President Bush Ruined the economy!!

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
For the other members of this thread, that will listen to the facts, all you need to do is take a look at this graph, which shows US DEBT as a pecentage of DFP from 1940 thru 2007, the last full year for which figures are available.

z.about.com...

Notice two things- From 1945 thru 1950, Debt as a % of GDP was ABOVE 100%, and resulted in the biggest boom to housing and the economy since the early part of the 20th century.

From 1950 to 1957, the % was above current figures.

Notice that during the Clinton years, the % was roughly equivalent to the figures for the Bush W. years.

Pure dollar amounts of Debt are a meaningless indicator. It is the % of GDP that is the figure to be looking at.

As for your other comments about my lack of knowledge, I can only laugh, but won't fall into your trap there. Again, if you're so interested in economics, try learning the basics first. However, I doubt you are really interested in the field. You just want another reason to bash Bush. I could care less about Bush, but I do care about ATS's motto to deny ignorance. Several members on this thread had laid out facts which are verifiable, but you just ignore them, and continue your rants. Have a nice day.




posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Dodecahedral
 


You are blaming Bush because you are letting emotions run your argument.

Bush is just a part of a much larger picture. The federal deficit is a very small part of this. The entire economy of the planet is wreaked. To the tune of close to 60 trillion dollars. This is why 1 trillion or even 5 trillion bailouts will not work. Everything being thrown on the mess is wasted money just to build time.

As for your comparisons to what Bush has spend compared to other presidents is apples and oranges. Ive seen these figures before and no inflation is taken into account. You realize that in 1990 dollars, WW2 cost over 2 trillion, much more now. You need to take inflation into account of the time frame used. Iraq ain't looking to bad now.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
You guys explain to me how a 10 trillion+ debt is good in this economy?

Some of you are still complaining about NAFTA and jobs because you don't know what a consumer based means.

In a consumer based economy we are borrowing and consuming and other countries are holding our debt as we consume their goods.

By any measure Bush has borrowed and spent us into oblivion. This is not emotion but fact.

HE BORROWED MORE MONEY FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS IN 4 YEARS THAN 42 PRESIDENTS COMBINED.

HE GAVE OUT 12 VETOS VS CLINTON 37 AND REAGAN 78.

HE SPENT MORE ON NON-DEFENSE SPENDING THAN CLINTON AND MORE ON DEFENSE SPENDING THAN REAGAN.

You guys don't understand that much debt is not good in a global economy because we are not producers but consumers.

I want you to explain how this much debt is a good thing.

Yes, other factors are involved but we could handle stuctural problems if we had a 3 or 4 trillion dollar debt. It's just common sense.

If you borrow and spend you will go broke if your not producing goods like you used to.

Bush gave a tax cut with borrowed money and then increased spending.

Again, that's like using the credit card and then spending all of your savings.

YOUR NOT PAYING ANY BILLS!!!

It's not that hard to understand.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Dodecahedral
 


You are exactly right but when you put this true in the face of many out there they will crucified you for telling the true.

Actually I call Bush spending frenzy during his presidency like that of a drunken sailor.

Ooops I may not be that far from the true.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Dodecahedral
 


Alan Greenspan ruined the economy.



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Yeah he got that tittle as the fallen guy, but then again you can not run a nation with spending alone and forget that without the wealth building you are going to go bankrupt at some point.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
So you are not blaming the Congress who sponsored, supported and passed the spending bills? You are just blaming the President for not vetoing them....?

Interesting



you seem to forget that for the majority of his 2 terms, Bush had a Republican Congress.
In sum, it was the REPUBLICANS who single-handedly ruined this economy, in bended-knee subservience to Corporations, all while claiming to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" Yeah right.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
For the other members of this thread, that will listen to the facts, all you need to do is take a look at this graph, which shows US DEBT as a pecentage of DFP from 1940 thru 2007, the last full year for which figures are available.

z.about.com...

