Bush To Blame For War And Economy?

[StCyril]

I love how everyone blames the economy on Bush... He wasn't the best President, I will grant you he made a lot of stupid moves, including letting Osama get away, but the economy? Sorry I have to credit Clinton with this one. All of our economic problems today are because of Bill Clinton. He signed NAFTA which sent millions of jobs overseas. That's why nobody has jobs in our country.

Clinton also passed three legistlative acts, started by the CARTER administration (both left wing dems btw), so that people who could not afford a mortgage could get a mortgage, even if they couldn't pay it back. All of this done in some misguided interest of 'fairness.' Then he (he and his administration) pressured Fannie Freddie into buying all these newly-termed sub-prime loans.

Now I will admit the Feds, who lowered interest rates after 9/11 fueled the fires of issuing loans to sub-prime borrowers, but the simple fact of the matter that can not be explained away is that damage from the clinton administration was already done, and this would have happened regardless of what happened after 9/11.

So why then is Clinton hailed for a great economy while Bush is berated for a bad one? Also, why isn't Carter strung up Mussolini style for being arguably the WORST president in US History? The answer is simple. Clinton inherited an economy that was already begining to boom from the Reagan and Bush Administrations. He then passed the legislation that drove it into the ground, however hitting rock bottom takes time and fortunately for Clinton, it didn't happen until after he left the white house. Sadly most people don't see the big picture.

[bcdemon]

At 4/15/10 07:07 AM, StCyril wrote: All of our economic problems today are because of Bill Clinton. He signed NAFTA which sent millions of jobs overseas. That's why nobody has jobs in our country.

Ok now I'm not an expert on NAFTA, but what I do want to know is, how can a NORTH AMERICAN free trade agreement send millions of jobs overseas? I figured Chinas cheap operating cost and the want to pocket more money sent millions of jobs overseas.

Just curious but, what have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan done for your economy?

[ScytheCutter]

I find it interesting that you'd bring up NAFTA when the US dodges out of it whenever they're on the shit end of the stick.

[Der-Lowe]

At 4/15/10 07:45 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 4/15/10 07:07 AM, StCyril wrote: All of our economic problems today are because of Bill Clinton. He signed NAFTA which sent millions of jobs overseas. That's why nobody has jobs in our country.

Ok now I'm not an expert on NAFTA, but what I do want to know is, how can a NORTH AMERICAN free trade agreement send millions of jobs overseas? I figured Chinas cheap operating cost and the want to pocket more money sent millions of jobs overseas.

Exactly.
Furthermore, on the topic of liberalization of trade on employment, while protectionism does increase employment (see the General Theory), it's perverse effects on Global efficiency make the trade-off not good at all, specially considering there are others alternatives for counter-cyclical policy: monetary and fiscal.

Sorry I have to credit Clinton with this one. All of our economic problems today are because of Bill Clinton.

Oversimplifications like this are evident to be false, even to the layman.

Clinton also passed three legistlative acts, started by the CARTER administration (both left wing dems btw), so that people who could not afford a mortgage could get a mortgage, even if they couldn't pay it back. All of this done in some misguided interest of 'fairness.' Then he (he and his administration) pressured Fannie Freddie into buying all these newly-termed sub-prime loans.

This is correct, however, the cause of the crisis is not that simple.
Firstly, the crisis was triggered by the over-humane effort of the Greenspan administration to increase the employment level after the burst of the .com bubble.
But as you have said, it was merely the trigger. The whole structure that let the low interest rates have such a profound perverse effect was the legal framework of the financial system which was (dumdummmmmm) a Reagan invention.

So why then is Clinton hailed for a great economy while Bush is berated for a bad one?

Simply, because the economy boomed during clinton years and was rather stagnant during the Bush years, and ended in the biggest economic crisis the country had faced in the last 80 years.
I agree that this form of analysis is too simple, because there are underlying factors that determine the economic performance of a nation that come from the past. However, your critique of the Clinton administration is shaky, specially when you praise the Bush sr and Reagan administrations (there is a clear pro-Republican bias). You do not also address the most critical issue with the Bush administration, which was the structural deficit it created for no reason, destroying all the efforts the Clinton administration had made in having an actual surplus.

[JeremieCompNerd]

With the same attempt at simplification that you used to pin the crisis on Clinton, I'll put my twist on it... Granted, I'll be subject to the exact same failings of oversimplification you are, but you'll be able to understand it at any rate.
Clinton saves money, America has money. Bush spends money, America has no money. See where the average American would look at the situation and wonder why Bush did that?

