Bush’s Economic Mistakes
With all inauguration coverage, all the time today, I thought we might try to keep the focus on erconomic/market related matters.
Time magazine has an article on Bush’s economics mistakes that I would direct you to except for the annoying 9 page clicks required (click whores!).
Rather than send you there, I’ll give you the 8, with excerpts of their commentary:
1. The Return to Deficits: Bush’s tax cuts and spending increases — and clear disdain for the pay-as-you-go approach that had brought deficits down in the 1990s — brought a return to permanent deficits.
2. Iraq: Even if you think the war did bring benefits to the U.S., they would have to be pretty gigantic to justify the costs of $1-3 trillion dollars;
3. Tax Cuts for the Rich: Bush came to Washington facing almost diametrically opposing economic conditions, yet he offered up the same solutions as Reagan.
4. Financial Regulation: What is true is that most Bush-era financial regulators were less than enthusiastic about the very act of regulating, and that Bush’s “ownership society” push glossed over a lot of potential dangers.
5. Telling Us to Go Shopping: After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush didn’t call for sacrifice. He called for shopping.
6. Energy Policy: Not much to say here, except that there wasn’t an energy policy.
7. A State of Denial: Every Administration spins and sugarcoats the economic truth. But the Bush White House took this disingenuousness to new levels.
8. The Muddled Bailout: The main problem has been the ambivalence with which both Paulson and the White House have approached the financial rescue.
Pretty straightforward analysis . . .
>
Source:
A Look Back at Bush’s Economic Missteps
JUSTIN FOX
Time, January 2009
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1872229_1872230_1872231,00.html
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
January 20th, 2009 at 10:03 am
The above are the specific economic criticisms made by Time Magazine.
If you have issues with them, please respond with facts and coherent arguments.
Nonsense will be deleted with extreme prejudice.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:12 am
I have to say that Katrina could be seen as a major economic mistake. Bush had the opportunity at home to do the sort of rebuilding that his administration dreamed about in Iraq.
The bush administration had the opportunity to save New Orleans’ culture AND to rebuild the city as an urban prototype for the new century. Instead he let it all wash away with the flood waters.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:14 am
I think of Katrina as more of a political/PR mistake (its where the press suddenly found their claws again) than economic one, but you raise an interesting point
January 20th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Through the Bush years, the Republicans proved that they were complete frauds. They claimed to believe that the government that governs least governs best, yet at every opportunity, acted to expand the scope, depth and power of the federal government, both internationally and domestically.
There is not now, and hasn’t been for some time, anyone in Washington that represents the unwashed masses in flyover land. The Republicans claimed to represent the people, but were really only representing their own interest in being power brokers.
Where’s Andrew Jackson when you need him?
January 20th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I would vote number 1 outweighs the rest. Deficit spending, legally only allowed by one part of all the various governments in the US, the federal government, is our long term poison.
Please consider a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, that can be temporarily set aside with proper votes in times of crisis or war, that will lessen the chance of this every happening again to the American people. I understand that deficit spending didn’t contribute so much to the GD, but certainly it does here, and it only makes good fiscal sense to go forward with this. And yes, I understand that the deficit by itself didn’t cause this, but is sure was fertile ground…
That amendment would take care of future 2 and 3′s and probably curtail abuses of 4.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Items 1, 3, and 4 are all about the manipulation of the economy’s superstructure in order to push the cream to the top .01%. It is ironic that only a few years ago there were articles about how the merely rich felt left out of the game by the emerging super rich.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/opinion/19talkingpoints.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Bush and his gang were clearly intent on loosing a crime spree across the globe. Why this wasn’t obvious to everyone in 1999 seems to me the more pertinent question. And why in God’s name did we collectively do nothing for so many years? In truth, with all due respect to Time and to you, Mr. Ritholtz, regarding your focus, the more compelling questions center on our failings, misjudgments and blindspots.
A problem greater than Bush’s mistakes is our quiescence, our complicity… I suppose our cowardice.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I think Katrina proved that the Federal government is incompetent.
The government completely neglected the maintenance that could have prevented the disaster. Then, once disaster struct, the FEMA reaction was horrifying.
It demonstrated that there really are “two Americas” (rich and poor). Are we to believe the reaction would be identical if the disaster had occurred in Washington D.C., NYC, Boston, or Los Angeles?
~~~
BR: FEMA operated well in the Clinton and Reagan admin s — its not government per se, but how well its run by its execs
January 20th, 2009 at 10:26 am
That’s a great list. My other big irritation that stands out huge in my mind was on Election Day 2004, when Bush barely eeks out a victory over a Mass. liberal like John Kerry, he comes on TV and explains that “he has a mandate” and he “intends to use it…” I wanted to puke. His general inability to see and understand multiple sides to complex issues is his main leadership flaw, imo. Indeed, he can “feel” the truth. (h/t Colbert)
- AT
January 20th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Number 1 (which is related to #2 and #3 in my mind) big with me as well. It’s a key reason why recovery from this current fiasco is going to be highly difficult and protracted.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:29 am
@AT: It’s funny you mention the “mandate” thing. I remember it vividly as well. Bush actually said he “had political capital” and that he “intended to use it”. It was then and there that I knew his second term was going to be complete and utter disaster for this country.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Typical of hacks in the media to pretend that economic policy and political policy are separate and never the twain shall meet. (Support of right wing dictators abroad and the institution of Friedmanite economic policy in those countries? Mere coincidence!)
