George W Bush's Legacy

[fighter 4]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/08/b...r_n_454056.html

[Jeepster80125 0]

Or it shows a couple things:1) Bush was incredibly polarizing and inspires strong opinions. That's a legacy. You either loved him or hated him there was nothing in between.2) Even now, passion about the Iraq War runs incredibly high because it was the signature decision of his presidency. What happens to Iraq over the next 5, 15, 50, years will have the largest effect on his legacy ainec and I think that is actually quite obvious. (Will it become a stable Democratic regime? Will it descend into chaos? Will Iran basically become the de facto power broker there? The 3rd one is my guess.) Much more so than his two Supreme Court Appointments Brv (who half this country at least could not name, let's be serious!)You're welcome.

Jeepster is right ... what all this barrage of talking points really means is that one of the most enduring legacies of Bush is that he contributed to the polarization between parties in the US. Nixon made peace overtures to communist China and stayed popular with Republicans (until Watergate), Clinton co-opted Republican ideas on welfare and budget and was still popular with Democrats, but in the last eight years we saw an astonishing entrenching of partisanship and a bitterness of debate that will not go away for many years. From voters to members of Congress, fewer and fewer people are willing to cross party lines.Historians have pointed out that this is most similar to the period that was the run-up to Civil War, the 1850s, and the hardening of attitudes about slavery.My personal insight is that another similarity between the 1850s and now is an explosion in new forms of media. I don't think Bush is personally responsible for all the polarization, although he is indeed personally polarizing. I think the growth of 24-hour news channels defined by their partisan leanings, and the sudden ability to limit all your media to outlets you already agree with, is behind it. There's a reason newspapers, circa 1850, were so often called the "So and So-Ville Democrat" or the "Podunk Republican."That might go a little deeper than a term paper needs to, though. Suffice it to say that polarization and divisiveness will be one of Bush's big legacies for decades to come.

You quoting me is teh hot, but I think credit for what you are saying might need to go to CaneBrain.

[brvheart 1,752]

Brv, if you think the CIA and FBI are independent of the president, you are being naive. The head of the CIA reports directly to the President EVERY day.

I'm sure it was an accident that you forgot to mention all the other countries that thought the same thing.

hold on, hold on...http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/upload...eficit_2010.jpgMy question is: who set the 2009 budget? That was on Bush, no? That would mean his worst annual deficit was close to $1.5T.I mean, whatever, it's a dumb argument. Everyone's going to spend as much as they can get. I would just prefer we stop trying to differentiate between the two parties on fiscal responsibility.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0237388520070302http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/200...icit/index.html2006 - Bush --- Deficit $248.2 billion2007 - Bush --- Deficit $244.2 billion2008 - Bush --- Deficit $239 billion2009 - Bush --- Deficit $407 billion2010 - Obama --- Deficit $1.171 trillion 2011 - Obama --- Deficit $1.267 trillion

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm sure it was an accident that you forgot to mention all the other countries that thought the same thing.http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0237388520070302http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/200...icit/index.html2006 - Bush --- Deficit $248.2 billion2007 - Bush --- Deficit $244.2 billion2008 - Bush --- Deficit $239 billion2009 - Bush --- Deficit $407 billion2010 - Obama --- Deficit $1.171 trillion 2011 - Obama --- Deficit $1.267 trillion

So he triples the worst deficit we ever had in the entire history of our nation...it's not like he read a lie that was on the teleprompter...

[LongLiveYorke 38]

2006 - Bush --- Deficit $248.2 billion2007 - Bush --- Deficit $244.2 billion2008 - Bush --- Deficit $239 billion2009 - Bush --- Deficit $407 billion2010 - Obama --- Deficit $1.171 trillion 2011 - Obama --- Deficit $1.267 trillion

What happened to Bush in 2009? Why did the deficit almost double for him? Could it be the same thing that made the deficit so big for Obama?And if Obama is really so bad, why did the deficit stay nearly the same for 2010 and 2011. Could it be that there was simply some sort of crisis in 2009 and 2010 that somehow effected things?

[Balloon guy 158]

What happened to Bush in 2009? Why did the deficit almost double for him? Could it be the same thing that made the deficit so big for Obama?And if Obama is really so bad, why did the deficit stay nearly the same for 2010 and 2011. Could it be that there was simply some sort of crisis in 2009 and 2010 that somehow effected things?

I wonder if he spent a trillion on something....you know..to save jobs.

[El Guapo 8]

I wonder if he spent a trillion on something....you know..to save jobs.

Create or save.

[brvheart 1,752]

Create or save.

Neither?

