The US Economy: Obama's fault Or Bush's?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

This is an honest question. I personally believe that Obama inherited this mess and had to unfortunately bring the US into further debt to help fix it (bailouts and such). This is from that other thread that got locked and NOT ONE person would answer it:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I want someone, ANYONE, who thinks the state of the US economy is Obama's direct fault, to break down exactly how the economy got to where it is today. Cause and effect, please. Not just "Obama did with his bailouts and ridiculous spending". Actual reasons of why that spending occurred and why the bailouts happened, if it could have been avoided, and what the alternative could/should have been.

Thank you.

If you believe that Obama didn't in fact inherit this mess, please explain:

1) what is/are the cause(s) of Obama's bailouts
2) why did those bailouts have to/not have to happen
3) what would have been the effect on the economy had they NOT been put through, and
4) what was the alternative

Please no links to opinion pieces/journalistic spin jobs from EITHER side. Just your OWN opinion.

Thanks.

cincybearcat

Why can't you answer "Both"?

CH156378

I remember when Obama came into office . The stock market was going to shit and we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Oh, and two wars on a credit card.

CDFish

I'm sorry. I don't claim to know a lot about this but I don't think the right question is being asked. I think it's obvious that Obama "inherited a mess". The real question should be "have Obamas policies worked?". We can't blame Bush forever. I just don't see how the stimulus helped anything significantly. I know there's more to it, but I don't see how rebuilding bridges and roads has helped my family. I am a college educated wife and mother of 2 young kids. Our annual income has dropped significantly over the last four years. Our health care has skyrocketed, our credit sucks now and we struggle to pay the mortgage. I bartend part time at night and I feel first hand how the bad economy affects people's ability to spend money on leisure activities. I think my family of 4 is barely above the poverty line, but I don't want handouts, I want things to turn around. Obama had his shot, it's time to let someone who knows a thing or 2 about creating private sector jobs have a chance.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

CDFish wrote:

I'm sorry. I don't claim to know a lot about this but I don't think the right question is being asked. I think it's obvious that Obama "inherited a mess". The real question should be "have Obamas policies worked?". We can't blame Bush forever. I just don't see how the stimulus helped anything significantly. I know there's more to it, but I don't see how rebuilding bridges and roads has helped my family. I am a college educated wife and mother of 2 young kids. Our annual income has dropped significantly over the last four years. Our health care has skyrocketed, our credit sucks now and we struggle to pay the mortgage. I bartend part time at night and I feel first hand how the bad economy affects people's ability to spend money on leisure activities. I think my family of 4 is barely above the poverty line, but I don't want handouts, I want things to turn around. Obama had his shot, it's time to let someone who knows a thing or 2 about creating private sector jobs have a chance.

actually, many on the right don't think it's obvious that Obama inherited a mess. That's their main talking point, that Obama ruined the economy DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION, which I believe to be false. I'm asking for why they think this.

I'm no expert either, which is why I'm asking, and partly because I've never heard an alternative solution to Obama's "failed policies", and I'd like to hear them. Is putting trillions more into military spending the issue? Cutting education? yeah, that's a fabulous idea! Because the american obese children not only don't need gym class, now they need to be less educated too so they can't even enter the work force. Maybe that's Mitt's plan. Lower the percentage of those "actively looking" so his altered unemployment rate will plummet.

I have yet to hear them from Mitt himself, which I'm hoping people recognize by NOW, but if there is something I'm indeed missing or haven't heard, I'm all ears.

Saying you are going to creat 12 million jobs sounds great. But HOW is he going to do it? To my knowledge, he hasn't said anything about the how's yet, just the what's.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

cincybearcat wrote:

Why can't you answer "Both"?

you can. the floor is yours!

mookeywrench

Obama inherited a mess, and Obama created the recession's trough, but as far as recovery goes, I've only seen laisse faire at work.

But the question that can't be answered is, would that trough have been created if Bush had still been in office? At that point seeing the way things were heading, you would hope any standing president would have intervened to put a stop to the tumble if they were going to be in office 3 years afterwards.

Go Beavers

CDFish wrote:

it's time to let someone who knows a thing or 2 about creating private sector jobs have a chance.

If you look at Romney's history as a "businessman", he did a lot of eliminating jobs, not creating them.

Black Diamond

Causes
1. The repeal (or the effective repeal due to the Fed allowing the Solomon Smith Barney Merger) of the Glass Steagall Act during the Clinton Administration
2. The Liberal interpretation of the rules that allowed for lending and financing by the GSE's (FNMA/FHLMc) to low quality/flippers during the Clinton and Bush Administration
3. The creation of the synthetic markets and CLO/CDO markets during the Alan Greenspan term as Fed Chair
Which allowed for non experts to make markets in very exotic products and allowed for market making positions with very little cash on hand
4. The banks having no oversight during most all administration especially in risk departments which allowed them to take huge gambles and get paid regardless of circumstances
5. The Bush Wars

Obama
Did everything (as did the end of the Bush administration) to not allowed the market to fail... At dire consequences to our debt levels and overall credit... However if you compare us to Europe, we are in much better shape because we did not just kick the can... We took some austerity measures but need to take more...

chadwick

how much was the total cost of the u.s. embassy in baghdad?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sug ... 2QXz6IC4AQ - here are some images.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of ... s,_Baghdad
i generally do not use wiki. but here it is. it says the embassy employs 15,000, cost $750 million to build and is nearly as large as vatican city. i think the cost here is smaller than what i once heard. i believe i heard several billion dollars was spent on construction and slave labor was used. that is a fact; slave labor was used when erecting the united states embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Black Diamond wrote:

Causes
1. The repeal (or the effective repeal due to the Fed allowing the Solomon Smith Barney Merger) of the Glass Steagall Act during the Clinton Administration
2. The Liberal interpretation of the rules that allowed for lending and financing by the GSE's (FNMA/FHLMc) to low quality/flippers during the Clinton and Bush Administration
3. The creation of the synthetic markets and CLO/CDO markets during the Alan Greenspan term as Fed Chair
Which allowed for non experts to make markets in very exotic products and allowed for market making positions with very little cash on hand
4. The banks having no oversight during most all administration especially in risk departments which allowed them to take huge gambles and get paid regardless of circumstances
5. The Bush Wars

Obama
Did everything (as did the end of the Bush administration) to not allowed the market to fail... At dire consequences to our debt levels and overall credit... However if you compare us to Europe, we are in much better shape because we did not just kick the can... We took some austerity measures but need to take more...

THANK YOU BLACK DIAMOND.

Cosmo

I'm going with both. And I'll toss in some of Clinton's policies as well as a heavy dose of Reagan's spending (throughout the 1980s that was borrowed from 'the future', which happens to be today).
Oh, and don't forget the Congress... who spend... but, don't tax.
Finally, Americans that want all of these great services... but, don't want to pay for them. Yeah, we can cut out the Welfare cheats and PBS but is would be like me tossing out 2 buckets of water from the rapidly filling up Titanic. It won't help.
...
How do we fix it... sorry to tell you... we have to ALL feel the pain we've all been putting off for decades. This means cutting the spending... including the Department of Defense, Social Security and Medicare along with Welfare cheats and PBS.
And... we have to bite the bullet and boost revenues... yup, TAXES.
...
But, not to worry... we are all too selfish and cowardly to take one for Team America. There is no "I" in 'Team'... but there is one in 'AmerIca'... so, it's okay.
And don't worry.. no matter who gets elected... nothing is going to change until the disaster actually hits.

MotoDC

Black Diamond wrote:

Causes
1. The repeal (or the effective repeal due to the Fed allowing the Solomon Smith Barney Merger) of the Glass Steagall Act during the Clinton Administration
2. The Liberal interpretation of the rules that allowed for lending and financing by the GSE's (FNMA/FHLMc) to low quality/flippers during the Clinton and Bush Administration
3. The creation of the synthetic markets and CLO/CDO markets during the Alan Greenspan term as Fed Chair
Which allowed for non experts to make markets in very exotic products and allowed for market making positions with very little cash on hand
4. The banks having no oversight during most all administration especially in risk departments which allowed them to take huge gambles and get paid regardless of circumstances
5. The Bush Wars

Obama
Did everything (as did the end of the Bush administration) to not allowed the market to fail... At dire consequences to our debt levels and overall credit... However if you compare us to Europe, we are in much better shape because we did not just kick the can... We took some austerity measures but need to take more...

Thank you.

edit: LOL I honestly didn't see HFD's response before I posted this. Too funny.

MotoDC

Hmm, that said, I don't think Black Diamond's #4 is the entire picture around regulation and risk management. This isn't the first time banks have been bailed out, so we've created a culture there that has far too big a risk appetite. So it's the lack of regulation COUPLED with the mindset that's created when gov't is implicitly backing so much of the market (and I'm not even considering the implicit/explicit backing of the mortgage market via the erstwhile GSEs). If the implicit backing weren't there, I don't believe as much regulation would be required b/c the banks would (eventually) manage their own risk better. In fact, these mechanisms are already being put into place in the financial services market. Some as a result of regulatory bodies cracking down, some as a natural evolution of thought around risk mgmt.

whygohome

Cosmo wrote:

I'm going with both. And I'll toss in some of Clinton's policies as well as a heavy dose of Reagan's spending (throughout the 1980s that was borrowed from 'the future', which happens to be today).
Oh, and don't forget the Congress... who spend... but, don't tax.
Finally, Americans that want all of these great services... but, don't want to pay for them. Yeah, we can cut out the Welfare cheats and PBS but is would be like me tossing out 2 buckets of water from the rapidly filling up Titanic. It won't help.
...
How do we fix it... sorry to tell you... we have to ALL feel the pain we've all been putting off for decades. This means cutting the spending... including the Department of Defense, Social Security and Medicare along with Welfare cheats and PBS.
And... we have to bite the bullet and boost revenues... yup, TAXES.
...
But, not to worry... we are all too selfish and cowardly to take one for Team America. There is no "I" in 'Team'... but there is one in 'AmerIca'... so, it's okay.
And don't worry.. no matter who gets elected... nothing is going to change until the disaster actually hits.

But whatever we do, we cannot, under any circumstances ask actors or actresses, professional athletes, commodities traders, hedge fund managers, David Letterman, Bill O'Reilly, Jamie Dimon, etc. etc., etc to pay another dime more in taxes.

MotoDC

Cosmo wrote:

I'm going with both. And I'll toss in some of Clinton's policies as well as a heavy dose of Reagan's spending (throughout the 1980s that was borrowed from 'the future', which happens to be today).
Oh, and don't forget the Congress... who spend... but, don't tax.
Finally, Americans that want all of these great services... but, don't want to pay for them. Yeah, we can cut out the Welfare cheats and PBS but is would be like me tossing out 2 buckets of water from the rapidly filling up Titanic. It won't help.
...
How do we fix it... sorry to tell you... we have to ALL feel the pain we've all been putting off for decades. This means cutting the spending... including the Department of Defense, Social Security and Medicare along with Welfare cheats and PBS.
And... we have to bite the bullet and boost revenues... yup, TAXES.
...
But, not to worry... we are all too selfish and cowardly to take one for Team America. There is no "I" in 'Team'... but there is one in 'AmerIca'... so, it's okay.
And don't worry.. no matter who gets elected... nothing is going to change until the disaster actually hits.

Agree with most of this as well, but I still don't buy the part about the necessity of cutting spending AND boosting revenue. There's no economic "law" that says you can't balance a budget simply by controlling your expenses. Sucking more cash out of the private sector is no way to grow an economy. And a bigger economy = more tax revenue. Furthermore, it's not as if Federal revenues aren't increasing -- they increased as a % of GDP very consistently during the 20th century.

Cosmo

whygohome wrote:

But whatever we do, we cannot, under any circumstances ask actors or actresses, professional athletes, commodities traders, hedge fund managers, David Letterman, Bill O'Reilly, Jamie Dimon, etc. etc., etc to pay another dime more in taxes.

...
Those are the 'Job Creators'. Those poor saps over at TMZ would be amongst the ranks of the unemployed if there weren't Paris Hiltons, Octomoms or Kardashians.

Cosmo

MotoDC wrote:

Agree with most of this as well, but I still don't buy the part about the necessity of cutting spending AND boosting revenue. There's no economic "law" that says you can't balance a budget simply by controlling your expenses. Sucking more cash out of the private sector is no way to grow an economy. And a bigger economy = more tax revenue. Furthermore, it's not as if Federal revenues aren't increasing -- they increased as a % of GDP very consistently during the 20th century.

...
Well... you gotta pay for those wars with something, right?
In my opinion... those wars belong to us... whether we supported or opposed the wars... not our kids and grandkids who don't have a say or aren't even born yet. If the soldiers are going to shoulder the risks and hardships of war... and their families bear the burden of their loss and/or seperation... then, the rest of us should field the heavy task of paying for the goddamn thing.
And the CEO of my company can spare a couple million to help out the country and it's people that has help in making him a multi-millionaire. He can sell one of his 12 vacation homes... the crappy one in Vail, for example.

lukin2006

Down to the wire: Campaign enters stretch run

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_c1

Zoso

it was initially bush's fault and some people believe obama hasn't done enough to turn that around.. I think a steady improvement is the best we could have hoped for. no one would have done better then that.

whygohome

Cosmo wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

Agree with most of this as well, but I still don't buy the part about the necessity of cutting spending AND boosting revenue. There's no economic "law" that says you can't balance a budget simply by controlling your expenses. Sucking more cash out of the private sector is no way to grow an economy. And a bigger economy = more tax revenue. Furthermore, it's not as if Federal revenues aren't increasing -- they increased as a % of GDP very consistently during the 20th century.