Notice two things- From 1945 thru 1950, Debt as a % of GDP was ABOVE 100%, and resulted in the biggest boom to housing and the economy since the early part of the 20th century.

From 1950 to 1957, the % was above current figures.

Notice that during the Clinton years, the % was roughly equivalent to the figures for the Bush W. years.

Pure dollar amounts of Debt are a meaningless indicator. It is the % of GDP that is the figure to be looking at.

As for your other comments about my lack of knowledge, I can only laugh, but won't fall into your trap there. Again, if you're so interested in economics, try learning the basics first. However, I doubt you are really interested in the field. You just want another reason to bash Bush. I could care less about Bush, but I do care about ATS's motto to deny ignorance. Several members on this thread had laid out facts which are verifiable, but you just ignore them, and continue your rants. Have a nice day.


What a load of tripe. first of all you sink to the Ad Hominem, then you steal MY sources posted in another thread where you and your ilk were proven WRONG. All the so-called conservatives just cant STAND it that they are really HYPOCRITES. They talk "fiscal responsibility" but SPEND like a kid in a candy store! It is a FACT FACT FACT that during CONSERVATIVE administrations, the spending is through the roof! And to prove it AGAIN, I direct you to my post from that other thread:

my data sources in earlier thread

I dont know where you went to school but I would think you know how to balance a checkbook. Not only that but your interpretation of the debt-to-GDP ratio is astounding!
you point to the years between 1945 and 1950 as if that were some sort of financial legerdemain by the President, when in reality, the economy owed much to the tail end of the war! Also: How can it be that we look at the same graph and you cant see that down the line, the highest spenders equate with the largest debt accumulation?
in my other chart, from the years 1978-2005, Democratic Presidents had a 9.9% increase in Federal Spending with a 12.6% increase in the GDP. Republican Presidents during that same time frame, on the other hand had a 12.1% increase in Federal Spending against only a 10.7% increase in the GDP. So: from 1978 to 2005 (and you know its gonna be worse when you factor in Bush's 2nd term) Republican Presidents spent MORE and the GDP was LESS.

Also, your comment about the Clinton debt being equivalent to Bush Sr is misleading. Clinton INHERITED Bush's debt, and by the end of his 2nd term completely ERASED it!
Thats something I daresay you'll not see again in YOUR lifetime, or maybe even your children's....folks are gonna look back on the Clinton years as the Golden Age...as well they should.


[edit on 11/29/08 by irishgrl]



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dodecahedral
President Bush RUINED the economy!!

He didn't help matters but he hardly runs the entire nation by himself.

The democratic congress is also to blame.
The idiots like Barney Frank are also to blame.
Groups like ACORN - supported by Obama - are definately to blame.

The bildebergers are also to blame.
They engineered this for their own gain.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by irishgrl
In sum, it was the REPUBLICANS who single-handedly ruined this economy,

Barney Frank gets off without even a handslap, eh?

National Review ACORN - and groups like it who pushed affirmative action style lending practices to the delight (and with the help) of democrats including Obama - have nothing to do with it, eh?

US News I just loooooove this little quote Barney Frank made five years ago - "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


Yeah right.

Yeah right ... bachatchya.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by irishgrl
In sum, it was the REPUBLICANS who single-handedly ruined this economy,

Barney Frank gets off without even a handslap, eh?

National Review ACORN - and groups like it who pushed affirmative action style lending practices to the delight (and with the help) of democrats including Obama - have nothing to do with it, eh?

US News I just loooooove this little quote Barney Frank made five years ago - "These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


Yeah right.

Yeah right ... bachatchya.


1) you get an "F" for originality (Yeah RIGHT)
2) 5 years ago, Freddie and Fannie WERENT in financial crisis! That occurred more recently, and was caused by unscrupulous lenders offering loans to obviously unsuitable borrowers.
3) ACORN is not responsible for the housing market crash, I dont care HOW you spin it.
nobody forced those bankers to loan to risky lenders, they were purely motivated by GREED. Trying to blame ACORN is just assinine.
4) how the heck did Obama become part of this? Next thing you know, he'll be responsible for Alien Invasion and crop failures.
back atcha. spell it right!