[nutzbuster 7]

jobs shmobsretiring at 49 ftw, imo

[LadyGrey 6]

Jeepster is right ... what all this barrage of talking points really means is that one of the most enduring legacies of Bush is that he contributed to the polarization between parties in the US. Nixon made peace overtures to communist China and stayed popular with Republicans (until Watergate), Clinton co-opted Republican ideas on welfare and budget and was still popular with Democrats, but in the last eight years we saw an astonishing entrenching of partisanship and a bitterness of debate that will not go away for many years. From voters to members of Congress, fewer and fewer people are willing to cross party lines.

Thanks for this insight, SB, you said quite similar things to what my lecturer said in our class on Clinton today. I would like to hear more of your opinion on what Bush's legacy will be, it would be great if you looked at the questions in my 2nd post and provided your perspective.

[strategy 4]

2006 - Bush --- Deficit $248.2 billion2007 - Bush --- Deficit $244.2 billion2008 - Bush --- Deficit $239 billion2009 - Bush --- Deficit $407 billion2010 - Obama --- Deficit $1.171 trillion 2011 - Obama --- Deficit $1.267 trillion

awesome, I had no idea those pages existed on wikipedia. I think 2011 could, at this point, easily end up with wildly different results that depend heavily on 2010. I've seen some pretty encouraging efficiency data that suggests we could get something like 2-2.5m jobs back this year, possibly a six figure gain in this month's NFPs. I wouldn't put much stock in estimates for 2011, let alone 2010.

What happened to Bush in 2009? Why did the deficit almost double for him? Could it be the same thing that made the deficit so big for Obama?And if Obama is really so bad, why did the deficit stay nearly the same for 2010 and 2011. Could it be that there was simply some sort of crisis in 2009 and 2010 that somehow effected things?

There's a much easier way to make this argument. 2008:Total Revenue $2.7 trillion (estimated)Total Expenditures $2.9 trillion (estimated)Deficit $239 billion (estimated)2009:Total Revenue $2.7 trillion (estimated)Total Expenditures $3.107 trillion (estimated)Deficit $407 billion (estimated)2010:Total Revenue $2.381 trillion (estimated)Total Expenditures $3.552 trillion (estimated)Deficit $1.171 trillion (estimated)So in 2010 he upped the budget by $450 billion (14.5%) and we project a $320 billion decline (11%) in revenue. Sounds about right for a recession.On another note, I made the argument a while ago that Obama's spending is much, much less damaging because of the interest rate climate. Not much has changed there. These are the average yields on treasuries over the last 20 auctions:Devil's advocate: We're still borrowing at negative interest rates. Why not spend, spend, spend?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

(Stuff)

Yeah, what he said.

[Balloon guy 158]

Devil's advocate: We're still borrowing at negative interest rates. Why not spend, spend, spend?

They heard you the first time, you didn't need to repeat it twice more.

[Balloon guy 158]

And I am curious about this Strat.Bush did the TARP thing that I thought I heard got paid back with interest.So would that expense be put on his head, but the pay back get put on Obama's?

[strategy 4]

And I am curious about this Strat.Bush did the TARP thing that I thought I heard got paid back with interest.So would that expense be put on his head, but the pay back get put on Obama's?

I would assume they find a way into the revenue figures for 2009 and 2010, so yeah, I bet Obama looks a little better at Bush's expense. Remember that massive amounts of bailout money are still with Citi, GM, et al. The revenue numbers don't seem consistent with the earnings we saw in 2009, so I don't really know. I don't understand how revenue could be unchanged between 2008 and 2009, then only drop 11% in 2010. I'm not making an accusation here, just expressing some confusion.

[Balloon guy 158]

I would assume they find a way into the revenue figures for 2009 and 2010, so yeah, I bet Obama looks a little better at Bush's expense. Remember that massive amounts of bailout money are still with Citi, GM, et al. The revenue numbers don't seem consistent with the earnings we saw in 2009, so I don't really know. I don't understand how revenue could be unchanged between 2008 and 2009, then only drop 11% in 2010. I'm not making an accusation here, just expressing some confusion.

Seems murky enough to allow me to continue to blame Obama and support Bush, so at least i got that going for me.

[hblask 1]

Devil's advocate: We're still borrowing at negative interest rates. Why not spend, spend, spend?

See, the thing is, they are the people printing the money. It's a bit different than when a private citizen borrows.Think about it.

[hblask 1]

So when the economy crashed, I, personally, went into deficit spending. My income no longer covered my expenses.I had to decide whether to spend more and triple my yearly deficit, or make some really tough choices and get my budget back in balance.I guess I'll never be president. Besides, I don't get to just randomly blame my irresponsibility on other people, even though the current budget responsibility is mine.

