The BUSH Economy in 2012

[nehalem256]

Nice posts OP and welcome. An injection of original thought is always needed.


Is it even fair to call this a Bush economy? To me it seems like we are still on the long arc of the Reagan economy. Clinton and Bush(s) have pushed the edges around a bit, but the fundamental premise seems to still be built on Reaganomics. W just took all the old dials up to 11.

I'd say Obama has done little to change any of this. What policy changes have been made? What paradigm shifts have happened? Obama can't even get some of the Bush taxcuts repealed, and he'll likely get boxed out again in 2013.

I think you could boil Obama's operating philosophy as a "smarter" Bush economy, with little net action.

Shocking that the recovery is still waiting...

That seems reasonably accurate.

The real problem as I see it is jobs and sourcing. Unfortunately this is not a problem the Presidents have been willing (or able?) to address.

I do not see how twiddling with tax rates of the rich or instituting universal health care will fix the economy.

 

[jackstar7]

Your inability to see things does not preclude their efficacy.

 

[nehalem256]

Your inability to see things does not preclude their efficacy.

You are free to explain why raising taxes on the rich and instituting universal health care will fix the economy.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

You are free to explain why raising taxes on the rich and instituting universal health care will fix the economy.

You know for someone who proclaims to have an important professional position, and insinuated pay that comes with such a title, I am shocked by your pointed obsession with the economy. America made it pretty clear to you and everyone else that we rejected your economy when those in power decided to ignore our unified request for representation with regard to the bailouts.

Raising taxes and universal health care will not fix the economy but neither will the cooked books of the gamblers over on Wall Street. The problem is you believe the game is fair and not slanted when in fact insider trading and back room deals are the norm for the "winners", meanwhile the same people that should be protecting us from them are holding hearings on baseball and boxing.

You refuse to accept these as truths when it is all over the front page. This country didn't fail, our leadership has repeatedly. We can still compete and innovate with anyone but our leadership just decided to cut the balls off of our productive workers across the board because they demanded regular pay increases, insurance, and the other things you take for granted while sitting in your office or basement or whatever typing this nonsense.

The world is not out to steal your money dude, let it go.

 

[WackyDan]

A murderer doesn't admit to murder; a thief doesnt' admit to theft. But the signs are all there. We had a balanced budget in 2000, and never disarmed during the Cold War. It would seem reasonable we could've waged war in Afghanistan by only adding another $100 billion to the $250 billion defense budget. Look at the tips of the ice-bergs -- Randy Cunningham, Abramoff, Halliburton's sole-source contract -- and Bush in both Cheney's and Hunt's back pocket. The defense budget ratcheted up to $850 billion in 2008, and add another $200 billion for additional Homeland Security.

We never had a balanced budget or surplus in 2000. The fact that you wanted to reinforce just how educated you are in your opener to this thread already screamed -Educated but not experienced.

Doesn't take much of a google to figure out it wasn't balanced or had a surplus in 2000... Unless you are a liberal or progressive and have your head buried in that dogma.

 

[nehalem256]

Raising taxes and universal health care will not fix the economy but neither will the cooked books of the gamblers over on Wall Street. The problem is you believe the game is fair and not slanted when in fact insider trading and back room deals are the norm for the "winners", meanwhile the same people that should be protecting us from them are holding hearings on baseball and boxing.

Funny how I see the Democratic Party focusing on the former rather than the later. :hmm:

 

[trenchfoot]

Nice posts OP and welcome. An injection of original thought is always needed.


Is it even fair to call this a Bush economy? To me it seems like we are still on the long arc of the Reagan economy. Clinton and Bush(s) have pushed the edges around a bit, but the fundamental premise seems to still be built on Reaganomics. W just took all the old dials up to 11.

I'd say Obama has done little to change any of this. What policy changes have been made? What paradigm shifts have happened? Obama can't even get some of the Bush taxcuts repealed, and he'll likely get boxed out again in 2013.

I think you could boil Obama's operating philosophy as a "smarter" Bush economy, with little net action.