No Energy policy? Really?
Time magazine needs to take another look at bullet point number 2.
We didn’t covet the oil in Iraq so we would have something to cook our Freedom Fries in.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:07 am
@AT and Mannwich:
You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.
no, he didn’t have political capital; a man born with a silver spoon in his mouth and given everything in his life felt he EARNED it. nevermind that he has no clue what earning something means.
that quote is all you need to sum up his Presidency: it is hubris writ large. i hope history judges him accurately.
aside: if i was George Soros (read: infinitely wealthy) i would establish a “Presidential Historical Society”, a non-profit with the mandate to monitor, manage, and refute every lie/spin about the Bush Presidency. it would need to be funded for at least the next 200 years.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:29 am
What an utterly depressing list.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Ok, time for a little counter balance to this thread. Folks, if you really, truly believe “this time will be different” when the Messiah takes office later today, you will be sorely, sorely dissapointed.
BHO is planning to spend close to $1 trillion of your taxpayer dollars on more social programs than you can shake a stick at. If you think there was lack of oversight in the TARP funds (which I agree there was and has been), let me just say, you aint seen nothing yet.
While I will agree GWB has done a poor job of demandng competance and accountability from his minions in the DoD, Treasury, etc., do you really think naming a guy who didn’t even pay the taxes he owed to run the IRS is a step in the RIGHT direction? Naming a guy with ZERO experience as head of the CIA is a RIGHT direction? Letting Pelosi and Ried run wild serving the extreme liberal agenda is the RIGHT direction?
Now, for the list;
1. someone tell me with a straight face that Bill Clinton would have run surpluses without the Republican congress of ’94 and the .com boom (or should I say .bomb)? Fake economy, just as fake as ’03 to ’07.
2. Iraq – total victory – most successful WAR campaign in history (in terms of objectives achieved and lives lost). W’s father was castrated by the left for not “finishing the job” and W is castrated for getting it done. Hmmm, wonder why that is?
3. Tax cuts for the Rich vs tax refunds for those who don’t pay taxes. = toss up.
4. Financial regulation was just as lax under Bush as Clinton = FACT. I was in the financial services business while Clinton was in office. My SEC audits were a JOKE then and when Bushie was in office.
5. We could have either gone shopping or sat cowering in in our houses with the drapes closed. What did you want him to say?
6. Give you that, if you admit Carter, Clinton and the other Dems had no real energy policy either. That being said, going to Iraq and securing that section of the world may lead to the US having more leverage in the price of Oil in the future.
7. State of Denial? What is he supposed to do, tell everyone how bad things are and make a tough situation worse? Show me a Pessimistic President and I’ll show you a one-termer every time.
8. that bailout has been run poorely, but that is because the Gobment is involved. Hate to break this to you guys, but the Gobment about to get much bigger under the new guy. Expect more of the same…..
Come on now, while most of you are left leaning, you have to admit, it doesn’t really look like a great start by the “ONE” does it? $170m for an inaguration? At this time? All I can say is Wow!!!!
By the way, watching the way these folks in DC are all bundled up this weekend, I bet they wished for a little more of that Global Warming to come their way…..
BTW, fact that we have severly hurt Al Qaeda over the last 7 years and fact we haven’t been attacked again. How many times did we get hit will Slick Willy was getting his hummers in the oval office?
Barry, this will be interesting, please don’t delete :-)….
January 20th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Jdamon33:
I agree with some of your points. I, too, wondered how, if Bush spent 47 million on his inaguration, that O would spend 190 million…didn’t seem like the right start to me..
And I also have a little problem with the “comparing myself to Lincoln” bit…ok, I understand the Illinois tie-in, but you haven’t done anything yet, except get elected…..I would have thought a better idea would have been to follow FDR’s route for his first swearing-in…after all, he was the president through the GD..and followed a president who is now reviled for getting us in the GD in the first place..
January 20th, 2009 at 11:41 am
@jdamon33: “2. Iraq – total victory – most successful WAR campaign in history (in terms of objectives achieved and lives lost). W’s father was castrated by the left for not “finishing the job” and W is castrated for getting it done. Hmmm, wonder why that is?”
You ARE kidding, right? W’s father was castrated by those neo-cons that W decided to stupidly listen to in his presidency.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:47 am
>> You ARE kidding, right? W’s father was castrated by those neo-cons that W decided to stupidly listen to in his presidency.
I hope he’s kidding…But, this reminds me of what (I think) Jeremy Grantham in a video Barry posted a few months ago said in response to the question: “what will we learn from this meltdown?” He said, roughly: “in the short term, we’ll learn a lot; in the mid term, we’ll learn a little; in the long term, we’ll learn nothing.”
