Were Bush's policies not conservative enough?

[Boomboom521]

with all the complaining about the last 8 years, I was wondering why conservatives (who obviously are superior in knowing how the country should run economically - just ask Paxx or Atl) dont recognize that Republicans had all 3 branches under Bush in 2001. The result was an economic crash, and no REAL stimulation of the economic environment in a long term manner.

I know the excuses "lie"on housing loan initiatives put forth by Carter (convenient), but having all 3 = no excuses, imo. So why, with all that knowledge of how things should run, did the GOP crash everything under Bush? And why do you this no the same policies will be effective in the long run now?

Was Bush a half-assed conservative or something? I think conservatives have a short memory.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Was Bush a half-assed conservative or something? I think conservatives have a short memory.

Yes, he was. He probably spent worse than Clinton did. NCLB. Not conservative ideals.

 

[Mntneer]

I know the excuses

[eyeroll]

 

[bamaEER]

with all the complaining about the last 8 years, I was wondering why conservatives (who obviously are superior in knowing how the country should run economically - just ask Paxx or Atl) dont recognize that Republicans had all 3 branches under Bush in 2001. The result was an economic crash, and no REAL stimulation of the economic environment in a long term manner.

I know the excuses "lie"on housing loan initiatives put forth by Carter (convenient), but having all 3 = no excuses, imo. So why, with all that knowledge of how things should run, did the GOP crash everything under Bush? And why do you this no the same policies will be effective in the long run now?

Was Bush a half-assed conservative or something? I think conservatives have a short memory.

I'm not sure that anyone really thought he was fiscally conservative. He spent like crazy.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

know the excuses "lie"on housing loan initiatives put forth by Carter (convenient), but having all 3 = no excuses, imo

Hahahaha, well, I guess if you want to completely ignore root cause then yes, that is certainly an approach to take in looking at it.

 

[Boomboom521]

I'm not sure that anyone really thought he was fiscally conservative. He spent like crazy.

Here's the thing though, so will Trump. Wall, infrastructure, even just his vacations....I'm not sure it will be much different.

 

[Boomboom521]

Hahahaha, well, I guess if you want to completely ignore root cause then yes, that is certainly an approach to take in looking at it.

Under Obama, the right didn't care about root causes....8 years is long enough to lead isn't it?

 

[EEResistable]

Bush isn't a conservative. Hell, Pubs in Congress aren't conservative.

 

[bamaEER]

Here's the thing though, so will Trump. Wall, infrastructure, even just his vacations....I'm not sure it will be much different.

You're 100% correct here. He's killing govt jobs only to make more govt jobs. There's nothing conservative about him.

 

[Boomboom521]

I like that many on here are not hypocritical on this issue. The big bad left wants to spend all your money, but in my lifetime....both sides do this....just on different things. I respect the idea of TRUE conservatism, but it seems like just a myth. What's not a myth is blaming the left, but doing closely the same amount of spending

 

[WVPATX]

with all the complaining about the last 8 years, I was wondering why conservatives (who obviously are superior in knowing how the country should run economically - just ask Paxx or Atl) dont recognize that Republicans had all 3 branches under Bush in 2001. The result was an economic crash, and no REAL stimulation of the economic environment in a long term manner.

I know the excuses "lie"on housing loan initiatives put forth by Carter (convenient), but having all 3 = no excuses, imo. So why, with all that knowledge of how things should run, did the GOP crash everything under Bush? And why do you this no the same policies will be effective in the long run now?

Was Bush a half-assed conservative or something? I think conservatives have a short memory.

First of all, your post is full of half truths and outright lies. Bush DID not cause the crash 0f 2008. Why are libs such simpletons when it comes to understanding finance and more specifically the myriad of causes, both in the public and private sector. Education is a wonderful thing, Boom.

Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. Then in September, 9/11 happened. It was catastrophic to our economy. Then the war began and then a second war. Even with all this, Bush's economy outperformed Obama's. Bush GDP averaged 2.11%. Obama, on the other hand averaged a whopping 1.66% and was the only President since Hoover to never see 3% GDP growth in any single year.

