With the levees, the Army Corps of Engineers had been saying for years that they wouldn't hold up. Again, though, they have to be asked to come in. Guess what was never done?

Um... gee i wonder why.

people were screaming left and right "you aren't doing enough, how could you let this happen!"
(tho ironically they then started screaming "how dare you increase security" etc)


This goes back to the Ford Administration hamstringing the CIA. Some years ago Dave Barry said that we needed the "Department of Two Guys Named Vinnie". I'm beginning to think he's not wrong.

Technically, you might have to blame the pilgrim fathers (and mothers), or even the people oppressing them... (This could go back quite a bit further :p)

Rapscallion

Or the Vikings that were in Newfoundland in the 10th century, or Henry Sinclair's possible trip @1380? :p

"WMD WMD WMD."

Now, I'm not saying if the war is right or not, but ask the Kurds if Hussein wasn't a WMD....

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The world's greatest WMD is without a doubt the Kalashnikov series of assault rifles, most of all the AK47, and those who wield them.

[BroomJockey]

The world's greatest WMD is without a doubt the Kalashnikov series of assault rifles, most of all the AK47, and those who wield them.

... Have you seen the movie "Lord of War"?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Yep, one of my favorites. The point though, is that humanity enabled through cheap and indiscriminately provided weaponry is more dangerous than any nuke.

I'm actually more of a H&K fan anyway, as evidenced by the Airsoft HK MP5 replica pictured above. i also plan to get a G36 to mod into an MG36 later and a USPM as used by Lara Croft, all H&K weapons. Kinda breaks the mood that I use a Colt .45 Tactical at the moment, but I digress (big time, sorry!)

Anyway, I wouldn't say Bush ruined the economy. His administration did with his help and support :D

[BroomJockey]

Yep, one of my favorites.

Figured, since that was nearly a direct quote. Good flick.