Shocking that the recovery is still waiting...

How much of this delay do you attribute to the Repubs? It seems from your post you are holding only Obama responsible, when in fact the Repubs have been doing every single thing they could and can do to stifle anything that Obama wants passed in Congress.

edit - Agreed that new opinions that are as well thought out as the OP you quoted are more than welcome. Refreshing to say the least.

 

[sm625]

The Bush economy is the same as the Obama economy. Of, By, and For the bankers. 20% of the entire GDP is nothing but made up financial games, and both presidents take every opportunity to get on their knees and service wall street. If you think a few billion in solar panels or aircraft carriers means anything in the face of that, then you're clearly delusional. There is nothing of relative significance that separates any of the last 4 presidencies. Patriot Act, NDAA, Military Commissions Act, etc etc ad nauseum till vomit. One Party. One Presidency. Of, By, and For the bankers. Enabled by morons who got played and continue to get played off against each other in meaningless squabbles because they cant see the frickin forest...

 

[trenchfoot]

The Bush economy is the same as the Obama economy. Of, By, and For the bankers. 20% of the entire GDP is nothing but made up financial games, and both presidents take every opportunity to get on their knees and service wall street. If you think a few billion in solar panels or aircraft carriers means anything in the face of that, then you're clearly delusional. There is nothing of relative significance that separates any of the last 4 presidencies. Patriot Act, NDAA, Military Commissions Act, etc etc ad nauseum till vomit. One Party. One Presidency. Of, By, and For the bankers. Enabled by morons who got played and continue to get played off against each other in meaningless squabbles because they cant see the frickin forest...

Well, apart from the fact that I don't consider myself a moron, I agree with much of what you posted, though the difference in operational ideologies between the parties are very different in both substance and effect on the folks who are outside of the priviledged class.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The Bush economy is the same as the Obama economy. Of, By, and For the bankers. 20% of the entire GDP is nothing but made up financial games, and both presidents take every opportunity to get on their knees and service wall street. If you think a few billion in solar panels or aircraft carriers means anything in the face of that, then you're clearly delusional. There is nothing of relative significance that separates any of the last 4 presidencies. Patriot Act, NDAA, Military Commissions Act, etc etc ad nauseum till vomit. One Party. One Presidency. Of, By, and For the bankers. Enabled by morons who got played and continue to get played off against each other in meaningless squabbles because they cant see the frickin forest...

I had almost got to a point -- after my "manifesto(s) -- to let "y'all thrash this out. I was actually a bit relieved to see the thread languish toward "page 2" after a couple days.

That's probably spot-on -- what you say. Then the question becomes "who are you going to blame for it?" The Presidency has a lop-sided and limited set of powers. There's no accident of that video catching Bush addressing the Carlyle Group. They "major" in defense. Even GHWB had warned Bush not to go back into Iraq, but he wouldn't listen. The best I can make out -- and I have a subjective appraisal of Bush's "limits and talents" equal on the surface to anyone else's* -- he was all star-struck with being a "war President." Cheney -- the former Halliburton CEO -- was a strong influence, and then you have Hunt (of Hunt Oil) also on the Halliburton board, giving (I think it was) hundreds of millions to the Bush 2000 and 2004 campaigns. They had a "speshul dea-ul" about the border fence that was being built (the coyote/illegal immigrant issue) -- part of it bordering a large patch of land owned by Hunt. He got a "dispensation" from the fence.

Unlike Obama, who said "I have to weight the costs and benefits"** -- Bush had insinuated that we'd be "in and out" of Iraq -- there was his big announcement that "the war was over) in 2003 or '04 -- some past year -- when it wasn't. The expenditures and boots-on-the-ground continued. Same with Afghanistan. Former Alaskan Senator Mike Gravell, when interviewed in pre-March, 2003, had noted "once those corporations are in Iraq, they won't be getting out soon." That's a fact. Couple that fact with another: "sole-source contract to Halliburton."