[strategy 4]

See, the thing is, they are the people printing the money. It's a bit different than when a private citizen borrows.Think about it.

I always found it funny when arbitrage problems began with "assume you can lend or borrow at the risk-free rate." Yeah, right.see this a while ago? I love him.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=azLmks3BmQm4

So when the economy crashed, I, personally, went into deficit spending. My income no longer covered my expenses.I had to decide whether to spend more and triple my yearly deficit, or make some really tough choices and get my budget back in balance.I guess I'll never be president. Besides, I don't get to just randomly blame my irresponsibility on other people, even though the current budget responsibility is mine.

I don't have a real solid opinion on what should happen to the budget during recessions. What is clear as day to me, however, is that we should almost never run a deficit when times are good, as they were for most of #43's reign.To get back on topic... I really, really hope we look at GWB as a huge step back on civil liberties. I'm not holding my breath.

[LadyGrey 6]

So do you guys think the economic crisis will be part of Bush's legacy? I didn't think of it before because it happened so late in his term that it seems like it is more Obama's issue now, but it definitely meant that his presidency ended on a low and some amount of blame can be assigned to him in not doing more to prevent it (note: I'm not looking for an argument about who was to blame, please don't go on a tangent with that). What do you think? Will he be remembered as the president under whom the country suffered the worst economic crisis since the great depression? Or will people associate it more with Obama since it got passed onto him?

[hblask 1]

So do you guys think the economic crisis will be part of Bush's legacy? I didn't think of it before because it happened so late in his term that it seems like it is more Obama's issue now, but it definitely meant that his presidency ended on a low and some amount of blame can be assigned to him in not doing more to prevent it (note: I'm not looking for an argument about who was to blame, please don't go on a tangent with that). What do you think? Will he be remembered as the president under whom the country suffered the worst economic crisis since the great depression? Or will people associate it more with Obama since it got passed onto him?

To the extent that it can be blamed on him, it's because he had control of Congress and didn't do anything about it. But the rules and laws that made it happen were in place long before he got in office; he just happen to be there when the fuse ran out.

[strategy 4]

So do you guys think the economic crisis will be part of Bush's legacy? I didn't think of it before because it happened so late in his term that it seems like it is more Obama's issue now, but it definitely meant that his presidency ended on a low and some amount of blame can be assigned to him in not doing more to prevent it (note: I'm not looking for an argument about who was to blame, please don't go on a tangent with that). What do you think? Will he be remembered as the president under whom the country suffered the worst economic crisis since the great depression? Or will people associate it more with Obama since it got passed onto him?

For now, the big buzzword is jobs. Bush created 3 million. Obama, if he's only a one-termer, will have lost at least that many. We've lost 8.4 million since the beginning of the recession, so interpret that how you will.

To the extent that it can be blamed on him, it's because he had control of Congress and didn't do anything about it. But the rules and laws that made it happen were in place long before he got in office; he just happen to be there when the fuse ran out.

This concept is just difficult enough to make me wonder if historians will go that route and saddle the blame on Bush. In a perfect world, we'd stop trying to attribute economic prosperity to this or that president and realize that randomness has a much, much larger role in when crises occur. The big example I would cite here, and I'm sure you'll disagree, is Carter having the misfortune of presiding over the years when the middle east woke up and formed a cartel. Carter's policies didn't help, for sure, but the timing was especially unlucky for him.

[hblask 1]

This concept is just difficult enough to make me wonder if historians will go that route and saddle the blame on Bush. In a perfect world, we'd stop trying to attribute economic prosperity to this or that president and realize that randomness has a much, much larger role in when crises occur. The big example I would cite here, and I'm sure you'll disagree, is Carter having the misfortune of presiding over the years when the middle east woke up and formed a cartel. Carter's policies didn't help, for sure, but the timing was especially unlucky for him.

I'd have to agree with you on that. I'm not sure why Carter has such a bad reputation. The economic problems during his watch can almost completely be traced to the fallout of Nixon's wage and price controls. Carter actually did a fair amount of deregulation. I don't consider him a great president, but he's probably in the top half.

[Balloon guy 158]

I'd have to agree with you on that. I'm not sure why Carter has such a bad reputation. The economic problems during his watch can almost completely be traced to the fallout of Nixon's wage and price controls. Carter actually did a fair amount of deregulation. I don't consider him a great president, but he's probably in the top half.

I would give the credit to Volker

[strategy 4]

I would give the credit to Volker

you could at least spell his name correctlyand of COURSE you like him!