The Panic of 1837, it was caused by Andrew Jackson, a guy who was practically a tyrant, and Van Buren was blamed because he was in office for a month when it happened. It was because of Jackson's illegal war on the 2nd National Bank.

The same happened to Bush...without the illegal banks part.

A month or two after Bush came into power the economy went down. This was the perfect opportunity for democrats to blame it on Bush and get Clinton off the hook of what he did.

It is an example of history repeating itself. *this is where I ticked people off*

It is one thing to present logical arguments for debate.

It is totally another to continue attacking an entire forum of people.

I have no problem with your support of Bush, the Republican Party, or any other traditionally right-wing sorts of American ideas. Truth be told, I listen to Rush Limbaugh myself, and not just as a laugh! I truly do appreciate hearing both sides of a debate.

But you cannot - YOU CANNOT - come on these forums and treat everyone with differing opinions as if they are stupid for them. Your degrading and immature behavior when dealing with others is appalling.

I'm going to leave the this thread open because it's fine as a debate topic, but your last sentences are to be ignored, and those who respond to such trolling will have their posts deleted.

As for you, Guaraldi, you have been warned before, both formally and informally, to cease your insults and stick to the issues. If you ignore this FINAL WARNING I will see to it myself that you are banned.

kind of like these dictatorships the US supported or installed

Chile 1973-1990
Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who became dictator after the US destabilization of Chiles economy. It is unknown exactly how many people were killed by government and military forces during the 17 years that he was in power, but the "Rettig Commission" listed 2,095 deaths and 1,102 "disappearances".

Indonesia 1965-1998
He was placed into power in 1965 through clandestine CIA operations to assassinate his opponent and then-leader of Indonesia, General Sukarno.
They figure he was responsible for some 500 thousand to 2 millions deaths between his coup, and genocide.

So sorry if history teachs me to not have great faith in US forgien involvement.

As for the democrats blaming bush about the slowing economy and ect. Where's your proof that it was Clinton and not Bush. Almost every single presidency has had shortages by they way, its not some big new thing. I think people are just looking for reasons to get him out of power.

Edit..

Sorry I was responding at the same time you were and didnt see this. But it was alot easier to just quote that bit then cut up all the other stuff. You can delete my post if you want.
don't worry about it. - mod MissyA

The fact that it happened so soon after Bush was elected made it very hard to believe that Bush did it, NAFTA could also have had a big affect on it.

Is there any documented proof of the Andrew Jackson thing? Or was that a matter of opinion? I'm not asking as an antagonist, I just wanna know.

It is in a history book, and if you know enough about the Panic of 1837 I think you can figure it out. If I can find a link about it I will post it, you should be able to learn more if you just google it.

Guaraldi, does history always repeat or are new events allowed to occur as well?

I might have missed the thread, but I don't think that many people here have been attacking Bush because of the economy. All of the people posting about Bush's policies that I have seen have been about his attitude towards foreign policy, his apparent lack of erudition (never having met the chap I wouldn't like to say that he truly lacks intellect, but it does appear from the records that are public that he is not an amazingly sharp wit, hence my use of the word 'apparent') and occasionally the rather prejudiced views that he seems to support (such as attempting to ban certain types of marriage between two consenting adults).

I don't recall anyone having started a debate about Bush's financial policies until this thread, and you have started it with an argument, automatically believing that everyone will disagree with you.

Personally I don't know enough about the American financial situation to be able to say either way. I have been informed by sources that I trust that Bush has not been taking the usual reasonable steps to curb economic slide, but I only have my sources to trust on that, I don't have full knowledge of the situation so I wouldn't like to argue the defence.

The trouble is that you have not argued the case either. You've just posted that everything is Clinton's fault and that Bush has done no wrong. It may be true, it may not be. Either way, I do know for a fact that the US economy has slid a great deal in the last year, with the US dollar falling massively in value, so much so that employees at the Bank of England are buying dollars in their thousands to put aside for the time when the US economy recovers, because when it comes back to where it was even a year ago they will make a very tidy profit on the exchange back. If I could afford to do the same I would.

Even if the slide was initially Clinton's fault then I can't help but think that by your own logic the continuation of the slide, especially the incredible escalation of it in the last twelve months, is the fault of George W Bush.

Alternatively it could just be one of those things. If there was an easy way of controlling an economy this kind of thing would never happen. It could just be that the US economy was due for a slide and that it is nobodies fault. The problem is that you haven't given any justification for your reasoning.

As MissyA states, I've also no problem with Conservative arguments on here, I'm very interested in them, but I don't appreciate people coming onto my forums and trying to start an argument. If you genuinely want a debate then perhaps you could provide some useful links to recognised financial institutions or academic establishments that support your point.

Also, you say 'get Clinton off the hook for what he did', you then go on to state that you believe that no-one on here will listen to you, so wouldn't it be a good idea to actually _tell_ us what Clinton did, rather than make vague statements?

Don't come onto my forums wanting a fight, this isn't the place for that. This is a place for civilised debate. I'm not going to pretend that there isn't a liberal bias among the people on here, there is, but as conservatives are so fond of pointing out, liberals do try to make everyone happy, so we will listen to you if you speak to us in ways that have the same respect you expect to receive.

Maybe you should reread rule 4 of these forums, be prepared to discuss your ideas. Your post was and, to be frank even with your edit, still is confrontational about a topic that has been barely touched, if at all.