[Ytaker]

At 4/15/10 02:42 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: With the same attempt at simplification that you used to pin the crisis on Clinton, I'll put my twist on it... Granted, I'll be subject to the exact same failings of oversimplification you are, but you'll be able to understand it at any rate.
Clinton saves money, America has money. Bush spends money, America has no money. See where the average American would look at the situation and wonder why Bush did that?

Well, an important fact to take note of is that republicans controlled the country. They took the legislature after Clinton. They're the main reason America had money. They enacted spending cuts and tax raises. Revenues increased. Remember, read my lips, no new taxes? Bush (the old one) violated that because they needed to make the country more solvent, and the democrats refused to accept just spending cuts, without tax rises.

The democrats then got into power, because republicans had raised taxes and proceded to try and massively raise spending and taxes, with Clinton's healthcare plan. Their plan failed, the people kicked them out, and the republicans were back in office. The president doesn't control the purse strings of the country, the legislature does, congress and the senate.

While tax revenues have increased under Bush, spending has massively increased. He's pretty left wing, for a republican. A compassionate conservative, as they're often called. Massive increases in education and healthcare expenditure, much more regulation of business. One who might have been a member of the democrat party, before they stopped caring about anyone who didn't love abortion and euthanasia, or who spoke in a rural accent and everything the (now) right of christianity hates. He lost his support because of that, even from the right, which is why he's so easy to blame.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/
2010/04/obamabush-nearly-divided.html

Now that people have seen what the democrats would do if they're in control, he's almost as popular a president as Obama.

[Memorize]

When it comes to the Middle East and the Economy, I've always thought of it like this:

Clinton: Got the ball rolling.
Bush: Made the situation worse.
Obama: Continued from where Bush left off.

[Zerostar]

I blame whoever is on the other side of the fence.

[RydiaLockheart]

I always saw it as more of Cheney and Rumsfeld's war than Bush's.

[Jon-86]

How much dose the war cost? Theirs one big knock to the economy right their.

[SadisticMonkey]

You guys are all really thinking in the wrong paradigm here.

While you're blaming parties/presidents, you're failing to see the common factor here: the state.

You shouldn't be saying "Oh look at what happened when clinton got involved in the economy, nerr!"

what you SHOULD be saying is look what happens when the STATE gets involved in the economy.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 4/15/10 07:19 PM, Jon-86 wrote: How much dose the war cost? Theirs one big knock to the economy right their.

Sure, this kind of excessive spending is not good for the economy, but fiddling with the banking sector in such a way that leads to economic crises is far worse.

[Jon-86]

At 4/16/10 04:58 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: what you SHOULD be saying is look what happens when the STATE gets involved in the economy.

I'm surprised no-one has told you GTFO ya commie / socialist, free thinking troll ^_^

At 4/16/10 05:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Sure, this kind of excessive spending is not good for the economy, but fiddling with the banking sector in such a way that leads to economic crises is far worse.

A know. But war is a guaranteed waste of money, especially when it has nothing to do with you (the UK) or has nothing to do with the original reason for declaring war (Osama didn't move to Iraq) as for the banking thing. I've decided just to withdraw my money when it comes in and keep it at home. That way if the bank collapses I still have my paper and coins :)

I'm only fucked if the currency gets devalued. And it would take a shit storm for that to happen.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 4/15/10 03:53 PM, Memorize wrote: When it comes to the Middle East and the Economy, I've always thought of it like this:

Clinton: Got the ball rolling.
Bush: Made the situation worse.
Obama: Continued from where Bush left off.

Reagan: Started it up
Clinton: Got the ball rolling.
Bush: Made the situation worse.
Obama: Continued from where Bush left off.

[MultiCanimefan]

At 4/16/10 09:48 AM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 4/16/10 04:58 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: what you SHOULD be saying is look what happens when the STATE gets involved in the economy.

I'm surprised no-one has told you GTFO ya commie / socialist, free thinking troll ^_^

I believe Sadistic is a Libertarian, or at least an Anarcho-Capitalist. Unless they're the same, I'm not particularly well versed in labels.

[Ericho]

Clinton did quite a bit to get rid of the economy. I have heard (I can probably not cite sources) but he was able to do the best for the economy far more than Bush or Reagan could. He managed to bring us out of debt for awhile, and that is probably what I think he should best be remembered her. Bush was horrible with the economy.

[orangebomb]

At 4/15/10 06:42 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: I always saw it as more of Cheney and Rumsfeld's war than Bush's.

That's exactly what I was thinking of, what with Haliburton and all. Bush was merely the figurehead in the Iraq war.

