How Long Does Obama Get To "Blame it on Bush"?

[Texsox]

I can't wait to pull this one out later. 6 months and then we start counting his contributions.

[vandy125]

I don't want to see a blame game at all. I just want to see some working towards solutions.

[DukeNukeEm]

He's got about a year, he probably deserves more. Bush really messed things up.

[GoSox05]

Cat Stevens is pretty good.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Obama has enough tact where he wont really play the blame game, IMO. But, it will probably come from the Ted Kennedy-types for 4-8 years

[DBAHO]

As long as he wants.

[lostfan]

I don't want to see a blame game at all. I just want to see some working towards solutions.

That.

 

He's been elected now so all that matters right now is whether he's doing his job well enough to get re-elected, after that it's about his legacy. Not blame, only performance. I heard conservative talk radio hosts blame Clinton for so many things after Bush had been in office for years until it was just obvious Bush made glaring mistakes of his own, I'm really not interested in doing all that again.

[jasonxctf]

i love the blame game... even lately I've heard conservatives say that this financial mess is all "Clinton's fault". Reminds me back in 2002-03 when we had that recession, they called in the Clinton Recession. When that happened, I said ok... when we had the 1991-92 recession, was that the Reagan Recession??? Quickly, people shut their mouths.

[Texsox]

With communications and computers things happen so much quicker than 100 years ago when many of these traditions started. Today, FDR could not declare a "Banking Holiday" and hold a fireside chat. People would be on-line withdrawing money faster than the government could close the gates. Obama gives a speech and the Dow falls in real time to what he is saying. The Feds adjust the interest rate and banks are able to follow in minutes, not the weeks it took previously.

[knightni]

Obama gives a speech and the Dow falls in real time to what he is saying. The Feds adjust the interest rate and banks are able to follow in minutes, not the weeks it took previously.

 

Reminds me of this:

 

 

Then, the 80s guy dies and Fry gives a speech that causes the stocks to plummet.

 

 

[rangercal]

As long as he wants.

 

Bingo

[southsider2k5]

i love the blame game... even lately I've heard conservatives say that this financial mess is all "Clinton's fault". Reminds me back in 2002-03 when we had that recession, they called in the Clinton Recession. When that happened, I said ok... when we had the 1991-92 recession, was that the Reagan Recession??? Quickly, people shut their mouths.

 

Bush was inaugurated in Jan 1989, which means there was two full years at least before the recession started. By the most conservative definitions of the velocity of money through the US economy takes 12-18 months, with a minimum consideration of 6 months. So if someone has "shut their mouths" when you call that a Reagan recession, they should not, because it is long past the commonly accepted theories of how long it takes for fiscal policy to affect economy. The 2002 recession on the other hand started about 6 WEEKS after GW Bush took office, or WAY under what is considered normal for velocity of money to take affect on economy.

 

But then again, if you would like everything after 6 weeks or so into office economically to be Barack Obama's fault once in office, that is fine. I have less problem with it as long as you are going to be consistent.

[lostfan]

Bush was inaugurated in Jan 1989, which means there was two full years at least before the recession started. By the most conservative definitions of the velocity of money through the US economy takes 12-18 months, with a minimum consideration of 6 months. So if someone has "shut their mouths" when you call that a Reagan recession, they should not, because it is long past the commonly accepted theories of how long it takes for fiscal policy to affect economy. The 2002 recession on the other hand started about 6 WEEKS after GW Bush took office, or WAY under what is considered normal for velocity of money to take affect on economy.

 

But then again, if you would like everything after 6 weeks or so into office economically to be Barack Obama's fault once in office, that is fine. I have less problem with it as long as you are going to be consistent.

The correct answer is that it was neither of their faults and that people tend to exaggerate the role of the president in the general state of the economy.

[southsider2k5]

The correct answer is that it was neither of their faults and that people tend to exaggerate the role of the president in the general state of the economy.

 

Honestly it depends on how much change a President enacts in fiscal policy. If they make changes, they deserve more credit/blame. If it is business cycle related, it is different. Doing nothing while a bubble builds and bursts in my book qualifies as having earned blame for a recession.

[WilliamTell]

I get sick of hearing someone blame another person for party for whatever reason. It's your choice to run for president, senate, congress, no matter how "bad" the previous person was, deal with it and make changes as best as possible.

[lostfan]

Honestly it depends on how much change a President enacts in fiscal policy. If they make changes, they deserve more credit/blame. If it is business cycle related, it is different. Doing nothing while a bubble builds and bursts in my book qualifies as having earned blame for a recession.

That would qualify both Bush and Clinton then, but Clinton's was pretty mild and I don't even know how he could've stopped it really. I was too young to know about Reagan and Bush 41 and what caused it. And Bush didn't really have the authority to stop the housing bubble either.

Edited November 12, 2008 by lostfan

[lostfan]

I get sick of hearing someone blame another person for party for whatever reason. It's your choice to run for president, senate, congress, no matter how "bad" the previous person was, deal with it and make changes as best as possible.

I've noticed that presidents don't usually go out of their way to criticize each other once they're done campaigning. I don't remember Clinton ever criticizing Reagan or either of the Bushes, Bush didn't openly criticize Clinton, and he stayed quiet while Obama pummeled him before the election. Obama's probably going to stay quiet a while now. All of this talk of blame is generated by blogs, editorials, and talk radio.

[max power]

Considering Obama has been in office for nearly four years as a senator, though not doing his job hardly at all for two of them so he could campaign, he can lay the blame squarely on himself and his legislative peers in addition to the soon to be former president. People seem to think that the president is the reason for everything wrong in this country. I highly doubt the change people speak of will end up being anything more than an election slogan.

