You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Town's Crier
Moderated by Major Helper

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.38 replies
Age of Kings Heaven » Forums » Town's Crier » Bush Administration: Cause of economic downturn?
Bottom
Topic Subject:Bush Administration: Cause of economic downturn?
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Cyrus_
Banned
posted 10-09-08 05:47 PM CT (US)         
it seems to me that the Bush administration, if not for 9/11, would've ended up a lame duck administration, simply because Bush is not great at presenting himself as a leader, keeping the public in the loop or presenting new ideas to the country. Even now - seven years after 9/11, he seems powerless over what happens, he isn't speaking to the nation to keep everyone calm, he's doing his "minimal press interaction" routine.

Do you think that if 9/11 hadn't occurred but Bush still ran the country, the U.S. would be facing these economic problems? Do you think his administration's policies have anything to do with what's happening with the U.S. economy, and by extension the global economy?
AuthorReplies:
nav
Squire
(id: nav_2004)
posted 10-09-08 10:17 PM CT (US)     1 / 38       
That is not a simple question to answer, Cyrus.
Do you think that if 9/11 hadn't occurred but Bush still ran the country, the U.S. would be facing these economic problems?
I'm not really sure what 9/11 has to do with this discussion, to be honest. President Bush has used it as a way to implement his policies with little or no resistance, yes, but I don't know that his administration would have had different policies without it. The only real difference might have been a few less blind Congressional approvals, although I'm not even convinced that would've played out much differently.
Do you think his administration's policies have anything to do with what's happening with the U.S. economy, and by extension the global economy?
Yes and no. Yes the policies of the last 8 years had an effect on the current situation, but no they aren't the only cause. Coming off the tech boom of the late 90's, the US was bound to experience a bit of a downturn. This downturn was inevitable, but it could have been mitigated. When there is less money coming in, it is important to spend less to ensure that one does not rack up great debts. This, to me, is a basic lesson in personal finance. Under the Bush administration, however, this was not exercised. Rather than saving during the dip in the early 00's, the US spent like crazy, as if the country could buy its way out of trouble. It wasn't just the government that lived that way; businesses and individuals did it too. It worked, for a while. What we are just now beginning to see is the real fall-out from spending like there is no tomorrow when we should have been putting some away for a rainy day. In all honesty, I'd guess that we've only just begun to see the economic downturn. The US has a lot of bills to pay, and it can't buy its way out of this.

According to history, economies cyclically go up and down. Markets get overvalued and overinflated and then come crashing down below value. Bargain-hunters pick up the pieces at the low end and the cycle repeats. This is the reality of a free-market and capitalistic system. I think a whole lot of the US in particular is refusing to accept the idea that there is any possibility of down, hence the hype over the current situation.

How far is down? Well, realistically I don't think the world is headed for another Great Depression. The world is not recovering from the destruction of a world war right now, and there are less international policies keeping some people down than after WWI. However, I do think we could possibly be headed into less prosperous times than most of us on this forum can remember in our lifetimes. The US has had it really good in the last 15 years, but the inevitable balancing act of the economy will likely continue to play out for quite some time.



(This space intentionally left blank.)
Dead_End
Cavalier
posted 10-10-08 02:08 AM CT (US)     2 / 38       
Do you think his administration's policies have anything to do with what's happening with the U.S. economy, and by extension the global economy?
5 years of Iraq-war ain't come free.. If Iraq hadn't been attacked and the warmoney had been used for supporting the American people, this crisis would have been less bad...
Impeached
VIP (Reverie World Studios)
(id: MeGaIdIoT)
posted 10-10-08 10:43 AM CT (US)     3 / 38       
Nice unbiased topic post there.

me
Murloc
Squire
posted 10-10-08 11:14 AM CT (US)     4 / 38       
9/11 doesn't have anything to do with this IMHO.
Enraged Orange
Squire
(id: RoboPaul88)
posted 10-10-08 01:35 PM CT (US)     5 / 38       
The Bush administration is only to blame to the extent that they failed to impost sufficient checks and controls on banks and other lenders. However, the Clinton administration is responsible for much of the deregulation in the first place, so they're at least as much to blame.

