How responsible are Bush and the Repubs for the world's economic collapse??

[kentuck]

Since the Bush "spin" team is everywhere trying to tell us how lucky we are that Saddam Hussein is dead, I wonder how much of this present crisis can be pinned on George W Bush and the Republican Party? Seriously.

We know that Bush inherited a surplus in our budget and unemployment about 4.1%. When he left, we had two wars going on at the same time, we had borrowed $5 trillion dollars from our foreign beneficiaries, we had cut taxes on the wealthy and done away with any semblance of regulation on banks and other industries.

We experienced gas prices of $4.00 per gallon. This was with two oil men sitting in the White House. Then, with only 3 months left in office, Mr Bush is forced to tell us that our entire economic system is near collapse.

On top of all that, we had lost any moral leverage we may have had around the world. We spent blindly on the defense budget. We tortured people or sent them to other countries to be tortured.

How responsible are the Bush policies for the Bernie Madoffs of the world? What part did the laissez-faire attitudes and the shrugging off of any need for regulations have on the collapse of the economy? Can we blame any of this on George W Bush? Or should we just be thankful that we have not been attacked again and that Saddam Hussein is dead?

[billybob537]

1. 100%

[LakeSamish706]

3. I totally agree.... Another 911 IMO. n/t

[Turbineguy]

2. Malevolence, naivete and incompetence.

The the job of the government of the United States is too complex to be run by idiots.

[Wapsie B]

4. 100%

[T Wolf]

5. Maybe not 100%, but damn close. Their total facilitation of the theft and fraud that

the financial system has turned into - added to the outright theft and "wealth destruction" that their wars generated (though it did generate a lot of wealth for themselves and their friends) is what has created the current conditions.

[leftchick]

6. democrats are almost equally to blame

they took corporate/bank cash to keep the theft going as well. Joe Biden comes immediately to mind.

[kentuck]

9. Could it have happened under Bill Clinton and the Democrats watch??

I think the world economy was in much better shape in 2000 than in 2008? Although the seeds of destruction may have already been planted?

[leftchick]

15. two words

Glass-Steagall

Clinton is no innocent. Remember who the DLC are.....

http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2007/11/bill-clintons-role-in-mortgage-crisis.html




FDR Signs the Glass-Steagall Act (Carter Glass on Left)

Many Democrats wish Bill Clinton still occupied the White House. However, before you put him in Mt. Rushmore, you might want to investigate his role in the mortgage foreclosure crisis.

The chief aim of what I have termed the Republican Counterrevolution has always been to roll back the New Deal. Anti-gov'ment rhetoric hides this as surely as states' rights hid racist segregation. Of all the New Deal legislation the GOP has sought to overturn, one that has always been at or near the top of the list is the Glass-Steagall Act. Ironically, a Democratic president repealed this for them.

Glass-Steagall

An unreconstructed Southerner from Virginia, Carter Glass shepherded the creation of the Federal Reserve System through Congress, which has caused some to call him the "founding father of the Federal Reserve System." Later Glass would serve as Wilson's Treasury Secretary, recommending aid to Europe after World War I. Just before leaving Treasury to become senator, Glass warned about banks getting involved in stocks.

In his economic history of the Great Depression, John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out one of the causes was:

The large-scale corporate thimblerigging that was going on. This took a variety of forms, of which by far the most common was the organization of corporations to hold stock in yet other corporations, which in turn held stock in yet other corporations.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. They own it!

[redqueen]

8. Did the Glass-Steagall Act not have anything to do with it at all? (nt)

[Xolodno]

10. Yes...

...it did.

But its easier to project your hate and bitterness at the most recent unpopular leader/leaders and of course, both republican and democrat leaders have their hands dirty on this.

Granted they did have a part by ignoring the warning signs and doing nothing to intervene (much like Hoover). But the seeds of this crisis was sowed when they repealed that legislation.

"Too big to fail" was the rallying cry on repealing and they are precisely correct. They only misunderstood the comment, though I'm sure the bank CEO's didn't. They are indeed too big to fail, because if they did the results would be catastrophic and the government would have to bail them out, such as is happening now.

Because of their size, they had an implicit insurance policy to be taken care of by the government, but like an insurance policy their were exclusions that kept the banks in line. When they repealed the legislation, they essentially dropped the exclusions and what a surprise, were now paying out on something that was an exclusion before.