January 20th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Response to ‘counter balance’:
1. Meaningless hypothetical based on unsupported assertions.
2. William Odom: ‘The invasion of Iraq was the worst strategic disaster in American History.”
(Also, try tracking down April Glaspie’s dispatches)
3. Your talking points are showing.
4. Assertion- prove it. Your ‘anecdata’ is not compelling.
5. ‘Go shopping’ is a flippant remark by a shallow man. Much could not be expected of him.
6. Why admit it? Not true.
7. Objectivity does not equal pessimism. Speaking the truth is not doomsaying.
8. Is government involved? I would argue that the Treasury is a captured entity and that individuals like Paulson and Kashkari (with that name they are just rubbing it in our faces) have demonstrated through their behavior that they have zero interest governance (which implies accountability).
January 20th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Bush – The Black Swan president.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Jdamon33 Wrote:
“2. Iraq – total victory – most successful WAR campaign in history (in terms of objectives achieved and lives lost). W’s father was castrated by the left for not “finishing the job” and W is castrated for getting it done. Hmmm, wonder why that is?”
Yes, and Bush had nothing to do with that. That’s the military. Bush, however, is responsible for the poor decision to go in, and for having no plan for post-war reconstruction.
“3. Tax cuts for the Rich vs tax refunds for those who don’t pay taxes. = toss up.”
Common Republican tactic – ignore taxes such as FICA and other taxes paid by low income people. Trickle down doesn’t work – we’ve seen that first hand.
“4. Financial regulation was just as lax under Bush as Clinton = FACT. I was in the financial services business while Clinton was in office. My SEC audits were a JOKE then and when Bushie was in office.”
Not even close to comparable – every department essentially left industry alone or was in bed directly. Clinton was also not given the warnings about various financial issues that Bush got and ignored simply because they were just starting.
“5. We could have either gone shopping or sat cowering in in our houses with the drapes closed. What did you want him to say?”
At a time of war, we generally raise taxes to pay for it – how about starting with that?
“6. Give you that, if you admit Carter, Clinton and the other Dems had no real energy policy either. That being said, going to Iraq and securing that section of the world may lead to the US having more leverage in the price of Oil in the future.”
Carter had an energy policy. It was just undone at every turn.
“8. that bailout has been run poorely, but that is because the Gobment is involved. Hate to break this to you guys, but the Gobment about to get much bigger under the new guy. Expect more of the same…..”
That’s Republicans for you – say that government is the problem and then get elected and prove it. Republicans have shown no ability to govern – probably because they believe that government shouldn’t exist.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
MRegan,
Your rebuttal was filled with a lot of “hot air”. Actually address the issues instead of flippantly (see we Rebubs can use your big words too) blowing them off.
1, Tell me the .com economy was real – go ahead and tell me. It was just as real as the housing bubble we just experienced.
2. Who the hell is William Odom and why do I care what he thinks?
3 – you didn’t address.
4 – FACT, not anecdata.
5. – What would the “enlightened one” have said? Give me something tangible.
6. Provide me Carter and Clinton’s energy policy or quite down.
7. OK, I will give you he has been a little too glib and unwilling to recognize the economy was starting to falter, but for every GWB, I can give you 10 CEO’s who didn’t admit they had problems until the Sh*t hit the fan as well. Do you think the Prez is more knowing than these folks?
8. Yes, BHO will increase the size of our gov’t. If you don’t think that is true, I want some of what you are smoking.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Bruce N Tennessees says:
“And I also have a little problem with the “comparing myself to Lincoln” bit…ok, I understand the Illinois tie-in, but you haven’t done anything yet, except get elected…”
If Barack Obama were another Abe Lincoln, South Carolina would have already seceded by now…
@Jdamon33:
The details don’t matter, really, about what Bush did or Obama’s done thus far. Obama has become this giant canvass upon which has been painted all the hopes, dreams and expectations of not just the United States, but also the entire Western world. If success equates to making everyone feel their dream is fulfilled through him, it is impossible.
It’s a fact of human nature that people will worship something. The trick is not to worship false gods. But Obama right now is a false god for millions, perhaps billions. One day (maybe) folks will come to their senses and realize he’s just a flesh and blood man. In the meantime, the hatred for everything done pre-Obama will continue. Who knows, perhaps the measurement of time itself will change–P.O. to A.O.–marking this day in history–don’t laugh, people need so seriously to believe in something bigger than themselves that anything’s possible.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Instead of just saying things will get worse, or the other guy did that, anyone want to list Bush’s successes while in office? jdamon33 says the Iraq war is one. OK, fine, everyone has an opinion on that one. Any more?
As for Katrina, it fits the profile for most of the Bush administrations actions – money/aid goes directly to companies friendly to the administration, very little goes to the community. For example, contractors get money for roof replacement, homeowners get a tarp. rental company gets subsidized for housing, homeless get substandard trailers.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
You know what, I don’t blame Bush, he told us what he was going to do, told us his philosophy and accomplished every one of his promises. The Press let him get away with the lies and covered his a$$ for the last 9 years.
