Bush and the US economy
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Read the first page. Poor article on economics to that point, which is probably why it is in vanity fair. Not to say Bush hasn't screwed things up, but the article's author is incredibly biased in the causes of the downturns in the economy and completely blind to the fact that the national debt has climbed every fiscal year since 1960. The author brings out the lefts chants of budget surplus! but then goes on to say that Clinton didn't invest in the countries infrastructure because there wasn't enough money???
Bottom line, both parties have consistently bent us over and nailed us with their ineptitude.
But I know desh... it is all the Reps fault.
Bottom line, both parties have consistently bent us over and nailed us with their ineptitude.
But I know desh... it is all the Reps fault.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Second page was mixed,
Author is correct in that the tax cuts don't work if you do not have corresponding cuts in spending. Tax cuts CAN work without spending cuts in the short term, but not the long term.
Author tosses out the 5.3 million more in poverty now than when Bush took office, but fails to say what caused the increase. How many were born into poverty? How many were knocked into it because of the economic downturn that began in March 2000?
The largest fallacy on page two is blaming Bush's ineptitude for consumers borrowing more than they could afford. That right there should cause a cessation of reading any further, but I will read the last two pages to see if the author can somehow redeem a bit of dignity.
Author is correct in that the tax cuts don't work if you do not have corresponding cuts in spending. Tax cuts CAN work without spending cuts in the short term, but not the long term.
Author tosses out the 5.3 million more in poverty now than when Bush took office, but fails to say what caused the increase. How many were born into poverty? How many were knocked into it because of the economic downturn that began in March 2000?
The largest fallacy on page two is blaming Bush's ineptitude for consumers borrowing more than they could afford. That right there should cause a cessation of reading any further, but I will read the last two pages to see if the author can somehow redeem a bit of dignity.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Page three, continues to show the authors ignorance.
The author blames the increases in oil prices on the war (predominantly). The author suggests it is due to the fact that Iraq production went down. Conveniently forgetting to mention that oil production from the mid east has never been higher than it is today. Not to mention additional production from Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, Canada etc... To be sure, the war has caused additional volatility in the price of oil, but the TREND upward is due to supply and demand.
The author blames the increases in oil prices on the war (predominantly). The author suggests it is due to the fact that Iraq production went down. Conveniently forgetting to mention that oil production from the mid east has never been higher than it is today. Not to mention additional production from Venezuela, Mexico, Russia, Canada etc... To be sure, the war has caused additional volatility in the price of oil, but the TREND upward is due to supply and demand.
evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Stiglitz
Guys how many damn things have you been wrong about in the last 5 years I have known you?
Guys how many damn things have you been wrong about in the last 5 years I have known you?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Fourth page, first paragraph begins by talking about the massive US debt that China holds. Then the author states this....
"Most likely these creditors will not call in their loans—if they ever did, there would be a global financial crisis."
Ok, the debt is issued as t-bills, notes and bonds. They either have call features or they don't. But even the rare ones that do have call features are callable by the US... not by the holders of the debt. The holders of the debt could certainly sell their bonds on the open market for whatever the going market rate is at the time of sale, but they cannot call the debt and have the US pay prior to the maturity of the debt. They could also refuse to buy additional debt issued by our inept government, but again that doesn't give them any ability to call in payment of the debt they hold.
This is likely the smartes thing the author put forth in the four pages....
"What is required is in some ways simple to describe: it amounts to ceasing our current behavior and doing exactly the opposite. It means not spending money that we don’t have, increasing taxes on the rich, reducing corporate welfare, strengthening the safety net for the less well off, and making greater investment in education, technology, and infrastructure."
The above quote almost redeems the authors ineptitude on the subject to that point. But obviously he is biased and doesn't like Bush (I cannot blame him for not liking Bush, but to place blame on the bad policies of the past 4 plus decades is quite sad).
"Most likely these creditors will not call in their loans—if they ever did, there would be a global financial crisis."
