How much is Bush's fault?

[Petalumadom]

My dad always says: "A president gets far too much credit when things go right and far too much blame when things go wrong."

I'm not going to say that Bush was a good president... or even close to an ok president... But how many of our problems are due directly to him?

I see far too much pointing at Bush and not enough thinking about our real problems... you think the war in Iraq is bad?

Take a look at our Social Security system... or even worse... medicare and medicaid...

We tend to forget that we have 100 senators and 400+ representatives who actually make the laws... and who technically have equal power to the president.

So... what do you think? Is everything Bush's fault?

If not... how much is in your opinion?

[liberty]

I feel that after 9/11 he lost it.

Up to then he was an OK president and was able to run the country adequatly, howevr I feel it made him too wearsome of terrorists, and he must have felt that all his problems some how went back to terrorism causing them, like in Afganistan. If he hadn't destroyed the Taliban, not say they were good, then the drugs trade would have been almost destroyed, drug levels in 2001 were sincerely low compared to now.

[Estayland]

Bush had his high and low points. He's not the best, but he's certainly not the worst.

His tax cuts were great. His spending habits were terrible.

His eventual Supreme Court nominees were great. His first one was terrible.

His initial response in Afghanistan and Iraq were great. His "play to tie" attitude later were terrible.

I don't think you can solely blame Bush for what's going on now, nor the Madoff stuff. If the SEC (which works independently from the President) had done its job, you could have discovered the problems earlier. If the government hadn't made credit easier for those who can't afford it, we wouldn't be in the shape we're in now.

[Greek People Nation (GPN)]

Jun 29, 2009 14:30:45 GMT -5 Petalumadom said:

My dad always says: "A president gets far too much credit when things go right and far too much blame when things go wrong."

I'm not going to say that Bush was a good president... or even close to an ok president... But how many of our problems are due directly to him?

I see far too much pointing at Bush and not enough thinking about our real problems... you think the war in Iraq is bad?

Take a look at our Social Security system... or even worse... medicare and medicaid...

We tend to forget that we have 100 senators and 400+ representatives who actually make the laws... and who technically have equal power to the president.

So... what do you think? Is everything Bush's fault?

If not... how much is in your opinion?

I think it is congress fault 95% of it. The President can't do much without their approval. Things started going down hill in 2006. This is what happens when you elect idiots.


I partly blame Bush for the Stimulus Bill. That is probably one of the worse things he did as president. Now, we can sit there and blame him for whats going on now. There is a new president who has been in office for 6 months now. And he is nothing but empty promises.

[sunseeker]

Call me a conspiracy theorist but I think Bush wasn't a decision maker for most of his actions.
I blame the Wall Street. The people with power and money

[Chronopolice]

Not much, but he's the first face that people remember when we talk about the US government.


Most of the blame lies with the citizens themselves. Economy? We all should know by now that it goes in boom-bust cycles. Taliban? The Afghans did it to themselves.

Madoff? You can pin the blame on the SEC and ESPECIALLY TO THOSE WHO TRUSTED HIM WITH THEIR MONEY! IF A DEAL IS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, THEN IT IS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE!!! Sheesh, when will people learn.

[Grub]

I think history will be more forgiving toward Bush than people are now. On the other hand, I think history will not be as forgiving to Obama down the road. Obama will forever be known as not only the first African American President, but also for his unheard of and reckless spending and for his leading the United States toward socialism.

While the public doesn't want another Bush, a good economic conservative will be able to soundly thump Obama in the 2012 debates if they know what to say. Obama's approval rating is still high,even though it is dropping. Hopefully people will see through his exterior by then and realize that Obama is pillaging capitalism. We are not a socialist nation. Let socialism stay in Europe.

[Oportopolis]

First off, don't lambast Obama after 6 months, when it seemed we weren't complaining about Bush until after 6 years.

I have a very conservative cousin who says history will will vindicate Bush, and I agree. If Iraq is a hellhole 20 years from now, he'll be the worst president of all time. If Iraq is the next Japan, then he'll be considered one of the best. Of course its gonna be somewhere in between.

To answer the real question though, the Bush presidency has seen an exponential growth of power for the executive branch, while Congress and the S.C. has fallen off. In this Media infused world, the first face of everything is the president. He/She can push whatever policies they want directly to the American people without going through the other branches.

Just like Obama is having to do some crazy things during his presidency because of the times, Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents because of the times.

My final words will be a simple question. Can anybody honestly claim that G.W. Bush did a better job then Clinton??

