It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Have Bush's Economic Policies led To Recession?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Have Bush's Economic Policies led To Recession?


www.alternet.org

The idea under which Bushenomics was sold is this:

* The rich are the investor class.
* If the rich have more money, they will invest more.
* Their investments will create more business.
* Those businesses will create more wealth, thus improving everyone's lives and making the nation stronger. They will also create new and better jobs.

Whether or not the people who say such things truly believe them, I cannot say. But that's their pitch.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
This article focusses on the privatisation of certain industrys, and asks if the policy of making the rich even richer has backfired.

A good indicator is the GDP, but GDP calculated using the median rather than the mean

In the first six years of the Clinton administration, 13.7 million jobs were created. In the same period, under Bush, only 3.7 million jobs were created. Barely keeping up with population growth, if that. (Source: Fox News)

Now let us look at median income. That's as opposed to average income (If Bill Gates walks into a bar with 10 people, the average income of everyone in the room goes up by $17,5000,000. But the median income just moves up half a notch, from between the fifth and sixth person, to the sixth person's income). From 2001 to 2005, median income, for people under 65, went down $2,000.

That's worth restating. From 2001 to 2005, the income of the average working person declined by $2,000.

source

and this;

A good rough measure of the market value of America's best businesses is the stock market. Under Clinton, the Dow Jones went up 324 percent. Wall-to-wall, after the dot.com bubble burst, it more than tripled in value.

Bush arrived in 2001. Since then the Dow Jones is up just 10 percent. Adjusted for inflation, that's absolutely flat. (It was briefly up 23 percent. It is now below the 10 percent mark, and tumbling down as this is written). Just pain, no gain.

If jobs have not increased, salaries have gone down, and the value of business has not risen, where is that 35 percent growth in the economy?

source

and finally;

There is a number called the M3 money supply.

The M1 is basically cash, plus checking and "current" accounts. The M2 adds savings accounts, money market accounts and CDs up to $100,000. The M3 adds in the big CDs, Eurodollar accounts and other large exotics.

Already rising very fast, the M3 took off like a rocket after 2001. The Fed stopped publishing the M3 in 2006 (conspiracy theorists, please note.) But a quick look at the chart of its growth, and assuming its trajectory continued, clearly shows that the M3 grew by something in the range of 35 percent.

The entire growth of the economy under Bushenomics is accounted for by growth in the money supply.

The administration did not directly inflate the economy by 35 percent.

They pumped it by the size of the deficit.

source

The article is really quite good about explaining the various economic policies of the years since bush came to office - it also points out that bush sr. tried pretty much the same thing but reversed course.

Of course if you have a few tens or hundreds of millions in the bank, this won't worry you too much - as ever it's the average joe who suffers.

www.alternet.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Yeah trickle down economics like Bush Sr believed (believes?) in.

I used to think this worked also, but quite clearly, it does not. Especially when you give the majority of tax dollars to corporations to 'take care of the American public.'

When will these people learn?

Its funny, they don't know its too late...



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
No question. This guy's priorities have DECIMATED our middle class, and continue to plunge us down further into the abyss with each day. It is a real shame the amount of financial destruction he has wreaked upon us.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


I wouldn't give this guy too much credit. I don't think he's intelligent enough to come up with economic policy.

Its possible for the majority of his life he has been acting like a complete dip# and is actually a genius. However, the chances are slim...Papa Bush does most of his thinking and reasoning for him I before his 'puppet masters' showed up (CIA).

This Karl Rove and Cheney's doing (among others). They're the real 'handlers.'


[edit on 1/21/2008 by biggie smalls]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 



True. They are the marrionettes. He's the puppet. LOL

It all makes my stomach turn. These people almost seem determined to destroy the economy / stability of the middle & lower class. Widening the gap of power.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
When you have money as debt and fractional reserve banking you have a recipe for a disaster from the get go.

the quesions are how much real collateral can be collected "foreclosed on" as the bankers extend as much debt as their inovative little minds can come up with and when the debt game is over (consumer tapped out) and the bankers are ready to collect

the politicians are pawns, but they will be blamed, the greenspan's will be blamed by the "smart money" crowd but they are playing a role.

The rockefellar's and the Kissinger's and the Rothschilds are the masterminds and there are probably even a group who is out of the public and media eye who remain anonomous who wield the power as well. I.E the black nobility of europe.

in case you haven't noticed the world financial system this morning, is on the verge of a giant panic.


[edit on 21-1-2008 by cpdaman]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by cpdaman
 


I think tha time is upon the US - and that means a knock on effect for most of the rest of the world in one form or another, like this

So not only has bush screwed his own country, he's also doing it to many others in one form or another.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Are George Bush's economic policies causing an economic recession?

Hmmm...let me see....perhaps it has something to do with that whole three TRILLION dollar deficit that he has buried us all under while playing world police man and oil tycoon. Meanwhile the American infrastrcture has wasted away and gone mostly ignored.

The world markets are plummeting before our own eyes, and when the stock exchange opens here tomorrow morning I am afraid that we are all in a world of ****.

So long retirement...so long stability....adios savings plan. And this "economic stimulus plan" that Bush has proposed is like putting a band aid on to a gun shot wound.

I have sat and listened to my grandfather talk about the great depression and how hard life was for him, but never in my life imagined that I would ever live to see it happen again.

Good luck to eveyone out there, the next six months are going to be really scary times.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BlackOps719
 



Very well said. I remember the last major recession we went through with the deciders daddy, and things were REAL bad.