The only difference between him and Reagan was Reagan was the hypocrite. Reagan raised taxes six times in 8 years.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Cheepnis,
Ohhhhh, the big bad Bushie created that bad storm Katrina and led it right into the poorest areas of New Orleans. Ohhhh, that big bad Bushie so mean he let poor folks live in the water for such a long time. He didn’t want to help those poor folks, he’s just such a meanie. Good riddance bad Bushie, you just a mean ole man……
Obama would have guided the storm around the Gulf and let it drift harmlessly to sea…. go Barack, go Barack….
Amen
~~~
BR: Ahh, so you would rather deflect with humor the incompetent performance then respond directly.
Understood. When your team is in dead last place, who wants to talk baseball stats?
January 20th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Jdamon33
1. .com economy was real- was it good? All those condos in Florida and Nevada and houses in Inland Empire are real. All those CDOs and CLOs and SIVs were real.
2. Use wikipedia or Google. As a Republican shouldn’t you know things like this?
3. Grover Norquist
4. Type bigger bigger next time. You’ll convince me.
5. I will give you nothing.
6. See above. (also, will not ‘quite down’)
7. False equivalency.
8. I responded to only one aspect of your original point. Will govt get bigger? Govt will likely shrink- not due to Obama’s policies but due to economic contraction. Vacuum has already begun.
Flippant. Your perspective on this word reveals a lot. You see, merely repeating a word that I used does not back up your assertion that Republicans can use big words. It shows that they can parrot them. Also, you assume I am not a Republican. Do you have any evidence to support your assumption?
January 20th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Can we please put to rest the canard that the cost of Obama’s inauguration is somehow way more expensive than Bush’s was? The low costs associated with previous inaugurations don’t give the full figure. The cost estimates of the Obama inuaguration include the extensive amount of money spent ons security – those given for Bush do not. The non-security costs of Obama’s innuaguration are estimated to be about $45 million.
As was reported in the Washington Post from January 20, 2005, addressing the Bush inauguration costs:
“The $40 million does not include the cost of a web of security, including everything from 7,000 troops to volunteer police officers from far away, to some of the most sophisticated detection and protection equipment. ”
The New York Times reported on January 9 that in 2005 “”the federal government and the District of Columbia spent a combined $115.5 million, most of it for security, the swearing-in ceremony, cleanup and for a holiday for federal workers” . As Eric Boehlert has pointed out – “Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush’s 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That’s right, $157 million.”
So the sniping over the costs of the Obama inauguration is as ignorant as the juvenile name-calling by those who are making the assertions. Give it a rest.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
I’m willing to play “devil’s advocate” in the case of criticism numbers 2, 3 and 8:
With regard to Iraq, it is certainly true that the costs VASTLY exceed the benefits, when viewed from the perspective of the present. What is not so clear is how the cost/benefit relationship will be viewed 10 years from now. When looking back on the situation in the year 2020, it is POSSIBLE that the consensus will be that the new government in Iraq resulted in greater political stability, and lower oil prices than we would have otherwise seen.
Regarding the view that the middle class benefits when higher marginal tax rates are imposed on those in the top 2% of the income scale: this is probably a correct conclusion, but is probably true to a much lesser extent that proponents (of the tax increase) will concede. This is due in part to tax avoidance efforts by those targeted by the tax increase.
Ambivalence by Paulson & Bush with regard to the bailout. I have been opposed to the bailouts all along, but the fact that Paulson and Bush pursued the bailouts with ambivalence, rather than zeal, provides at least one very thin reed to grasp by those who are opposed to expansion of government.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Mregan,
How is government going to shrink? Do you think BHO is going to start laying off government workers when he’s trying to create/save 3mm + jobs? You lost me.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Also, I wonder what would have happened had Bush not stopped at Iraq, and had continued into Iran as well.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Unfortunately, BHO wil have to deal with Iran. They will test him early and often (actually, they already are with Hammas lobing missles at Isreal). He has been pretty silent on this whole issue up until now.
My gut is he tells Isreal they are on their own. Then, things are going to get really interesting……
January 20th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I cannot believe that a list of recent economic failures does not include the policy of keeping real interest rates as close to zero (or even negative) as possible in the name of maintaining full employment. Combine this with the fact that interest income is taxed, and you have little incentive to save. And now we sit around, complaining about asset bubbles (and their fallouts), our over-consumption, and our lack of savings.
The bad news is that in the next decade or so, we’ll see the return of double digit inflation, as everything you have worked to create in your lives is stolen from you.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Jdamon33 is a perfect example (to me) of what’s wrong with the Republican party that I used to consider myself a part of.