I've been saying this for 12-plus years. There IS a military-industrial complex; they lobby congressmen, senators, and get their own man elected to the White House (Ike, Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes (Walker is the defense-connection side of the family.) Ike -- because he was a retired general whose balance and accomplishments defied political smears. But Ike suddenly realized what had been going on since the 1947 National Security Act. He wasn't playing "Comedy Channel" with his Jan-1961 farewell speech. The news had a field day over JFK and Ike conferring together; MacArthur (Gen. Douglas . . ) -- under whom Ike said he had "studied dramatics" -- had told Kennedy he shouldn't engage in an asian land-war; neither Truman nor Ike wanted it either -- from the best histories and declassifications available. We can discuss that further at a later time . .

Corporate fascism involves government and industry working together in secret. This was the sense of it behind Ike's thinking about "unwarranted influence -- sought or unsought . . . " With a loose-joint like "Democracy" --they can still get their men into office.

That's what I meant about institutional momentum. The Joint Chiefs may say one thing, but their political beliefs will skew their thinking toward excess military spending with fewer controls. The JCS hobnobs with industry in the "Center for Strategic and INternational Studies." Both may hobnob with conservative influentials (the Hunts, Dick Armey, Schlafley and a host of other well-knowns) in the semi-secret "Council for National Policy."

This is not the "private sector." These are long-term contracts, sought by companies traded on Wall-Street, in a monopsonistic situation in which they can leverage influence through lobbying, revolving doors between DOD and CIA (possibly NSA), Congress etc. They are "rent-seekers." At one time, Lockheed got 95% of its business from DOD . . . which is why . . . they had to seek a bailout in the early '70s orchestrated by Senator John Tower.

I will continue this same thread later -- I must get a toilet repair kit at Home Depot this morning . .

OK -- Back again.

The oil-men have always had one foot in mineral extraction industry, and another foot into defense-aerospace, but you also have to have "one foot in the intelligence community." That's the biggest revolving door in American history, for instance CIA careerists posted in the Middle East, forced to make their business a secondary consideration for that of a Texas oil-magnate. Oil men as "intelligence assets;" CIA men with family in the oil industry, defense industry; NSA with their employees doubling as ATT or Bell-co etc. employees (NSA had employed 90,000 people in 1999.)

There is no doubt in truth of the stories told by former Bush aides about the manipulation of CIA through DOD by the White House, Rove and others. Powell -- plugged in to DOD and the Joint Chiefs -- was equally snowed. Big oil offers six digit salaries to CIA careerists -- even some making only a bit more than a public school teacher in the lower ranks. This is how the emergence of GHWB as 1976 CIA Director emerged. "What Intelligence experience," people would ask. "Plenty" scholars and analysts would counter, except it's "classified."

What about Johnson? Starts in Duvall Co Texas, wheels and deals in the Senate -- probably lobbied strongly by the emerging Texas defense industry, and most certainly -- Big Oil. As Vice President, he was listening to hawks amid the Joint Chiefs, equally plugged in to the oil-and-defense men -- Curtis LeMay, Lyman Lemnitzer, Edwin Walker. Maxwell Taylor wasn't among the "hawk faction," turned up to continue his life on Kennedy's staff.

PRetty soon, with the Billy Sol Estes debacle and related problems to his post-JFK presidency, he was too deep in Big Oil's pockets. So? There's no doubt that both Johnson and Nixon had met with HL Hunt at his ranch-house early in a certain week of November, 1963.

All these things are known. And I see "one liners" from people here -- shaking my head about my points of "education and experience." See -- I didn't post that stuff for the reader -- you can take it or leave it. I posted it to explain how I suddenly trust my own wisdom as opposed to either the mainstream (lame-stream liberal") or conservative press, or the conservative press masquerading as lame-stream liberal.

Should I throw in my industrial and public experience? Again -- the readers would either take it or leave it. It's not important. It's important to me when I look back on how all those years buttress my thinking.

For instance, somebody wants me or others to believe "no balanced budget or surplus" in 2000. Either put up cross-verified facts, or stop lying to yourself in the face of reality!

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Funny how I see the Democratic Party focusing on the former rather than the later. :hmm:

And funny how you ignore the actual point to make a slight at a party I am not a part of. Your models of ideaology are a dinosaur in the post 20th century world.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

And funny how you ignore the actual point to make a slight at a party I am not a part of. Your models of ideaology are a dinosaur in the post 20th century world.

In the 2001 film release and remake based on Graham Greene's book "the Quiet American," Michael Caine (Fowler -- Greene's persona) meets with a fellow journalist -- a Vietnamese. He asks him "Are you a communist?"

And the journalist says "I'm a journalist by day, and a communist by night."

Fowler asks him "Should I choose sides?"

And the journalist says "If you are human, you should choose sides."

Lincoln might have said it; Jefferson might have said it; surely the Founders probably said it.

Now -- I'm saying it. I was reticent about it from the time I thought I was a Repub and giving maybe $300/annum to the RNC. My eyes were opened in the mid-1980s, but I continued to think "I have to be independent." I wandered through the '90s; moved back here to my home state; registered as an "independent."

Finally, I just decided "lesser of two Evils. Join one; fight the other." What if I thought my facts and beliefs crossed paths with another party -- say the Green Party? This is similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma Game and other strategem analyses. The other parties can't win.

So . . . . I chose sides . . . about 9 years before I apply for Medicare. That was 2003. Less than a year before that, I'd sent a letter to Senator McCain, asking him to put a collar on Bush pertaining to the Saddam's-WMDs scare. I received a four page, single-spaced response dated about January 14, 2003. "Saddam Hussein can destroy the world four times over; Saddam has . . . . [list of bio-toxins, nuclear devices, etc. for a good part of a page] . . . " OK -- maybe three pages long and few lines on the fourth page -- signed "John McCain" in blue ink. Before you think . . . that I think . . . . that he signed that letter "just for me," it could only have been signed with a device known as an "auto-pen."

I laughed until my sides were sore. To myself, I said "John?! You're full of it! You're Wrong!"

And . . . He was.

 

[Steeplerot]

It is the neo-liberal reckless economic idealism that has been around since Nixon driving the endless crisis mode capitalism, Reagan and Clinton were also big notable players.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

It is the neo-liberal reckless economic idealism that has been around since Nixon driving the endless crisis mode capitalism, Reagan and Clinton were also big notable players.

I have a problem with "-isms" of many kinds. There is no single ideology which has an exclusive monopoly on Truth, and at least the Founders understood this.

There's a certain hypocrisy afoot as we look back on history. For instance, the premises of some part -- not all -- of the Cold War. In our political rhetoric, we tout the free discussion in a "market-place" of ideas. George Kennan was responsible for crafting the post-WW-II Cold War doctrine: We would oppose the very idea of Marxism and Communism. But it is probably proven: You can't kill an idea. Instead -- even the very practitioners of a bad idea may eventually see the light on their own.

The underlying premise of Communism was "Totalitarianism." But, examining MacNamara's retrospective view of the Cold War, we weren't "really inside their heads" -- there was no "empathy." The Soviet Bloc had been established in reaction to German Fascism. Russia lost some 50 million lives in WW-II. They had slogged their way from East To West as the Allies converged on Berlin, and so there was Soviet hegemony over eastern Europe. It would not matter whether people said that "Roosevelt gave it away." USSR had control of those countries.

Similarly, a mindset prevailed after the Japanese tried to establish a Southeast Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" -- a euphemism for Japanese Imperialism. In the post-war period and Cold War, there was also a myth of the "Yellow Peril" which western countries like the US promoted in film and other characterizations. Especially, after the Japanese actually occupied Australian soil briefly, the idea would infect our Australian ally as much or more than anyone. So, despite the fact that the Chinese had suffered terribly from episodes like the Rape of Nanking, there was this automatic assumption of a "Domino Theory" imperative in Asia. This led to our own intransigence about VietNam -- a country which had been at war with China for the good part of a millennium.

So a lot of our foreign policy -- therefore expenditures -- had been based on incomplete understanding of potential enemies, a lack of cultural awareness, and a pragmatic sense of overkill. Howsoever the extent of these distortions, it led to massive expenditures we might have avoided. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the "Soviet Empire" would have collapsed on its own, even if US expenditures had been half what they were. It's called "human progress."

Now it turns out, toward the end of the Soviet era, a good part of the KGB's archives smuggled out of the country in photo-copies to Britain, and the later declassification of those archives paralleling the Clinton-era declassifications -- there really wasn't a "Monolithic" Communist conspiracy. The signs of this were already there with the 1960 Sino-Soviet Split, and the US was at a crossroads pertaining to its strategic doctrine.

It was in the interests of the "military-industrial-complex" to continue the Cold War, even at the point where the Doctrine may have been revised. And people can be led: they will believe anything argued that has a groundwork in fear.

So getting back to "-Isms." Take for instance the mathematical model used to allocate goods and services in the Soviet Economy -- known as the Leontief Input-Output Model. You can take that mathematical model, adjust it in various ways to suit the problem, so that Southland Corporation -- owner of all the 7/11 stores at one time -- used a similar model to minimize cost and meet "corn-nuts" demand at all of its stores -- routing their trucks according to computerized optimization solutions to the model.

So forget the "Isms." We need leaders who can focus on problem-solving. We don't need obstructive dogma and ideology. The greatest error in this is that classical simplifications like "laissez-faire" markets do not work to solve all problems in the real world. Further, the economy has departed from the primary purpose of the pure-competition model: ask anyone if the purpose is to make people rich, or provide abundance to such an extent that surviving is more important than "excess profit." They'll likely give you an incorrect answer. In such markets, there is very little profit, but much abundance to consumers. People have been brainwashed to assume two things:

-- All democratic decisions are the "right" decisions, because they are democratic. IN fact, democratic decisions can only be likely "right" if all voters have access to perfect information and the ability to scrutinize it. But they don't. Half the American electorate at any given time "thinks" they're right, because it's their "opinion" which is supposedly "as good as anyone else's."

-- Private goods provided through unrestricted markets will solve all problems. I'll give you a chunk of concrete -- you can call it your own or "mine," and I'll ask you to see how far you'll get on a road-trip from LA to Vegas -- driving on your privately owned chunk of concrete.

 

[cybrsage]

BonzaiDuck - Can you actually answer the question?

My question to you, though, is do you call the years during the Clinton administration the "Reagan Economy" or do you give Clinton the credit for it?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

BonzaiDuck - Can you actually answer the question?

My question to you, though, is do you call the years during the Clinton administration the "Reagan Economy" or do you give Clinton the credit for it?

It was the Bill Gates Economy. And basically, not much went into the s***ter then. Clinton closed down some military bases as an attempt to draw down defense spending after the Cold War. Here, in my home county on the "Left Coast" when I was living in the Mid-Atlantic, the unemployment rate spike to about 20% related to the base closings.

But there was no "tsunami" downturn as we saw after 2007. The reason I can blame Bush arises from the lop-sided nature of presidential power. The term "oil presidency" has become a cliche, but that's what it was, and in essence, it was an oil-and-defense presidency. The writing was on the wall. All this corruption emerged, as wth Congressman Cunningham, Abramoff, Enron, MCI ad infinitum. The White House and the national security apparatus were pretty much taken over, or overwhelmingly influenced by those concentrated industries. And if defense spending never significantly decreased after Cold War's end, and suddenly increased more than four times if you include Homeland Security, then there's a good part of your deficit and debt ceiling changes.

Could I use Bush's appearance before the "Haves and Have Mores" of the Carlyle Group to retroactively impeach him? No. But it's a trail-sign that is as significant as Halliburton's sole-source contract and all the other irresponsible nonsense.

And if it were necessary to spend $1 trillion in Iraq in addition to the Afghanistan spending and the exotic defense projects invested by interests such as Carlyle, he should've raised taxes to cover it.

