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.
As long as we keep pointing fingers at ANYONE in politics in regard to the financial crises....we are missing the point and being too immature to see that the real culprit is our own personal greed.
"How Did GW Bush Cause Our Current Economic Problems?"
As a Bush hating liberal, the argument that he "caused" the economic crisis is ridiculous, as ridiculous as arguing that the repeal of Glass Steagal, CRA's or subprime mortgages "caused" the economic crisis when the answer is far more simple, personal greed, and the inability to recognize that we all must act in the best interest of society in general.
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.
Well those pipe dreams have become more like pipe bombs in my eyes. In the case of NAFTA it has caused more jobs to leave the US in the search of cheap labor. Many Mexican farmers lost their farms due to U.S. subsidized farm products flooding their markets. That increased the flow of illegal aliens looking for jobs in the US. It's has also been used to lower American wages with threats of factories leaving the US. Americans are paying the price for policies that boost corporation's bottom line.
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 concers 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!
I would agree that EVERY president has had a hand on increasing the debt. EVERY ONE OF THEM.
Historically, what combination has had the lowest expenditures?
Democratic president and republican congress.
Now that makes sense, as the congress is in control of spending. Heck, the republican congress made Clinton a fiscal conservative after his first four years.
That being said, blame never helps solve problems. It is time for action and that action will involve marked spending cuts and reduction in benefits for everyone.
I would agree that EVERY president has had a hand on increasing the debt. EVERY ONE OF THEM.
Historically, what combination has had the lowest expenditures?
Democratic president and republican congress.
Now that makes sense, as the congress is in control of spending. Heck, the republican congress made Clinton a fiscal conservative after his first four years.
That being said, blame never helps solve problems. It is time for action and that action will involve marked spending cuts and reduction in benefits for everyone.
And the fall of America as the premier economic and military power in the world.
This recession was caused by a credit boom and bust. The credit boom started in the early 1980's and was pushed along by every president and every congress since, with strong backing from the federal reserve.
This helped cause the financial sector of our economy to grow to a much larger percentage of the economy than ever before. Easy credit meant easy profits. Everyone piled in, most benefited, at least a little. Companies that made things, like GE, found it easier to manufacture financial products than to do the long term planning and investment needed in the manufacturing of goods. Everyone from up high to down low got sucked in by the easy credit. poor people could buy a new car, a new TV, and just put in on a credit card. Richer people (especially really rich people) watched the value of Real estate, stocks, and other assets rise steadily through the puffed up magic of easy credit.
Meanwhile, lending standards were falling, and even the regulators got sucked in, believing that the benefits of extending easy credit to all outweighed the risks. This process happened over many years, and virtually all the politicians in federal office had a hand in it.
As far as the original question of the thread, what GW Bush did do to make the current situation worse was leaving the country in such a precarious fiscal state, and specifically, allowing the leverage levels of investment banks and commercial banks to go up so much after they lobbied for it. He looked the other way just like the rest of them.
However, it wasn't any particular politicians's fault, it was all of them.
However, it wasn't any particular politicians's fault, it was all of them.
Blaming everyone is just another way of blaming no one. Politicians won't be accountable unless we hold them accountable.
Washington politicians - including George W Bush - caused the current economic mess by messing with the basic laws of supply and demand in the US housing market.
Everything else (easy credit, low interest rates, corporate greed, corruption, etc.) contributed to the mess and made it worse, but only Washington's interference in the housing market was the cause.
Call it "blame" or "pointing fingers" if you like, but if we fail to indentify the actual cause of the problem we can never hope to fix it or avoid it in the future.
"How Did GW Bush Cause Our Current Economic Problems?"
As a Bush hating liberal, the argument that he "caused" the economic crisis is ridiculous, as ridiculous as arguing that the repeal of Glass Steagal, CRA's or subprime mortgages "caused" the economic crisis when the answer is far more simple, personal greed, and the inability to recognize that we all must act in the best interest of society in general.
Call me a dreamer, but that's the way I see it.
Sorry, no sale!
We've always had personal greed and a general disregard for the welfare of the larger society. We haven't always had an economic crisis of the sort we had in 2008.
As long as we keep pointing fingers at ANYONE in politics in regard to the financial crises....we are missing the point and being too immature to see that the real culprit is our own personal greed.
Greed can't pass laws.
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.
Coward
