Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What specifically did "W" do to trash the US economy?
you have to be kidding right?
I think the question is, what financial, banking or insurance regulations did Bush repeal that resulted in the mess we are in?
What way did he impose his will on the market to force it to veer off course?
And where did Bush knowingly allow banks and lenders to operate in an irresponsible way, and refuse to do anything about it?
To his credit, Bush did try to get congress to rein in Fannie & Freddie, when it became apparent they were getting out of control, but he did not press hard enough.
Bush is not an expert economist, so he probably figured that a 4-5% unemployment rate meant that everything was ok. As much as I'd like to, I cannot fault Bush for not seeing the storm coming, since it caught all the experts off guard as well, but on F&F he did see the problem and still did not push hard enough to regulate them more.
Bush's administration, along with the Progressive Conservative Canadian Prime MinisterBrian Mulroney, spearheaded the negotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would eliminate the majority of tariffs on products traded among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, to encourage trade amongst the countries.[58] The treaty also restricts patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and outlines the removal of investment restrictions among the three countries.[58]
The agreement came under heavy scrutiny amongst mainly Democrats, who charged that NAFTA resulted in a loss of US jobs.[11] NAFTA also contained no provisions for labor rights;[59] according to the Bush administration, the trade agreement would generate economic resources necessary to enable Mexico's government to overcome problems of funding and enforcement of its labor laws.[59] Bush needed a renewal of negotiating authority to move forward with the NAFTA trade talks. Such authority would enable the president to negotiate a trade accord that would be submitted to Congress for a vote, thereby avoiding a situation in which the president would be required to renegotiate with trading partners those parts of an agreement that Congress wished to change.[59] While initial signing was possible during his term, negotiations made slow, but steady, progress. President Clinton would go on to make the passage of NAFTA a priority for his administration, despite its conservative and Republican roots — with the addition of two side agreements — to achieve its passage in 1993.[60]
The treaty has since been defended as well as criticized further. The American economy has grown 54 percent since the adoption of NAFTA in 1993, with 25 million new jobs created; this was seen by some as evidence of NAFTA being beneficial to the US.[61] With talk in early 2008 regarding a possible American withdrawal from the treaty, Carlos M. Gutierrez, current United States Secretary of Commerce, writes, "Quitting NAFTA would send economic shock waves throughout the world, and the damage would start here at home."[61] But John J. Sweeney of The Boston Globe argues that "the US trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ballooned to 12 times its pre-NAFTA size, reaching $111 billion in 2004."[62]
See also Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, and the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act of 1999.The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[13] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[14]
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass–Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[11]
Dub-Ya jumped on the affordable housing band wagon with both feet. He advocated a hownership society. He promoted low money down and no money down for minority and low income.
He saw a "homeownership gap" between whites and non-whites and called it racism.
He advocated eliminating "barriers" to homeownership like downpayments and verifiable income.
Yes he did. I remember speeches where he applauded home ownership in America as a sign of his policies in action. Bush was a democrat when it came to bigger government and deficit spending.
Looks as if both parties had a hand in most of what you posted
NAFTA
I think one of the pipe dreams from NAFTA, was that it was supposed to help create wealth within Mexico, so our southern neighbor would become more economically stable, slow down the illegal alien crossings and put a dent in the ever expanding crime syndicate. I don't think it worked out as envisioned.
The cost of the stimulus does NOTmitigate the cost of the Iraq war.
Nice try!
During the Clinton Administrations in 1993 total federal expenditures were 1.409 trillion dollars. In 2001 total federal expenditures were 1.8629 trillion dollar. So total federal expenditures increased by 32%. While federal tax revenue increased 75.43%
During the Bush 43 Administration in 2001 total federal expenditures were 1.8629 trillion dollars. In 2009 total federal expenditures were 3.5177 trillion dollar. So total federal expenditures increased by 88.8%. While federal tax revenue increased only just over 26% during the time frame.
Also from 1998 to 2000 under the Clintion Adminstration federal outlays WERE LESS THAN federatal tax revenue.
Under George W. Bush this was only accomplished once and that was in 2001.
I undertand you are a conservative and you'll NEVER let facts stand in the way of ideology.
Here is a primer for those who like to ignore the data. As you can see, the debt increased every year under Clinton. There was no surplus. Perhaps you should read the link.