[Estayland]

Jul 1, 2009 15:34:30 GMT -5 Oportopolis said:

First off, don't lambast Obama after 6 months, when it seemed we weren't complaining about Bush until after 6 years.

Why not? People complained about Bush from day one. Obama just made worse Bush's fiscal policies of Keynesian economics.

My final words will be a simple question. Can anybody honestly claim that G.W. Bush did a better job then Clinton??

Depends on the area. Socially, heck yes. Fiscally, heck no.

[Grub]

First off, don't lambast Obama after 6 months, when it seemed we weren't complaining about Bush until after 6 years.

In these first few months, President Obama has spent more money than *all* US Presidents from George Washinton to GW Bush combined. More than them all! Let that sink in a minute. Obama has spent more than every President combined. Every war, every budget, everything. Obama has spent more than all of them combined. It is mind boggling. He's also pushing us toward Socialism. Whether he gets elected to another term and has a 80% approval rate, it doesn't matter. Obama has failed America and the repercussions will be felt for many, many years. Obama = a massive fail.

[Noyzistan]

that's an interesting piece of information, Grub. I'm not a US resident and I haven't heard that one before. Can I get the source for that, I'd love to share it with some of my Obama-supporting friends (although I doubt it will change their views).

[Chronopolice]

Well if Obama managed to convince Congress to spend that much money, no wonder he won instead of McCain. ;D

I would rather blame Congress than Obama. He can only convince them of the need to spend X quadrillion dollars on something. But the final say still falls on the Senators and Congressmen.

Well if there's anything that Bush can directly blamed with, I think it is with the Republicans losing control of the Government.

[Shelter from the Storm]

Jul 1, 2009 21:55:45 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Why not? People complained about Bush from day one. Obama just made worse Bush's fiscal policies of Keynesian economics.

Bush? A Keynesian? You've got to be kidding! The only thing remotely Keynesian that Bush ever did was in his last year of office after the capitalistic orgy of deregulation was so thoroughly discredited that even he was forced to intervene in the economy. I suppose it was good for many years - from Reagan onward, but it seems obvious now that capitalism must exist within strictly regulated parameters. Frankly, Obama is so far from being the socialist he is characterized as, that I have no confidence American legislators have learned the lesson.

BTW, while I believe Bush and his cronies enabled the USA to enter the list of rogue states that torture and have corrupt governments, he did not do it alone. The entire American political system, driven by moneyed lobbies needs radical reform if the USA is to resume its position as a world leader and a role model for democracy.

[New Dracora]

[Chronopolice]

Jul 9, 2009 7:43:11 GMT -5 New Dracora said:

More like this thread is heading for one of these.

[Estayland]

Jul 5, 2009 15:54:51 GMT -5 Shelter from the Storm said:

Jul 1, 2009 21:55:45 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Why not? People complained about Bush from day one. Obama just made worse Bush's fiscal policies of Keynesian economics.

Bush? A Keynesian? You've got to be kidding! The only thing remotely Keynesian that Bush ever did was in his last year of office after the capitalistic orgy of deregulation was so thoroughly discredited that even he was forced to intervene in the economy. I suppose it was good for many years - from Reagan onward, but it seems obvious now that capitalism must exist within strictly regulated parameters. Frankly, Obama is so far from being the socialist he is characterized as, that I have no confidence American legislators have learned the lesson.

BTW, while I believe Bush and his cronies enabled the USA to enter the list of rogue states that torture and have corrupt governments, he did not do it alone. The entire American political system, driven by moneyed lobbies needs radical reform if the USA is to resume its position as a world leader and a role model for democracy.

Sorry I didn't see your reply.

I'm not much on putting stock in bloggers, but here are some blogger opinions on Bush being a Keynesian.

curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/01/18/turns_out_george_bush_is_a_key/
mises.org/Community/forums/t/7721.aspx

Capitalism with strict regulation isn't what's going to get this country going again. Regulations are what's hurting America. Look at Sarbanes Oxley. That hasn't done a thing to help. All it's done is make the Big4 accounting firms more money. Also, it's obvious that regulations didn't stop people like Madoff and Stanford from doing what they did.

If the government was doing its job, you wouldn't have had these problem... but the government is the problem, not the solution. Let's make sure those who wrong the public are severely punished. Not one of these "let's fine X $500,000 after X made $5,000,000 doing what they did." If X make $5,000,000 defrauding the public, make X pay $15,000,000 in penalties, and throw the bums who did the fraud in jail.

One of those bad regulations that the government forced onto the banking system is forcing more loans to people who didn't have the ability to qualify for a mortgage under normal criteria. If you give loans to people who'll never be able to pay back the loan, you must suffer those consequences. However, some in government thought minorities weren't getting loans they "deserved."

Sensible and equal enforcement of regulation is what we need... we don't need new regulations that people won't follow.

[Woaz]

We can't know where Bush would have taken the country if it hadn't been for 911. He will now be judged by the results of the wars and now Obama is in charge of them. I republicans disappointed me greatly during his presidency. They lost the fiscal restraint that I joined them for. But, of course, the Democrats are worse. He wasn't terrible, but he was far less than hoped for.

[Estayland]

Jul 19, 2009 17:56:04 GMT -5 Woaz said:

I republicans disappointed me greatly during his presidency. They lost the fiscal restraint that I joined them for.

I totally agree.

[New Dracora]

Jul 14, 2009 22:06:10 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Jul 5, 2009 15:54:51 GMT -5 Shelter from the Storm said:

Bush? A Keynesian? You've got to be kidding! The only thing remotely Keynesian that Bush ever did was in his last year of office after the capitalistic orgy of deregulation was so thoroughly discredited that even he was forced to intervene in the economy. I suppose it was good for many years - from Reagan onward, but it seems obvious now that capitalism must exist within strictly regulated parameters. Frankly, Obama is so far from being the socialist he is characterized as, that I have no confidence American legislators have learned the lesson.

BTW, while I believe Bush and his cronies enabled the USA to enter the list of rogue states that torture and have corrupt governments, he did not do it alone. The entire American political system, driven by moneyed lobbies needs radical reform if the USA is to resume its position as a world leader and a role model for democracy.

Sorry I didn't see your reply.

I'm not much on putting stock in bloggers, but here are some blogger opinions on Bush being a Keynesian.

curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2008/01/18/turns_out_george_bush_is_a_key/
mises.org/Community/forums/t/7721.aspx

...Dubbya worshipped keys???

Jul 14, 2009 22:06:10 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Capitalism with strict regulation isn't what's going to get this country going again. Regulations are what's hurting America. Look at Sarbanes Oxley. That hasn't done a thing to help. All it's done is make the Big4 accounting firms more money. Also, it's obvious that regulations didn't stop people like Madoff and Stanford from doing what they did.

I don't think the issue is so much to do with the practice of regulation itself but rather the fact that on 9/10 occasions, the regulators are completely and utterly incompetent.

Jul 14, 2009 22:06:10 GMT -5 Estayland said:

If the government was doing its job, you wouldn't have had these problem... but the government is the problem, not the solution. Let's make sure those who wrong the public are severely punished. Not one of these "let's fine X $500,000 after X made $5,000,000 doing what they did." If X make $5,000,000 defrauding the public, make X pay $15,000,000 in penalties, and throw the bums who did the fraud in jail.

As stated above, incompetent.

However, I think the best response in this case is to properly identify such issues and reform - not deregulate and remove all penalties all together.

Jul 14, 2009 22:06:10 GMT -5 Estayland said:

One of those bad regulations that the government forced onto the banking system is forcing more loans to people who didn't have the ability to qualify for a mortgage under normal criteria. If you give loans to people who'll never be able to pay back the loan, you must suffer those consequences. However, some in government thought minorities weren't getting loans they "deserved."

HA! Forced? Trust me, having now got a bit of experience actually working for a finance company I can tell you with a straight face that many in the finance sector would've been jumping for joy when this legislation came out. Greed is good as they say...

It is likely that there would've been some stink initally (since it really is a v. bad idea to be giving out loans to those who have no hope in hell off paying you back - no matter what they say), especially among some of the larger, more responsible firms about the risk, but there would've been many would-be loan sharks out there rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of the massive business potential of having so many more potential customers out there to ensnare.

Banks and other finance firms don't make money unless they're giving out loans. So, in the short-term, finance would've been making an absolute killing off all these sub-prime loans. When housing prices started to drop this screwed a lot of companies over because this lowered the value of the security upon which many of these loans were based.

And of course when the economy goes into the toilet and most of your customers stop making their loan payments well... the rest is history as they say.

Jul 14, 2009 22:06:10 GMT -5 Estayland said:

Sensible and equal enforcement of regulation is what we need... we don't need new regulations that people won't follow.

