Sunday, October 26, 2008

Bush's economic policies were bad? Really?




More wonderful reading: The Constitution says Congress regulates the economy not the President! Since 2006, Democrats ran Congress. Uh oh.


Specifics...please?
On CNN Late Edition today, Senator Evan Bayh (D - Indiana) commented that McCain was going to carry on Bush's economic policies if he was elected. Yet, Bayh couldn't exactly pinpoint which specific Bush policies were wrong. Was it the tax cuts that created jobs after 9/11 and dot com bubble recession (from Clinton's time)? Bayh also commented that McCain voted "with Bush" 90% of the time -- yet he failed to mention Obama voted 40% of the time "with Bush" in 2007.

Government 101 - Who makes "policies?"
Let's go to government 101 and analyze some basics about the structure of the executive and the legislative branch. I want to highlight this because Senator Bayh seems to be confusing people when he says "Bush's policies".

The president signs bills into law. The policies from those bills, that affect the housing market, tax rates, minimum wage, welfare, declaration of war, job creation -- all of those details are sorted out by....Congress! Which party actually has the majority in both houses of Congress since 2006? The Democrats. Hmmm... The plot thickens. For the past two years, government policy, and potential economic reform has been under the approval or disapproval of the Democratic majority.

Obama votes present on unpopular bills instead of 'yes' or 'no'
The percentage of Obama's agreement on "Bush's policies" would have probably been higher if Obama actually had an opinion on 129 bills, where instead of voting "yes" or "no", he politically postured to vote "present" to avoid being held accountable for it in future political debates. For instance, he voted "present" on legislation where victims of rape and sex crimes could have their courts sealed. Anything that smells of controversy and could hold him accountable to the public, he seem to have avoided. He only agreed to vote on what's popular. Ouch.

Bad economic policy?
The cause of the economic crisis no doubt came directly from a bad housing market...but that started in the Clinton administration. In 2006, it was actually Senator McCain that tried to regulate the housing market but the Democratic majority in Congress said no way...


In 2006, McCain demanded reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose collapse ultimately precipitated the financial crisis now gripping the world.


Summary
As American citizens, we have every right to constructively criticize our government and our elected officials. But we have to do this with proper knowledge. The constant attack of "Bush policies", if you research further, points back to the Democrats, who controlled the legislative branches for the past two years.

6 comments:

Dave M said...

Yes they were/are bad. Bush, Clinton, and basically every president we have had for quite some time has had a horrible economic policy.

Why do you think debt is even more out of control since Bush took office. WAR is expensive. War is partially an economic policy. They have been on a spending spree since he took office. All of this from the "small government" guys. Which I agree, small government is ideal, but republicans don't stand for that anymore do they?

I'm really tired of Bush getting on TV, using our money to do it, and preaching to me about how this bank bailout, is just "good fer ya". Give me a break. His economic policy is FRAUD. Just like Obama, Mccain, Clinton, Other Bush Fraudster, Reagan, you name it.

If you think Mccain is a reformer, you might want to read up on the scandal he was named in(not convicted): http://joeplummer.com/chapter_3_the_bailout.html

Skip down to the section "The Housing Market".

Publisher said...

With Congress having lower approval ratings than our lame duck president, I think most Americans understand that presidents only utilize the power given to them by Congress and under the Constitution. Economic reforms and the bail outs are all from congressional committees. While the administration may give input, all of the bills really at the end of the day, come from the pen of Congress.

The point of the post of course is to make sure we don't lose sight of who is responsible. While Bush can take some of the blame, he does sign bills to law, most of it comes from our legislative branch, IMHO.

-Don

Dave M said...

While I can agree with you to an extent on this, Bush has had plenty of air time in front of the media, if he felt Congress was acting inappropriately, it was his duty to say something to the American people. He also has veto powers that are a pain to circumvent in many cases. Not to say impossible, but this is another step that could attract more media attention.

He also goes one step further by stating that the basic principles of our economy are sound, which they are not. Either he doesn't understand how "free markets" really work, or he's lying. Either way, his policies are no good.

When it comes to Bush operating within the constitution, lets be realistic, he could careless what the constitution says as proven by his actions for nearly a decade. From torturing people, to illegal wiretaps on US citizens, to illegal detainments and the revocation of habeas corpus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html), to gun confiscations in new orleans (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/080905confiscatingfirearms.htm), the list goes on and on. There an incredible number of examples.

Publisher said...

I dunno, whatever words come out of that office needs to be calculated. Reality is perception in the free market environment, and Bush having an MBA I think knew that. When words can easily make stock markets crash and close down corporate giants within days, I would be very careful in saying anything but optimism in the highest office of the nation. You would probably let economic advisers do the negative talk, which they have, highlighting recessions in some parts of the United States before the full blown recession was identified.

I'm not defending the other things like the Patriot Act which some elements have already been considered unconstitutional.

quadrino said...

In my opinion, and we can disagree on this, perception is reality when fiat currencies and markets based on these currencies are concerned. The reason for this is that our currency & banking institutions are backed by credibility, not worth. This combined with pure fraud in banking supported by our government has caused the bubble-burst cycles we have seen in recent history. I'm not sure I would define our market as a "free market". It seems more like corporatism to me.

Even if his economic advisers did call out the recession before it was declared official, this country has been in recession for half a century or longer. Stating this recession is all about the housing market and credit crunch is also a myth by the government and banking institutions. Although it is part of it, it isn't the cause, it is the symptom. His advisers never gave us the truth, and neither did he. However I can safely say he isn't the only one, Clinton, Bush sr., Reagan, Carter, Obama, Mccain and many others have supported the flawed economic policy of central banking and legal tender laws.

I'm not saying rumors and speculation couldn't be harmful to even free markets but certainly not to the same extent. If the majority of people had any clue how our economy worked, they would easily see through Bush's argument for a continued central bank policy.

I still argue if he felt congress was acting inappropriately it was his duty to stand up and say something. Since he hasn't attacked the economic principles of this country has, he as been less than honest. Either that, or he doesn't understand it himself.

What do you think? Do you think fiat currency combined with central banking should be used in the US?

Publisher said...

quadrino --

1. Debt is our biggest export, I don't disagree with you there. That's what happens when we can't back our money with gold anymore. I disagree though that our economy has been in a recession for half a century, I don't know of any credible economist that believes that. By its definition this is not true (recession = reduction in GDP for two quarters). Don't get me wrong, we certainly go through cycles.

2. We are in a free market environment, compared to Russia, Britain, China, or any of the large economy in the world. America is the best definition of a free market. It isn't perfect, there are some areas where prices are set like agriculture.

3. Even in countries mirrored to the democratic principles of the U.S., they pale in comparison to the economic freedom and opportunities that you will find in the United States. This is the very reason why fraudsters can run ponzi schemes for decades without being caught, we are not regulated and restricted and controlled like many socialistic countries.

4. Going back to my original post that critics seem to forget economic policies are regulated and started at the Hill (Congress) rather than the White House (Bush) -- constitutionally, that's where the proper assignment of fault should start.

As for whether we should go back to some sort of asset backed currency, I really don't have an opinion on it. What I don't like is for us to live above our means, such as our nation's debt.