Posted by pythrr on 2009-03-18 21:12:13
Not my fault, as I don't live in the US, and not do I have any debt.
Posted by Shimin on 2009-03-18 22:37:01
I saw the houses skyrocket, and just said... They will fall, and they will fall hard...
Those who say it came as a surprise are ignorants... Ignorance is a bliss :o)
But hey, now i laugh, as the interest rates fall at houseprices dumps. In a few years i might even consider buying :D
Posted by Peter_Thorpe on 2009-03-19 00:22:38
the thing is this isnt wrong at all
Posted by Frankenstein on 2009-03-19 00:57:53
Neither left nor right here - but didn't Clinton manage to produce a positive budget of 2.9 Trillion Dollars in 1999 whereas the Bush-administration produced new all-time records with regard to budget deficits?
Posted by westerner on 2009-03-19 01:22:15
@Frank
Yes, however, I think Clinton was more fortunate than Bush regarding the economic cycle. He presided over a longer period of expansion with zero recessions.
Personally, I am disappointed that Bush - a Republican - did not govern with greater fiscal restraint. Traditionally a Republican strong suit, deficits ballooned during the Bush years, resulting in the largest ever increase of the national debt. Although Obama is well on his way to topping even that. Seems like every president ends up outspending his predecessors.
I think Presidents can only mildly influence the economic cycle in the short term. The greatest potential of preisdential policy is in the long term, often only producing effects after they leave office.
Posted by Catalyst32 on 2009-03-19 01:55:29
Frank that is an oft repeated myth. The Clinton budget surplus only existed on paper and was never reality. The Clinton prosperity was due to the seeds of Entreprenurship that Reagan and planted by incouraging industry. Resulting in the Dot.com boom.
Clinton did only 1 thing to aid in his supposed success. He cut spending... on things like Armoured HumVee's and Personnel Armour, and Uniforms for a Desert Evnvironment, and troop protection from Gas/Chemical attacks (Gas Masks and Mop Suits). On top of that he did nothing to prevent the single incident that forced Bush to spend money on all of those things that SHOULD have been purchased over the course of 8 years.
Clinton didn't have to create a new Federal Agency to try and stop hijacking at ALL US Airports. Clinton didn't have a predcessor that raised taxes designed at curbing financial growth OR at boosting home sales to people that could not afford them. And he certainly didn't have a predecesor that governed the country due to the whims of a poll. He had the priviledge of following a great leader rather than a lying under oath hack hillbilly.
Posted by pythrr on 2009-03-19 02:53:51
bush was "forced to spend"?
really? he was "forced" to invade iraq? really? didn't see anyone pointing a gun at his head...
Posted by SillySod on 2009-03-19 06:05:49
I love all the Clinton haters in America. Its great watching them ignore the important stuff in favour of calling him an adultorous liberal hilbilly :)
Posted by shadow46x2 on 2009-03-19 13:27:13
so if it's everyone's fault...
why are we blaming the democrat congressional leaders, but not the republican congressional leaders as well?
--j
Posted by westerner on 2009-03-19 14:54:50
I mentioned the democratic congress because they've had majority control the last couple years, but yes, the republican congress prior to that is also responsible.
The republican party became so embroiled in partisanship during the Bush years, that they forgot some of their core values.