That being said, I am MUCH more alarmed at this latest recession, it feels like it is going to make the previous one pale in comparison. I think the word DEPRESSION is going to be a regular phrase real soon.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Many people give presidents way too much credit when it comes to the economy. Presidents really have NO control over the economy.

Bush has spent way too much, but that did not cause a recession.

Blame investors/firms, commercial banks, irresponsible consumers, the Federal Reserve, and Congress/Senate for mismanaging the economy.

Bush has done a lot of crap that only hurts the country, but him being the cause of a recession? No.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Really?

So you are saying that policy does not contribute to prosperity or recession?

If this is the case, why do the financial climates change according to the policies of the government of the day?

One thing that this administration has done (according to the article) is to increase the amount of money in circulation - are you saying that this has no effect on the economy?

Maybe I haven't remembered my economics from uni properly - it was part of my business management module, and it was a long time ago, but I was under the impression that one of the fastest ways into recession and inflation is to keep piling money into the economy from nowhere.
In other words, creating the illusion that there is plenty of money by simply printing more.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Laissez-faire capitalism at its best folks. It did the US economy in in the 1920s and it is about to do it again. Bush and his companions sold us all out, I am sure that they all have 'golden parachutes' that will allow them to weather the economic storm that is about to hit the US.

Yes Bush's polices have led to recession. Only they are not his as they are not new. He is just one of many who believe in the form of capitalism that is about to be proven cancerous for the second time.

Capitalism would work fine as long as it is controlled. The deregulation that has occurred over the last 4 presidencies is to blame for this mess, of course along with insane spending (war). Borrowing money to improve infrastructure and increase the physical elements of the economy leads to increased prosperity. Borrowing money to build bombs and bullets, which can only b used once and then thrown away is wasteful and a drain on the riches of a nation (save for the military industrial complex).



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Bush has been about as laissez-faire as Nurse Ratchet. Here are some numbers from a 2006 book "Buck Wild" by econ writer Stephen Slivinski:

Real Annual growth of fed. spending under past 7 presidents:

Johnson.........5.7%
W. Bush.........4.9%
Carter............4.1%
Nixon/Ford......3.0%
Reagan...........2.6%
H.W.Bush........1.9%
Clinton............1.5%

If you take out spending on defense, homeland security & entitlements:

Nixon/Ford...........6.4%
W.Bush................4.5%
Johnson...............4.1%
H.W. Bush.............3.8%
Clinton..................2.1%
Carter...................1.6%
Reagan................-1.4%

So Bush has been about as liberal as they come, at least as measured by gov't spending. He doubled federal spending on education.

I think some posters here are just repeating cliches they've heard on Air America. The facts are otherwise, often 180 degrees otherwise.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by russell b. garrard
 


You seriously believe that Regan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush have not steadily increased the laissez-faire nature of US capitalism? Especially in the case of GW Bush?

Please. Look at What has been done in the energy industry, the media, the military industry. On and on Bush (especially) has removed far too many restraints on these industries and allowed them to run free.

Also I fail to see how your list of annual growth of the fed / spending under the last 7 presidents shows anything in regards to Bush's success or failure in his administration of the economy.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
What 'restraints' has W removed from, say, the energy industry. To the privatize & introduce competition, i.e. promote lassez-faire, is generally a good thing. Note that handing a contract to a crony is not 'laissez-faire;' it's the opposite.

Generally, as gov't grows, laissez-faire declines, hence the significance of the spending growth numbers.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by russell b. garrard
 


I cannot name restraints that Bush alone has removed from the energy industry, but lets not forget the energy crisis in California that was directly linked to deregulation.

This "To the privatize & introduce competition, i.e. promote lassez-faire, is generally a good thing. Note that handing a contract to a crony is not 'laissez-faire;' it's the opposite. " does not even make sense.

laissez-faire by definition, which is slightly hard to translate into English is essentially, "let it be done - with no restraints" "let them/he/she/it do it without interference".

Your assertion that Laissez-faire equals introducing competition and privatization is false. Both of these are surely part of a healthy capitalist economy. When I first used the concept in this thread it was to identify and condemn the current form of capitalism in which government restraints over cooperate actions have been removed.

In such a situation we LOOSE competition. We LOOSE transparency. We LOOSE all the things that control capitalism and prevent it from running amok.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
'Laissez-faire' may not be a very clear term. In particular, it is not usually used in connection with anarchism although it's easy for a disingenuous or confused debater to morph it in that direction. Anyway, I used it because that was the term previously used (I think by you) to describe Bush's policies. Probably 'market-based' or some such terminology is better. The bottom line is that Bush has not been a free-market, limited gov't guy.

I can see how you think the CA energy problems were caused by 'deregulation' since that mantra was repeated ad infinitum by the MSM. But if you go back and look at the details, there was not 'deregulation.' There was a 1996 restructuring, which in fact involved the creation of new regulatory bodies. It was a mess. Some prices were allowed to float, and some not. I recommend the coverage of CA-based Reason Magazine on this, if you're interested.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
PS note that the CA energy crisis developed before Bush even took office, anyway.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by russell b. garrard
 


Please note that I was talking about the past FOUR presidents.

Edit: Also I did not see your first reply. It is funny you would write my talk of deregulation in California off to MSM as I do not use media outlets such as this. It is always easier to try to disparage someones information rather than actually showing how they are wrong.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by Animal]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join