Agreed - but again that's more of an issue with the regulators rather than the regulations themselves.

[Estayland]

ND, I agree with you on the regulators. I'm not saying we need less regulation per se... I'm saying if the regulators did what they were supposed to do, we don't need new regulations. Like on the border, they wanted new laws regarding immigration last year, but the US isn't even enforcing current law.

On the loans, yes if the bank wanted to take the risk, they should be ALLOWED to, not FORCED to. It's great for business. But, being told you must is another thing in my opinion.

[Ayunli]

If 9/11 hadn't happened, Bush *might* have been an OK guy. But I pretty much hated him after that...but especially after Katrina.

[Woaz]

Katrina? *sigh*

OK, FEMA is not a first response agency. Ask Florida how long it take the federal government to mobilize and make a difference, AFTER they are asked to. But, you don't see people screaming about that. Why? Because in Florida they have an emergency response plan in place AND they use it.

The Horror that was Katrina was caused by corrupt liberal local and state government who failed in every way to address the problem. Emergency reponders who abandoned their posts and a population that does not take responsibility for itself and expects the government to take care of them and a state governor who delayed in asking the Fed to step in. They called her and asked her to invite them and she didn't. There is this thing called sovereignty. The Fed can't mobilize in a state with out being asked. At least not without a lot of red tape that takes a lot of time.

Did the Federal government handle this well? No. But if the state and local government had done their jobs you would have hardly noticed.

Oh, and let's not leave the Media out of this. Talk about a lie traveling half way around the world while the truth is putting it's shoes on! How many people actually died in the Superdome? I know people who where working there then. It was never nearly as bad as reported. No, I would not have wanted to be there. But, the horrors reported by the press were completely exaggerated. We know what the truth is now, but no one will report on it. They have moved on to the next crisis.

And another thing.... Why hasn't Obama changed the plan for the wars? Everyone knows Bush was doing things all wrong, right? The Dems are in charge now. Where is the change? Oh, the change is the press isn't talking about it. ok. I guess it just isn't the crisis due jour.

[lirbetas]

Much of what has happened is not the direct result of Bush being president - rather one can think of them as a series of unfortunate events, which leads us to the shitty present. It is doubtful that any other person in Bush's position would have been any better (in other words, his decisions seemed correct at the given time, whilst bad after the fact). In fact are we all not somewhat guilty as well, I mean we as a nation number have a population (voting citizens) of
well over 200,000,000...and people want to blame our sole president...right...

I also agree with Grub on the amount of spending Obama is doing, it is absolutely absurd. Our economy must actually go into recession to recover, in fact if you look at the U.S. as a human body (forgive the simplistic analogy), our economy is currently like a cancer - where Obama has decided to put the U.S. in Chemotherapy, when it would be far better to simply cut the cancer out (like letting businesses who take stupid risks fail...I call shenanigans on the stimulus plan!).

Then there is the money spent on the war...if you really think the war was bad for the economy I give you a 50%, after all war creates jobs (bullet, gun, vehicle manufacturing for example) - but it is bad in the long run (costs will eventually accumulate sorta like now), but in comparison to what is happening currently (mass spending from Obama), it pales in comparison...

[Adriatic Islands]

I blame Congress and Bush equally. Bush's tax cuts were great, most of his policies I supported, but it got to a point after about 2005 he started being too wary, and while wariness is good, being neurotic about security isn't.

Congress gets far too much support, I know the democrats are supposed to be the 'heroes' of everything, but they caused this mess as much as the people on wall street, and as much as the former president.

[Ayunli]

I'll probably never like Bush (no matter what good stuff he did) simply because I am a Democrat. In fact, Ived noticed that since we have a Democratic-controlled Senate and a Democratic President, the Dems are being yelled at for doing everything wrong...Since when did the Republicans do such a wonderful job?Just a little while ago, we had a Republican-controlled Senate & a Republican President and everyone was yelling at them! Pick a side people! Which one do *you* think is more evil? I mean, let's face it, no matter what side is in control, that side is going to get blamed for all the crap. It's wrong, but that's American politics for you! We were already in a recession when Obama became President and yet we blae him for making it worse...once there's a recession, it's not like the President can just wave a magic wand and make it all go away! Maybe we should let everything go down the toilet, wait till its all over, and then rebuild the economy, but what's the point? Yeahm things have to get worse before they get better and trying to stop the worse doesn't make it better quicker...but still!!! Why not try everything single thing possible to make it better, an *then* give up? At least then people can say the President actually tried!