MikeyG
Lv 6
MikeyG asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Dems who keep saying Bush and the GOP ruined the economy, why were things ok til 06 when dems took Congress?

And why didn't the Democrat controlled Congress stand up to and stop Bush from doing whatever it is you claim he was doing that was so terrible? Controlling Congress is a considerable tool to wield as far as influencing and implementing policy, yet not one Dem/lib in YA land recognizes this, they seem to be operating under the misguided thought that the President controls everything that happens during his term. I understand that most dems on Y/A are incredibly misinformed on all levels of history, politics, and government, but come on, you would hope that they would at least know better than to think this way..

19 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Well, it's more complicated than that, I guess.

    The origins of the housing crash go all the way back to the beginning of the first Clinton administration. That one started with liberal Dems interfering with the mortgage market. There were a few voices raised in warning over the next fifteen or so years, but by then banks had figured out how to make money on the bad loans, so nobody was really interested in fixing anything. Texas had a similar thing happen to the real estate market back in the mid 1980's. Land values were skyrocketing because of rampant speculation. People were tossing up skyscrapers and flipping properties all the time. Money was being made, but nothing was being produced. Everybody knew that sooner or later the bubble would burst, so the object of the game was to not be the one holding title when the market collapsed.

    This national mortgage collapse is nothing new to me. Texas recovered in a few years, and didn't have to engage in a trillion dollars worth of Democratic agenda spending to do it.

    What is happening on a national level today is the result of fifteen years of deliberate mismanagement by both parties, both of which allowed the housing market to deteriorate for different reasons. The bottom line is that nobody in congress gives a damn about anything beyond the next election. For Dems, encouraging banks to make bad loans is just good politics. 'Pubbies have other reasons for not being very aggressive in reigning in the banks, much of which has to do with preserving their own electability. So, I honestly have little patience with people who want to point fingers at the other party. The fault for this problem lies not with one party or another, it lies with our grossly dysfunctional Congress and a comparably dysfunctional national political dialog. The finger pointing that we are doing works for them just fine because it prevents us from accurately focusing on the genuine source of the problem.

    Those who claim that the economy was in trouble prior to 2006 really do have a point. The economy took a nose dive as a result of the dot com crash of the late '90s, which itself was partially the result of the persecution of Microsoft by the Clinton DoJ. Little Bush inherited a bit of a mess from the previous administration, and with a great deal of help from both sides of congress, managed to let it grow into a bigger mess.

    To a large extent, I place the blame on the American people themselves. I have spoken with laborers in French bars who understood more about politics and economics than the average American college professor. We Americans usually only understand ideology. This is our fatal flaw. We let ourselves become so partisan as a result of the 2000 elections that we just stood by, finger pointing at the other guy, while our own parties fulfilled their parts in this tragedy.

  • 4 years ago

    Here's something for you: The unemployment rate dropped for 4 years in a row after the Bush tax cuts were implemented. Rates had risen during the 4 years prior to the cuts. The unemployment rate didn't even start to rise back up until 2008. Also, the deficit was decreasing in the middle of the Bush years up until getting close to 2007. Then it shot way up again. Somewhere around 2006 we only had a $200 billion deficit. Of course now we've had two $1.4 trillion+ deficit years in a row. Also of note is that I can't recall Obama voting no on any of these bad policies in 2006-2008 while he was serving as Senator. So I'm growing tired of him thinking he can completely separate himself from the problem when he was part of it all.

  • 1 decade ago

    misinformed person that I am... I've been AROUND long enough to know that the problems go back further than Bush, Clinton, OR even Reagan.

    Or did you not understand that Congress can pass a bill, and the President has veto power?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Most people won't deny that the economic problems the country currently faces can't possibly all be linked to George W. Bush. But come on. The man spent BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars on worthless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars have cost American taxpayers billions of dollars and it also cost the United States its reputation in the world (people are growing increasingly more tired of the US invading places we don't belong). If we weren't at war, the US would have billions and billions more to spend each month. How are you going to defend that? Most of the reason we are in so much debt is from war spending and horrible credit practices by banks that Bush allowed. Stop blaming Democrats because the truth is BOTH parties are responsible to some extent. You can't possibly blame the entire falter of the US economy on one person or political party.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Things were not OK until 2006 and the very small majority that Democrats gained in the Senate was not able to override the veto power of the Bush Administration. The economic damage of Reaganomics and G.W. Bush are still solidly entrenched and difficult to shake loose.

  • webned
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    That's right. The democrats passed all sorts of legislation that cratered the economy over Bush's veto.........? Well I guess I am incredibly misinformed on history and government. All the democrats had to do was show up after being elected and their mere presence caused the economy to tank? How absolutely absurd.

  • 1 decade ago

    The economy was going into the tubes long before 2006. I remember being called a "Gloom and Doom Lib" from the Right over the economy

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They weren't. We were building up the huge amount of fake dollars in derivatives, etc.

    The dems couldn't do ANYTHING because we still had the votes in the house and senate to stop any bills they wanted to pass. Also, if they got a few moderate (traitor) Republicans to go along with them our president Bush had the power of the VETO! Those libs could not stop our GOP agenda!

    That's right libs, we did it and we will never take any responsibility. We will continue to use these false talking points to keep our base in line regardless of the facts.

  • 1 decade ago

    because you have to go way back before 06!!!! That's just when the rug was pulled out from underneath........It might be a dem congress now, but even when we had a Dem pres, we had a repub congress.......nice try blaming only one side.....

  • 1 decade ago

    Just quit playing the Dem/Rep game, the majority of elected officials serve one purpose and that is to assure the continuity of the rich and powerful who control our democracy.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.