• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Poll finds more blame Bush than Obama for economy

Travis said:
What, really, is there to blame Obama over? He's done just about everything that could be done to try pull America out of the recession. Was he supposed to make gold rain from the skies or something?
Click to expand...

And cause all the patriotic Real Americans to go bankrupt by devaluing their "real" currency, Goldline coins? What are you, some kind of socialist?
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Go to the White House website and read recent campaign speeches. Obama routinely refers to years of presidential administration (surplus to 2001, deficits between 2001 to 2008) and to policies that he claims generated them (two wars, the prescription drug benefit, tax (rate) cuts) and generated the downturn (the housing bubble) and not to presidents by name, but the implication is clear if you suppose that presidents influence policy.
Click to expand...

The burden to provide these quotes is on the claimant. I did a quick bit of looking around at whitehouse.gov and didn't find examples of Obama blaming Bush.

Observing that he inherited a ruined economy is not really blaming Bush, is it? Drysdale's claim was, "Geez, Obama has blamed Bush for 3+ yrs. . . ."

But you're right, the whole who's-to-blame thing does depend on the idea that a president has influence on these matters. I'd say if anything one could argue that Bush's budget proposal were more or less taken by Congress while Obama's have not been.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
...Observing that he inherited a ruined economy is not really blaming Bush, is it?1...

But you're right, the whole who's-to-blame thing does depend on the idea that a president has influence on these matters2...
Click to expand...
1. If you seek the eight-word string "I blame Bush for the current economic difficulty" you won't find it. You will find a lot of dots drawn pretty close together.
2. The assignment of responsibility for the current depressed level of economic activity to current and former presidents depends on the economic philosophy of the judge. As I see it, the therapy that the Obama administration applies is counter-indicated. Some journalist asked President Obama if he is a socialist, and he replied: "If I'm a socialist, so is George Bush". Socialism is a matter of degree. Hayek dedicated The Road to Serfdom "To the socialists of all parties". Obama did not write the legislation that raised the Federal minimum wage, the Pelosi House did and Bush signed it. Neither Bush II nor Obama authored or endorsed the CRA (which inflated the housing bubble).
BenBurch said:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
BenBurch said:
Piscivore said:
Isn't that an excellent argument against "state's rights"?
Click to expand...
That.
Click to expand...
Only if you suppose that the good guys will prevail and have access to divine inspiration. Federalism ("State's rights") and markets institutionalize humility on the part of State (government, generally) actors. If a policy difference turns on a matter of taste, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets allow for the expression of varied tastes, while the contest for control over a State-monopoly enterprise must inevitably create unhappy losers (who may comprise the vast majority; imagine the outcome of a nationwide vote on the one size and style of shoes we all must wear). If a policy difference turns on a matter of fact, where "What works?" is an empirical question, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets in goods and services will generate more information than will a State-monopoly enterprise. A State-monopoly enterprise is like an experiment with one treatment and no controls, a retarded experimental design. This applies to anti-corruption policy as well as to shoes and education services.
Click to expand...
Peddle that dope on the corner, I'm not buying.
Click to expand...
Without the slightest attempt at rebuttal, Ben rejects the basic Austrian argument for markets. No surprise that he prefers the darker shades of red.
 
Last edited:
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
...Ben rejects the basic Austrian argument for markets. No surprise that he prefers the darker shades of red.
Click to expand...

I'm not Ben, but how about this review of general Austrian economics, it seems rather complete and thorough from my perspective and understandings.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

But the primary flaw of Austrian economics from my personal perspective is that it basically ignores even any pretense of adhering to basic scientific principles and practices. It is more philosophy than the practical and pragmatic applications of investigation, evidences and real-world observations to derive a functional economic system. Lacking such real world feedbacks and measurables Austrian economics is what Humes referred to as "nothing but sophistry and illusion."

This isn't to say that various proponents and followers of Austrian economics haven't added to and contributed to our understandings and considerations of economics, merely that Austrian Economics itself played little role in those contributions.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Neither Bush II nor Obama authored or endorsed the CRA (which inflated the housing bubble).
Click to expand...
No, it didn't. That's a Republican myth invented to screw the poor, and absolve Wall Street.