[Der-Lowe]

At 4/16/10 04:58 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: what you SHOULD be saying is look what happens when the STATE gets involved in the economy.

Yah, transforms an underdeveloped nation into a developed one.
Eg, Japan, Germany, US, Belgium, etc.

[Memorize]

At 4/16/10 06:31 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 4/16/10 04:58 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: what you SHOULD be saying is look what happens when the STATE gets involved in the economy.

Yah, transforms an underdeveloped nation into a developed one.
Eg, Japan, Germany, US, Belgium, etc.

Because underdeveloped nations don't have states?

Quick someone!

Get on the phone to Mugabe with this amazing news!

[Ytaker]

At 4/16/10 06:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/16/10 06:31 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 4/16/10 04:58 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: what you SHOULD be saying is look what happens when the STATE gets involved in the economy.

Yah, transforms an underdeveloped nation into a developed one.
Eg, Japan, Germany, US, Belgium, etc.

Because underdeveloped nations don't have states?

Quick someone!

Get on the phone to Mugabe with this amazing news!

Yeah. Almost every country in the world has a government. And most have strong governments, with heavy involvement in the economy.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 4/16/10 09:48 AM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 4/16/10 05:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

A know. But war is a guaranteed waste of money,

While I'm opposed to wasting money (well all government spending actually, but whole other story etc), as long as you can balance the budget it's not the worst thing ever.

And yes, Bush caused a deficit,

especially when it has nothing to do with you (the UK) or has nothing to do with the original reason for declaring war (Osama didn't move to Iraq)

that's...not the reason Iraq was invaded (?)

as for the banking thing. I've decided just to withdraw my money when it comes in and keep it at home. hat way if the bank collapses I still have my paper and coins :)

really?

I'm only fucked if the currency gets devalued. And it would take a shit storm for that to happen.

You mean if the currency gets devalued further.
Given that the government can just print worthless paper..er I mean money, whenever they feel like it, money already gets significantly devalued. No shit storm (?) necessary.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 4/16/10 06:31 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Yah, transforms an underdeveloped nation into a developed one.
US,

Um what? The expansion of government proceeds the industrialisation of a nation, not precedes.

Colonial America was essentially minarchist, and many of the western colonies were even basically stateless.

It was only after America started becoming amazingly prosperous ( a result of having freedom from government intervention/control) that government expanded and started interfering in the economy. Had the government stayed at its original size, America would have developed far more quickly.

And there would have also been less in the way of "evil" industrialists using political pull to subvert the free market and destroy competition from arising, which leads to less prosperity.

[SadisticMonkey]

sincerely sorry for the triple post but I accidentally submitted my post before finishing it.

At 4/17/10 04:57 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: While I'm opposed to wasting money (well all government spending actually, but whole other story etc), as long as you can balance the budget it's not the worst thing ever.

And yes, Bush caused a deficit,

but the basic principle is the same. If he had cut spending to other areas, then wasting money wouldn't have been that big of a deal. even the deficit, while bad, doesnt't really screw up the economy super terribly; only to the extent that all taxes screw with the economy (which is actually a lot, read economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt, but at current levels they aren't directly responsible for financial crises).

however, creation of government run financial institutions, forcing banks to give bad loans etc do screw with the economy, far more than wasteful spending could ever do, unless you had 99% tax rates to cover this spending.

[peanutfoot932]

No one person is to blame for the entire economic fiasco, nor is either party solely to blame. This is not a left/right or Carter/Reagan/Clinton/Bush issue; it's an abuse of power issue. What many people seem to forget, though, is that abuse of power isn't just on the part of the government. The government abuses power through unnecessary intrusion, yes, but so do corporations; when one exerts power over another, that power is inevitably abused, whether it's part of the public or private sector.

Concerning the Bush situation:

As a general economic rule, I'm all for lower taxes, but to cut taxes you have to cut spending. Bush cut taxes (mostly on the wealthy), and then sent us into two highly expensive wars. What I'm getting at here is that he increased government size and spending, and that's why most people blame him, although the problems do run much deeper. Bush's policies had the more immediate effects, however, despite actions by his predecessors laying the foundation.

Now, there's a lot more to this, but I'm tired.

[Sir-S-Of-TURBO]

Can't we all just blame the jews and get along?

[X-Gary-Gigax-X]

This war would have been over by now if we would just unleash the military and GET OUT OF THEIR WAY instead of trying to micromanage their actions. Politicians are like people that can't decide how to arrange the feng-shui of their room. "No, over here." "That's stupid. This goes over here!" "Yak, yak, yak."

