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.
i really don't know where you get all this de-regulation nonsense from. if it's glass-steagal you're referring to, maybe you should look to bill clinton. in addition, dubya signed sarbannes oxley into law following enron. you also seem to ignore the fact that govt encouraged the boom in every way possible. it was after all, very popular politically! you then fail to mention the role played by the central bank in lowering interest rates and providing too much liquidity.
i do however wish you were right that dubya had allowed the markets to 'run wild'. there is good historical precedent for allowing markets to do just that, though the central banks might beg to differ:
perhaps we should open our minds a little, break away from centuries of central bank propaganda and debate whether free markets are the way to go. what we've had btw is nowhere near the free market!
I have in numerous other threads placed blame for the repeal of Glass-Steagal on Clinton - and also on Phil Graham - the Republican senator who pushed it on Clinton in exchange for cooperation from a Republican Congress..
It is a widely held belief that Dubya did instruct federal agencies to go slow on business regulation - and to not propose any new regulation...
He appointed Chris Cox to SEC - and we all know how lame he was in cracking down on abuses on Wall Street.
So there is no 'nonsense' about the deregulation montra and policy of Bush - just do some research and you will find ample evidence for it..
I have in numerous other threads placed blame for the repeal of Glass-Steagal on Clinton - and also on Phil Graham - the Republican senator who pushed it on Clinton in exchange for cooperation from a Republican Congress..
It is a widely held belief that Dubya did instruct federal agencies to go slow on business regulation - and to not propose any new regulation...
He appointed Chris Cox to SEC - and we all know how lame he was in cracking down on abuses on Wall Street.
So there is no 'nonsense' about the deregulation montra and policy of Bush - just do some research and you will find ample evidence for it..
first off i think we can both agree that bush was an absolute idiot! agreed? the reality however is that under bush, deregulation was not the order of the day as most people believe. the bush administration regulated heavily. the problem with that is that for big companies compliance is easy. it's the little guys that have a problem. this essentially suits bush and his cronies and was evident in the habit the sec made of catching the mice and letting the elephants go free!
first off i think we can both agree that bush was an absolute idiot! agreed? the reality however is that under bush, deregulation was not the order of the day as most people believe. the bush administration regulated heavily. the problem with that is that for big companies compliance is easy. it's the little guys that have a problem. this essentially suits bush and his cronies and was evident in the habit the sec made of catching the mice and letting the elephants go free!
Not trying to give you a hard time - but can you show any references that show Bush regulated heavily?
That goes against everything I have been reading and hearing over the past 8 years...
"Overall, the final outcome of this Republican regulation has been a significant increase in regulatory activity and cost since 2001. The number of pages added to the Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001."
"In addition, he signed hundreds of laws commanding federal agencies to produce new regulations. One is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which established new or enhanced standards for all publicly held companies and accounting firms in the United States. "
"The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001."
"Overall, the final outcome of this Republican regulation has been a significant increase in regulatory activity and cost since 2001. The number of pages added to the Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001."
"In addition, he signed hundreds of laws commanding federal agencies to produce new regulations. One is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which established new or enhanced standards for all publicly held companies and accounting firms in the United States. "
"The Bush team has spent more taxpayer money on issuing and enforcing regulations than any previous administration in U.S. history. Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2009, outlays on regulatory activities, adjusted for inflation, increased from $26.4 billion to an estimated $42.7 billion, or 62 percent. By contrast, President Clinton increased real spending on regulatory activities by 31 percent, from $20.1 billion in 1993 to $26.4 billion in 2001."
I read the link you listed, and I do not agree that the number of regulations means MORE regulation...
You seem focused on the number of regulations passed - and that is a very simplistic answer to a question that is much more complicated...
Yes - Bush passed many regulations - but many of them watered down regulations that already existed... so he weakened existing regulation - but YES - he passed lots of regulations. The article you reference even concludes that he did a lousy job by issuing many poorly conceived regulations - and that most of his regulations were in the area of Homeland Security.
I give him some credit for Sarbanes-Oxley - although it is not all that effective and very costly to implement...
Take a look at this reference - I will find others - but I still don't think Bush fostered more regulation of business and the environment and consumer protection -but just the opposite.
Here is a very good, and very critical, editorial about the plan that Geithner is floating to re-regulate the financial sector.
It points out where he is not going in the right direction, or not going far enough..
It also points out the need for formal Congressional investigation (not just PR hearings) to really analyze what exactly went wrong - so that a good plan to prevent it can be enacted...
I think the Congressional investigation is an excellent idea! We need to get this legislation right.
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.