Ok, the debt is issued as t-bills, notes and bonds. They either have call features or they don't. But even the rare ones that do have call features are callable by the US... not by the holders of the debt. The holders of the debt could certainly sell their bonds on the open market for whatever the going market rate is at the time of sale, but they cannot call the debt and have the US pay prior to the maturity of the debt. They could also refuse to buy additional debt issued by our inept government, but again that doesn't give them any ability to call in payment of the debt they hold.
This is likely the smartes thing the author put forth in the four pages....
"What is required is in some ways simple to describe: it amounts to ceasing our current behavior and doing exactly the opposite. It means not spending money that we don’t have, increasing taxes on the rich, reducing corporate welfare, strengthening the safety net for the less well off, and making greater investment in education, technology, and infrastructure."
The above quote almost redeems the authors ineptitude on the subject to that point. But obviously he is biased and doesn't like Bush (I cannot blame him for not liking Bush, but to place blame on the bad policies of the past 4 plus decades is quite sad).
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Apparently yes. Do you think that professors are the only ones with economics degrees? Point to one thing I said that is incorrect Desh. You cannot. You simply found yet another college professor that shares your hatred of Bush and have latched on to this poor piece. That is ok. I know you are gullible when it comes to being brainwashed. All someone has to do is chant "Bush is evil" and you are on board with whatever they happen to say from that point on.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I admit, I have been wrong, but not on economics.
evince
Truthmatters
Topspin
Verified User
Professors are as left as any group even the economics profs.
I totally agree with him on the need to spend much more on college education and infrastructure. And I have also been saying that this tide is a country club tide.
But to blame all societies ills on GW, and the 3.5% growth only helps the rich is laughable. He talks about poor like they are starving, wrong they are fat asses with cable and AC.
I totally agree with him on the need to spend much more on college education and infrastructure. And I have also been saying that this tide is a country club tide.
But to blame all societies ills on GW, and the 3.5% growth only helps the rich is laughable. He talks about poor like they are starving, wrong they are fat asses with cable and AC.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Right Desh. Not one thing that I wrote in this thread is incorrect with regards to his bias. He mixes the truth with his bias and thus fails to accurately convey what has led this country to where we are today.
Tell me desh...
1) Is Bush responsible for individuals taking out these loans that led to foreclosure? Or is it the responsibility of the individual and the lender?
2) When was the last fiscal year the government lowered our national debt?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Bullshit Desh, the mortgage industry has had that ability for over a decade. It was when the politicians in BOTH parties decided they wanted to see more home ownership. Both parties are to blame for this. AS are the lenders and individuals who borrowed more than they could afford.
Side note: Congress enacts the laws... a President signs them into law.
What bias is in my economic view desh? I have said BOTH parties are to blame for getting us where we are today. How is that biased?
I have stated that both parties have had control of the WH and Congress over the past 40 years and yet they still continue to outspend their revenues. How is that biased?
Show me an example of the bias desh, because I honestly don't know what you think is biased.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I already recognize he is one of the worst. I would still put Nixon ahead of him on that list. Probably would move him ahead of Carter at this point.... but that to me is a closer call.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Forgot to add... you are correct, it was 1960. So if it has been since 1960, how can you not blame both parties for the debacle?
evince
Truthmatters
At any point when the abuse became apparent the policy could have been tightened.
There have been warnings about the Bubble coming for years.
Bush and the R congress did nothing because housing was the sector keeping the economy rolling because people were taking money out and upgrading and even buying cars and shit.
Yes you are biased because you see the Reagan years as something great for the country yet he is responsible for alot of our debt.
There have been warnings about the Bubble coming for years.
Bush and the R congress did nothing because housing was the sector keeping the economy rolling because people were taking money out and upgrading and even buying cars and shit.
Yes you are biased because you see the Reagan years as something great for the country yet he is responsible for alot of our debt.