• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

At what point will the economy be Obama's fault?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: Corbett

Never. For the next 4 years we will only hear how this is all Bush's fault.
That would be wrong. Long before the economic meltdown, your Traitor In Chief and his criminal gang FUBAR'd the economy for generations with their war of LIES in Iraq in which they squandered thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars of current and future debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.

The Bushwhackos are also directly responsible for fiscal catastrophy caused by their failure to oversee the robber barons among their wealthy Wall Street and large business contributors. They all should face criminal charges.

They brought us catastrophy piled on top of catastrophy. Without the war in Iraq, we would still have to deal with the fiasco in the business sector, but at least, we would have the resources squandered in the war to help cover the damages.

The compounded damages are so great that Obama's success can only be measured in terms of how well, how far and how quickly he and his administration are able to start reversing trail of devastation the Bushwhackos' have left in their wake. Even with the best of leadership and good luck, just breaking even will take years, if not decades. :(
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
It is already his fault because he served in the Senate, and he took donations from people like Fannie May. Just take this with a grain of salt because these crud balls in Fannie May and Freddie Mac gave money to a lot of people in office.

To be serious he was and is still only a freshman Senator.

While the President gets blamed all of the time for the economy, you have to realize that the president only signs legislation that your senators and representatives pass. I do blame him for spending too much due to the way he waged the War in Iraq. It was his call to take this line of action and it is his fault for all the spending to a point. Congress did authorize the expenditures in the beginning, so it is also their fault. People like Hilary Clinton voted for it also.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
The idea that one can simply attach a number to it makes no sense to me. It completely depends on both what happens as a result of what he does do combined with what happens as a result of what someone else (Bush and others before him) did. You can't just say, "After XX years it all becomes his fault."
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,213
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
It is already his fault because he served in the Senate, and he took donations from people like Fannie May.
So If you want to be about proportional responsibility, Bush would be jailed for purposefully tanking the economy, if taking money from Fannie May is the criteria. I believe intentionally subverting the economy could be considered grounds for treason. I suspect you wouldn't be infavor it of.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
I do understand that Fannie May and Freddie Mac gave money to a lot of people in differring amounts. Just take Barnie Frank and look at his actions, and look at the facts that a lot of democrats somehow got jobs working in that area from the time of President Johnson, to Carter, to Clinton. Then they started basing bonuses on performance and commenced to cooking the books so they could get lots of bonus money. I would like to see some of these people investigated.

I also believe that the economy was a bit shaky during the entire Bush White House Years. However, you have to deal whith the cards that were played. I dont think the Bush policy helped the economy that much. The tax cuts cant be blamed for the economy. There was something else going on that seemed to be uncontrollable. It is not like only Republicans made money.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,093
3,628
126
Originally posted by: rudeguy
How long after Obama takes office will the economy be his fault? How long is the economy going to be Bush's fault and not the Obama's?
Enacting harmful policy will be a first step towards it, especially with taxation, but why wouldn?t it be Congress?s fault? I would say in 4-6 years, if the economy does not improve we will have to ask ourselves why not.

This is not necessarily anyone's fault, we will have to take a look at the precise action taken to determine blame.
 

CountZero

Golden Member
Jul 10, 2001
1,796
36
86
Its pretty straightforward:

Hardcore Rep: He is to blame now, after all he was on the senate surely he could have foreseen the issues at hand and stopped them himself.

Hardcore Dem/person that believes he is the next messiah: Never, it is and will always be 100% Bush's fault, maybe a little bit of will be Reagan's fault.

Moderately intelligent person on either side: Most economist seem to be saying we are looking at 1-2 years of bad times regardless. In addition we are stuck with a huge bailout to pay for and two wars. Realistically we should see the signs of recovery in two years or so assuming nothing major happens between now and then.

Most voters that aren't already covered: About a year and how they feel will be felt by the 2010 election which I would guess will not go in the Dems favor.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
First you say Bush is an idiot and an embicile now you say he should have been able to forsee the problems in the economy. Do you think Bush is now an economic Genius? None of the Democrats were warning us about the economy either. Where was Pelosi?
 

