Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (6776)	1/11/2012 9:22:25 PM
From: Paul Smith	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Oh, I see....the buck never stops on Obama's desk. What happened when Bush was President is Bush's fault. What happens when Obama is President is Bush's fault too. Once again, no accountability for Obama. I guess that's the "change" part.

To: koan who wrote (6776)	1/12/2012 1:45:38 AM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Your problem is you can only see Bush's role in this mess which is considerable, but you fail to fix any of the blame on the dems. Fact is both parties bear much of the responsibility and if you believe Bush alone caused this mess you are not very knowledgeable about economics. Bush bears a lot of the responsibility, but so do his predecessors both Republican and Democrat and both parties. What occurred was inevitable and predictable. It is far more productive to try to isolate the actions and economic missteps that caused the problem and to try to understand the inevitable depressions that must occur in a fractional reserve banking system, which by its very nature results in a depression. lj

To: koan who wrote (6776)	1/12/2012 1:04:45 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Obama had to dig out of Bush's graeat depression. You didn't know that? Before I address this little point, I want to make it clear that I think people give presidents far too much credit and far too much blame when it comes to the general economy. To give Obama a pass because of the state of the economy at the end of Bush's term and then turn around and not give Bush the same pass when you look at the state of the economy at the end of Clinton's term is disingenuous. We had an economic boom in the 90s. Everyone benefitted from this, especially the government. And where various parts of the government by have influenced (amplified) the effects of the boom, it was probably going to happen anyway. In other words, Clinton got lucky. The responsible thing for our government to do would be to not only pay down debt, but to also NOT increase spending. In other words, don't create more government jobs that would need to be supported after the end of the boom. It boils down to: If you give Clinton credit for the boom, you have to blame him for the bust If Clinton was responsible for the bust, then you have to give Bush a pass on the economy by the same logic that Obama is given a pass If Clinton gets credit for the boom in the 90s, but isn't blamed for the bust, then Bush gets credit for the economic boom in the mid 2000s and shouldn't be blamed for the bust. and finally... If Obama is given a pass on the economy, then Bush has to be given a pass on the economy and it all pretty much falls on Clinton (and then to Bush Sr then to Reagan then to Carter.....and I'm pretty comfortable blaming Carter for everything). Let's use the same rules for all presidents. Otherwise we are all just partisan hacks, eh?