The subprime lenders themselves, of course, are the real criminals here
Cyrus_
Banned
posted 10-10-08 10:27 PM CT (US)     6 / 38       
"That is not a simple question to answer, Cyrus."
lol i never figured it would be. appreciate your reply though, nav.
"Nice unbiased topic post there."
although I tried to hold as little bias in the topic as possible, Impeached, i never claimed for the topic post to be neutral; I personally believe Bush is doing an awful job in response to the economic crisis, and I'm trying to understand how others percieve his administration's role in relation to the economic crisis.
"9/11 doesn't have anything to do with this IMHO."
If it involves the Bush administration, it involves 9/11, the event that gave the Bush administration executive branch expanded powers.
"I'm not really sure what 9/11 has to do with this discussion, to be honest."
well I view 9/11 to be the turning point for Bush. He never introduced any major policy initiatives nor was too popular until then. Since the high boost in popularity, he's been rapidly slipping in polls thanks to the unpopular policies that were approved with little opposition 2001-2003. I don't believe he would've recieved any support for the Iraq war or any of his post-war foreign diplomacy messes nor would have pushed for anything similar unless he had recieved a national security trigger that allowed all of this. The Iraq war hurts our economy, and was triggered by 9/11, thus it's important to consider. I'm not debating the Iraq war or 9/11, I'm trying to figure out what impact the administration has had on the economy.
"It wasn't just the government that lived that way; businesses and individuals did it too. It worked, for a while. What we are just now beginning to see is the real fall-out from spending like there is no tomorrow when we should have been putting some away for a rainy day. In all honesty, I'd guess that we've only just begun to see the economic downturn. The US has a lot of bills to pay, and it can't buy its way out of this."
Your entire post was very insightful, thank you.

[This message has been edited by Cyrus_ (edited 10-10-2008 @ 10:28 PM).]

Fattybryce
Squire
posted 10-10-08 11:38 PM CT (US)     7 / 38       
Leave poor Bush alone. Bush is not the problem in every problem.

The Wall

coming soon
InquilineKea
Squire
posted 10-11-08 02:50 PM CT (US)     8 / 38       
What I find interesting is that the economy will probably recover during Obama's term (as the economy almost always recovers), and people are probably going to attribute its improvement to Obama, even though its improvement will just be due to its natural tendency to recover after setbacks.

People are usually quick to blame economic problems on the president. The truth is that the president usually has a lot less power than most people think he does. While his departments have an impact, he has little power over bills that Congress writes (his power seems to be limited to the extent that he can threaten to veto them).

On the other hand though, a single bill or policy change can have dramatic unpredictable effects on the economy.

(note - I may be wrong as I haven't studied government much outside of what I read on Wikipedia - feel free to correct me ).

Former Tonto_Simfish/Simfish.

simfish@gmail.com
Deathmatch
Squire
(id: Darkmaster)
posted 10-12-08 05:02 AM CT (US)     9 / 38       
The American people are to blame. At least the ones who thought that it'd be smart to take out loans and mortgages that they cannot repay. And the recent Lehman's Brothers collapse was the straw that broke the stock market's back.

Regulations mean jack squat in a capitalist economy.

-1
Ilmarinen
Squire
(id: Cilibinarii)
posted 10-12-08 09:32 AM CT (US)     10 / 38       
9/11 didnt affect the economy, it just made everyone aware every country is vulnerable to terrorism. Although a large amount of people died there, I think that was not sufficient to bring the whole world economy out of balance.

Cilibinarii
My AOK Maps
Murloc
Squire
posted 10-12-08 10:44 AM CT (US)     11 / 38       
@inquiline, yes maybe, but economic ambients will see if it's naturally growing or if they'll have to thank obama.
ofc this won't influence what the masses think.
newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-12-08 06:39 PM CT (US)     12 / 38       
One man--or one "administration" as you so cleverly put it--by definition, cannot cause an economic downturn. Such things are the results of a collective effort, usually fueled by greed. Nowadays it seems, for most people, impossible to think of a problem and not be able to say "Bush did it!", but in this case, he really didn't.
What I find interesting is that the economy will probably recover during Obama's term (as the economy almost always recovers), and people are probably going to attribute its improvement to Obama, even though its improvement will just be due to its natural tendency to recover after setbacks.
Very true, assuming, heaven forbid, Obama becomes President. *gets chillz*
Leave poor Bush alone. Bush is not the problem in every problem.
Dims fightin' words here in America. If there's one thing we Americans know we'll continue to do for at least a few more months, it's make ourselves look like fools for constantly insulting a leader we elected.