No sensible conservative should be defending ANYTHING about this administration, but people like Jdamon are more loyal to the team than the ideas. Until the Republican party gets back to the party of ideas, they’ll continue to be electoral losers.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
@jdamon33: There’s about ZERO CHANCE O tells Israel they’re on their own. Continuing the recent GOP tradition of being wrong on just about everything and never admitting it.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Big E., I see it as the lesser of two evils. I know what I’m geting with a liberal Democrat in office. I at least have a chance with a Republican. That being said, provide FACTS about what is so wrong and we can discuss it. However, these blanket statements “No sesible conservative should be defending Anything” don’t help the discussion.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
No doubt Bush made more than his fair share of economic mistakes.
But the far bigger and more interesting question is whether our current economic mess is ALL of Bush’s fault. The Bush haters of the world would have you believe that we would not be in this mess if Al Gore had won the Presidency. Many of these same people now believe that Barrack Obama will save us. All of our problems are solved now that Obama is in office – people don’t have to worry about their mortgages anymore or putting gas in the tank. Obama will save us.
IMHO, all of this emphasis on one man is ridiculous, short sighted and irresponsible. It will lead us to economic hell if we don’t watch out. No doubt Bush certainly accelerated our entrance into this period of economic despair. But we were on this path long before Bush came into office.
It’s amazing to me how many are furious at Bush for lack of economic discipline (despite the majority of Democrats voting for the war in Iraq and for the budgets each year). Now the Democrats are going to triple up on what Bush has done to get us out of this mess. Oh, I get it. This country quite properly ousted the Republicans as the majority in 2006 for its out of control spending – for the “bridge to nowhere” if you will. Now we are going to get 1,000 bridges to nowhere and that is going to save us. God help us!
~~~
BR: In Bailout Nation, there is an entire chapter titled BLAME. And you would be surprised how much blame there is to spread around to other people and parties . . . .
January 20th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
From a smart dude:
Here is what Bush did amidst an economic expansion, which was never done under any prior administration, ever!
1) Cut taxes
2) Started a 2 front conventional war
3) Expanded the welfare state
This is probably the finest example of impaired judgment ever levied [sic] by an administration.
Furthermore, [edit] cite a single study which causally links tax cuts and economic expansion. Furthermore, since the Republicans are the great extollers of the virtue of free markets, why would they argue for any fiscal policy ever? Why didn’t they have the guts to simply put an end to the SEC? They are the great cynics, and those that voted for them are either in on the con or foolishly believe that their professed ideology actually ever governs their policy implementation.
Thisson:
Reasonable questions. I do not think that Obama is going to lay off govt workers. I understand that the new administration’s stated policy objectives point to a larger govt payroll, which makes my assertion about a contraction seem odd, not credible, some might say ‘stoopid’, etc, but California”s fiscal woes may be presaging a Federal level problem. Can the US Govt attract foreign funding for additional malinvestment?
January 20th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Curmudgeon:
So you think Obama’s recreation of Lincoln’s route wasn’t pretentious? In general, folks that make the biggest mark on history call the least attention to themselves, imo. If you are going to apparently state before you are even sworn in, that you are like the greatest American president, then I hope you truly are…
I am thinking more of the Omar Bradley, Harry Truman, Lincoln himself, Ghandi, Jesus, etc. type of individuals. I have no problem with it while you are campaigning…but once elected, I would like to see results first before drawing these sorts of comparisons…jmo
January 20th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
As usual, you folks are going to sit here all day and debate, debate, debate…….I’m just glad the guy is finally gone!!
BG said that.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Jdamon33 thinks he’s the member of an elite group of in which it appears different thoughts are not allowed (we repubs?). I guess he doesn’t realize that are probably many people here that were once proud members of that organization. Many left because of people like him. Don’t worry, we could have substituted dems in the above equation as well. In either case it shows a commitment to ideology over rational thought and only weakens whatever argument it attempts to promote. As you can see it eventually devolves into the absurd.
I am a new reader and an economic neophyte trying to make sense of todays world. I enjoy reading most of the comments on this site – especially those of differing views. It appears that some people can actually be swayed by a persuasive argument. That’s fairly rare on most blogs today.
Keep up the good work Barry.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
What continues to baffle me is that the so-called “Party of Personal Responsibility” never, I mean never, takes responsibility for its own shortcomings, failures and mistakes. It’s clear to me that this empty rhetoric only applies to other people.
~~~
BR: I look at most political party rhetoric (on both sides) as marketing . . .
January 20th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Amen BG. Amen indeed. Time to turn the page.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
what kills me about the Bush bashing is that he (Bush) could not care less. No act of contrition will be forthcoming, no soul searching, no agonizing about his decisions. So . . . push on people- let’s look forward and see what can be done. I do have a prediction- that Obama will be more hamstrung by the left wing of his own party than by the Republicans.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
DL,
Here’s an idea. Instead of spending the 1-3 trillion dollars on the war, we instead spend it on renewable energy research and actually end our dependance on foreign oil?
Besides the direct tangible savings, we could have avoided killing lots of people and trampling the constitution in the process.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
cheepnis wrote: “Instead of just saying things will get worse, or the other guy did that, anyone want to list Bush’s successes while in office?”
On the economic front, Social Security is actually in pretty good shape (or was, before the downturn). Of course, to credit that to Bush, you have to ignore that his plan for privatizing Social Security failed. That was where he spent most of the political capital of his 2004 “mandate”.
I also give him some credit for not issuing a blanket pardon for his whole administration.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I do agree that CA is a dry run for what our Federal Government will have to deal with. It’s going to be ugly.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Regarding No. 6 Energy Policy:
The history of the West is one of stupid reaction rather that planning:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/energy/10458619.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
Suncor Energy Posts Loss
Suncor had a very bad quarter (duh), and the Arabs and cyclical oil prices win again…only once again, we’ll have to start over from square one when crude gets expensive again. Alternative energy sources other than the middle east? Why bother….
January 20th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
BG,
Yes, thank you. I’m so sick of the Bush lists. They do nothing for anyone. Give me a break people, lets move on, move forward.
Bush sucked, I don’t know what else needs to be said about it. That could have been the whole list, one line.
I would have preferred more inauguration coverage versus another dumb Bush list. Leave this kind of crap to TIME Barry!
January 20th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
One thing that amazes me. People think Obama was elected to fix the economy these days. People think Obama was elected to do the right thing. Thing is Obama is a democrat, aka liberal, Liberals don’t do right things. Yes the economy is broken, fix it yourself.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
oh and while everyone sits around and still talks about Bush the Dow just slipped below 8k.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Obama needs to start the prosecutions of Bush Admin and Wall St scumbag crooks soon !
January 20th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I don’t have the time nor the inclination to bash the Chimperor any longer. As was once said about W, he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.
The gov can’t fix this problem, it doesn’t PRODUCE anything, it just takes.
Until we have real job PRODUCTION, we are going down. We can’t sell each other securities, cut each other’s hair, sell each other autos and other worthless baubles or mow each other’s lawn into a prosperous society again.
That giant sucking sound, indeed.
Inflation? Inflation? We’ve had the inflation (billion dollar salaries, etc) now we get cold hard deflation. Bank on it, the bankers are.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
In my section of the hinterlands, we have us a sayin’, “Don’t get into a pissin’ contest with a skunk”. Back atcha JDamon33.
Everyone, Live long and prosper.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Bruce: Obama was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago and said, after describing how he reviewed Lincoln ‘s speeches for inspiration, “I’m no Lincoln.”
I took the Lincoln theme differently. Homage rather than self-mythologizing. Thematically, Obama’s rhetoric has consistently paid homage to “those who went before.” What I appreciate about the theme today is that Obama quoted a white slave owner founding father (Washington) with his payoff quote at the end of the speech. I like the larger thematic point that a black president is a natural and logical event that fits seamlessly into the values/themes of the country. Evolutionary, not revolutionary.
I think #5 is a cheap shot. #1 is a big reason why we’re in such deep sh*t. The bailout so far would be the deficit instead of doubling it.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
@JDamon33
A small, unrequested piece of advice concerning this blogspot; be careful where/how you pick your fights. These folks cover a wide spectrum of knowledge, insight, and thoughtfulness. Hell, its a cross section of America…a despised population of the GOP, if you can still call them Grand.
I’m ready for my lumps now.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
@JDamon33
The man you refer snarkely to as “The Enlightened One”, “BHO”, or whatever slur you wish to attach to President Obama, has often requested for suggestions to help/advance this country. What are your suggestions to make this country better than it is now??…other than resorting to the bullshit, my team is better than your team ethnocentrism?? Criticism should be constructive, especially since he has been President now for 5 hours.
More lumps please
January 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
JDamon33 said… 1. someone tell me with a straight face that Bill Clinton would have run surpluses without the Republican congress of ‘94 and the .com boom (or should I say .bomb)? Fake economy, just as fake as ‘03 to ‘07.
Surpluses? Well first of all, there was only one year of surplus (when you take trust fund borrowing into account), not multiple. But the fact that there was a surplus actually missed the point.
Under Reagan, fed funds deficits (i.e. without the salving effects of hiding debt with Social Security surpluses) went from about $82B to $253B. Under HW Bush, that increased to $386B. In ’93, the first year with a Clinton budget and with a Dem majority, that dropped to $355B. The following year, it dropped again to $298B.
Spending increases under Reagain were huge, averaging 6.8% year over year. The two years under Clinton and the Dems were 2.0% and 3.7%. They remained modest under Clinton, but giving credit to the GOP for something already started is a bit of a stretch.
So while I don’t know if there would have been a surplus, the real point is that Clinton and the Dems started a trend in fiscal conservatism that the GOP has been trying to take credit for for years.
And let’s not forget that the GOP was pushing for the massive tax cuts long before Bush was in office. So I guess I would ask, can you say with a straight face that if we had George HW in for a second term and Bob Dole following that you really believe we would have had a surplus … or even a deficit reduction?
