President Bush Ruined the economy!!

reply to post 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.

Very interesting. I will be the first to say I know little or nothing about economics. However as a hopefully intelligent person it has bothered me that more and more American workers and capital is diverted from PRODUCING to dealing with government regulations. A look at the last census indicates around 14% of those employed work directly for the US government and only 11% actually produce such as factory workers, miners, lumberjacks, farmers and the like. Everyone else is lawyers, accountants, managers, sales clerks or in some other type of supporting role.

If we as a country continue to produce more red tape than goods how much longer before we crash and burn? Especially when the WTO "Free Trade Agreement" has exported many of the jobs in that 11% since the last census.

reply to post by Dodecahedral

If you really believe that the current financial crisis is the result of excessive spending by President Bush and Congress over the past eight years, then you show a complete lack of understanding of not only the U.S. economy, but also the crisis itself.

The situation we find ourselves in right now is the result of YEARS and YEARS of politicians, mostly on the left, exerting their influence on banks and legislators to give home loans to people who otherwise would never get them. They felt that in addition to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that EVERY American had the right to own a home regardless of their ability to afford it. This is just one cause of the problem, but it is certainly the catalyst for the situation we find ourselves in right now.

Anyone who knows anything about political science and the Executive Branch will tell you that an American president has little to nothing to do with the economy improving or declining, especially during their time in office. And while I do fault Bush for his excessive spending, I also must point out the complicity of congress, which I feel that you do fall short in doing. Remember, President Bush can only give his requested budget to congress. It is up to congress, in this case a democratically-controlled congress, to support it or butcher it. Clearly they had no problem with his spending because they approved it time after time, often adding spending of their own. However, according to the Messiah Barrack Obama, pork barrel spending only amounted to something like $17billion dollars last year, which is relatively nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Of course President Bush is going to be among, if not THE, biggest spenders in US history... he is funding TWO WARS!! He's also attempting to rebuild a military that was gutted by the Clinton Administration. Additionally, we were attacked on 9/11, and the American people demanded changes and improvements in our homeland security, our intelligence gathering methods and departments, etc., etc. It makes perfect sense that President Bush would be the biggest spender in history. In fact, I wouldn't expect anything but.

Try putting things into perspective before you jump on the Bush-bashing bandwagon. While he is not innocent in this thing, he is certainly not the real cause of it. In fact, the real blame lies with us, the American people, and the idiots we continue to elect and send to Washington, and the Wall Street cronies that they appoint to key financial positions in the federal government where they reward all of their buddies in their former companies.

reply to post by seagull

So Congress and the President work in a vacuum? Who are the people who keep electing the same people year after year? Hmmm? That would be you and me. The ultimate blame, if lay blame you must, belongs squarely on our shoulders, the American voters who keep letting them get away with it.

Do we actually have a real choice in who we vote for? The rise and fall of Ron Paul is an excellent example that the American public has a choice of Candidate A backed by big business or Candidate B backed by big business. It is megabucks that makes the choice, the American public just gets to watch the circus. Any real choice who is different gets ridiculed and buried. And no this is not a debate about Ron Paul but an example on how efficiently TPTB can bury an alternate candidate.

reply to post by Rasputin13


I'm a conservative and this is the problem with the American people.

You and others want to defend Bush because he has a R next to his name and I can care less if it was a republican or a democrat.

If anyone borrows and spends like this it's bad for this country especially while we are in a global economy.

People trying to make excuses for this irresponsible behaviour are part of the problem.

There's no reason for Bush to borrow more money from foreign governments than 42 Presidents combined.

There's no reason for Bush not to lift a finger to control spending and reduce the scope and size of government with a republican congress for 6 years.

Bush didn't pay for anything. He borrowed money and increased the size of government and he didn'tuse the Veto pen.

People have to stop being SHEEP just because a person is a republican or a democrat. I'm a conservative butI don't define myself by these lables.

Anyone with a shred of common sense knows that this debt is bad for the country.

In a global economy we switch from producers to consumers because of cheap labor.

Anyone who has ran a household budget knows if your debt is bigger than your income and you can't get anymore credit. You are headed for bankruptcy.

This is where America is headed because of Bush and massive borrowing and spending.

He borrowed money and didn't pay any bills!!

This is why Obama is stressing jobs because we have to either tax or produce ourselves out of this debt because Bush has moved us from a consumer nation to a debt nation with his irresponsible borrowing and spending.

i could care less if he has a R or D next to his name, facts are facts.

Originally posted by seagull
So Congress and the President work in a vacuum? Who are the people who keep electing the same people year after year? Hmmm? That would be you and me. The ultimate blame, if lay blame you must, belongs squarely on our shoulders, the American voters who keep letting them get away with it.

President Bush ruined the economy...makes for great headlines and title to a thread, but it's no more true than if I blamed the Winged Monkeys from the Wizard of Oz. You want to blame someone? Blame everyone who voted the critters into office, than didn't bother to exercize oversite. Again, that would be you and me.

Unfortunately, in the case of Bush, he was NOT fairly elected, he was handed his Presidency by the Supreme Court. Al Gore was clearly ahead in the total popular votes and I found sites that indicated that a recount by independent newspapers showed Gore won Florida as well. Diebold did their bit to rig the machines, and legitimate voters were turned away at the polls due to bogus purging or false claims that ID's were fake. The entire 2000 election was RIGGED. Thus, neither you nor I voted for Bush. I know I certainly didnt, not then and not in 2004 either.

IMO it wasn't just Mr B. I dont thin khe's smart enough to understand these things anyway. Someone probably just told him what to do and he did it. While I do believe he's a horrible person, I don't really think he had a choice in the matter

reply to post by FlyersFan

[snip]. ACORN is no more responsible for this mess than you or I. Neither is Obama.
And pointing fingers at Barney Frank is scapegoat mentality. The TRUE BLAME lies with the Bankers! Bush gave them a free pass, by deregulating the whole industry. And YES, bankers would make bad loans out of greed, because as far as they could see, it was a WIN/WIN situation, they get the $$$$ the borrowers can pay for as long as they can pay it, and the property (which they thought they would just re-sell) when they cant pay it. So it was pure GREED by the Bankers.

Blaming Alan Greenspan and Barney Frank is typical finger pointing when everyone knows that Bernanke's bailout was bad precedent. As a previous poster noted, enough money was thrown at this problem to have paid off all the subprime loans (and countless others) and yet, there is no way to know where the money went, Bernanke saw to it there was no oversight, and Bushwad rubber stamped it. Under Alan Greenspan and President Clinton, our budget was balanced. Bush inherited a surplus, which he quickly went through. Any problems that developed with Freddie Mac or Fannie May were solely the responsibility of BUSH, his lousy policies and his partners in crime.

Your sources, and your spin, are off base sorry.



Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

As much as most would like to just blame Bush, that's just naive. He had plenty of help. Can't really say I blame a Republican controlled Congress either. The Democrats are just as bad. Blaming any of them is sort of like blaming the needle for getting the junkie high.

If you want to place blame and get it correct, you'll have to place it on those who control these so called public servants from behind the scenes. Blame the two major parties, their respective leadership, and the special interests that keep them bought and paid for. Blame the Fed which is beyond ridiculousness. In short, don't blame the tool, blame the one wielding it.

I personally hope Obama taxes the mega-Multinational Corporations who have outsourced all the jobs in search of the almighty profit margin. I hope that every company who takes their operations offshore is taxed heavily to be able to sell back in the US. on EVERY item. I also hope that the rust belt is brought back to life, that small farmers are given autonomy over their own farms again. I hope infrastructure projects are brought back, there are certainly enough projects such as road paving/repair and bridge building/repair or even new projects like wind tunnels or solar arrays that might be started...there's a lot that could be done, but we as a Nation would need to go back to our industrial roots.

Since it all begins with education, I'd like to see teachers paid what they are worth, and financial incentives restored to the financial aid area. We need to realize that the arts and sciences are crucial to a well rounded society. I think we also need to remember the doctrine of separation of Church and State and keep our collective noses out of people's private lives. Let special interest lobbyists know that our Representatives' votes cant be bought.....just some ideas I'd like to see implemented.....

Check this out:

50-Year Record on Sept. 22. $10 Trillion on Sept. 30, 2008.

The gross national debt compared to GDP (how rich we are) reached its lowest level since 1931 as Reagan took office in 1981. It skyrocketed for 12 years through Bush senior. Clinton reversed it at a peak of 67%. Bush junior crossed that line on Sept. 22 and hit 69% on Sept 30. That's the highest it's been since 1955. (sources)

Bush did three things to skyrocket the debt from $5.7 trillion to $10 trillion:
1. He lowered taxes on the rich (by far the biggest item).
2. He invaded Iraq instead of winning in Afghan-Pakistan (another $600 B).
3. He deregulated Wall Street speculators. That bailout has now "invested" $1T

zfacts.com...

The graph on the sight shows how irresponsible Bush wa with America's money. He borrowed your money, our childrens's money and your grand childrens money.

I would also add his growth n government. He cut taxes which would be fine if he would have controlled spending and reduced the scope and size of government.

When you cut taxes, you don't have the money to pay for the increase in government spending and the debt will grow.

It's like saying your going to save money by using your credit card and not your savings. So you max out the credit cards and the money that you have spent is way more than your savings and then you are in trouble.

Bush borrowed and spent us into OBLIVION!! His tax cuts and dregulation has sent the money he borrowed upwards instead of paying for his increase in government spending. This is why the gap between the rich and the poor has increased.

Bush was only president of america, it's not really his fault, it's the people who voted for him. A famous old saying goes something like this: "A nation and its people get the leader they deserve".