dannyking.me


Cyrus_
Banned
posted 10-13-08 00:29 AM CT (US)     13 / 38       
Leave poor Bush alone. Bush is not the problem in every problem.
What i'm trying to figure out is if he holds any accountability. From the sounds of it, he does hold a bit, though hardly all of the responsibility.
9/11 didnt affect the economy, it just made everyone aware every country is vulnerable to terrorism.
i don't believe anybody made that claim. It gave Bush the power to initate the Iraq war, which does affect our economy, and 9/11 also shaped his administration's policies on almost every front. I made this wondering what role Bush played in the economy's downturn. It didn't affect our economy directly, but it affected it indirectly enough for me to mention it.
If there's one thing we Americans know we'll continue to do for at least a few more months, it's make ourselves look like fools for constantly insulting a leader we elected.
You can't group Americans up. half of the country didn't vote for the guy, and welcome to a democracy, it's completely normal to insult or not like a leader.
Very true, assuming, heaven forbid, Obama becomes President. *gets chillz*
Go over to the US election thread to share your thoughts. I made this to discuss the economy, not why you think Obama's scary.
What I find interesting is that the economy will probably recover during Obama's term (as the economy almost always recovers), and people are probably going to attribute its improvement to Obama, even though its improvement will just be due to its natural tendency to recover after setbacks.
That's normal, but I don't doubt whatever administration in place will affect how quickly the economy improves. How long do you think it will take for the economy to do a turnaround naturally?
newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-14-08 01:19 PM CT (US)     14 / 38       
You can't group Americans up. half of the country didn't vote for the guy, and welcome to a democracy, it's completely normal to insult or not like a leader.
I just did.

You're right if you believe democracy is an excuse to insult your leader. You're naive if you believe we should degrade ourselves simply because we're given the ability. By no means do I think our right to insult ourselves should be taken away, I'm just pointing out how good we are at exercising that right.

My firm belief: Other--concerning(some don't)--countries do not look down on us because of Bush; other countries look down on us because we look down on ourselves. Why should they respect us when we're incapable of respecting ourselves?

WiseRabbit: Remember kids, you have the right to degrade yourself... but do you really want to use it?
Go over to the US election thread to share your thoughts. I made this to discuss the economy, not why you think Obama's scary.
I apologize? I assumed you were asking for people's thoughts when you posted a question directed toward the whole community. My mistake, I'll answer without thinking next time.



dannyking.me


[This message has been edited by newIdea (edited 10-14-2008 @ 01:21 PM).]

Julius999
Imposter
posted 10-14-08 01:53 PM CT (US)     15 / 38       
Other--concerning(some don't)--countries do not look down on us because of Bush; other countries look down on us because we look down on ourselves. Why should they respect us when we're incapable of respecting ourselves?
I've never heard this argument before. No one criticises America for low self-esteem, they do so for perceived arrogance, interference and a dislike of American culture. Sometimes envy too.

I personally like the USA on the whole, but you're deluding yourself if you think the whole world will respect your country if you only respect yourselves more. I'm sure you know this though.

1010011010
[ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
Member of Stormwind Studios
newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-14-08 02:16 PM CT (US)     16 / 38       
I've never heard this argument before. No one criticises America for low self-esteem, they do so for perceived arrogance, interference and a dislike of American culture. Sometimes envy too.
I'm sure you've heard it plenty of times, you've just never noticed it before.

Arrogance, exactly. What's more arrogant than saying "we're too good for someone we elected to be President"? You're simply arguing semantics at this point.

By the way, I'm not talking about every criticism of America. Clearly, I'm talking about about a specific criticism. In this case I'm referring to other countries "looking down on us."
I personally like the USA on the whole, but you're deluding yourself if you think the whole world will respect your country if you only respect yourselves more. I'm sure you know this though.
I'm amused by the simplification of my response, yet you're forgetting that I never proposed self respect as an end-all, be-all solution to hatred. I proposed it as a good start.



dannyking.me


Julius999
Imposter
posted 10-14-08 02:28 PM CT (US)     17 / 38       
Arrogance, exactly. What's more arrogant than saying "we're too good for someone we elected to be President"? You're simply arguing semantics at this point.
Not exactly, I meant perceived arrogance of America as an entity. As in preaching your ideology to countries across the globe, military intervention and super-patriotism. The America-haters couldn't care less what you think of your own leader.
By the way, I'm not talking about every criticism of America. Clearly, I'm talking about about a specific criticism. In this case I'm referring to other countries "looking down on us."
I'm amused by the simplification of my response, yet you're forgetting that I never proposed self respect as an end-all, be-all solution to hatred.
That makes it clearer, your wording made it seem that you were talking about the sole or primary cause of all criticism. "Looking down on" can be interpreted broadly. Casual mockery is looking down, as is flag-burning.
I'm sure you've heard it plenty of times, you've just never noticed it before
Seriously. I've never heard it cited by anyone who doesn't like/respect America. Frankly, I'm in a better position than you are to comment on people's motivations here. I'm betting there aren't that many people who look down on America where you live.

