[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Claeren

I agree these things are always muddled in terms of intent and circumstance and so on but at the end of the day the debt doubled under Bush.

It is not like they are 10% apart and we are arguing over shades of grey here, they are MILES apart.

(Also, it seems there is a pretty long term trend shown that Republicans spend more than Democrats. It does not have to be a Bush v. Clinton debate.)

At the end of the day greed by both wealthy Democrats and wealthy Republicans is the problem. I think that is pretty clear? There are good guys and bad guys on both sides. Clinton might not be a 'good guy' but George W. Bush is the biggest enemy of financial sanity America has ever seen.

I don't know if I agree with that. Bush's administration has had to deal with the twin towers bombing, three major and costly hurricanes, two wars and now this. On top of that he has reworked and strengthen security within the States in ways not imagined before 9/11. I don't know homeland security's budget but, you can rest assured it eclipse most other agencies. You can argue the merits of Iraq but it was voted on and it became a huge cost to the economy.

In 2003 Bush did try to take control of Fanny Mae and was stopped by Congress. Like McCain(in 2005) he seen the danger coming:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1068...?mod=googlewsj

Originally Posted by Claeren

(There are also pretty good arguments that the lack of affordable health care in the United States is what is really killing a lot of the industrial base - for many of the major manufacturers (and largest American employers in general) health care premiums for their employees has been one of (or the) largest growing expense that they have. Done correctly (of course), it would have saved money not cost money.

I don't know. I hope you are right. I have been wondering these last few days if anything is going to happen as far as change with the new burdens being placed on American tax payers. This current crisis may have closed that window.

Originally Posted by Claeren

I have yet to see good evidence that trickle down economics has ever been anything but an excuse for people at the top to pat each other on the back for shoveling public money into each others wallets.

You don't sound like a conservative economically when you use a phrase like "shoveling public money into each others wallets". The issue is how much of their money you let them keep. They pay more because they have more but, how much do you take? Reagan believed that if you didn't take too much of their money the wealthy and their corporations would invest in the economy with the surplus and that growth would benefit everyone. There is no question the economy has steadily grown since that time. I'm not sure if there has even been one quarter where it has declined. I know there hasn't been two. That is remarkable considering the growth of government and what America has faced.

I think the reason why there has been less wealth seen in the lower middle class and poor is what they did to unions. This is something the republicans are to be blamed for. They pointed to the excesses of some Unions in certain sectors and passed laws that hindered the pressure unions could place on companies. This was done on a State level. That combined with allowing for more credit opportunities basically ruined organized labour.( If you are in debt you are very limited on the duration you can strike). Strong unions brought everybody's wages up because they set standards for pay. Workers will work for the highest bidder so nonunion employees generally received comparable increases. With the absence of strong labour action workers have been largely left out of the boom.

Originally Posted by Claeren

And sub-prime mortgages in 1999 are a long ways from the mess we have now. They are certainly linked but expanding home ownership was also a priority of the Bush administration, financial regulations on mortgages, hedgefund/iBanks and on debt insurance practices were further (greatly) relaxed under Bush, other reckless spending stretched the public coffers before this even happened and the lack of a coherent early response has made this crisis worse than it should have been.

Again as I said above Bush tried to reign in Fanny and Freddy in 2003 but, was stopped by Democrats and Republicans in Congress. I'm not saying he did everything else right though. I just haven't seen where he passed something that contributed to this mess. If you know of something specific please tell me. I'm not trying to argue. I just haven't heard of something he himself did to bring it on the American people.

Originally Posted by Claeren

If lower spending was due to a Republican controlled house then spending should have been minimal with a Republican President. Instead Bush had managed to grow a what, a $130B deficit?, within his first year before finding all sorts of reasons to boost it into the $400B+/year range year after year.

Bush was never a conservative when it came to spending. He is very much a big government kind of guy who made way too many promises to get elected. He should never have gotten involved in education at all. That had been a State and county issue until Bush. The Feds don't need to be the answer to every problem the nation faces. Bush won because of the flaws of his opponents and his personal appeal on social issues. I shudder to think what the supreme court would look like today if Gore or Kerry got in.

Originally Posted by Claeren

His $2 Trillion tax cut, 40%+ geared towards the top 1% of Americans -- to foster trickle down effects no doubt -- might have been better spent on keep the debt below $10 Trillion, no?)

I honestly don't know. Those tax cuts might be responsible for the economy chugging along even with all the spending and adversity the American economy has experienced in the last eight years. If Obama gets in and raises taxes on both companies and wealthy individuals how many are going to leave to find greener pastures? If we revert all the way back to Carter's tax rates will we end up with a Carter economy?