Highlights of the Bush Presidency

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,824
1,583
136
I think as Americans we have very short memories. Someone started a thread as who was a better president, Obama or Bush. It got me to reflecting on what the Bush years were like. I almost forgot what we as a country went through during his presidency.

I found this clip by Olberman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLpkeDg7uyI

Any other highlights?
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
1) No Adult Supervision of Financial Markets in 2008:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000060287


(start around 10:15 mark; John Allison, the commentator, was former chairman of BB&T, and most definitely not a fan of Obama). Then reset to around 8:45 mark for Bearn Stearns comments and difference between then and S&L Crisis previously.




2) Lack of Intellectual Curiosity

But former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer wrote in an upcoming book (excerpted by GQ) that, even hours before he gave an address promoting the TARP, Bush fundamentally misunderstood what the program was all about:

Under his proposal, he said, the federal government would buy troubled mortgages on the cheap and then resell them at a higher price when the market for
them stabilized. “We’re buying low and selling high,” he kept saying. The problem was that his proposal didn’t work like that…As it turned
out, the plan wasn’t to buy low and sell high. In some cases, in fact, Secretary Paulson wanted to pay more than the securities were likely worth in order to put more money into the markets as soon as possible.
[...]

In the theater, the president was clearly confused about how the government would buy these securities. He repeated his belief that the government was
going to “buy low and sell high,” and he still didn’t understand why we hadn’t put that into the speech like he’d asked us to. When it was explained to him that
his concept of the bailout proposal wasn’t correct, the president was momentarily speechless. He threw up his hands in frustration. “Why did I sign on to this
proposal if I don’t understand what it does?” he asked.

The proposal that Bush offered that night would ultimately be rejected by the House of Representatives, with a slightly modified bill passing one week later. And it should come as no surprise that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson ultimately abandoned the idea to buy toxic assets entirely, instead opting for bank recapitalization, devoid of meaningful strings for the banks. As Latimer reported it, “the treasury secretary didn’t seem to know [which course of action he favored], changed his mind, had misled the president, or some combination of the three.”


http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...g+high&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari




3) TARP (Hank Paulson's original iteration), or as Hillary Clinton said, the most corrupt administration in the history of the United States of America...

"The basic plan is to set up a federal money laundering operation. Bad assets come in, get laundered by the Treasury and put in a new AAA “wrapper” (as it’s termed on the call), and good assets go out, issued as Treasury guaranteed securities. Whether the final value of the legislation this week is $700 billion or $150 billion is irrelevant as long as the laundering operation can accommodate the throughput, as that number is only a cap on total extensions at any one time.

The SEC will support the plan and survivor bias by relaxing FASB 157 on mark to market accounting. If there is no agreement on what an asset is worth, it is worth whatever the firm holding it says in its Level 3 accounts or the Treasury Secretary accepts in buying it.

The Federal Reserve will support the plan by relaxing the definition of “control stake” in US banks and bank holding companies to allow secretive cabals to hold through private equity and offshore hedge funds. No one knows the beneficial owners of these ill-transparent private equity investors, and so it is the ideal way to reward loyal and helpful insiders, legislators and officials – as well as cede further ownership of American assets to foreign stakeholders who would be politically unacceptable if publicly acknowledged. Many foreign creditors are irate at the losses their funds, banks and pensioners have sustained from investments in the United States, and this plan provides a secret way to buy them off and keep them lending and investing as their own economies are roiled by the deflation to come.

For the past year the survivor bias has been orchestrated from the Federal Reserve, with its extension of innovative credit facilities and selectively engineered rescues or forced mergers. That has been very useful, but that well is now dry. The Fed has no more good assets to trade for the bad assets the banks can offer. And the supply of bad assets just keeps growing as market illiquidity spreads further from the core of the mortgage backed securities market. Instability is now leading to a realistic threat that the Fed and Treasury could lose control of the deflationary process.