[JeremieCompNerd]

At 4/15/10 03:00 PM, Ytaker wrote:

Well, an important fact to take note of is that republicans controlled the country. They took the legislature after Clinton. They're the main reason America had money. They enacted spending cuts and tax raises. Revenues increased. Remember, read my lips, no new taxes? Bush (the old one) violated that because they needed to make the country more solvent, and the democrats refused to accept just spending cuts, without tax rises.

The democrats then got into power, because republicans had raised taxes and proceded to try and massively raise spending and taxes, with Clinton's healthcare plan. Their plan failed, the people kicked them out, and the republicans were back in office. The president doesn't control the purse strings of the country, the legislature does, congress and the senate.

While tax revenues have increased under Bush, spending has massively increased. He's pretty left wing, for a republican. A compassionate conservative, as they're often called. Massive increases in education and healthcare expenditure, much more regulation of business. One who might have been a member of the democrat party, before they stopped caring about anyone who didn't love abortion and euthanasia, or who spoke in a rural accent and everything the (now) right of christianity hates. He lost his support because of that, even from the right, which is why he's so easy to blame.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/
2010/04/obamabush-nearly-divided.html

Now that people have seen what the democrats would do if they're in control, he's almost as popular a president as Obama.

Well, all party politics aside my post was just an oversimplification of the view from the left, where his was the same thing from the view on the right. I was basically answering the OP with the most basic answer possible, to prove a point. When you simplify something, in either direction, it almost always sounds logical at a glance. The deeper you look, the more problems you see with a simple answer. That's all I was pointing out with that. :)

[fli]

At 4/15/10 07:45 AM, bcdemon wrote: Ok now I'm not an expert on NAFTA, but what I do want to know is, how can a NORTH AMERICAN free trade agreement send millions of jobs overseas? I figured Chinas cheap operating cost and the want to pocket more money sent millions of jobs overseas.

Just curious but, what have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan done for your economy?

NAFTA is within Canada, the United States, and Mexico...

not exactly "overseas."

And it's really fucked up the indigenous farmers in Mexico... it's practically made them into slaves.

[Der-Lowe]

At 4/16/10 06:43 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/16/10 06:31 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 4/16/10 04:58 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: what you SHOULD be saying is look what happens when the STATE gets involved in the economy.

Yah, transforms an underdeveloped nation into a developed one.
Eg, Japan, Germany, US, Belgium, etc.

Because underdeveloped nations don't have states?

Quick someone!

Get on the phone to Mugabe with this amazing news!

Hm, I didn't make myself clear.
I wasn't saying that the government always makes wonders when it gets involved in the economy, but that it is a necessary condition (not sufficient) for a country to develop, to have a government intervening in the economy in the first place.

Logically
P: Nation is advanced
Q: it has a government that has intervened in the economy
=> then

P=>Q

The truth table of the conditional is

P|=>|Q
T|T|T
T|F|F
F|T|F
F|T|T

What you said is a case in which P is clearly false, and Q is true, which does not contradict what I have said (it would be line 4 in the truth table). It would if I had stated (and I believe it is what you meant, correct me if I am wrong).

Q|=>|P
T|T|T
T|F|F
F|T|T
F|T|F

that is, if the government intervenes, then a nation will become advanced.

Onto SM.

At 4/17/10 05:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 4/16/10 06:31 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Yah, transforms an underdeveloped nation into a developed one.
US,

Um what? The expansion of government proceeds the industrialisation of a nation, not precedes.

Both are true. For the industrialization of a nation, the state must provide for some conditions, which then will "expand " the size of the government (if we're talking about expansion in a broader term than the ratio between government expenditures and GDP), before the growth takes place. If the government efforts succeeds, then (here I agree with you), most of that growth will be employed in the provision of goods by the government, which will certainly expand its size.

Colonial America was essentially minarchist, and many of the western colonies were even basically stateless.

It was only after America started becoming amazingly prosperous ( a result of having freedom from government intervention/control) that government expanded and started interfering in the economy. Had the government stayed at its original size, America would have developed far more quickly.

And there would have also been less in the way of "evil" industrialists using political pull to subvert the free market and destroy competition from arising, which leads to less prosperity.

I will need more precise dates to formulate my argument, regarding to "Colonial America" (Before 1776?), and "after America started becoming amazingly prosperous" (1880? 1950?)

[Der-Lowe]

At 4/17/10 09:10 PM, fli wrote: And it's really fucked up the indigenous farmers in Mexico... it's practically made them into slaves.

Elaborate, plz, since I had not heard of this phenomenon.