Edited November 12, 2008 by MAX

[Texsox]

I've noticed that presidents don't usually go out of their way to criticize each other once they're done campaigning. I don't remember Clinton ever criticizing Reagan or either of the Bushes, Bush didn't openly criticize Clinton, and he stayed quiet while Obama pummeled him before the election. Obama's probably going to stay quiet a while now. All of this talk of blame is generated by blogs, editorials, and talk radio.

 

It will not be by name, but more along the lines of, the economy was in the toilet when we took office, we had this and then that and the "previous administration" had done this, etc. It will take us more than a to fix this and see what we have done.

 

So can he say a year from now that the problems are still from the mess that Dubya left and it is unfair to judge his actions. Can he say that 2 years from now?

 

I'm guessing Dems will give him 3 years or so and the GOP about 5 1/2 minutes. Actually some GOPs,

Alpha

, haven't even given him time to get in office.

[southsider2k5]

That would qualify both Bush and Clinton then, but Clinton's was pretty mild and I don't even know how he could've stopped it really. I was too young to know about Reagan and Bush 41 and what caused it. And Bush didn't really have the authority to stop the housing bubble either.

 

Alan Greenspan tried his damnedest to try to stop the stock market bubble, both publicly and privately. Clinton didn't do anything. This recession is absolutely blamed on Bush as much as it can be, just like the 2001 recession is blamed on Clinton. The samething basically happened in the housing market as did the stock market. Bush could have moved to do somethings, but didn't want to be viewed as the one who killed the golden goose, just like Clinton with the stock market. There is also Congressional blame of varying degrees in both situations, but we can go into that in another thread. I know it doesn't jive with everyone's hyperpartisian rationale for blaming the others, but I don't see things in that same light. I see them economically.

[jasonxctf]

Bush was inaugurated in Jan 1989, which means there was two full years at least before the recession started. By the most conservative definitions of the velocity of money through the US economy takes 12-18 months, with a minimum consideration of 6 months. So if someone has "shut their mouths" when you call that a Reagan recession, they should not, because it is long past the commonly accepted theories of how long it takes for fiscal policy to affect economy. The 2002 recession on the other hand started about 6 WEEKS after GW Bush took office, or WAY under what is considered normal for velocity of money to take affect on economy.

 

But then again, if you would like everything after 6 weeks or so into office economically to be Barack Obama's fault once in office, that is fine. I have less problem with it as long as you are going to be consistent.

 

my point here, is that everyone (recently conservatives) want to blame Clinton for everything that went wrong with the economy. Following their logic, the 1991 recession would either have to be GHW Bush's fault or Reagan's fault... both options, which would be unacceptable to them because it had to be a Democrat's fault. it's just a harsh way of logic/reasoning.

 

personally, I agree with some of the other posters in this. The President themselves have a minor impact on all of this. If its anyone in governments fault (which we can certainly debate) its the legislative branches.

Edited November 12, 2008 by jasonxctf

[lostfan]

Alan Greenspan tried his damnedest to try to stop the stock market bubble, both publicly and privately. Clinton didn't do anything. This recession is absolutely blamed on Bush as much as it can be, just like the 2001 recession is blamed on Clinton. The samething basically happened in the housing market as did the stock market. Bush could have moved to do somethings, but didn't want to be viewed as the one who killed the golden goose, just like Clinton with the stock market. There is also Congressional blame of varying degrees in both situations, but we can go into that in another thread. I know it doesn't jive with everyone's hyperpartisian rationale for blaming the others, but I don't see things in that same light. I see them economically.

With my admittedly limited economic knowledge here I would guess that Greenspan had a s***-ton more leverage in situations like that than Clinton ever did, no? I mean, unless Clinton pushes some major initiative I don't see what he could do, the market is still going to do what it wants. Same as Bush.

[southsider2k5]

my point here, is that everyone (recently conservatives) want to blame Clinton for everything that went wrong with the economy. Following their logic, the 1991 recession would either have to be GHW Bush's fault or Reagan's fault... both options, which would be unacceptable to them because it had to be a Democrat's fault. it's just a harsh way of logic/reasoning.

 

personally, I agree with some of the other posters in this. The President themselves have a minor impact on all of this. If its anyone in governments fault (which we can certainly debate) its the legislative branches.

 

The 1991 recession IS Bush's fault, as the 2001 recession IS Clinton's fault, as this recession is GW Bush's fault. You really should leave the partisian stuff out of it, because it isn't that complex on an economic level.

[southsider2k5]

With my admittedly limited economic knowledge here I would guess that Greenspan had a s***-ton more leverage in situations like that than Clinton ever did, no? I mean, unless Clinton pushes some major initiative I don't see what he could do, the market is still going to do what it wants. Same as Bush.

 

Greenspan had the tools of the federal reserve bank in front of him, which are very limited when it comes to the stock market. Most of that falls under the SEC, which is under the Presidents realm of control. This housing/banking crisis the Fed bank had a lot more control over. In either case the President could actually have done something. The dangers were visable on the horizon if you knew what you were looking for.

[bmags]

I'll just say I don't think President's get too much blame. Stuff like what Max said at one point would've applied, but not anymore. The President isn't just the figurehead executive to the powerful Congress. They make the agendas, they make so many executive orders, the cabinet is huge and powerful, they are in complete control of foreign policy save a few areas that Congress seems to waive their right to now anyways. Congress can block, sure, and I'm not saying they are rendered useless. But the modern presidency is very powerful, and they can and should be blamed for a lot of things. Do I think this economic collapse was all Bush's fault? No. Do I think if Bush or Clinton had shown some foresight to act prior to collapse things could be different? Yes. Congress in the late 90s had a bill to make CDS on a regulated market, and it was shot down. Something else could've popped up troublesome, but at least derivatives people could've made sane decisions knowing who was all connected to them.