Skitzer

Diamond Member
Mar 20, 2000
4,415
3
81
I would expect to see some kind of turnaround within 24 months. Surely by the end of his first term he should have the economy turned around and headed in a positive direction. I hope he knows what he is doing with all these future bailouts, (auto industry), and tax hikes. He also intends on spending a whole lot of money on health care and education as well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Day 1. Just like the tech bubble pop on March 10th was Bush's fault, yet he was only in office for about a month.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: rudeguy
How long after Obama takes office will the economy be his fault? How long is the economy going to be Bush's fault and not the Obama's?
Your kind have already been saying it is the Democrats fault since 2006 and Obama's fault since Tuesday.

Hell you guys have still been blaming Clinton.
And you libs are still kissing his ass.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
0
0
Originally posted by: Skitzer
I would expect to see some kind of turnaround within 24 months. Surely by the end of his first term he should have the economy turned around and headed in a positive direction. I hope he knows what he is doing with all these future bailouts, (auto industry), and tax hikes. He also intends on spending a whole lot of money on health care and education as well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Additionally, I believe the democratic party now controls the house, senate, and presidency, and so he does not have the excuse of blaming the other party for having a majority somewhere.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=922492024&play=1 :shocked:

If McLame had been elected president, a nasty recession (1929) probably most definitely would have become another Great Depression (1932).

Even with someone as thoughtful and skillful as Obama at the helm (Jack Welch commented on CNBC that managers all around the the world should study the skill with which he ran his campaign), we can't totally rule that out now...

 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Corbett
Never. For the next 4 years we will only hear how this is all Bush's fault.
However to be fair like Astro said the day after the election when the market fell a few attributed it to the news of Obama getting in...
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It will be Obama's fault when he does something which directly influences the economy in tangible ways.

IMO, Bush isn't directly responsible for most of what we see, excepting energy. That has a direct causal relationship with Iraq. Instability and wars drive up energy prices, and this has been a very long war in a very sensitive part of the world.

I'd hold Obama to a similar standard.
cutting capital gains taxes probably had a direct impact on the economy, and probably not for the better. Yay for speculative bubbles :(
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
It's almost impossible to tell. We still feel the effects of the last 10 Presidents in various ways.
i thik you coudl go back further than 10, but the point remains none-the-less.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: CPA
Day 1. Just like the tech bubble pop on March 10th was Bush's fault, yet he was only in office for about a month.
Umm.. I'm pretty sure the tech bubble burting in Marh was in 2000. Clinton was still the President.

Fern
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
People will start to blame him as soon as 2010.

Truth is economic cycles are not a Democratic or Republican thing.
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
I think that after 12 months if we dont see some positive growth some adjustments need to be made. By adjustmnents I dont mean fudging the numbers.

That is why Bush deserves blame, the only thing that changed was the amount of the debt.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
Isn't it sad that even now, after his complete and utter repudiation by the American electorate on November 4, that it sounds like Bush is still looking out for his "true" constituents, rather than trying to help right the economy of the United States of America and promote the long term health of the U. S. economy right now: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=922669617&play=1

Seems to me that Bush is going to allow his true constituents to loot the system under the guise of the TARP until January 20, 2009 (notice the disdain that all of these Wall Street traders in video linked above have towards the Bush crony du jour)

 

Jmman

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 1999
5,302
0
76
Originally posted by: Corbett
Never. For the next 4 years we will only hear how this is all Bush's fault.


Exactly right. I fully expect that Obama might have 8 years of freedom from responsibity. Heck, "8 years of failed Bush policies" got him the Whitehouse......
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: mshan
Probably somewhere after the first year of his second term, if we have successfully fought off a lost decade, but hyper-inflation is now out of control, and he has not developed a reasonable and effective plan to combat it.

Warren Buffet projected range of 2 - 5 year recession, with unemployment peaking at 7% (former) or 9% (latter) at the beginning of September.
If what you say is true, then why would he spend more than $27 billion this year to make acquisitions, finance takeovers and investments in blue-chip companies?

Why didn't he wait 2-5 years before spending the $27 billion?
Why didn't he wait 2-5 years before he decided to invest in derivative contracts last year that's now costing him $2 billion/year?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY