Originally Posted by jimmac
What you did is side step the issue of what the hell was the Bush administration doing all of that time? Time you refuse to give to the Obama administration. 8 years vs. 2.
OK, I at least see what your point is now. You're implying that the Bush Administration contributed to the recession by not being proactive enough. In other words, it's not the specific policies you take issue with, it's the lack of action. I can only assume you're referring to financial reform/mortgage reform, etc. Am I correct so far?
If so, we at least can discuss your point: I don't agree with this notion, if it's what you meant. It begs the question, what should
the Bush Administration have done? It also puts aside some of the actions the administration did undertake, such as financial reform back in 2002 (post-Enron and WorldCom) and the push it made for better Congressional oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (if you recall, these efforts were spurned by Congressional Democrats, most notably Barney Frank).
The root of the crisis as I understand was mortgage-backed securities, both sub-prime and other. The tools that caused and/or precipitated the disaster were entirely legal (such as credit default swaps). What we had was a whole lot of lies...not by government, but by those who were packaging the securities. The quality of the funds was not as advertised. When the housing bubble burst, the CDS contracts were called, and the whole thing exploded. You had funds that were supposed be backed by trillions of dollars of real estate assets that turned out to be backed by far less.
The point I'm making here is this: I don't think increased regulation of the financial industry or even unscrupulous lenders would have prevented the crisis. I also cannot identify which Bush administration policies, in particular, caused the Great Recession. Can you?
Obama is in charge and yet you're saying certain scenerios will happen without an outcome yet. We have an outcome with Bush by the way.
I think we've seen plenty of outcomes resulting from Obama policies. In particular, huge deficits, lack of growth, and high unemployment. As for what's to come, do you deny that this level of deficit spending and growth of government will result in major problems down the road? That's all I'm saying.
Don't worry I'm not afraid of any trap you would try to lay. I'm just frustrated with your ability to look the other way when it's a Republican. You don't judge the other side with the same criteria. You did go on a rant about healthcare and your brand of economic theory however. But did you answer the question? Nope!
First, I think I just answered the question above. If you meant something else (Bush not being proactive enough), please let me know.
As for "looking the other way," well, that's a characterization I don't agree with. You do seem to accuse me of this pretty frequently, no matter how much I criticize Republicans. So, I'm not sure that anything I write will change your mind. I thought I presented a pretty even-handed assessment of what each administration did or has done in regard to the economy. Apparently you don't agree. What I will not allow you to get away with, however, is the insinuation (or in this case, the plain statement) that I'm applying different standards in evaluating the efficacy of policies that are common to both administrations---just because one was Republican and one was Democratic. That much is simply false.
You seem to support Bush's economic policies and yet look at the outcome at the end of his term in office! You don't really need to waste time on a internet forum looking at specific policies when you have a bottom line to look at like that.
The problem I have with this statement is that it completely ignores cause and effect. If we do that, we cannot hope to prevent and/or remedy future recessions. Your statement that one does not have to identify the policies with which he disagree
s is utterly laughable. I don't think I've ever heard or seen someone make that claim in my lifetime. My question is this: If we don't have to identify the actual policies that we disagree with, then why are we blaming that person in question at all (Bush)? Are we to simply, mindlessly accept that "Bush is bad and his name was on the door," therefore it's his fault? I highly doubt that many here--conservative, liberal, moderate---would agree with your notion or understand your argument here.
Bush wasn't paying attention to anything.
Now, that's just silly. You can't look at an outcome and conclude that.
He was too busy spending money like water on useless things like Iraq.
Which had nothing to do with the recession and very little to do with the deficits we are now running.
Why didn't he see the growing problem and do something about it?
If any entity started pointing out the problems with the mortgage market, it was the Bush administration. And what would have been done?
Quite a few economists were saying this was coming.
Really, which ones? When?
Why didn't he do something then instead of waiting until it got this bad?
I will ask again: What should have been done, and when? Can you at least make a plausible
case that it would have prevented the crisis?
What policies? Please!
Also I've noticed a tendancy on the part of much of the conservatives here to not answer certain telling questions.
Maybe they think I'm trying to trap them.
What policies? I'd say the whole package.
There you go again. It really all comes down to this: You consistently state that the policies of the Bush Administration caused or contributed to the recession. Yet, you have not identified a single one. Your position honestly does not make sense. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask which policies you have a problem with. We don't have to agree about those policies...but for God's sake, at least tell me/us which ones you dislike, and why.
If you still refuse, or say it's a waste of time, or sound off again with something like "LOOK WHAT HAPPENED! OF COURSE IT'S BUSH'S FAULT," then I'll simply have to conclude that you don't know or don't care
which policies are the problem, and just find it easier to make a rhetorical argument that amounts to "Bush Sucks." Right now, that's what I'm starting to think.