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by dalan.
 




The Fed aided and abetted, but again, the ultimate cause was allowing people who COULD NOT AFFORD to pay back the loans, to receive them. Standards that HAD been in place to prevent such loans, were FORCED by the people I mentioned to be loosened or IGNORED, with severe penalties to any lender that FAILED to APPROVE SUCH LOANS.

The Fed SHOULD be eliminated. I agree;however the ultimate cause of our present world-wide financial crisis was the Housing crisis, and that was caused by the steps I mentioned above. This is not a partisan issue. These are the facts, and any honest economist will tell you that. There is plenty of blame to go around- the government, ACORN, the lenders, AND the buyers, who should have READ the mortgage contracts that they signed. You shouldn't make the purchase of your life without investigating the consequences, and the costs. Unfortunately, those 95% of us that did nothing wrong, and were responsible, are now stuck picking up the bill for the 5% that were responsible, and the crooked lenders and government officials walk away scott free. America, what a country!


umm...let me see if I can get this into perspective here....
they have thrown enough money at this problem that it would cover half of the mortgages in our country.....
and, it hasn't even touched the problem....
it seems to me, that half of the mortgages in this country aren't that dangerously in trouble anyways. and well, to put it more bluntly, if half of these mortgages are considered to be sub-prime, well, we have bigger problems than some bad mortgages...
now, they are saying that alot of the commercial real estate will be going down also....

there is no way that it all adds up in a way that you can blame a group of subprime borrowers for the problem, or a few laws that were passed a decade or so ago.....if that was the problem, wouldn't we be seeing the problems pop up earlier in the bush administration?

bush and company removed alot of the gov't regulations within the economy, gave the business community free reign and they grabbed it and ran. not only did the fed government refuse to regulate these lenders, but they prevented states that had enough foresight to see the train wreck ahead to regulate them! he wanted the illlusion that all was fine and dandy in the economy so his two wars and massive tax cuts to the richest amoung us could be more easily justified to the masses. the last four or five years have been a grand illusion of a decent economy.....but an illusion that was based on us all going deep into debt. and the ptb clung to that illusion to the bitter end, thus, one week bush is saying how great our economy is, then the next, well....we need to swipe $700 billion from ya all or we will be facing a depression....

they screwed up when they made our debt a commodity that can be exchanged in the markets for a profit....


Companies have survived plenty of downturns, but economists see this one playing out like never before. In the past, when businesses hit rough patches, owners negotiated with banks or refinanced their loans.

But many banks no longer hold the loans they made. Over the past decade, banks have increasingly bundled mortgages and sold them to investors. Pension funds, insurance companies, and hedge funds bought the seemingly safe securities and are now bracing for losses that could ripple through the financial system.

"It's a toxic drug and nobody knows how bad it's going to be," said Paul Miller, an analyst with Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, who was among the first to sound alarm bells in the residential market.

www.google.com...


the loans are spread out all over the place, no one knows who owns what, they can't be refinanced, they can be renegotiated....
heck, in some of these foreclosures, the business trying to foreclose can't even come up with the paperwork to prove they have any rights to the property. it was a free for all and it's crashing and burning!

the little subprimer with his little modest home isn't the problem, I've been window shopping at one of the auctions that is handling some of these foreclosures....

www.williamsauction.com...

for some reason, this doesn't strike me as a subprime loan being bought by someone who couldn't afford to buy a home, it strikes more as someone who wanted luxury, more home than he could afford, but well....they definately could afford to buy a home!!



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by irishgrl
[1) you get an "F" for originality (Yeah RIGHT)

You can stuff your grades. I’m not aiming for ‘originality’.