Part of the reason the Paulson Plan is so attractive is that it recapitalises the Fed by promoting the unwinding of repos and lending facilities which left the Fed holding toxic assets. As the repos and credit facilities gradually unwind, these toxic assets can now be taken back by the banks and exchanged for good cash. The Fed gets its balance sheet Treasuries and cash back to restore its flexibility to intervene anew.

Favoured private equity and insiders who swap US dollars for equity in the banking system will presumably be aware of the survivor bias being engineered on their behalf. Sovereign wealth funds, investment funds and private equity investors ripped off in the first round of recapitalisation may be willing to come back in once it is clear to them that the next round will benefit from official favouritism. Warren Buffett’s timely stake in Goldman Sachs is clearly linked to his confidence the Paulson Plan will benefit them disproportionately.

A factor which is probably critical but has received little discussion is that literally thousands of Bush administration apparatchiks will need jobs come January, and a fair selection of GOP House and Senate legislators and their aides too. What better way to enahance their CVs in their final months in power than to distribute $700 billion or so in pre-Christmas largesse to the most remunerative employers in the world? And what better way to ensure the corporate largesse is returned to the GOP to win back the White House and Congress in 2012 as the recession fuels public anger?

And then there is a huge arbitrage opportunity as well so that everyone makes money for years to come. According to the conference call, the pricing on offer from the Treasury will be a bit below Level 3 pricing. The toxic assets will be repackaged and resold with a new AAA wrapper, possibly priced well below what the Treasury paid, assuring a huge profit on both immediate liquidation by the banks and ultimate maturity by investors. The Fed gets its cash and Treasuries back; the banks make huge profits; the foreigners and off-shore tax avoiders get disguised ownership of the American financial system; the taxpayer gets ripped off. What’s not to love?"


http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2008/10/financial-eugenics-paulson-plan-for.html

http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2012/01/survivor-bias-and-tbtf-tyranny.html


:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Roaring stock market, low gas prices, booming economy, people making more, people's net worth more, Americans much better off, etc.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
As low as 4.1% unemployment comes to mind.

Unless you are black, Latino, or never had the opportunity to attain a college education, we are basically already there:

- by education level attained: http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea05.htm

- by race / sex: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat07.htm





Plus, Romney's 23 million job seekers either unemployed or underemployed might be from early 2008 historic high (not sure, just speculating): http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/07/160502999/jobs-in-america-in-2-graphs

CreditSightsUSLaborMarket-e1347045684163.jpg


ConstructionFred-e1347045803402.png


FredManufacturing-e1347045835112.png


http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/201...or-construction-and-manufacturing-employment/





And, as Jack Welch (former chairman of General Electric just said), automation / robots have taken out a ton of jobs:
"one great statistic is most of these businesses are operating at about 70% or 80% of the 2007 peak in revenue. their profitability is back to 2007/2008 levels. because they cut the heck out of jobs. yes. 30% fewer people working in these jobs. and automation ( http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/09/14/1159261/is-that-robot-going-to-steal-your-job/ taken out tons of jobs ). the old belly to belly salesman is replaced with an ipad and other information. we don't have to have all these people chasing inventories. the stories of productivity are incredible in these plants. you're not going to get some of those old jobs back. unless you get big demand. because you've got to put more people in the street for that. but in general, the stories are the same. oh, we're recovering. yeah, we're back to 75% of where we were in '07. but our profits are back to where they were. but we're 30% down in people. it's a common theme. business after business after business."


http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000117011&play=1 (specific comments are around 2:40 mark, but I recommend starting at 1:40 point for greater context)

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000114304&play=1 (start at 2:45 mark, where Brandeis economics professor says we have lost as many jobs to robotics as have been outsourced to China)

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/export-surge-could-help-u-103654781.html
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
"A jump in the stock market and rising home prices are bringing Americans closer to regaining the wealth they lost in the recession.

U.S. household net worth dipped in the April-June quarter, according to a Federal Reserve report released Thursday. But gains in stock and home equity since the last quarter ended have likely raised total household wealth to within 5 percent of its peak before the Great Recession.