Bush did markedly add to the debt. No one can make excuses for that. However, compared to Obama and the democratic congress, he was an amateur at debt accumulation.
I think one of the pipe dreams from NAFTA, was that it was supposed to help create wealth within Mexico, so our southern neighbor would become more economically stable, slow down the illegal alien crossings and put a dent in the ever expanding crime syndicate. I don't think it worked out as envisioned.
It seems nothing works out as they envisioned...or perhaps it did worked as planned, we just don't have a clue what the plan was in the first place.
Hello Hello It Is the CONGRESS that originates and passes laws and budgets. So go blame those idiots!
Agreed. The best combination seems to be a conservative congress and a moderate, poll-watching democrat, like we had with Clinton and Newt. When the congress is full of progressives, whether they are liberal democrats or RINOs and your president is a big spending, big government politician, then we get massive debt and out of control spending, like we had in much of Bush's presidency and all of 0bama's.
In fact this last congress and president will go down in history as the perfect storm, both house of congress and the president were all liberal progressives, with nothing to contain them, it was the political version of the China Syndrome.
It seems nothing works out as they envisioned...or perhaps it did worked as planned, we just don't have a clue what the plan was in the first place.
It was a pipe dream of good intentions that simply did not come true. It's just like Bush's pipe dream for Iraq and Afghanistan. We were supposed to turn both countries into working democratic republics, and the freedom, hope and prosperity were going to pulsate out from these countries, combined with Turkey, and create a sort of domino affect, that would ripple throughout the Mid East, toppling all the fascist and theocratic governments and dictatorships, and finally bring an end the terrorist jihad from within.
Here is a primer for those who like to ignore the data. As you can see, the debt increased every year under Clinton. There was no surplus. Perhaps you should read the link.
Bush did markedly add to the debt. No one can make excuses for that. However, compared to Obama and the democratic congress, he was an amateur at debt accumulation.
I never said the national debt didn't increase under Bill Clinton I simply pointed out that federal outlays increase at much lower rate than they did under George W. Bush Jr. and federal tax revenue increase at much higher rates.
For all your concerns about reducing the national debt the first step in accomplishing that is slowing down increases in federal outlays while significantly increasing tax revenue. Something Bill Clinton clearly did AND GEORGE W. BUSH JR. DID NOT.
Also based on history there is nothing that show the Republican Party is uniquely qualified to cut federal spending. I'd have to go back to Eisenhower to find a Republican President that actually showed some fiscal restraint. Ironically a modern day Eisenhower would be criticized by the Republican Party as being too liberal. Here is the record for every post World War II two term presidential administration in terms of the rate of federal outlays versus the rate of increases in tax revenue.
Under George Bush:
During the Bush 43 Administration in 2001 total federal expenditures were 1.8629 trillion dollars. In 2009 total federal expenditures were 3.5177 trillion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 88.8%. Federal tax revenue increased by 26.56% during this administration.
Under Bill Clinton:
During the Clinton Administrations in 1993 total federal expenditures were 1.409 trillion dollars. In 2001 total federal expenditures were 1.8629 trillion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 32%. Federal tax revenue increased by during this administration.
Under Ronald Reagan:
During the Ronald Reagan Administration in 1981 total federal expenditures were 678.2 billion dollars. In 1989 total federal expenditures were 1.143trillion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 68.53%. Federal tax revenue increased by 51.2% during this administration.
Under Richard Nixon - Gerald R. Ford:
During the Nixon and Ford Administrations in 1969 total federal expenditures were 183.6 billion dollars. In 1977 total federal expenditures were 409.2 billion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 122.87%. Federal tax revenue increased by 59.50% during this administration.
Under John F. Kennedy - Lyndon B. Johnson
During the Kennedy - Johnson Administrations in 1961 total federal expenditures were 97.7 billion dollars. In 1969 total federal expenditures were 183.6 billion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 87.92%.
Federal tax revenue increased by 62.76% during this administration.
Under Dwight D. Eisenhower
During the Eisenhower Administration in 1953 total federal expenditures were 76.1 billion dollars. In 1961 total federal expenditures were 97.7 billion dollars. So total federal expenditures increased by 28.38%. Federal tax revenue increased by 46.46% during the administration.
Thanks for sharing!
Last edited by JazzyTallGuy; 12-06-2010 at 11:24 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