1010011010
[ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
Member of Stormwind Studios
newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-14-08 02:46 PM CT (US)     18 / 38       
Not exactly, I meant perceived arrogance of America as an entity. As in preaching your ideology to countries across the globe, military intervention and super-patriotism. The America-haters couldn't care less what you think of your own leader.
Au contraire, I believe it's our self-hatred that opens us up to such criticisms. Please forgive the lousy analogy, but no one criticizes the Fonz on Happy Days simply because he's cool and confident. On the flip side, everyone makes fun of red-headed kid because he's full of self-doubt and self-loathing. As I recall, the criticisms of America were significantly less before the whole "media against Bush" campaign started. Therefor, a logical person would conclude that the mass, modern, criticisms of America are mostly due to the perception America gives of its leader.
That makes it clearer, your wording made it seem that you were talking about the sole or primary cause of all criticism. "Looking down on" can be interpreted broadly. Casual mockery is looking down, as is flag-burning.
My apologies for the confusion.
Seriously. I've never heard it cited by anyone who doesn't like/respect America. Frankly, I'm in a better position than you are to comment on people's motivations here. I'm betting there aren't that many people who look down on America where you live.
Unfortunately for me, I might actually be in a better position than you to make such comments. You couldn't be more wrong about people not looking down on America where I live. It's actually what helped spark my interest in this topic.



dannyking.me


morgoth bauglir
Squire
posted 10-14-08 03:02 PM CT (US)     19 / 38       
Well, the way I see it, the US has two modes: Nationalism and "self-hatred". Nationalism brings hatred from everyone else, self-hatred brings only loathing. The US are always to be hated, one way or another. Mainly because of the unbelievably hypocritical actons they take. Of course, a bit of jealousy at the world's greatest economic and military power (maybe the latter will change soon) is there too.

Morgoth Bauglir/Quaazi - BORINGMETAL HEADTWAT
Huidin's Belief - The Siege (4.4) - 2475 - Birth Of The Uruk-Hai (4.1) (Best Sound of 2008)
Signature currently under construction. If you want to help out and provide me with the resources needed, download from the above links.
newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-14-08 03:15 PM CT (US)     20 / 38       
^^^ Case in point. ^^^



dannyking.me


Julius999
Imposter
posted 10-14-08 03:24 PM CT (US)     21 / 38       
Unfortunately for me, I might actually be in a better position than you to make such comments. You couldn't be more wrong about people not looking down on America where I live. It's actually what helped spark my interest in this topic.
You are correct on this, but I thought you were talking about other countries?
As I recall, the criticisms of America were significantly less before the whole "media against Bush" campaign started.
America has been lampooned around the world as a greedy war-mongering uncultured juggernaut for decades. Vietnam hardly made you any friends.

On the internal criticisms, you are right, the Bush issue has greatly increased them. But I imagine the same was true with any modern unpopular president (Carter perhaps?).

Internationally however, domestic American discussions are not an important reason for criticism. Self-confidence is useful, but it won't make America more popular worldwide and America will still be criticised regardless. Countries are not similar to people in this respect, they don't have the same human connection, which is where your analogy falls down.

1010011010
[ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
Member of Stormwind Studios
newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-14-08 03:42 PM CT (US)     22 / 38       
You are correct on this, but I thought you were talking about other countries?
\/ See Below Quote \/
... where you live.
On the internal criticisms, you are right, the Bush issue has greatly increased them. But I imagine the same was true with any modern unpopular president (Carter perhaps?).
I won't try to throw logic on a era I was not alive for, that doesn't seem fair. By modern, I'm referring to '90 and on.
Self-confidence is useful, but it won't make America more popular worldwide and America will still be criticised regardless. Countries are not similar to people in this respect, they don't have the same human connection, which is where your analogy falls down.
Again, don't get confused, I'm not claiming to have a solution to end all hatred against America. I'm merely saying that a) it's present within America as well as outside and b) "self-confidence", among other things can help its image. This is not to be confused with arrogance.