Millions of Americans still feeling the effects of the housing bust, or who don't own any stocks, haven't benefited as much."


http://www.cnbc.com/id/49105009




I also think one also needs to go back to the uneasy quiet (spring / summer of 2008) before the stock market crash in 2008 for some historical perspective:

- Oil (Brent) went to $147

- gas was approaching $5

- inflation peaked out at 5.6%






And for a bit more long-term perspective on illusory vs. durable wealth creation (at least for Main Street):
Stock market returns (T. D. Ameritrade's "Enlightened Investor" magazine (fall 2008 edition), page 3):


Average Annual Returns:
- Democrat: 9.0%
- Republican: 5.8%


Cumulative Return on $10,000:
- Democrat: $315,449
- Republican: $73,536


Average Annual Returns (individual administrations):
- FDR 7.5%
- Truman 8.3%
- Eisenhower 10.9%
- Kennedy 6.5%
- LBJ 7.7%
- Nixon -3.9%
- Ford 10.8%
- Carter 6.9%
- Reagan 10.2%
- H. W. Bush 11.0%
- Clinton 15.2%
- George W Bush -0.8% (through 8/25/08)



(in reconciling average annual returns with the cumulative gain on $10,000 statistic above, I'm guessing that Republican administrations have represented giant boom and bust cycles where lots of money was made, lots of money was lost, but the net overall effect was simply transfer of wealth, rather than gains that hold significantly over time?)
Average Annual Cumulative Return:

7815436294_01437aa536.jpg



7815436178_283123db05.jpg


http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/73...our-wallet-dems-outperform-republicans-by-far


** Obviously you won't have 40 years of continuous Democratic (or Republican) rule, so the sequential compounding above is only hypothetical and most likely very grossly exaggerates the actual pot of money you would end up with in reality ** (second chart, which looks like lump sum investing, and third chart, which is dollar cost averaging and probably what most people with 401k would relate to, then extrapolating cumulative return over time by using average annual return over 40 years of Republican rule (5.8% average annual return) vs. 40 years of Democratic rule (9.6% average annual return)
 
Last edited:

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Got us out of 2 recession, put stimulus money in OUR pockets and not his cronies.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Got us out of 2 recession, put stimulus money in OUR pockets and not his cronies.

Oh please, that was a fucking bribe for the voters. And it worked. And it didnt turn the economy around. You really think 1 percent of your taxes back to you actually makes your life better?


Bush started an illegal war we still havent got out of. And he convinced the majority of America we need to be paranoid but he didnt actually improve national security. He did let a shitload of drug carrying criminal invaders hop over and stay though.

Of course, Obama promised all sorts of shit he couldnt deliver, started another illegal war, made diddly progress on the old war (except for Bin Laden, but thats a whole issue I dont wanna discuss right now) and both of them pandered to corporations whose best skills is breaking the laws and abusing the economy.


No. They both suck. They're both liars. They're both thieves. I think its just your political party that makes you think one was better than the other.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Props for George Bush!

To the below article I would also add that he channeled significant US funds to purchase medicine for millions suffering with AIDS in Africa, started the USA Freedom Corps, the most comprehensive clearinghouse of volunteer opportunities ever offered, pushed for Health Savings Accounts, strengthened the National Health Service Corps to put more physicians in the neediest areas and make its scholarship funds tax-free, doubled the research budget of the National Institutes of Health, stopped US involvement in the International Criminal Court, prohibited putting U.S. troops under U.N. command, signed the largest nuclear arms reduction in world history with Russia, increased funding for the Troops-to-Teachers program, which recruits former military personnel to become teachers, and signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history.

Bush's Achievements
Ten things the president got right.
JAN 19, 2009, VOL. 14, NO. 17 • BY FRED BARNES

The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all wrong. The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened America's position in the world and rushed to the aid of the rich and powerful as income inequality worsened. That is twaddle. Conservatives--okay, not all of them--have only been a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the surge that saved Iraq, but not for much else.