January 20th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Interesting that JP Morgan Chase is calling notes, is this normal in inflationary times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/business/economy/20builders.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
Banks Foreclose on Builders With Perfect Records
snip…
“They’re not distinguishing the track records of one borrower against another,” said John Fioramonti, a real estate consultant in Scottsdale, Ariz. “If you’re a builder, you are a bad risk.”
With the pullback accelerating, complaints among builders of hardball tactics and shoddy treatment by banks are mounting, as is a general sense of betrayal.
“The behavior of the banks is unprecedented,” said Mick Pattinson, a home builder from Carlsbad, Calif. who has organized a national coalition of builders to draw attention to what they regard as unreasonable treatment. “Yes, there was overleveraging in the industry. But the aftermath doesn’t need to have been as brutal as it has been.”
Some experts defend the banks, saying they are starting to do what is necessary to come to grips with the turmoil in real estate. For months, they have been under pressure from federal bank regulators and their own shareholders to curtail lending to a faltering industry.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Does anyone really read Time Magazine anymore?
January 20th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
2. Iraq – total victory – most successful WAR campaign in history (in terms of objectives achieved and lives lost).
Total victory. That’s why we only have 13,000 troops still in Iraq. What? That’s 130,000? And how much are we still spending per month. And hundreds of Iraqis still die in attacks each month? And the political party with the most power has long-standing friendly ties to Iran?
As to “objectives achieved”, what happened to that list of political milestones, the vast majority of which weren’t even close to being met before being consigned to the memory hole? What about the Iraqi national security forces? They STILL won’t take most Sunnis. The entire Anbar Awakening was done with tribal militia, not gov’t forces. How about some level of stable economy? That’s a joke. These were all objectives of the Bush administration. If you consider that list “achieved”, you’re delusional.
Man, the goalposts used to defined total victory have REALLY been moved over the past 6 years.
And just to add a little more fuel to the fire, you can’t really assess what was done in Iraq without examining what it took from Afghanistan. Heckuva’ job there. Way to take our eye off the ball.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Tranzor Z:
Actually I imagine you are right about Obama, and frankly, whoever is president doesn’t blow my skirt up much anymore. I don’t think O is going to have much fun with this mess, and I doubt Bernanke is Mr. Giggles to be around, either.
I sure would love to see a balanced budget amendment, with the caveats I already mentioned today. I think when we all look back on this in a few years, we’ll see that the deleveraging by the American public was what was going to happen no matter how much money was thrown into the ring…
January 20th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
One man’s floor is another man’s ceiling.
The “Costs” of the Iraq war are going somewhere as Sales as income, as profit (eering), and graft, payoffs, and bribes, a good several billion is going to folks who do nothing at all. I’d say that is why Bush is smiling. That trillion dollars and counting, paid off a good many of his supporters and will continue to pay off Obama’s.
All politics is massive Bribery.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Wow… this group never ceases to amaze me. Here we have a President that was faced with the bursting of a major market bubble and the worst attack on American soil before he could even get up and running. Don’t get me wrong, Bush made his share of mistakes. He readily admits it… but I encourage you guys to think back to 9/11 and put yourselves in his shoes. A lot changed on that day.
The ultimate failing of these last 8+ years is a lack of personal responsibility by the country as a whole… both individually (borrowing and greed) and collectively (government incompetence). The Epicurean Dealmaker has a great post up today that certainly does the topic better justice than I ever will.
My question to you guys is: what would you have done that would have changed anything? The guy threw everything and the kitchen sink in the form of economic stimulus… and still the market barely budged. Can you imagine if he had followed some of the anti-growth policies discussed on this site? We would have been in a 8-year rut (no 5-year mini-bull), and the lynch mobs would have been even more brutal on the man.
Capitalism can be an ugly mess at times. Frankly its just time to suck it up and reduce our excesses. It isn’t different this time.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
This list is intellectually lazy highly partisian, but what else would you expect from Time?
1. “The Return to Deficits: Bush’s tax cuts and spending increases” – Bush cut tax RATES, not tax REVENUES. There’s a difference, but unfortunately the Democrats and the media don’t understand this. Revenues went up after the “Bush tax cuts”. Spending went up more under the Bush tax cuts. Blame Bush for what he was, a big spender.
2. Iraq: Why is this a separate list item from #1? Iraq was unfunded SPENDING. Bush was a big spender.
3. Tax Cuts for the Rich: Again, why repeat list item #1 and why demonstrate your political blinders by confusing tax RATES with tax REVENUES? And let’s for once and for all dispose of this “tax cuts for the rich” meme. In 1980 under Carter the top 1 percent of filers paid 19 percent of all federal income taxes. A decade later, post Reagan tax cuts, the top 1 percent of filers paid 25 percent of the country’s tax bill. By 2005 the top 1 percent of filers paid 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline. The top wage earners continue to pay a higher and higher percentage of their income in taxes, and the lower 50% continue to pay less…if anything. The progressivity of our income tax system is even steeper under Bush. Stop the lies.
