Is George W. Bush responsible for the economy?

Question US

Is George W. Bush responsible for the economy?

by right this time Posted August 23, 2009 03:43:07

13 answers
Read all 49 comments
+3 raves

Just prior to the inauguration of President Obama it became popular for right wing talking heads, from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh, to begin referring to the "Obama Recession." After Obama was officially sworn in these same partisans wasted no time saying that his Presidency was already a disaster. Further more any suggestion that Obama inherited an economic mess from George Bush was brushed aside as blame placing and excuse making.
Now comes the problem for the GOP and hard-right talking points. Housing sales just hit a ten year high. Several leading economists have actually credited the "cash for clunkers" deal as having had a positive stimulative impact on the economy. A massive banking crash unlike anything since the Great Depression has been averted and some banks are starting to pay back their loans from the government with interest. The stock market has hit its highest mark of the year. Unemployment seems to be starting to level off some. Factory production and demand is up.
So with Obama's team apparently pulling off what many would have thought was a miracle six months ago what do the Republicans do now? History is one clue. When Bill Clinton turned around a staggering economy, floated all boats on an economic tide of prosperity, balanced the Federal Budget and created a surplus, the Republicans began to say that this was really the work of George H. W. Bush. Even though the economy looked terrible during his administration, they argued, he did all of the right things that would eventually create prosperity during Clinton's Presidency. Clinton was just taking credit for the hard work of his predecessor. So the question is if things are starting to get better sooner than anyone thought possible will the new Republican talking point be that it was really George W. Bush who saved the day for President Obama?

Answers
Results
Recommend This

Top Comment

+4 raves mavericky ~ In Godot We Trust August 23, 2009 04:20:10

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
It's not the fault of either president (solely, anyway). The economy cycles; always has, always will. This time there just happened to be a whole slew of things that went wrong at the same time and caused more of a problem than normal.
View thread

Sort By

Most Raves
Least Raves
Oldest
Newest

text size

Comments

+1 raves
Dan November 07, 2009 00:18:40

Answered: Is this a trick question?
How many fu**ed up fundamental flaws and lies can YOU find in this Obama statement? After serving as President for 10 months already - more than long enough to accept responsibility for his many mistakes and achievements (sorry, can't think of one at the moment), Obama says

"My, uhhh, fellow Amerikuns...I have saved thousands of uhhh jobs which were lost recently by the uhhh Bush administration. As revealed in my uhhh transparent government uhhh you can plainly see that uhhh national unemployment has not uhhh risen above 8%, as promised! You may not uhhh know that I was recenlty awarded the Nobel piece prize for uhhh doing great things for Amerikuh. The uhhh fabricated story of national unemployment being over 8% is nothing but a uhhh FOX News Republican lie and I will uhhh do everything within my power to uhhh have them removed from the TV and radio. Remember, Amerikuh! We are in the uhhh road to recovery! Yes we can!"
Cognito22 September 08, 2009 14:06:10 (edited)

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
The federal regulators of Wall Street and of Savings and Loans (banking), especially Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, are to blame.

Blaming Bush or Obama is a simpleton's view of the mess.

Grow up.
right t... to Cognito22 September 08, 2009 14:12:49

You missed the point entirely but perhaps only grownups can understand more nuanced points. I actually agree with you for the most part. My point is that there has been a huge multi-million dollar effort to blame Obama for the economy and if the economy gets better faster than the pundits originally predicted that will raise an interesting conundrum for Republicans. Do they then switch, as they did with Bill Clinton, and suddenly say that the current guy in power has nothing to do with the turn around and it was all because of the previous Republican President? I am simply asking if history will repeat itself.
+1 raves
1348933 August 28, 2009 18:30:23

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
Yes. George W. Bush is responsible for the economic mess. But don't take my word for it -- read the linked article by Bruce Bartlett, a leading Republican economist who was one of the original supply-siders. He helped draft the Kemp-Roth tax bill in the 1970s.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
edwardwillispcf August 23, 2009 22:11:27

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
part of is bush and the rest is obama
+2 raves
Conservative in California August 23, 2009 05:31:44 (edited)

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
Read Thomas Sowell's book on the matter...If you really want to know the answer, but I suspect many don't care to know the answer, but merely blame Bush for everything. You've done it for 8 years. I wouldn't expect you to stop now, just because Bush is not the President.

Fannie, Freddie, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Rahm Emmanuel, Community Reinvestment Act...all guilty

Why no Congressional investigations to date? Democrats love to have investigations over all things. Since it went down during the Bush years, you'd think Democrats would be all over further embarrassing Bush, right? Well...Bush tried 17x as early as 2001 to reform Fannie and Freddie and all 17x he was rebuffed by Barney Frank et. al.