He deserves better. His presidency was far more successful than not. And there's an aspect of his decision-making that merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not have done and for which he was vilified and abused. That--defiantly doing the right thing--is what distinguished his presidency.

Bush had ten great achievements (and maybe more) in his eight years in the White House, starting with his decision in 2001 to jettison the Kyoto global warming treaty so loved by Al Gore, the environmental lobby, elite opinion, and Europeans. The treaty was a disaster, with India and China exempted and economic decline the certain result. Everyone knew it. But only Bush said so and acted accordingly.

He stood athwart mounting global warming hysteria and yelled, "Stop!" He slowed the movement toward a policy blunder of worldwide impact, providing time for facts to catch up with the dubious claims of alarmists. Thanks in part to Bush, the supposed consensus of scientists on global warming has now collapsed. The skeptics, who point to global cooling over the past decade, are now heard loud and clear. And a rational approach to the theory of manmade global warming is possible.

Second, enhanced interrogation of terrorists. Along with use of secret prisons and wireless eavesdropping, this saved American lives. How many thousands of lives? We'll never know. But, as Charles Krauthammer said recently, "Those are precisely the elements which kept us safe and which have prevented a second attack."

Crucial intelligence was obtained from captured al Qaeda leaders, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, with the help of waterboarding. Whether this tactic--it creates a drowning sensation--is torture is a matter of debate. John McCain and many Democrats say it is. Bush and Vice President Cheney insist it isn't. In any case, it was necessary. Lincoln once made a similar point in defending his suspension of habeas corpus in direct defiance of Chief Justice Roger Taney. "Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?" Lincoln asked. Bush understood the answer in wartime had to be no.

Bush's third achievement was the rebuilding of presidential authority, badly degraded in the era of Vietnam, Watergate, and Bill Clinton. He didn't hesitate to conduct wireless surveillance of terrorists without getting a federal judge's okay. He decided on his own how to treat terrorists and where they should be imprisoned. Those were legitimate decisions for which the president, as commander in chief, should feel no need to apologize.

Defending, all the way to the Supreme Court, Cheney's refusal to disclose to Congress the names of people he'd consulted on energy policy was also enormously important. Democratic congressman Henry Waxman demanded the names, but the Court upheld Cheney, 7-2. Last week, Cheney defended his refusal, waspishly noting that Waxman "doesn't call me up and tell me who he's meeting with."

Achievement number four was Bush's unswerving support for Israel. Reagan was once deemed Israel's best friend in the White House. Now Bush can claim the title. He ostracized Yasser Arafat as an impediment to peace in the Middle East. This infuriated the anti-Israel forces in Europe, the Third World, and the United Nations, and was criticized by champions of the "peace process" here at home. Bush was right.

He was clever in his support. Bush announced that Ariel Sharon should withdraw the tanks he'd sent into the West Bank in 2002, then exerted zero pressure on Sharon to do so. And he backed the wall along Israel's eastern border without endorsing it as an official boundary, while knowing full well that it might eventually become exactly that. He was a loyal friend.

His fifth success was No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the education reform bill cosponsored by America's most prominent liberal Democratic senator Edward Kennedy. The teachers' unions, school boards, the education establishment, conservatives adamant about local control of schools--they all loathed the measure and still do. It requires two things they ardently oppose, mandatory testing and accountability.

Kennedy later turned against NCLB, saying Bush is shortchanging the program. In truth, federal education spending is at record levels. Another complaint is that it forces teachers to "teach to the test." The tests are on math and reading. They are tests worth teaching to.

Sixth, Bush declared in his second inaugural address in 2005 that American foreign policy (at least his) would henceforth focus on promoting democracy around the world. This put him squarely in the Reagan camp, but he was lambasted as unrealistic, impractical, and a tool of wily neoconservatives. The new policy gave Bush credibility in pressing for democracy in the former Soviet republics and Middle East and in zinging various dictators and kleptocrats. It will do the same for President Obama, if he's wise enough to hang onto it.