You really should have read the links and educated yourself before you posted. Make sure to actually read them - that's the purpose of discussion in a discussion forum.


2) 5 years ago, Freddie and Fannie WERENT in financial crisis!

Their practices put them on the path for a major financial crisis. The Financial Services Committee (as well as Alan Greenspan) are paid to understand trends and finances. They are supposed to be experts in the area and they should know what the consequences are of certain practices. It doesn’t matter that the roof hadn’t caved in 5 years ago – it mattered that they were on the path to cave in and Barney Frank refused to act proactively to stop the crisis from happening. The writing was on the wall. Many people – including John McCain – warned him. He refused to take action.

It’s his JOB to stop a financial crisis before it happens.
It’s his JOB to understand consequences. He failed.

If you don’t see that then you don’t understand the purpose of the Financial Services Committee. (which a democrat was running)


3) ACORN is not responsible for the housing market crash,

It is absolutely part of the problem that caused the crash.

Again – Read the information

Middle America News

Fannie Mae contributed $315,000 to ACORN which in turn threatened financial institutions with federal sanctions if they failed to issue high-risk loans at bargain rates to borrowers of ACORN’s choosing.

Left wing blog with information on how ACORN – which Obama supported with vigor – is partly to blame for the housing/financial crisis


I dont care HOW you spin it. nobody forced those bankers to loan to risky lenders, they were purely motivated by GREED.

Think about what you just said. Bankers want to give out loans that they know they will make money on. However, they gave loans that they knew would fail. Why would they go against the whole purpose of banking – making money – in order to give what they knew was bad loans. The answer is – Chicago mob style intimidation.

Acorn forced businesses and banks, by threats of lawsuits and harassment to approve high risk loans. Community Reinvestment Act lawsuits. Read up. Learn young grasshopper.

Obama sued Citibank under CRA to force bad loans. It was done often – by many people.

Just one example -
Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

Democrats pushed the Community Reinvestment Act lawsuits for their own agenda.

Read Up

Bankers were pushed to make the bad loans. As you said – banks run under the ‘greed’ factor. Bad loans don’t make them any money. They were pushed to make bad loans – loans they knew they couldn’t ever get back – pushed by democrats including Obama.


4) how the heck did Obama become part of this?


You tube -

Obama’s own words ‘ACORN will have a say in his administration’.

Canada Free Press

National Review

Obama/Acorn fact sheet

Obama and Acorn – his words


back atcha. spell it right!

My spelling is fine. backatchya.. :shk:


Trying to blame ACORN is just assinine.

Actually, giving ACORN and other affirmative action style lenders a free pass, and saying that the Republicans ‘single handedly’ caused the financial crisis, is what is asinine. (to quote you - spell it right
)



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx


you are right about the "blame"...but it does tend to look like the republicans haven't done anything for the middle class and the poor for along time.


So the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, the largest entitlement since Social Security, is not about helping the Middle class and the Poor? Say what you will about the program, it has helped more than it has hurt almost every Senior who takes medicine. I actually help people pick the correct plan for them, so I know what I am talking about. And before you start to clamor about "well Seniors are still paying a lot for their drugs", you would do well to research how much it would have cost the taxpayer to have a "free drug" plan for Seniors, it would have really busted the budget.

Presidents get far too much credit when the economy is good and far too much criticism when the economy is bad.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Presidents get far too much credit when the economy is good and far too much criticism when the economy is bad.

Amen. You are so right. To point at one person and say they are totally responsible is pure bunk. Sure - they have a lot of input. But that one person - be he/she democrat or republican (or something else) - doesn't carry the entire load.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



Think about what you just said. Bankers want to give out loans that they know they will make money on. However, they gave loans that they knew would fail. Why would they go against the whole purpose of banking – making money – in order to give what they knew was bad loans. The answer is – Chicago mob style intimidation.