Boom, frankly, you don't know enough about the economy, finance, regulations, banking, etc. to make the claims you made. You have no idea the reasons (multiple) for the 2008 collapse. The role of the CRA. The role of sub-prime lending. The role of mortgage re-sells. The role of mortgage bundling. The role of Fannie and Freddie. The role of derivatives used with the mortgage bundles. The role of ratings agencies. It truly was a team effort.

Libs on the board constantly complain about conservatives bringing up Obama when discussing Trump, and you just resurrected Bush yet again, 8 full years after leaving office.

The recession of 2008 ended in June, 2009. Just 6 months after Obama came into office. Obama promised us after his failed stimulus passed (even lib economists admit it failed, see Paul Krugman), our unemployment would never exceed 8% (another lie). Obama had the most anemic economic recovery since the Great Recession. Reagan inherited a terrible economy as well. Extraordinarily high interest rates of 20%, inflation of 13 - 14%. An oil embargo that created great damage to our economy. But after the recession ended, he averaged 4.9% GDP growth and created an enormous number of jobs. Income in all classes rose. He used tax cuts, deregulation and military spending (which ultimately lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War) to put our economy in overdrive and Clinton benefitted greatly from the "Peace Dividend". He used methods just the opposite of those employed by Obama. Oh, and Obama rang up the largest debt in our nation's history accumulating more debt than all prior Presidents combined.

BTW, Bush was not a true conservative. If he were, we never would have passed Medicare Part D. He was a big government (not as big as Obama) spender.

Facts are truly stubborn things.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I like that many on here are not hypocritical on this issue. The big bad left wants to spend all your money, but in my lifetime....both sides do this....just on different things. I respect the idea of TRUE conservatism, but it seems like just a myth. What's not a myth is blaming the left, but doing closely the same amount of spending

Its the same only if you look at who is gaining control and looking at bottom dollar stand point.

For instance, I'm not ok growing many of the agencies within Gov't. They create regulations that require more and more people to sustain it. Basically, they just grow themselves, and since there is no check on finances, they can just keep growing. Power is accumulating in the Govt. Bush did this as well, I wasn't ok then and I wasn't ok with Obama doing it. Gov't doesn't check itself on growth the way business does.

As for infrastructure spending, regardless of what it's on, jobs are created and people are working, albeit temporarily, but such is the nature with every industry and product life cycle. In effect, it's stimulating the economy. Gov't growth does not do that.

Defense spending is the same for me. I don't personally look at it as we're growing the military. We really aren't. We are funding manufacturing, engineering, program management, clerical, HR, IT, etc. of private industry. That to me is good Gov't spending. It's actually creating jobs and tax base. Sure, it's gov't welfare, but it's employing millions of people into solid middle class jobs. It's also competitive, it's not just some instance of creating a position and once you are in it, you are stuck. I once read a study, I can't recall where, but it equated 1 defense position getting the output and efficiency of 3 gov't workers. I'd have to spend some time looking for it and how they measured it. It's smart spending, bang for the buck kind of thing.

I don't like Big Gov't at the Fed level. I think the states should own domestic for the most part based on what they can afford and require the Fed to look outward. There is so much redundancy between state and Fed its ridiculous. I also don't like the Fed approach to one size fits all. What works in NY doesn't apply to Iowa, and vice versa.

 

[WVPATX]

I like that many on here are not hypocritical on this issue. The big bad left wants to spend all your money, but in my lifetime....both sides do this....just on different things. I respect the idea of TRUE conservatism, but it seems like just a myth. What's not a myth is blaming the left, but doing closely the same amount of spending

Boom, Obama spend money like he was on steroids. He took our debt from $10T to $19T. That's called spending.

 

[Boomboom521]

First of all, your post is full of half truths and outright lies. Bush DID not cause the crash 0f 2008. Why are libs such simpletons when it comes to understanding finance and more specifically the myriad of causes, both in the public and private sector. Education is a wonderful thing, Boom.

Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. Then in September, 9/11 happened. It was catastrophic to our economy. Then the war began and then a second war. Even with all this, Bush's economy outperformed Obama's. Bush GDP averaged 2.11%. Obama, on the other hand averaged a whopping 1.66% and was the only President since Hoover to never see 3% GDP growth in any single year.

Boom, frankly, you don't know enough about the economy, finance, regulations, banking, etc. to make the claims you made. You have no idea the reasons (multiple) for the 2008 collapse. The role of the CRA. The role of sub-prime lending. The role of mortgage re-sells. The role of mortgage bundling. The role of Fannie and Freddie. The role of derivatives used with the mortgage bundles. The role of ratings agencies. It truly was a team effort.

Libs on the board constantly complain about conservatives bringing up Obama when discussing Trump, and you just resurrected Bush yet again, 8 full years after leaving office.

The recession of 2008 ended in June, 2009. Just 6 months after Obama came into office. Obama promised us after his failed stimulus passed (even lib economists admit it failed, see Paul Krugman), our unemployment would never exceed 8% (another lie). Obama had the most anemic economic recovery since the Great Recession. Reagan inherited a terrible economy as well. Extraordinarily high interest rates of 20%, inflation of 13 - 14%. An oil embargo that created great damage to our economy. But after the recession ended, he averaged 4.9% GDP growth and created an enormous number of jobs. Income in all classes rose. He used tax cuts, deregulation and military spending (which ultimately lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War) to put our economy in overdrive and Clinton benefitted greatly from the "Peace Dividend". He used methods just the opposite of those employed by Obama. Oh, and Obama rang up the largest debt in our nation's history accumulating more debt than all prior Presidents combined.

BTW, Bush was not a true conservative. If he were, we never would have passed Medicare Part D. He was a big government (not as big as Obama) spender.

Facts are truly stubborn things.

You're ridiculous! Humble, my hairy white ***!

 

[Keyser76]

They can't govern, period, dumbasses on here blaming the Democrats for Trumpcares pulling, it is the asshats in the Freedom caucus that think you can get anything done without compromise who will be the GOP and Trumps undoing, well Trump is helping! Nothing gets done without compromise and the GOP is anything but unified. They have the rubes in the flyover states competing with the moderates in the Blue states.

 

[WVPATX]

You're ridiculous! Humble, my hairy white ***!

Boom, your knowledge of the 2008 collapse indicates you know very little about it, very little. What was your major? Have you spent any time in Finance? In risk management? How are mortgages underwritten? What happens to mortgages after they are underwritten? What role did Freddie and Fannie play in the 2008 collapse? What are GSE's and how do they operate? What are derivatives? How were they used in the 2008 collapse? What role did the rating agencies play? What is mortgage bundling and why is that important to 2008? What was the CRA? What role did it play? The 2008 mess is very, very complicated with lots of moving parts and many, many players. I admit I don't understand it all, but I believe I know enough to assure you that no one person was responsible as you claim.

Research Boom. I'm not saying your not intelligent, I am saying you know very, very little about 2008.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

They can't govern, period, dumbasses on here blaming the Democrats for Trumpcares pulling, it is the asshats in the Freedom caucus that think you can get anything done without compromise who will be the GOP and Trumps undoing, well Trump is helping! Nothing gets done without compromise and the GOP is anything but unified. They have the rubes in the flyover states competing with the moderates in the Blue states.

When the next one passes and it's even further from ACA that just was proposed, I don't want to hear you bitching. It was in the DNC's best interests to work on this last one. When the next one goes through, they'll wish they had. Hell, if it doesn't go through and the ACA begins to crumble and become a cost monster to the everyday American, they'll wish they had. They still own that behemoth ***** of cost that is unsustainable. That is the point that was trying to be made. Clearly lost on you guys though. Your vision in near sighted, you don't see what's gonna happen down the road. Enjoy it! The narrative in Nov when all the ACA impacts come full tilt boogey will doom the left in 2018 as well. It's not just GOP spin fella. I was opposed to the GOP version just like I was the ACA. It's not cost effective, does nothing to control cost growth and does nothing to apply tort reform. The ACA is going to fall in on itself within 3 years if no changes are made. The GOP will NOT bail it out. The DNC will not allow it to be repealed. The left's burden to bear, plain and simple.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

When the next one passes and it's even further from ACA that just was proposed, I don't want to hear you bitching. It was in the DNC's best interests to work on this last one.