The seventh achievement is the Medicare prescription drug benefit, enacted in 2003. It's not only wildly popular; it has cost less than expected by triggering competition among drug companies. Conservatives have deep reservations about the program. But they shouldn't have been surprised. Bush advocated the drug benefit in the 2000 campaign. And if he hadn't acted, Democrats would have, with a much less attractive result.

Then there were John Roberts and Sam Alito. In putting them on the Supreme Court and naming Roberts chief justice, Bush achieved what had eluded Richard Nixon, Reagan, and his own father. Roberts and Alito made the Court indisputably more conservative. And the good news is Roberts, 53, and Alito, 58, should be justices for decades to come.

Bush's ninth achievement has been widely ignored. He strengthened relations with east Asian democracies (Japan, South Korea, Australia) without causing a rift with China. On top of that, he forged strong ties with India. An important factor was their common enemy, Islamic jihadists. After 9/11, Bush made the most of this, and Indian leaders were receptive. His state dinner for Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh in 2006 was a lovefest.

Finally, a no-brainer: the surge. Bush prompted nearly unanimous disapproval in January 2007 when he announced he was sending more troops to Iraq and adopting a new counterinsurgency strategy. His opponents initially included the State Department, the Pentagon, most of Congress, the media, the foreign policy establishment, indeed the whole world. This makes his decision a profile in courage. Best of all, the surge worked. Iraq is now a fragile but functioning democracy.

How does Bush rank as a president? We won't know until he's judged from the perspective of two or three decades. Hindsight forced a sharp upgrading of the presidencies of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Given his achievements, it may have the same effect for Bush.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
It boggles my mind that a supposedly pro small-government publication like the Weekly Standard is championing the Medicare prescription drug benefit (which Congress failed to pay for when they passed it :rolleyes: ) as a Bush achievement. Mindless partisan toilet paper.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
Oh yeah, they're also cheering him for "promoting democracy." Isn't that exactly what conservatives are criticizing Obama for doing in Egypt and Libya?
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Oh yeah, they're also cheering him for "promoting democracy." Isn't that exactly what conservatives are criticizing Obama for doing in Egypt and Libya?

Do you actually believe that Egypt and Libya are moving toward democracy?
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Oh please, that was a fucking bribe for the voters. And it worked. And it didnt turn the economy around. You really think 1 percent of your taxes back to you actually makes your life better?


Bush started an illegal war we still havent got out of. And he convinced the majority of America we need to be paranoid but he didnt actually improve national security. He did let a shitload of drug carrying criminal invaders hop over and stay though.

Of course, Obama promised all sorts of shit he couldnt deliver, started another illegal war, made diddly progress on the old war (except for Bin Laden, but thats a whole issue I dont wanna discuss right now) and both of them pandered to corporations whose best skills is breaking the laws and abusing the economy.


No. They both suck. They're both liars. They're both thieves. I think its just your political party that makes you think one was better than the other.

It may not have been a lot, but $300 or $600 depending on what you got can help out quite a bit. Obama stimulus money just repaved a highway this summer in Syracuse that just got repaved 2 years ago. That didn't benefit me very much.
 

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
Do you actually believe that Egypt and Libya are moving toward democracy?

Yes actually. I hate to say it, but I think that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are genuinely popular there. The only reason that Turkey hasn't turned into an Islamic theocracy is that the military has done some decidedly undemocratic things to maintain a secular government there, although now that the AK party has broken the army that may be changing. Democracy in the Muslim world often isn't a pretty thing.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Yes actually. I hate to say it, but I think that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are genuinely popular there. The only reason that Turkey hasn't turned into an Islamic theocracy is that the military has done some decidedly undemocratic things to maintain a secular government there, although now that the AK party has broken the army that may be changing. Democracy in the Muslim world often isn't a pretty thing.

The concern is that the anarchy that is not really passing for democracy is going to be the fastest road to another theocratic dictatorship.