Now do you see why Congressional investigations have not been suggested by Democrats. Biggest financial crisis since Jimmy Carter, and Congress doesn't care to know why it happened so it can be prevented from happening in the future??? Of course not, Barney Frank already knows why it happened. He and other Democrats caused it in their attempt to give taxpayer money to poor minorities to buy votes. Disgraceful!
right t... to Conserv... August 23, 2009 21:18:53

Thomas Sowell is really a second rate thinker and a political hack. I have a Republican friend who teaches economics in college and even he knows more than Thomas Sowell. Do you have anyone of substance you could point to?

So you still did not answer the main question. If the economy recovers more quickly than the three to five years that economists were originally projecting who are Republicans going to give the credit to?

A related question would be how do you feel about Ben Bernanke since he clearly has worked for both parties?
1348933 to Conserv... August 28, 2009 18:32:21 (edited)

Never heard of Thomas Sowell. But I have heard of Bruce Bartlett. Have you?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
+1 raves
right t... to 1348933 August 29, 2009 12:57:31

Thomas Sowell is a second rate economist. He writes a syndicated column that usually runs in in small circulation, conservative newspapers. I read him for about eight years or so when I lived in a southern town. After you have read four or five of his editorials you have read everything he has to say. He tends to speak in platitudes and repeat himself. You haven't missed much.

My memory is that Bruce Bartlett won a Pulitzer prize several years ago for his work.
1348933 to right t... August 29, 2009 15:22:24

Bruce Bartlett is one of the original "supply siders". He wrote a lengthy op-ed piece for the Daily Beast describing how W blew it, and why it's ridiculous for the GOP to continue to avoid acknowledging it.
+1 raves
right t... to 1348933 August 29, 2009 18:15:18

That's right, I remember now. I was confusing him with someone else that I thought was named Bartlett who wrote about how deregulating businesses several years ago contributed to our lowered standard of living as a nation as well as our budget deficits.

Bruce is more like David Stockton, Reagan's cabinet point person on the economy who later recanted and said that supply side theory was what drove the government into record deficits.
+4 raves
mavericky ~ In Godot We Trust August 23, 2009 04:20:10

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
It's not the fault of either president (solely, anyway). The economy cycles; always has, always will. This time there just happened to be a whole slew of things that went wrong at the same time and caused more of a problem than normal.
+1 raves
right t... to maveric... August 23, 2009 04:27:53

I tend to agree but with a small caveat. The surplus that Bush inherited was squandered just when the economic cycle could have used that cushion. That still hurts.

My question however was really about spin. The Republicans want us to forget about Bush policies that may have increased the current down turn while blaming Obama after only six months in office. My question is whether or not you think they will do what they did under Bill Clinton, if the economy gets better, and give the credit to the previous Republican in office rather than the current Democrat.
+1 raves
maveric... to right t... August 23, 2009 04:44:45

And the answer to that is a resounding, "Of course."
+1 raves
right t... to maveric... August 23, 2009 05:30:10

Predictable -you might add. :)
+3 raves
Me August 23, 2009 04:03:07

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
I think that the left likes to blame everything bad on the right while taking complete credit for all the good.
I think that the right likes to blame everything bad on the left while taking complete credit for all the good.
I think both sides have their fair share of blame for the mess this country is in and need to stop throwing stones at each other before their respective glass houses completely shatter.
+1 raves
right t... to Me August 23, 2009 04:12:05

There is much truth in what you say but I still would be curious about what you think will happen to the current debate if the economy keeps getting better.
Me to right t... August 23, 2009 04:14:54

I don't see any real improvement as of yet. I truly believe it is far too early to claim that the economy is truly getting better. Consumer confidence is still extremely low, unemployment is rampant, and there are no new jobs being created on a grand scale. I will reserve my judgment until we can honestly say that the economy has improved.
+1 raves
right t... to Me August 23, 2009 04:30:47

That is wise. You still have missed the fun of the question however. The question is based on the following premise which pundits wiser than I have put forward. That is that the entire Republican strategy right now is hinged on the premise that the economy is going to be bad for a long time. All of their calculations for mid term elections as well as 2012 are predicated on that. My question is what do you think they will do if the economy indeed starts to turn around early?
Me to right t... August 23, 2009 04:34:17

I'm allergic to pundits, talking heads and nutjobs. I never listen to anything they say for it is all pretty worthless. As for the strategy of either party, the only plans I see are those which will line the pockets of the politicians the best. Yet another reason why I abhor them.
If and when the economy does improve, I am sure both sides will find a way to take credit for it, as usual.
right t... to Me August 23, 2009 04:35:29

O.K. sounds like an answer.
beachbum to Me August 23, 2009 21:34:32

Boy, you got that one right!
TWISTER61 August 23, 2009 04:02:14

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
OBAMA is the cult leader now...get over BUSH!
right t... to TWISTER61 August 23, 2009 04:13:15

But what about the economy? Bad? Better? Worse? And depending on which direction it goes who gets the credit or blame?
+2 raves
Doodlebug August 23, 2009 03:48:53