The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of the high cost loans - a proxy for subprime loans - had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law. [The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report, January 2011]

We find little evidence that either the CRA or the GSE goals played a significant role in the subprime crisis. Our lender tests indicate that areas disproportionately served by lenders covered by the CRA experienced lower delinquency rates and less risky lending. Similarly, the threshold tests show no evidence that either program had a significantly negative effect on outcomes. [Federal Reserve, 8/3/11]

There has been a tendency to conflate the current problems in the subprime market with CRA-motivated lending, or with lending to low-income families in general. I believe it is very important to make a distinction between the two. Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans, and studies have shown that the CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households. We should not view the current foreclosure trends as justification to abandon the goal of expanding access to credit among low-income households, since access to credit, and the subsequent ability to buy a home, remains one of the most important mechanisms we have to help low-income families build wealth over the long term. [Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 3/31/08]

In a November 25, 2008, letter, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke stated: "Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties." [Federal Reserve, 11/25/08]
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
I'm not Ben, but how about this review of general Austrian economics, it seems rather complete and thorough from my perspective and understandings.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

But the primary flaw of Austrian economics from my personal perspective is that it basically ignores even any pretense of adhering to basic scientific principles and practices. It is more philosophy than the practical and pragmatic applications of investigation, evidences and real-world observations to derive a functional economic system. Lacking such real world feedbacks and measurables Austrian economics is what Humes referred to as "nothing but sophistry and illusion."

This isn't to say that various proponents and followers of Austrian economics haven't added to and contributed to our understandings and considerations of economics, merely that Austrian Economics itself played little role in those contributions.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I'll read it. I suggest that the common objection to Austrian economics, that the Austrian indifference to quantifiable measures renders it unscientific, is mistaken; by analogy, Topology is Math even if it isn't metric. As a wise lady from the ETS once observed: "We can't measure what's important, so we measure what we can". What's important to Austrians is human preferences, motivations, and incentives. Samuelson at first considered Hayek's essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society" "small beer" but later came to regard the insight as important.
 
Here's some non-Federal Reserve people, if you only believe those:

FDIC Chairman Sheila Blair:[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif] "[/FONT][/FONT]I think we can agree that a complex interplay of risky behaviors by lenders, borrowers, and investors led to the current financial storm. To be sure, there's plenty of blame to go around. However, I want to give you my verdict on CRA: NOT guilty.

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules."

Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan: "CRA is not the culprit behind the subprimemortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace. Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders notsubject to CRA. A recent study of 2006 HomeMortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas."
 
There should be no question that Pres. Obama has a clearly articulated plan for fixing the economy.


 
Cylinder said:
There should be no question that Pres. Obama has a clearly articulated plan for fixing the economy.


Click to expand...
So let's go back to the Bush era. That's the ticket.

To be perfectly honest, the idea would actually have some merit if things hadn't improved. If the stock market, GDP and jobs didn't reverse course after the election. Obama took over with things going in the wrong direction and has put us headed in the right direction. And the GOP is saying, "no", let's go back to losing jobs and recession.
 
RandFan said:
So let's go back to the Bush era. That's the ticket.
Click to expand...
Name one Republican who recommends that.
Bush never vetoed bloated spending bills. I give him a feeble attempt to challenge entitlements (Social Security) and an ineffective attempt to address defects in oversight of subsidized home mortgages. The Bush era was way too regulated.
 
When you look at the majority of vocal commentary among Obama's detractors, all Romney has to do is not be a secret Muslim while looking like an American is supposed to look like in order to get their vote.
 
I'd like to thank those who actually have concerns about Obama's actual decisions in office as a basis for criticism.

Often it seems just the fact that the country is in debt at all is a bad thing Obama is to be blamed for not "fixing", but 9 out of 10 people I question on this cannot tell me what an acceptable amount of national debt is, why national debt is good or bad, and all too often I just see people acting as if millions or trillions of dollars is intrinsically a bad thing because it's a big number.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
It's a skeptic's forum. You can't expect to make a broad claim like the one Drysdale made without rightly being asked to provide evidence. If it's such a well-known "fact", then evidence should be abundant and easy to provide. Or it could just be a widely accepted canard.
Click to expand...

I really thought Ben was kidding.
So let me ask this, do phrases that contains such as...
My predecessor
Before I got here
When we took over
etc al,not count?

But to be fair, it's not just Bush.
Lets see here...
The Arab spring(whatever that is, seems like the "Arab Spring" has been going on as long as I can remember)
Europe financial crisis
China
Big oil
Wallstreet
Congress
Earthquakes

And there's probably more I cant think of right now
 
I thought the new talking point was supposed to be how the president really doesn't have much control over the economy. I mean, four years on, the Homer Simpson excuse of, "It was like that when I got here," is starting to wear a little thin.
 
It was pretty bad when he got here. It's hardly even close to as bad now. For the highest earners, it's all good again. Who's making excuses here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom