How Did GW Bush Cause Our Current Economic Problems? (Representatives, Kennedy, Canada)

[paull805]

pretty simple lol 2 wars! trillions of dollars spent and trillions more to be spent, thats why!

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by paull805

pretty simple lol 2 wars! trillions of dollars spent and trillions more to be spent, thats why!

Wow Paull805! I didn't know presidents were authorized by the Constitution to declare war or spend money.

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by hothulamaui

so bush had nothing to do with the iraq war? nor anything to do with the money it cost to wage it? that not only took a 200 plus surplus budget and turn it into a 1.2 TRILLION dollar deficit? you can't rewrite history in your thread either

1. The "stimulus" cost more than the Iraq and Afghan wars

2. There was no "surplus" under Clinton
a. the surplus was projected
b. the national debt increased every year under Clinton


Facts are terrible things to liberals. It brings up another Mark Twain quote-

"Get your facts straight first. Then you can distort them".

[Recovering Democrat]

To begin with:

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.

[Recovering Democrat]

Bush cut revenue (income taxes) but failed to cut spending. In fact, he increased spending by creating a new entitlement - Medicare Part D.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Recovering Democrat

To begin with:

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.

Jumped-on?

Advocated?

Promoted?

Saw?

How did any of those "actions" infuse the "too big to fail" financial institutions with over valued and highly leveraged unregulated mortgage backed derivatives?

[Recovering Democrat]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Wow Paull805! I didn't know presidents were authorized by the Constitution to declare war or spend money.

The president isn't authorized under the constitution to declare war or spend money.

In Dub-ya's case, however, congress delegated that authority to him. It was a cowardly move on their part, but that's a topic for another thread.

[Recovering Democrat]

Originally Posted by momonkey

How did any of those "actions" infuse the "too big to fail" financial institutions with over valued and highly leveraged unregulated mortgage backed derivatives?

We can probably agree that the two biggest "too big to fail" institutions are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, yes?

Bush's HUD Secretary, Alphonso Jackson, raised affordable housing goals (a.k.a subprime and alt-A mortgages) to 55% of Fannie and Freddie's books of business.

Bush's appointee
Bush's housing goals
Bush's GSEs

[paull805]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Wow Paull805! I didn't know presidents were authorized by the Constitution to declare war or spend money.

well now you do! lol its as simple as that though, all that cash spent on a war that will never be won, we should quit while we are ahead and pull out

[JazzyTallGuy]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

1. The "stimulus" cost more than the Iraq and Afghan wars

2. There was no "surplus" under Clinton
a. the surplus was projected
b. the national debt increased every year under Clinton

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.

All the information is here:
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

Facts are terrible things to liberals. It brings up another Mark Twain quote-

"Get your facts straight first. Then you can distort them".[

You might want to follow your own advice.

I undertand you are a conservative and you'll NEVER let facts stand in the way of ideology.