...
Well... you gotta pay for those wars with something, right?
In my opinion... those wars belong to us... whether we supported or opposed the wars... not our kids and grandkids who don't have a say or aren't even born yet. If the soldiers are going to shoulder the risks and hardships of war... and their families bear the burden of their loss and/or seperation... then, the rest of us should field the heavy task of paying for the goddamn thing.
And the CEO of my company can spare a couple million to help out the country and it's people that has help in making him a multi-millionaire. He can sell one of his 12 vacation homes... the crappy one in Vail, for example.

Hmmm...professional athletes making millions of dollars, hedge fund managers, bank CEOS making salaries in the tens of millions, and actors who play soldiers in movies making millions off of 4 months of work......all the while the average salary of a real soldier is about $50K.

Yeah, we can raise taxes on the uber-rich. What do those fucks have to complain about?

whygohome

Zoso wrote:

it was initially bush's fault and some people believe obama hasn't done enough to turn that around.. I think a steady improvement is the best we could have hoped for. no one would have done better then that.

I agree. What drives me nuts is that I have to hear from friends and family who have no clue insisting that we should be in a better place. Nobody has a clue how bad the recession was; to think we should be at 6.5% unemployment, or creating 250,00-300,000 jobs per month is ludicrous. Especially with the republicans in Congress

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Zoso wrote:

it was initially bush's fault and some people believe obama hasn't done enough to turn that around.. I think a steady improvement is the best we could have hoped for. no one would have done better then that.

yeah, that's what I keep asking. What would McCain have done differently?

whygohome

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Zoso wrote:

it was initially bush's fault and some people believe obama hasn't done enough to turn that around.. I think a steady improvement is the best we could have hoped for. no one would have done better then that.

yeah, that's what I keep asking. What would McCain have done differently?

Tax cuts for the rich and wars.

Zoso

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Zoso wrote:

it was initially bush's fault and some people believe obama hasn't done enough to turn that around.. I think a steady improvement is the best we could have hoped for. no one would have done better then that.

yeah, that's what I keep asking. What would McCain have done differently?

I don't even want to think about what McCain would done :shock:

MotoDC

Zoso wrote:

it was initially bush's fault and some people believe obama hasn't done enough to turn that around.. I think a steady improvement is the best we could have hoped for. no one would have done better then that.

This is an incredibly narrow view of the causal factors, especially in light of the insight Black Diamond has already provided in this thread.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

whygohome wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Zoso wrote:

it was initially bush's fault and some people believe obama hasn't done enough to turn that around.. I think a steady improvement is the best we could have hoped for. no one would have done better then that.

yeah, that's what I keep asking. What would McCain have done differently?

Tax cuts for the rich and wars.

don't you think that's a big generalizing, just because he's republican? I honestly don't remember his campaign promises, but I don't think starting wars was one of them.

Zoso

If I can remember rightly McCain was extremely moderate compared to Bush but he still had the ideology of the free market etc etc.

Zoso

whygohome wrote:

Zoso wrote:

it was initially bush's fault and some people believe obama hasn't done enough to turn that around.. I think a steady improvement is the best we could have hoped for. no one would have done better then that.

I agree. What drives me nuts is that I have to hear from friends and family who have no clue insisting that we should be in a better place. Nobody has a clue how bad the recession was; to think we should be at 6.5% unemployment, or creating 250,00-300,000 jobs per month is ludicrous. Especially with the republicans in Congress

I would rather a steady improvement while taking care of the welfare state vs cutting the welfare state ultimately making the poor even worse off and lifting up the rich even more.

MotoDC

whygohome wrote:

Hmmm...professional athletes making millions of dollars, hedge fund managers, bank CEOS making salaries in the tens of millions, and actors who play soldiers in movies making millions off of 4 months of work......all the while the average salary of a real soldier is about $50K.

Yeah, we can raise taxes on the uber-rich. What do those fucks have to complain about?

Obama's plan raises taxes on much more than the "uber-rich". It's also nice to see some honesty (via comments like "those fucks") about where mindsets like yours ("hey they make a lot of money, let's get it!") originate.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

maybe this is naive, but I personally think, even as a fairly low income earner, that if you make $30G a year or $2 trillion, the percentage of income tax you pay should be the same across the board. saying someone makes too much money so they should have higher taxes is not fair in my opinion.