Is there any evidence the GOP leadership or the WH made any attempt to reach across the aisle on the failed bill?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Is there any evidence the GOP leadership or the WH made any attempt to reach across the aisle on the failed bill?

I believe Ryan did and was laughed at.

 

[WVPATX]

Is there any evidence the GOP leadership or the WH made any attempt to reach across the aisle on the failed bill?

I don't think so. Just as the Dems refused the GOP when they got their 60th vote in the Senate. DC is out of control, far too partisan, with zero compromises. The far right and the far left control the parties and don't want compromise. Look at Gorsuch? I suspect McConnnell will expand the Reid rule and end the filibuster of SCOTUS picks. If a man like Gorsuch can't get through, who can?

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom, your knowledge of the 2008 collapse indicates you know very little about it, very little. What was your major? Have you spent any time in Finance? In risk management? How are mortgages underwritten? What happens to mortgages after they are underwritten? What role did Freddie and Fannie play in the 2008 collapse? What are GSE's and how do they operate? What are derivatives? How were they used in the 2008 collapse? What role did the rating agencies play? What is mortgage bundling and why is that important to 2008? What was the CRA? What role did it play? The 2008 mess is very, very complicated with lots of moving parts and many, many players. I admit I don't understand it all, but I believe I know enough to assure you that no one person was responsible as you claim.

Research Boom. I'm not saying your not intelligent, I am saying you know very, very little about 2008.

Here's what I do know: my father (a small community banker in WV) knew that the large banking industry was in trouble long before there were issues. He knew that the housing loan practices were dangerous at best, and could lead to a horrible housing market crash. I know that The GOP was in complete control of the legislation for (5 years?) while Bush was President. I know that Bush ran on two major points: 1) increasing military spending to make us safe and 2) tax cuts. I know that Bush spent wildly (yes 9/11 contributed) AND gave tax cuts to boost the economy. I also know that deregulation was considered to be an effective tactic to spur economic growth under Bush and the GOP's millennial reign.

Yet.....crash. Why does the GOP get a pass for what was in momentum prior to their gaining power? Shouldn't the best minds be appointed to positions in DC, minds that could see the problems and potential dangers the existed in the housing market? Isn't that on the President and Congress to be proactive? Why are we content with a reactionary government only???

Now, I hear how horrible Obama was on here often. When it is attributed to spending, I at least try to give that respect. I understand how curbing Government spending is good for the nation. Reagan was a bit before my time, but spending is the norm for conservative Presidents AND lawmakers during my lifetime as well. Obama gets crucified (and I admit he spent more, but if you're saying Bush didn't spend you're just a hypocrite). So, why does Obama get the "anti-American", "screwed the country up" label when he inherited a massive recession, but is handing over a strong economy to his successor (still growing btw). But the right thinks Bush was a good leader when he inherited a recession (nowhere near the level that Obama inherited) and turns over a worse economy to his successor?

Now I'm like minded in ideology to Obama. I believe in using government programs to improve aspects of our society. I believe in using government resources to direct the market when needed. But I respect the hell out of those on the right that seek a truly hands off government, that seek fiscal responsibility at whatever the cost, that want surplus not debt, and want to pay down the overall debt of the nation. I respect it very much. Conservatives gained the power....fine. Then let's see it. Let's see this TRUE CONSERVATISM in play. But I see more of the same, imo. We're still spending (wall, infrastructure, etc), yes we are cutting programs that help people (those liberal ***** help programs I love so much), but it's not tit for tat......Trump is going to spend. I see deregulation, the same that CONTRIBUTED (notice I said contributed Paxx) to the collapse of the economy. I see tax cuts, the same tax cuts that did nothing for the economy in the long run but help make the wealthy....wealthier.