4. Financial Regulation: Agree there was a lack of regulation given the fact that the government has a “too big to fail” and bailout mentality.
5. Telling Us to Go Shopping: Do you really believe people make purchasing decisions based on pleas from the President? This reminds me of Ford’s WIN or Carter’s turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater BS.
6. Energy Policy: I agree, but at least Bush’s energy policy wasn’t to throw billions to at an industry promising the highest cost energy known to man.
7. A State of Denial: Like every administration in an economic crisis?
8. The Muddled Bailout: The main problem was politicians on both sides of the aisle moved in lockstep to to throw money at a problem with no strategy, no accountability, and no metrics for success.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Tom K, thanks for adding a little “reason” into the thread. One thing I have learned about these “smarter than you liberal dems” is that when they spout facts 90% of what they say is pure media spin. I just got in an argument the other day with a Dem who stated “Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her backyard”. I pointed out to them that it was actually Tina Fey who said it on SNL and they said it didn’t matter because it sounded like something Palin “would have said”…..
I should have learned by now, there is no arguing with people like this.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
@Jdamon33:
Noone has been spinning harder these last few days then diehard and redundant republican appointees.
This thread is about bush economic mistakes. Not about arguments regarding Sarah Palin.
Take bush to the bank and see what you get.
January 20th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
“1. “The Return to Deficits: Bush’s tax cuts and spending increases” – Bush cut tax RATES, not tax REVENUES. There’s a difference, but unfortunately the Democrats and the media don’t understand this. Revenues went up after the “Bush tax cuts”. Spending went up more under the Bush tax cuts. Blame Bush for what he was, a big spender.”
While revenue went up, it essentially went up at the rate of inflation. Now, the long term costs of the Bush tax cuts have been huge in terms of increasing the deficit. But you are correct that it was his spending, and the largest expansion of government since the New Deal, that has blown our budget.
http://www.cbpp.org/1-25-05bud.htm
Even Bush’s own economists do not believe that the tax cuts paid for themselves or increased revenues. Even the Treasury did not believe this:
“The Treasury analysis concludes that making the President’s tax cuts permanent — and paying for the tax cuts with future reductions in spending — may ultimately increase the level of economic output (national income) in the long run by as much as 0.7 percent… [T]he effect of this assumed additional economic growth would be to offset only a tiny fraction of the cost of the President’s tax cuts. For instance, a 0.7 percent increase in the economic output that the Congressional Budget Office has projected for 2016 would represent an additional $146 billion. If new revenues equaled as much as 20 percent of the additional output, the increase in revenues resulting from making the tax cuts permanent (assuming Treasury’s best-case assumptions) would be $29 billion. That amount represents less than 10 percent of the $314 billion that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates extending the tax cuts will reduce revenues in 2016..”
If the tax cuts are not increasing revenues at a greater rate than they cost, then the money has to come from somewhere – and that is reflected in the deficit.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I only skimmed most of the posts here, but the administration’s weak dollar policy should be very high on the list. I don’t know that the credit bubble could have happened without it.
SOX imposed dead weight loss on the economy and helped move a lot of IPO business to London. I’m not quite sure what the economic benefits have been.
Bush and the Rep. congress passed a new entitlement program when we could not afford the programs we had. Stay tuned.
No energy policy? The authors of the list are probably favorably predisposed to ethanol mandates and subsidies, but other than providing a classic example of rent seeking I have not seen the benefit.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:40 am
Jdamon33, we’re laughing at you, not with you.
However, I think the Bush administration can claim one success: namely, the ‘Do Not Call’ law. By and large, it was mostly a success.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I agree with all except “tax cuts for the rich”. I’m not rich and I got a tax cut. Bush’s primary fault was to spend the Laffer curve premium (and then some) as well as or better than any congressional liberal. By and large, Bush’s policies WERE liberal, and that’s how history will view him.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:37 pm
“3. Tax Cuts for the Rich: Again, why repeat list item #1 and why demonstrate your political blinders by confusing tax RATES with tax REVENUES? And let’s for once and for all dispose of this “tax cuts for the rich” meme. In 1980 under Carter the top 1 percent of filers paid 19 percent of all federal income taxes. A decade later, post Reagan tax cuts, the top 1 percent of filers paid 25 percent of the country’s tax bill. By 2005 the top 1 percent of filers paid 40 percent of the federal income tax bill, while those in the 2nd to 5th percentile paid another 20 percent. Every other group saw its share of the tax bill decline. The top wage earners continue to pay a higher and higher percentage of their income in taxes, and the lower 50% continue to pay less…if anything. The progressivity of our income tax system is even steeper under Bush. Stop the lies.”
Not sure where you get your numbers – but they seem to be wrong.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html
In 1979, the top 1% paid 15.4% of all taxes.
In 2005, the top 1% paid 27.6% of all taxes.
Sound bad right? Except that the reason why they were paying so much more taxes is because they were gaining more and more wealth. That growing inequality leads to the increase in tax burden on the rich. And, btw, their income increased while their tax rates, during that period, went down.