Acorn forced businesses and banks, by threats of lawsuits and harassment to approve high risk loans. Community Reinvestment Act lawsuits. Read up. Learn young grasshopper.


umm.....the fact that they could just turn around and label them as AAA, bundle them up so noone would know the difference and make their money back on them in a weeks time kind of took all their risk off of them....
who cared if the people paid it back or not...



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Writing them off is not the same as having a money making loan.
Banks want the money coming in.
They were sued - as I showed - by ACORN and others.
They were forced to make many bad loans.

Sure - some loans were probably typical bad investment types.

But many were forced.

Forced by ACORN lawyers (Obama was one of them) and forced by other similar groups. Forced through intimidation and lawsuits.

These bad loans absolutely did have a major negative effect on the economy.

It wasn't a bunch of republicans who 'singlehandedly' ruined the economy.

There were many different people, from many different political affiliations, who were responsible.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   
www.americanfreepress.net...

the article above explains the financial problem at a laymens level

the article below explains our financial crisis in a more informative and technical level

newsgroups.derkeiler.com...

everybody might want to consider why even wall street is freaking out



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Dodecahedral
 




I place most of the blame for the economy on President Bush and then the Congress.


Do not place the blame on just the Rebooblicans, The DemiRats are just as much to blame. The "off-shoring" of American jobs was a bipartisan move. If you want to assign blame it belongs to CLINTON since technically the WTO and "freedom to farm" were signed under his watch. However it was a joint effort by BOTH parties.

Clinton was President of the United States from 1993 to 2001.. "He led the United States into the North American Free Trade Agreement. And He won Congressional approval for the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which lowered tariffs and provided for a World Trade Organization (WTO)." www.answers.com...


The policies of the United States government have created an inherently unfair marketplace and these policies are sacrificing 100,000’s of American jobs and 10,000’s of American businesses...

The “World is Flat” because the U.S. has lowered its standards for foreign companies and allows them to compete without meeting American standards for doing business...

The United States government has established standards for workplace safety, environmental safety, minimum wages, access to healthcare, retirement benefits,... and enforcement of contracts. [China and others to not mean these standards so the USA worker can not compete with what is essentially slave labor]

A few well positioned consultants, buy-out firms, politicians, managers, and business owners are reaping millions of dollars of short term gains, at the expense of American jobs and businesses....

www.freeandfair.us...


The WTO "WORLD TRADE REPORT 2005 C" (no longer on internet) even mentions the export of a half million? American jobs as not being important!
www.wto.org...
www.uscc.gov...



Bill Clinton Admits Global Free Trade Policy has Forced Millions Of People into Poverty. www.agmates.com...

Former US president Bill Clinton admits that the US `free trade' policy has forced millions of people in third world countries into poverty and starvation. "Today's global food crisis shows we all blew it, including me when I was president, by treating food crops as commodities instead of as a vital right of the world's poor" Bill Clinton has told a UN gathering.


Where did that food/Ag policy come from?

Dan Amstutz, a former senior executive of Cargill, the biggest grain exporter in the world, served in the Reagan administration as a trade negotiator in the Uruguay round of world trade talks. (GATT) His draft for the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture went into effect in 1995. Amstutz also drafted the "Freedom to Farm" bill that was enacted in 1996.

If Obama elects and Ag Secretary that continues on the path laid out by Cargill's agent, Dan Amstutz, the USA will follow "third world countries into poverty and starvation"




[edit on 29-11-2008 by crimvelvet]

[edit on 29-11-2008 by crimvelvet]

[edit on 29-11-2008 by crimvelvet]



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



I dont care HOW you spin it. nobody forced those bankers to loan to risky lenders, they were purely motivated by GREED.


Think about what you just said. Bankers want to give out loans that they know they will make money on. However, they gave loans that they knew would fail. Why would they go against the whole purpose of banking – making money – in order to give what they knew was bad loans. The answer is – Chicago mob

They made the bad loans then sold them to banks overseas, telling them they were good loans, thats part of the reason the crisis is screwing other countrys.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join