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
Let me ask you this. Was Reagan's first term where unemployment reached 10.5% and we had run-away inflation and he had given the defense industry a $1.5 TRILLION stimulus package, did they right say it was Reagan's economy? No, they blamed Carter. (After one year in office, Carter's approval rating was higher than Reagan's)
+1 raves
right t... to Doodlebug August 23, 2009 04:17:19

So what I am hearing you say is that if the economy is bad during a Republican administration it is a lagging indicator of the previous administration but if the current economy is weak then it is the fault of whoever is currently in office -if its a Democrat. I think you are on to something.
+1 raves
Jerry August 23, 2009 03:48:09

Answered: If the economy is bad it is Obama's fault but if it gets better it will be because of Bush.
it might have been bad when he got into office but Obama is making all kinds of plans that is costing money so he's making things much worse
right t... to Jerry August 23, 2009 04:18:54

So your theory is that Obama inherited a mess but if the mess continues or gets worse then it is Obama's fault. What if it gets better?
Jerry to right t... August 23, 2009 04:20:16

lol it's not he's a complete failure & a goddamn liberal!!!!
+1 raves
right t... to Jerry August 23, 2009 04:34:13

So you are banking all of your political positions on the premise that the economy is not going to get better. So are all the Republicans right now so you are in good company.

By the way the terms liberal and conservative are descriptive not pejorative.
Jerry to right t... August 23, 2009 04:36:05

You see with the ones in the political offices now are all the same no matter whether they are demo or repub so either way we are screwed!
+1 raves
right t... to Jerry August 23, 2009 04:42:33

Ah, Jerry, that is the age old question. Is it the end of democracy as we know it and the end of the free world or is this just the way is has always been in America? As someone once said (probably George Washington :-) ) "it's impossible to take the politics out of politics."
Jerry to right t... August 23, 2009 16:43:55

not possible
+3 raves
thakatchaser August 23, 2009 03:47:58

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
Hell yeah the economy is in a mess is because of Bush. No republican to this date had been fiscally responsible for this country.
+2 raves
SuMmEr In JuMbIe I tRuSt TO... August 23, 2009 03:46:27

Answered: Here is what I think . . .
it is bushes fault
+1 raves
Conserv... to SuMmEr ... August 23, 2009 05:35:27

If a deficit under Bush was bad, why is it Bush's fault when the deficit is quadrupled under Obama instead of being 4x worse because of Obama?

If debt is bad when the other team is president, it can't now be good that "your team" is president, especially when it will be $1 trillion+ for the next ten years.
right t... to Conserv... August 23, 2009 21:28:17

Well, actually it can. There are reasons beyond simple partisanship why many economists believe adding liquidity to the market is job one during a major recession. When an economy is fairly stable government deficits should be small or even non-existent as they were under Bill Clinton. Those who criticize Bush for economic reasons feel that the government surplus was squandered with no long range accomplishment as a result. We did not reduce dependency on foreign oil, develop alternative energy sources, protect the environment or improve technology, education or health care for future generations. Now we have no choice but to run high deficits. I am not a democrat so that is not just party spin; that is a position I came to independently years ago from my own research. Liquidity problems in the market place have only a few solutions and most economists agree on those solutions.
beachbum to right t... August 23, 2009 21:33:00

Do you remember the gas lines in the '70's? No one has done anything to get us out of that situation, and it's only gotten worse. It is this country's unwillingness to to truly address this problem that has caused untold trillions of $'s to have gone to the middle east - $ that should have stayed HOME. We would not be in the mess we are in if we had done that. Three decades of doing nothing..........
right t... to beachbum August 27, 2009 21:41:15

Ironically something was being done. We were reducing dependency under President Carter and many non-partisan experts now say that if we had stayed the course that Carter had chartered we would now be energy independent. I remember those days and I also remember that one of the reasons Reagan won was that he characterized Carter's approach as a kind of "limiting of American possibility and potential" and that we had the will and the way to expand the American economy to unprecedented proportion's. Americans who were not at all ready for belt tightening and being ecologically sensitive embraced Reagan's new vision which also meant embracing a giant increase in dependence on foreign oil to fuel this new growth. Again, as many economists point out, had America been willing to be more restrained and prudent we would have broken OPEC and been free of foreign influence in our political process. I remember watching the news the night the new president proudly took the solar panels off the roof of the White House that Carter had installed and turned up the thermostat. I feel like as a people we continually make choices about our future by failing to make hard choices in the present. So it goes.
beachbum to right t... August 27, 2009 23:28:18

I think both could have been achieved - prosperty and oil independence, IF we were/are drilling for our own oil/gas. We have it - we could be drilling here, drilling now, and saving $ while working on alternative sources. American ingenuity is incredible, if government would allow it to happen. I think we could be totally independent by now. Case in point - why in the world is our government loaning $ to Brazil for oil, when we should be using that $ here. It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't understand why it has to be one or the other.

I sincerely I have not come across as hostile - I'm HUNGRY! Gotta go fix some supper!!!!!!!