Nonsense, the 90's bull market and booming economy lasted through Clintons 8-year term. Then, under Bush, the recession happened. Show me your evidence that the economy was "anemic" under Clinton. All presidents are credited or blamed for what happens on their watch. How can you blame Clinton for what happens under Bush? Exactly. The recession started under Bush and bottomed under Bush. You have offered no specific policies of Clinton in his last quarter that caused a collapse under Bush. That's the whole point, it occured when Bush was responsible for it. And you don't have to put "recession" in quotes. There were three straight quarters of negative growth which makes it a very real recession.
Where did I say the economy was anemic under Clinton? I said the economy was anemic during the first quarter after Clinton left office and as Houtiger pointed out fiscal policy changes do not happen in one year and their impact generally takes a year to kick in. If that's the case how can Bush be blamed for the slowdown or the recession? You're talking perception and I'm talking reality. It's perceived by some that the slowdown that was evident during the first quarter of 2001 resulted from Bush. However, the reality of the matter is Bush had only been in office a few months and his policies had not taken place. Meaning Clinton's economic policies was influencing the economy at that time and not Bush's. I never placed blame on Clinton for the slowdown. I'm asking for proof that the slowdown that was evident during the first quarter of 2001 (The time period when Bush just came into office.) was due to Bush policies. Slowdowns can occur in an economy due to cyclical reasons. They don't have to be caused by fiscal policy. Again, this is reality. I think you and others are too quick to place the blame on Bush because you're biased. I think president's get too much blame for a bad economy and too much praise for a good one. The slowdown started before the actually recession took place. That's why I put recession in quotes. There was no recession during the first half of 2001 but the economy was slowing down dramatically. My argument is the slowdown and the recession would have occurred no matter who was president because it was not due to any specific policies.
No, I do not blame Bush for the slowdown in 01. He did nothing to cause it at all. Nor do I blame Clinton. He did nothing to cause that one at all. Clinton balanced the budget and govt. fiscal policy was sound. The american public went brain dead and was buying anything called "dot.com", it would IPO at 20 in the morning and close at 80 that night. There was mass hysteria. I blame Arthur Anderson for certifying books of companies that were illegally and fraudulently publishing their financial reports as though the company was sound, when it was not, such as Enron. Not sure who certified Worldcom's books, but Worldcom went down, destroying a lot of wealth, as did Adelphia. We had a stock market bubble in the dot coms, and a lot of cheating that was sworn to by the auditing companies who were supposed to protect the system. If there was a govt. error, it was in 96 when Greenspan cited "irrational exuberance" in the stock market, and failed to take adequate action to halt the massive speculation in the dot com bubble. Recessions can be caused by govt. action, such as the one in 81-82 caused by Paul Volker, who killed inflation and needed a recession to do it. I think it was a good call. Recessions can also be caused by the business cycle, and have relatively little to do with govt. policy. The financial posture that govt. maintains (solid footing and small deficits, or shakey footing and large deficits) matters, especially in determining how much leeway the govt. has to stimulate the economy when it does fall into recession (such as through tax cuts and interest rate cuts), without causing too many unpleasant side effects, such as precipitous declines in the dollar which occurred on Bush's watch, while the dollar was generally strong on Clinton's watch. The economic recovery in 02-04 was the shallowest recovery and the slowest since the great depression. I also would have cut taxes, but I would not have cut taxes on the rich the way Bush did, I would have focused the cuts on the bottom rung of tax payers. The rich tended to save their tax cuts, while the strapped middle class would have run out and spent theirs, since they needed the money. Cutting taxes in and of itself may be is not a great thing. It depends on who reaps most of the benefit. In 03, with a weak economy and large deficit, we should not have invaded Iraq. Waging war is the single most damaging act to any economy. There is a great deal of spending on bombs, etc. that simple vanishes in explosions. The position of the economy is not as good ten years out as if those funds were spent in education or basic research, studies on economic policy, or building national infrastructure that benefits commerce for the next 50 to 100 years. The one percent fed funds rate in 03 and 04 was the lowest in 40 years, an extreme condition 3 years after a supposed recovery was begun. This, along with inadequate regulation in the mortgage lending space, and rampant inflation in housing, oil, gold, healthcare, and college tuition, lead to a belief that housing was hot and the place to throw your money to score a big gain. Govt. policy, running a large budget deficit while the nation ran a large current account deficit, and the treasury grew the money supply at irresponsible rates, caused inflation. This created the housing bubble that has popped and is causing such great pain to homeowners across the nation. There was no need to have a fed funds rate at one percent in 03 and 04, except to get Bush re-elected after the two tax cuts in 01 and 03 had failed to stimulate the economy, and a quick jumpstart was needed. It was irresponsible. If Bush had as much integrity as his father, he would have done the right thing for the nation (like Bush I raised taxes to bring down the deficit and save the dollar even though it cost him the election) and Bush II would not have had Greenspan continue to cut rates at the risk of making the housing bubble worse and risking a severe economic breakdown