I wouldn't blame Bush first and foremost for this problem. He definitely didn't help and he did contribute but he wasn't the first to blame. Here is my list:

Federal Reserve:
lowering and keeping interest rates too low for too long and expanding the money supply by making money really cheap.

Congress:
Uncontrollable spending and making lenders go into less affluent neighborhoods so minorities and the poor can get homes.

Mortgage Lenders:
Made it a priority to get the uneducated into ARM's and assured them it was fine because home prices always increased even if they couldn't afford it.

Uneducated people:
For putting themselves in that position as well as knowing they couldn't afford it yet still buying it.

Banks:
Packaging up these mortgages into CDO's which cost 100-10000 times more than the actual mortgages (hence why trillions of dollars have been lost) and giving them to other banks and investors with high interest rates attached.

Insurance agencies:
They never had the money to back up all the bad bonds that they were insuring.

Bond Rating agencies:
Rating these bad mortgage bonds AAA and other near perfect ratings when in fact they would all fail if housing prices fell.

So you see, to blame president Bush as the main perpetrator of this crisis is wrong. I would like you to look at the first two institutions where this originate and realize that this is GOVERNMENT and other institutional interventions in the markets that originally caused this mess.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by RetinoidReceptor]

WE need to quit playing the blame game, this goes way back, it has been snowballing ,

plus we had a hand in it,

the American and global community needs to take a bit of the blame

We of the sinking middle class may sink without further struggles into the working class where we belong, and probably when we get there it will not be so dreadful as we feared, for, after all, we have nothing to lose.
George Orwell

to all the folks that believe Bush was elected, I say, pure bunkum. Bush was HANDED his Presidency by the Supreme Court. He no more got elected than you or I.

let the middle class sink. They got there because in a competitive society they picked the easy route. Well, what's easy comes quickly but what's hard comes with effort.

You wanna drop out of High School and work at Blockbuster till your 30, go ahead.

BUT, don't cry to mommy when you can't get the new Mercedes.

Americans used to produce things, make things, we were industry leaders.

Now we don't, we just consume. We use what the world makes.

We don't save. We just borrow, credit cards dry though. That's the problem.

The world will soon leave us out to dry.

The middle class, if you are whining now, you will be crying soon.

It is your fault too, surely such ignorance as the one you displayed can only usually be found in my adolescent sister, a rare condition of exhausted ignorance and the supreme confidence in your self!

They need to get fired from their jobs retailing right. Becuase in a capitalist society they are not being productive enough. So we find them new jobs where they can produce, make stuff, goods, new goods, stuff the world wants, we get back to exporting, the middle class earns a good pay and they get to fill up on their Wal Mart shopping carts, and even get to go see their local professional sports team play a game or 2.

But, make no mistake about it, the rich will become middle class, the middle class will become poor, the poor will become peasants.

Such is the order of things to come: namely, realignment.

Originally posted by semperfortis

Liberal is a Political Ideology

You saying it is something else in no way validates that premise

Much like your definition of NeoCon

Your opinion, wrong, but yours no less

I know Liberal is a political ideology. I make the point that you use it in the way initiated by that paragon of ethics President Nixon. i.e. as a cosh to beat the people to the left of the super-right.

Elsewhere in the world, it is not a derogatory term. The USA has become so right-wing it is getting scary.

I can't be bothered refuting your opinions as I have already done so in my previous post, which you have chosen to ignore, and repeating will have no effect on your opinion. Bye

[edit on 29-11-2008 by rizla]

It seems people here are still playing politics.

I could care less about politics, Bush ruined the economy and that is clear.

When he took over the Presidency the economy was fine. All he had to do was cut taxes and reduce the size of government by controlling spending.

He had a republican House and Senate for 6 years.

This is not Barney Frank, Jimmy Carter or the Democrats fault, it's Bush's fault for cutting taxes and growing government in a global economy.

These problems have not been snowballing and things would be alot better if Bush would have reduced the scope and size of government and he didn't go on a borrowing and spending spree.

We would have a lower debt and we can handle downturns in the economy.

YOU CAN'T CUT TAXES AND INCREASE SPENDING BECAUSE THERE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR YOUR NEW SPENDING!!!

That's like going from a $100,000 dollar a year job to a $50,000 dollar a year job and buying a more expensive car and bigger house.

When you cut taxes you have to decrease the size of government and control spending and this will reduce the debt.

Bush did the opposite, he cut taxes and increased spending by borrowing and 8 years later we are on the verge of economic collapse.

Bush has given us pre-emptive wars, economic collapse, massive borrowing and spending and now bailouts.

Shame on anyone who wants to give Bush a pass because he has an R next to his name.

The interest rates were low because of the tax cuts. This is what tax cuts are supposed to do.

They increase savings which increases the money that's available to borrow.

So we borrow and consume in a consumer based country.

This is because other countries will hold our debt as we consume their goods.

When you increase the debt then our debt will began to outweigh our consumption and other countries will not hold our debt and then you will have a credit crunch and we will have to produce our way out of debt through jobs or higher taxes.