Poll: Bush still blamed for economy
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Quite so. Only in USA would politicians like Reagan or Bush would be popular.
In this respect, it is interesting to compare Reagan with Thatcher. Both are the darlings of the far right. Thatcher was also a very successful politician; she also belonged to the far right, same as Reagan.
The difference is that Thatcher left office in disgrace. She did not want to resign as the PM; she was forced out by her own party, the only PM in British history to be forced out by her own party. Towards the end, even her colleagues had more than enough of her nonsense, her extremism. They engineered the coup when she was out of the country.
The final straw that broke the camel’s back was the highly regressive, extremely nasty poll tax (where every citizen paid the same amount of tax, same amount of money, regardless of the income or lack of it).
While British people were enamored with Thatcher, in the end they saw her for the extremist that she was. Tory leader Cameron (who is likely to be the next PM) is nothing like Thatcher, he is in the mold of European Christian Democrats, right of center.
Contrast this with USA. Reagan made a royal mess of the economy, racked up huge debt, huge deficits, started USA on the path of trillion dollar debt and trillion dollar deficit; he is still revered today by people in general.
"Americans are loud, fast talking slick hustlers,"- NOT the several thousands I've been in contact with. I guess some people just have a special talent in finding the worst people.
Who was in charge when the Berlin Wall came down? Who brought back a sense of pride and patriotism to America after the limp-wristed presidency of J. Carter? (Who had to rely on Canada to get his diplomats out of Iran). I believe it was Ronald Reagan.
There's more, but I have to watch the Olympics.
Presidents and prime ministers are nothing more than figure heads. They have no real power. Democracy is a myth sold to the lowest common denominator. Countries are run by bureaucrats not politicians. Politicians are actors hired for photo ops and to be scape goats for public ridicule.
Cliff - I think there is a lot of truth to what you're saying. But, there are a lot of 'shades of gray' here...it's a bit of a conundrum for a leader, in that they often want to implement positive (in their minds) change, but by the time their initiatives get through the long processes, they are compromised. And the bureaucrats can influence how things get implemented. On one hand, it's a safety, check & balance thing, but on the other hand, it's a 'water down the whisky' problem.
I think the Briitish TV series "Yes Minister" or "Yes Prime Minister" really illustrates the picture the best. It's funny, but also sadly realistic.
You have to wonder why anyone would actually want the job these days.
You have that right Cliff- they all do exactly what they are told by their advisors. People don't honestly think they are capable of thinking for themselves??????? :lol::lol:
JLM, we can only speculate, we cannot know for sure. However, I have reasons to believe that if Gore had won in 2000, American economy would be markedly different today.
The first thing Bush did (with the support of the Republican Congress) was to get rid of all the surplus and enact huge tax cuts, mainly benefiting the rich. Gore would never have done that. At that time, fiscally responsible attitude (foisted by Clinton) was prevalent in the Democratic Party. Gore would not have enacted the crazy tax cuts and would have continued running healthy surpluses.
Indeed, if you want to see how USA would have performed under Gore, you only have to look at Canada. When Bush was in office in USA, Liberals were in power in Canada, they were running the economy in a responsible manner. While Bush was racking huge deficits, Liberals were building up healthy surpluses.
Today, the economic downturn is much milder in Canada compared to USA; one of the reasons is the prudent fiscal management by the Liberals. Gore would have been no different. Bush laid the foundation for the current meltdown with his crazy tax cuts. If Gore had been the president from 2000 to 2008, the economic downturn in USA today would have been much milder. Gore would have continued running a surplus right until the recession hit. Even after that, if he had to run a deficit, it would have been much smaller than what they have today.
Also, Gore would not have taken USA into the pointless, insane war in Iraq. That would have resulted in saving huge amounts of money.
I'd say I blame both, but Bsh more so far, since he's responsible for a larger chunk of that debt that Obama is, not to mention that Obama is responsible for cleaning some of Bush's messes.
That said, I still say Obama is partly to blame in that he chose to expand the debt even farther, even if not nearly as much as Bush did.
Quite so, I think both parties are to blame for the mess. What is more, a will to fix the problem does not exist in either of the two parties. Democrats are still fixated upon stimulating the economy. As to Republicans, all they want to do is cut taxes.
I wouldn't blame any political party as such, but rather the individuals within them who chose to support deficit spending. I'm sure there are some individuals in both parties who oppose this, though they're probably a minority. It's important to make this distinction especially in US politics where they're less bound by party discipline . That by the way is one aspect of the US system I do admire compared to Canada's much more party-structured system.
I'd rephrase that as "One of Obama's big mistakes came in bailing out the bankers."
Stimulating the economy is fine, as long as you can do it without pushing the debt, interest rates, or inflation up. I can see only a few ways to do that, one being a tax increase, and the other being that the government spend in such a way as to invest the money, such as in education, to ensure that a qualified workforce comes out of the recession so as to be able to stave off inflation later.
Reducing taxes is fine too, as long as it's done after the debt is paid off, with inflation and interest rates under control. Any tax reduction should come not as a first step towards helping an economy, but rather as a reward for a job well done in having paid off the debt while keeping inflation and interest rates down.
With the US debt as it now is, now would not be the time to reduce taxes, nor is it the time to increase spending.
that is the problem, Machjo. Even fi they are present, they are in the minority. Neither of the parties really has any appetite to tackle the difficult problems facing USA.
Quite so, the only recipe for success is to increase taxes and cut spending. Unfortunately, that is also the recipe for political suicide in USA. So I don't see that happening.
Another point about stimulating the economy while paying off the debt. First off, we should not be stimulating the economy as long as we are experiencing positive inflation. At one point in the recession, the US was experiencing deflation and had lowered its interest rates to the floor. That would have been an appropriate time to 'stimulate' the economy, but only to the point of countering a deflationary spiral, and not by borrowing and spending, but rather on printing money that would go towards paying off the Federal debt. It would have had the same effect in that it would have put more money into the economy, but by paying off the debt and not growing it.
As for inflation, once the US inflation rate had gone back up to above zero, then it would just have been a matter of reducing spending and raising that excess money back in again, but again, without unduly expanding the debt.
Unfortunately, Obama got caught up in the heat of the moment, reacting emotionally rather than rationally there.
As for inflation, once the US inflation rate had gone back up to above zero, then it would just have been a matter of reducing spending and raising that excess money back in again, but again, without unduly expanding the debt.
Unfortunately, Obama got caught up in the heat of the moment, reacting emotionally rather than rationally there.
Man's new to the job - and got it in a lousy time. There are bound to be mistakes, but he's going to catch Hell for it all - whether he could do anything about it or not. Ontario? Rae?