[kentuck]

12. Also...

We should not ignore the fact that George W Bush did not veto one spending bill as they spent us into oblivion. They even borrowed the money for the wars. The Republican-led Congress went hog-wild with earmarks and pork spending. It is only now, that they are not in power, that they have become fiscal conservatives and bashers of earmarks. That is not lost on the public. You can put lipstick on a hypocrite and he is still a pig.

[redqueen]

21. Yes, for all their party's bleating about fiscal conservatism,

they spent like drunken sailors, without even a hint of questioning.

But then, we never did believe their false advertising, so...

Still, it's funny seeing their party fall apart at the seams. Could it be that the republican electorate is maybe FINALLY catching on to the bait-and-switch routine?

[redqueen]

20. Yes, the seeds were definitely sown by then.

I'm not arguing that Dems deserve an equal share of the blame... just that we need to be mindful of the fact that the Dem party is not blameless. Especially now, since the party is again in power.

Not sure how much we can actually influence what they do... but if we had somehow managed to help to get that bill vetoed, well... that would have been helpful.

[global1]

11. Wasn't This Passed In 1999 Under Clinton?......

does he have to shoulder some of the blame?

[kentuck]

13. Yes and if I recall correctly...

Only one Democrat voted with him as the Republicans pushed it through, with the assistance of third-grader three times Phil Gramm? So, blame can be placed on Bill Clinton but not the entire Democratic Party. The same cannot be said for George W Bush and the Republican Party. They marched hand in hand to destroy our nation. And they are still marching...

[redqueen]

14. No. It was passed on a party-line vote,

but then it went to committee to resolve the differences between the House and Senate bills.

It was then passed nearly unanimously by the Senate. If not for that, maybe we could have expected a veto... who knows.

[kentuck]

17. Thanks ..

I did not know that. Do you have any links to that info?

[redqueen]

18. Here's the link to the record of the final vote.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN00900:@@@R

11/4/1999 Conference report agreed to in Senate: Senate agreed to conference report by Yea-Nay Vote. 90-8. Record Vote No: 354.
11/4/1999 Conference report agreed to in House: On agreeing to the conference report Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 362 - 57 (Roll no. 570).


Now, I never did get around to researching the "conference report" terminology, but that 90-8 vote is the only thing which would back up the claim that Clinton just had to sign it, because a veto would only have been overturned.

Whichever way you look at it, it boils down to this: you can't put all the blame for this on Republicans. One could argue which side deserves what percentage of blame, but I don't see the point, really.

[redqueen]

19. It was repealed by the Gramm-Leach Billey Act.

And yes, Clinton signed it into law.

Dems in congress initially voted overwhelmingly against it... but later seemed to come around.

[leftofthedial]

16. They ARE the world's collapse--economically, environmentally, every whichaway.

They are part of a larger cabal that is busy draining the world of all assets, hoping to trigger an Armageddon of sorts, after which they plan to rule absolutely.

[Winterblues]

22. But didn't you hear, Clinton got a blowjob?

.. I have often been told I have a knack for stating the obvious..:shrug:

[bridgit]

23. 100%, they're the same old junk bond crowd cept now junk loans bundled...

via Reagan's deregulation and bush's enhancements to deregulation that enables these hybrid financial 'products' to exist as D, E, F paper, no credit check, no ref's, no income required paper and *that* was the basis of bush's 'ownership society'. It was hoped that money lenders could make scads of money before the bottom fell out; something I think they knew they were forcing, at which point people with any money would step in and purchase stocks for pennies on the dollar same-ole-same-ole money man game

[DCKit]

24. Disaster Politics - don't enforce the rules/laws...

then, when something horrific happens or things get soooooo bad people are losing their minds, enact a whole new level of draconian rules and laws to "remedy" the situation - if you're into fascism.

Firearms? Sure, but what civilian can justify the right to bear automatic weapons? There simply is no reason they should be legal.

Immigration? Yeah, we need enforcement, but adequate laws were already on the books before 9/11. There was lax enforcement, no cooperation between the "responsible" agencies and those who tried to warn the authorities about specific individuals were shut down or ignored.

Banks and Wall St.? Relaxation and abolishment of laws and regulations that worked for nearly 70 years followed by a complete lack of oversight - in several cases, direct interference from the executive branch (which also shut down any investigations into Saudi financing of the 9/11 attacks).

[suede1]

25. Certainly when you take into account ideology, then it's 100%. But there are some Democrats in there

unfortunately.