And the way I see it, it's your criticism of falling short on my analogy that falls short (irony++). I believe countries have every connection that humans do, since they are made of up of their residents, they're constantly being personified. In fact, if I recall correctly, "big brother" is quite a popular nickname for America. The analogy holds true and is completely fair as long as countries are still being personified... I don't see that trend dying anytime soon.



dannyking.me


Julius999
Imposter
posted 10-14-08 03:49 PM CT (US)     23 / 38       
I won't try to throw logic on a era I was not alive for, that doesn't seem fair. By modern, I'm referring to '90 and on.
Fair enough.
Again, don't get confused, I'm not claiming to have a solution to end all hatred against America. I'm merely saying that a) it's present within America as well as outside and b) "self-confidence", among other things can help its image. This is not to be confused with arrogance.
This is fine. Good luck achieving it though. I wouldn't set too much stock by what some other countries think if I were you, they despise America in principle and have done for aeons. By the by, what other things would you do to improve America's image? Self-confidence is a legitimate way, but is so insiginificant on its own, as I've argued.
And the way I see it, it's your criticism of falling short on my analogy that falls short (irony++). I believe countries have every connection that humans do, since they are made of up of their residents, they're constantly being personified.
I can't agree with this. People en masse (including countries) are just not treated like the sum of their components. Consider terms like the "Evil Empire", "many-headed multitude" and others. As humans, we can relate individually, but not with a mass of people.

You would hardly argue the personifications of nations are anything more than crude stereotypes, would you? That should illustrate the difference between a nation and a rounded, real human individual being quite clearly.

In short, I don't relate on a personal level with Uncle Sam.

1010011010
[ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
Member of Stormwind Studios

[This message has been edited by Julius999 (edited 10-14-2008 @ 03:50 PM).]

newIdea
Illuminator
posted 10-14-08 04:15 PM CT (US)     24 / 38       
By the by, what other things would you do to improve America's image? Self-confidence is a legitimate way, but is so insiginificant on its own, as I've argued.
If I had even a decent answer to this question, I would currently be selling my services to a presidential candidate.
I just believe the idea that we can better ourselves is a good one and I have no problem with introducing it.
I can't agree with this. People en masse (including countries) are just not treated like the sum of their components. Consider terms like the "Evil Empire", "many-headed multitude" and others. As humans, we can relate individually, but not with a mass of people.

You would hardly argue the personifications of nations are anything more than crude stereotypes, would you? That should illustrate the difference between a nation and a rounded, real human individual being quite clearly.

In short, I don't relate on a personal level with Uncle Sam.
You may not be able to relate, but you're ignoring the fact that whole countries are indeed compared to individuals, therefor the analogy stands. Plus it includes Fonzy, c'mon!

EDIT: By the way, Julius, thank you for supporting a mature and articulate alternative to my views. It's much more fun to read than a quick unintelligible jab that's usually prevalent in forum arguments. haha



dannyking.me


[This message has been edited by newIdea (edited 10-14-2008 @ 04:18 PM).]

Julius999
Imposter
posted 10-14-08 04:47 PM CT (US)     25 / 38       
If I had even a decent answer to this question, I would currently be selling my services to a presidential candidate.
Better get cracking then!
Plus it includes Fonzy, c'mon!
Leave Fonzy out of it, he didn't ask to be a part of this.
but you're ignoring the fact that whole countries are indeed compared to individuals
These individuals are no more than cardboard cutouts, and thus are useless for true human interaction. I can feel sympathy for my next door neighbour, but you can't ask someone to feel sympathy for a rich nation of 300 million people thousands of miles away you will never meet that has just moved troops into your country Their opinion won't be swayed by the self-confidence with which this is done, that is for sure.

I doubt people would like Fonzy much if they didn't even know what he looked like and believed he was responsible for much of the misery in their lives.

The other thing to bear in mind is that much of the world does not personify countries (at least, as far as I know). The Iranian slogans make no recognition that America is too populated by human beings. For them, it is one vast hated entity, which is about as far away from normal human interaction you can get.
I just believe the idea that we can better ourselves is a good one and I have no problem with introducing it.
This is obviously a good thing. But does that necessarily mean America should respect its current leadership?
By the way, Julius, thank you for supporting a mature and articulate alternative to my views. It's much more fun to read than a quick unintelligible jab that's usually prevalent in forum arguments. haha
You're welcome. It's nice to have a proper discussion now and again. And alternative viewpoints are always good to hear?

1010011010
[ All_That_Glitters | Pretty_Town_Contest | Other_AoK_Designs | AoE_Designs ]
Member of Stormwind Studios
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Kings Heaven | HeavenGames