in the coming years (like we are having now). I also would NOT have approved a prescription drug plan at a cost of $100 billion a year, with no new tax to pay for it, further increasing the deficit and devaluing the dollar. I also would not have included the provision that prevented the govt. from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices based on purchase volumes, which is a violation of free trade, IMO. (BUT it makes the drug company CEO's happy!) The inflation cycle was started under Nixon, who unwisely attempted "wage and price controls" in the early 70's, that predictably failed. Ford had his "WIN" program, Whip Inflation Now, that FAILED and helped cost him the election in 76. This was turned over to Carter, who also failed to solve the problem. So you think this was all on Carter? No way, as many economic trends, it was building for years. The fed chairman is supposed to be independent, but alas, he is not. He meets regularly with the president, and the presidents have more influence than they probably should. The fed sets monetary policy, but is has little to do with setting fiscal policy which belongs to congress and the president. The Fed does not create a deficit or a surplus, only congress and the president. Clinton balanced the budget, and from this sound fiscal backdrop, the economy performed well, and when the recession came in 01, Bush had plenty of weapons to use to stimulate, without very negative side effects to the country. He could cut interest rates through the fed, and the dollar would fall a little, but the dollar was at record highs coming out of Clintons admin., so a slightly weaker dollar was not a problem. Bush has been horrible at fiscal policy, cutting taxes mainly for the rich, getting the US in a long and expensive war in Iraq very little benefit in terms of the actual war on terror for the amount of money we have spent, created the biggest single year deficit, and the biggest 8 year deficit by a mile. This has torpedoed the dollar and helped cause the 300% increase in a barrel of oil, and the 200% increase in gold price, 10-12% annual increase in heathcare, 8% annual increase in college tuition, and gosh knows what the annual increase in food is today. We had housing inflating at 15% annually in the hot markets, until the bubble burst, and now we have the biggest annual declines in housing prices since the great depression and we are about to do worse than even the great depression in some states. Bush took a strong position and turned it into a weak one. Greenspan made a mistake under Clinton, by not raising rates higher in 96 and 97, in order to slow the "irrational exuberance" he correctly cited. This was probably at Clintons urging, to allow the expansion to continue, which was a mistake. If the fed chairman had been truly independent and done what was best for the economy, he should have raised rates more. Yes, and as I explained above, I see little Clinton did to cause it. If you think Clinton "caused it", please explain what you think he did that caused it.
That may be but this is irrefutable: In the 2006 election the Democrats packaged a 2-part national campaign around the local House elections. On top of local issues, Democrats pledge to: bring the troops home from Iraq (regardless of the state of the mission at the time), and lower gas prices. In the 2 years since, our troops are still in Iraq (and having much more success, in spite of the constant negativity for the mission that flows from that side of the aisle) and gas prices nearly doubled, while the Dems contrived to block every proposal for expanding domestic oil production. Yes, let's elect Obama and give the Dems more power to fail the country.
What planet have you been living on, Mac? It ain't the Democrats or Obama who has failed the country for 8 years. First of all, the new democratic Congress can't do much when the President vetoes everything. The Republicans are still obstructing progress while Bush is President. Secondly Democrats never said get out of Iraq "regardless of the state of the mission". They said the mission had already failed badly, the occupation is going nowhere, and that we need a realistic exit strategy and a new mission.
BS and you know it. The Dems said, elect us and we'll get out now. The mission did not fail, it was ongoing, and the surge has succeeded to the point where withdrawal under our own terms is now being discuseed. They fact is, Dems knew the get out now promise would resonate, having spent the previous 4 years ingraining their defeatist attitude in their base. The Dems said, elect us and we'll lower gas prices. A promise they knew they could not keep, because the only way to do it would be to enact price controls or increase the supply by allowing more domestic drilling. I've no doubt they would have loved to do the former, but they never could have gotten away with it in a free country. They never had any intention of doing the latter, as we've seen in recent weeks. The GOP is obstructing? Which party brought back the filibuster to prevent votes they knew they didn't have the numbers to defeat? It wasn't the Reps. No President in recent history has tried harder to work with the opposing party as has GWB, and he's had the gauntlet thrown back in his face by the Dems and the media on every effort. He has been vilified the likes of which no president has ever seen (that bumper sticker comparing him to Hitler that someone posted earlier exists, my friend). He's taken it all with more dignity than we'll ever see from Obama, who portrays even the simplest questions about his positions or background as personal attacks.
Maybe on the planet Redius Fiftyfivus Pelosi is a Republican, but she's a democrat on this one. Yet they unceasingly fail to acknowlege the success of the surge lest it make them look bad.
...not The majority of Bush's presidency saw unprecedented Republican control. Going into Iraq is inexcusable on so many levels. We are there now and have to deal, but that doesn't change the fact that the Republicans under Bush failed the country more than any presidency in quite a long time. The Dems still have to throw a lot of wrenches into the gears to match what the Republicans have done to our nation under Bush.