So -- it's the Bush economy. Even if the groundwork had been laid by Bush-ites like Alan Greenspan under Clinton's nose for the housing and banking bubble, Bush had a chance to fix it. But -- no . . . Cornpone had his head where the sun don't shine, whining about his "free-market principles" and pining after his next hamburger.

 

[davmat787]

So -- it's the Bush economy. Even if the groundwork had been laid by Bush-ites like Alan Greenspan under Clinton's nose for the housing and banking bubble, Bush had a chance to fix it. But -- no . . . Cornpone had his head where the sun don't shine, whining about his "free-market principles" and pining after his next hamburger.

Pretend for a moment Obama loses in November, although I don't think he will. Anyway, if he loses would you then say there was never an Obama economy? Or would you consider say 2013 to 2016 or so the Obama economy?

 

[cybrsage]

It was the Bill Gates Economy.

So you are a shill for the dems. You say the current economy is caused by the previous admin ONLY when it is bad and the previous admin is a republican. I understand your position much better now, thank you for the clarification.

 

[CycloWizard]

It was the Bill Gates Economy. And basically, not much went into the s***ter then. Clinton closed down some military bases as an attempt to draw down defense spending after the Cold War. Here, in my home county on the "Left Coast" when I was living in the Mid-Atlantic, the unemployment rate spike to about 20% related to the base closings.

But there was no "tsunami" downturn as we saw after 2007. The reason I can blame Bush arises from the lop-sided nature of presidential power. The term "oil presidency" has become a cliche, but that's what it was, and in essence, it was an oil-and-defense presidency. The writing was on the wall. All this corruption emerged, as wth Congressman Cunningham, Abramoff, Enron, MCI ad infinitum. The White House and the national security apparatus were pretty much taken over, or overwhelmingly influenced by those concentrated industries. And if defense spending never significantly decreased after Cold War's end, and suddenly increased more than four times if you include Homeland Security, then there's a good part of your deficit and debt ceiling changes.

Could I use Bush's appearance before the "Haves and Have Mores" of the Carlyle Group to retroactively impeach him? No. But it's a trail-sign that is as significant as Halliburton's sole-source contract and all the other irresponsible nonsense.

And if it were necessary to spend $1 trillion in Iraq in addition to the Afghanistan spending and the exotic defense projects invested by interests such as Carlyle, he should've raised taxes to cover it.

So -- it's the Bush economy. Even if the groundwork had been laid by Bush-ites like Alan Greenspan under Clinton's nose for the housing and banking bubble, Bush had a chance to fix it. But -- no . . . Cornpone had his head where the sun don't shine, whining about his "free-market principles" and pining after his next hamburger.

For all of your ranting and purported expertise, you've not yet offered a cause-and-effect analysis of anything related to the economy: you've just repeated the typical anti-Bush tirade in extremely verbose fashion. Bush was a piece of work, to be sure, but you claim with one side of your mouth that the president has little to do with the economy while the other side rants about how Bush ruined ours. Energy is the foundation of the US economy and increasingly the global economy. That will not change until we achieve fusion-generated energy. Since energy is the basis for economic growth, it is also the basis for much of foreign policy for any nation that wants its economy to grow. Any president who is not an "oil president" is therefore an idiot. Bush might be an idiot as well, but not for having energy-friendly policies.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

So you are a shill for the dems. You say the current economy is caused by the previous admin ONLY when it is bad and the previous admin is a republican. I understand your position much better now, thank you for the clarification.

He puts in paragraphs worth of effort to explain his position and all you can come back with is " you are a shill for the dems" ?

Where are your counter-arguments? Hell, find us a bunch of economists who think Bush 2 handled the economy and fiscal policy properly. Nope the Anti-Obama/Democratic crowd refuse to take responsibility for 8 years of disaster and economic ruin.

Face it, Bush 2 was a devastatingly shitty President on any number of fronts, and trying to bring up a Reagan economy vs a Clinton one is a misdirection to nowhere.

 

[cybrsage]

Any president who is not an "oil president" is therefore an idiot.