So I'm trying to understand why Obama sucks, but Bush doesn't....and why Trump is sooooo different?

 

[Boomboom521]

Its the same only if you look at who is gaining control and looking at bottom dollar stand point.

For instance, I'm not ok growing many of the agencies within Gov't. They create regulations that require more and more people to sustain it. Basically, they just grow themselves, and since there is no check on finances, they can just keep growing. Power is accumulating in the Govt. Bush did this as well, I wasn't ok then and I wasn't ok with Obama doing it. Gov't doesn't check itself on growth the way business does.

As for infrastructure spending, regardless of what it's on, jobs are created and people are working, albeit temporarily, but such is the nature with every industry and product life cycle. In effect, it's stimulating the economy. Gov't growth does not do that.

Defense spending is the same for me. I don't personally look at it as we're growing the military. We really aren't. We are funding manufacturing, engineering, program management, clerical, HR, IT, etc. of private industry. That to me is good Gov't spending. It's actually creating jobs and tax base. Sure, it's gov't welfare, but it's employing millions of people into solid middle class jobs. It's also competitive, it's not just some instance of creating a position and once you are in it, you are stuck. I once read a study, I can't recall where, but it equated 1 defense position getting the output and efficiency of 3 gov't workers. I'd have to spend some time looking for it and how they measured it. It's smart spending, bang for the buck kind of thing.

I don't like Big Gov't at the Fed level. I think the states should own domestic for the most part based on what they can afford and require the Fed to look outward. There is so much redundancy between state and Fed its ridiculous. I also don't like the Fed approach to one size fits all. What works in NY doesn't apply to Iowa, and vice versa.

Good points, but aren't you being a little bit hypocritical when referencing military spending? EPA can advance good initiatives for the nation, and create incomes and tax base.

 

[WVPATX]

Here's what I do know: my father (a small community banker in WV) knew that the large banking industry was in trouble long before there were issues. He knew that the housing loan practices were dangerous at best, and could lead to a horrible housing market crash. I know that The GOP was in complete control of the legislation for (5 years?) while Bush was President. I know that Bush ran on two major points: 1) increasing military spending to make us safe and 2) tax cuts. I know that Bush spent wildly (yes 9/11 contributed) AND gave tax cuts to boost the economy. I also know that deregulation was considered to be an effective tactic to spur economic growth under Bush and the GOP's millennial reign.

Yet.....crash. Why does the GOP get a pass for what was in momentum prior to their gaining power? Shouldn't the best minds be appointed to positions in DC, minds that could see the problems and potential dangers the existed in the housing market? Isn't that on the President and Congress to be proactive? Why are we content with a reactionary government only???

Now, I hear how horrible Obama was on here often. When it is attributed to spending, I at least try to give that respect. I understand how curbing Government spending is good for the nation. Reagan was a bit before my time, but spending is the norm for conservative Presidents AND lawmakers during my lifetime as well. Obama gets crucified (and I admit he spent more, but if you're saying Bush didn't spend you're just a hypocrite). So, why does Obama get the "anti-American", "screwed the country up" label when he inherited a massive recession, but is handing over a strong economy to his successor (still growing btw). But the right thinks Bush was a good leader when he inherited a recession (nowhere near the level that Obama inherited) and turns over a worse economy to his successor?

Now I'm like minded in ideology to Obama. I believe in using government programs to improve aspects of our society. I believe in using government resources to direct the market when needed. But I respect the hell out of those on the right that seek a truly hands off government, that seek fiscal responsibility at whatever the cost, that want surplus not debt, and want to pay down the overall debt of the nation. I respect it very much. Conservatives gained the power....fine. Then let's see it. Let's see this TRUE CONSERVATISM in play. But I see more of the same, imo. We're still spending (wall, infrastructure, etc), yes we are cutting programs that help people (those liberal ***** help programs I love so much), but it's not tit for tat......Trump is going to spend. I see deregulation, the same that CONTRIBUTED (notice I said contributed Paxx) to the collapse of the economy. I see tax cuts, the same tax cuts that did nothing for the economy in the long run but help make the wealthy....wealthier.