Exactly, and oil is a perfectly good reason to go to war. One of the primary purposes of a military is to ensure the flow of resources which are vital to the survival of the nation...and oil certainly is vital to the survival of the nation.

 

[IGBT]

it's the obama economy. His finger prints are all over it.

 

[trenchfoot]

it's the obama economy. His finger prints are all over it.

Of course his fingerprints are all over it because: One day a tall tower made of lego bricks got toppled over when Georgie was in the room seeing how far he could lean it over and it came crashing to the floor and Georgie ran away laughing his ass off. Then, along comes Barry who starts rebuilding it piece by little piece; a very long process that took a minute to weaken but only seconds to dash into shambles. Then, Georgie's friends show up with baseball bats and keep knocking off the pieces that Barry is trying to put back on. Well, long story short, you can see where and why Barry's prints are all over the legos, but the chips, gouges and smash marks that Georgie's friends baseball bats made are there for all to see too. And if you look real close, why, you'll see Georgie's fingerprints under Barry's on every block Barry touched.🙂

 

[nehalem256]

And if it were necessary to spend $1 trillion in Iraq in addition to the Afghanistan spending and the exotic defense projects invested by interests such as Carlyle, he should've raised taxes to cover it.

So deficit spending is bad? Would that not make Obama a terrible president then?

So -- it's the Bush economy. Even if the groundwork had been laid by Bush-ites like Alan Greenspan under Clinton's nose for the housing and banking bubble, Bush had a chance to fix it. But -- no . . . Cornpone had his head where the sun don't shine, whining about his "free-market principles" and pining after his next hamburger.

So Clinton is actually responsible for the housing bubble. But since Bush failed to fix Clinton's mess it is his fault?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

So deficit spending is bad? Would that not make Obama a terrible president then?



So Clinton is actually responsible for the housing bubble. But since Bush failed to fix Clinton's mess it is his fault?

Deficit spending for what, to whom, and how much? Bribes to Afghani warlords? Infrastructure for Iraq kicking back to Halliburton, paying subcontractors in Iraq and exorbitant salaries to Blackwater?

I said it before. Bush first insisted on keeping the war spending out of annual budget legislation, and it appears the country has been painted into a corner by inflating the guns side of spending to squeeze the butter out of the equation. But even Eisenhower or Nixon would have seen that "national security" hinged on the many "butter" items that constituted prudent investment.

Deficit spending does work as stimulus, with an important caveat -- again -- based on general application of Obama's words about putting "boots on the ground" in Libya: "Weighing the costs and benefits." The net present value of returns (benefits) to public-spending projects should outweight the net present value of costs. Just "blowing gold" all over the place would be imprudent deficit spending. But the average citizen deficit-spends when he buys a house or car.

Federal spending on education has hardly changed at all since the mid-1990s, and further investigation of other numbers -- available in budget documents of prior years posted online -- might reveal even more about "butter" items. But Medicare is in trouble, exacerbated by Bush's "Advantage" program.

Ultimately, the only thing any President could do to stem overall spending is exercise of the Presidential veto. If Congress wants the President to cut NOAA, EPA, DOT or education spending to fill the pockets of the Carlyle Group or Halliburton -- I'll stand with the President any day if he refuses to veto routine budget items like those.

As for the Clinton administration, throw in the mix of banking lobbyists and those respnsible for repealing Glass-Steagal. In fact, throw in the Congress who brought us the farcical "Parade of Elephants" in the impeachment circus. The country and the presidency would have been much better off without the distraction.

Too many Wall Street insiders during the Bush term placed their bets on a pending collapse about which the Bush administration seemed clueless. But, no! He couldn't compromise his "free market principles" to promote fresh regulatory legislation to head off the disaster before it occurred.

The irresponsible tax-cut regime Bush brought into the mix as defense spending went from $250 billion to as much as $1.2 trillion a year didn't work. It didn't "trickle down." If he wanted an adventure in Iraq and sole-source contracts for his Texas buddies, he should have pushed for an increase in taxes.