So I'm trying to understand why Obama sucks, but Bush doesn't....and why Trump is sooooo different?

Boom, you are a fair poster willing to debate and listen and even change your mind. This article, albeit a long one, will give you great insight into 2008 and specifically government regulations and their role in the crisis. It is worth the 15 minute read:

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2009/did-deregulation-cause-financial-crisis

You blame Bush for 2008, but the seeds of the crisis were sown long before. As I mentioned, many hands on the till. You want to blame Bush for 2008 crisis because it happened while he was President. Should Obama be blamed for all that occurred on his watch? The rise of ISIS? The incredible migrant and refugee crisis that is overrunning Europe? The pathetic economic growth of this country during his 8 years? The lack of growth of middle class jobs? The terrible performance of many inner city schools? The huge racial divide? The enormous debt we piled up? I could go on and on. If you want to blame Bush for 2008, then it is clearly fair to blame Obama for all that happened on his watch, right?

And Boom, read my earlier post. I posted:

BTW, Bush was not a true conservative. If he were, we never would have passed Medicare Part D. He was a big government (not as big as Obama) spender.

And speaking of regulation, you are only looking at one side. What about regulations that do great damage to our economy. What about regulations that provide very little benefit (like the Clean Power Plan which the EPA admitted reduced global warming by .001% but did so much damage to the coal industry and good paying middle class jobs?). I don't mind regulations, we need them. But they must be smart, beneficial to the country, and very targeted.

I have never said Obama is anti-American. I believe his ideology, political philosophy, and leadership were all lacking or mostly wrong. I believe his passivity in the Middle East and his red line were huge mistakes. I believe his withdrawal from Iraq was catastrophic. I believe his economic policies were very, very wrong. I believe he appeased both Russia and Iran. I believe he helped to make the rich richer and the middle class poorer. I believe his energy policies were wrong. He wasn't anti-American, he was raised to believe in government as the solution to our ills and grew the government accordingly. And we have a poor economy and almost $10T in new debt to show for it. He believes in economic redistribution which is a recipe for disaster.

I don't know what Trump will do, but I do believe his economic policies are much, much better. However, if he gets those policies enacted and we don't get economic growth back to 3.5% or more, then he will have failed. If we don't see a rise in middle class incomes he will have failed. If we don't see more energy independence, he will have failed.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Good points, but aren't you being a little bit hypocritical when referencing military spending? EPA can advance good initiatives for the nation, and create incomes and tax base.

I thought I pretty clearly stated why I thought military spending to be good. Employing millions, getting a bunch in return, etc, I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

EPA's charter isn't to do those things you listed. I don't see how the create incomes and tax base.

 

[WVPATX]

I thought I pretty clearly stated why I thought military spending to be good. Employing millions, getting a bunch in return, etc, I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

EPA's charter isn't to do those things you listed. I don't see how the create incomes and tax base.

Moreover, I am a firm believer in peace through strength. Peace is generally achieved when one party realizes they can't win. Only when we are perceived as weak, do our enemies go on the offensive. And we and the world pay a very dear price.

 

[Boomboom521]

I thought I pretty clearly stated why I thought military spending to be good. Employing millions, getting a bunch in return, etc, I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

EPA's charter isn't to do those things you listed. I don't see how the create incomes and tax base.

You said regulations require more people to enforce them...that's what I was referring to....but I understand the enormity of the defense sector and thus the difference

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You said regulations require more people to enforce them...that's what I was referring to....but I understand the enormity of the defense sector and thus the difference

Right, you are growing govt to control govt growth in that case. I'm not sure the EPA really grew in size over the last however long, though. They weren't really who I was talking about, but it's still the same concept.