For all I know you could be absolutely right, the current slump in the economy could be all his fault. Alternatively the fact that it has got a lot worse over the last twelve months since I've been paying attention to it could be an indication that Bush is doing no better a job. It could even be all Bush's fault. I don't know, right now I don't care. This post is about two things:

1 Don't come to this forum looking for a fight. Take that somewhere else.

2 Mind the rules. Be prepared to discuss your ideas. You know that when you post something like that you're going to get a response (and that's ignoring the insult tacked on the end of it that you've now removed) so give us a few links to help make your point. We are interested and willing to listen, but you have to speak to us with respect if you expect to get any back.

I know I've repeated myself here, but posts like this seem to have been ignored too often at the start of these kind of debates in the past so I wanted to drive my point home.

As a final point to everyone replying: if you want to get involved with this debate it is about politics and economic statistics, so please try and demonstrate your point with back-up from a reputable source (liberal websites don't count, just as I would not trust content from a conservative biased website). It's not about a slagging match. It might be true that it's Clinton's fault, it might not. If you have an opinion please prove it and show Guaraldi what a polite debate looks like. You also need to remember rule 4, be prepared to either change your mind or accept that you will never agree. Keep it constructive. Thanks.

There are too many different factors in something like the economy to put the blame on one mans administration.
Personally I blame Mc'Donalds, Starbucks, and CalTrans.

Well I've spent a while trying to find an un-biased source. As I happen to think the American Economy was doing much better under Clinton then Bush (or maybe I just happen to like Clinton alot better), I also think there were a great deal of other factors that effected it.

Site
Well atleast the writer has some good credentials.

for some qoutes from it that support my opinion, oh and I'm to tired at the moment to think up things to write.


Unemployment causes depression. Thats ones pretty easy to get on with.

You have less people with less money to spend/get taxed on/ or put back into the Economy. Pretty much same result as unemployment.

As for the uncontrolables. Alot of Economies took large hits from 9-11/Sars/Madcow and other various things that went on rampage lately.

Now for a crazy comparison of how Canada deals with debt, and how America is dealing with debt. Well turns out our government been doing something or other with are large sum of money, so whats the solution? Yup, cut as much military speanding as is possible! Hooray!

Thanks for finding a source for your info. That's a good way to make this a productive debate

... Although poking the US about their military spending might not have been quite neccessary, the 'Hooray!' at the end shows you weren't completely serious.

Ah yes, and the Bush tax cuts didn't create the million jobs that they were predicted to. In fact, almost immedeately after each tax cut, about that number of jobs were LOST.

Yes, and that's all Clinton's fault. Of course.

I was trying to make fun of Canada. Its a bit hard to get tone across online I suppose
And the fact that rather then gain back lost money we would just slash are already abysmal army budget. Ever hear the Canadian joke about our navy consisting of two Frenchmen on a tug boat?

No, I can't say that I have, but maybe that's because Canada these days has a reputation for not going to war with people so I don't hear about their military very often.

'Sorry I misunderstood the intention of your first comment!

Oh! Or the one about the west edmonton mall having more submarines than the entire Canadian Navy?

(sorry, that was a bit of spam)

Read this.
See if you can't draw some similarity between it and the situation the US is in now.

Yes, the recession was caused by Clinton's economic policies. We all know this. Duh. Okay. we get the damn point. There's a big difference between enlightening us and trying to shove neo-conservativism down our throats.

I personaly have always thought of American politics as American football. WHile each team has the "ball" it tries to gain yardage against the other team. Now, I see it as baseball, with both teams trying to do the same thing (represented by crossing the plate) before the other team does it.

[spam]

You know why I think Canada doesn't go to war? Hockey. You can get your aggressions out on the ice and not take it out on other countries. I think that if Canada wanted to get rough with the Taliban or Saddam Heussein they could just have this major hockey game. I'm serious. It'll be more fun and a lot less expensive then bombing the hell out of their countries, not to mention the lack of innocent bystander deaths.

[/spam]

well lets talk about the economy in a fun way.

the oreo way.


enjoy.

The recession was not caused by Clinton.

Nor was it by Bush.

Anyone who's had even a basic class in economics can verify this:

The free market goes in cycles of booms and busts.

Where we are now is a bust. What Clinton had was the recovering bust before him that went to a boom, and was headed back into another bust as Bush took office.

If Bush stays in office after 2004 (and doesn't mess with anything further), we'll be in a boom again by the time the new elections happen in 2008.

So. In conclusion. This argument is pointless.

If we want a real theory of economics debate, break out the Keynsian versus Friedman stuff, and apply it to Bush's policies. That'll be fun. Except that people will just turn it into a Bush vs. The Liberals debate, which is losing its appeal pretty darn quick.

That may not be true anymore. When I was last in West Ed Mall, they didn't have so many working subs as they used to.

As to the Oreo way, I have had similar ideas, only with different tactics, like just cutting down on the unneccesaries, like lighting, more does need to be put into the education fund. The Oreo does sound good, just needs to be tweaked.

It certainly does put things in perspective when you see those piles of cookies doesn't it? I'd be interested in someone doing a similar thing for the UK, I wonder how ours pile up?

I'm very much with MissyA on the economy situation. While policies can have a limited/limiting effect, it's an unfortunate truth that capitalist economies do swing back and forth. While I don't necessarily blame Bush for the state of the US economy, I'm not sure he's doing as much as he could to help it recover either. Equally, it may be that Clinton made mistakes during his time in power that contributed towards this. Or it could be that no-one at all is to blame, rather it is just the natural flow of things, and frankly that does seem rather more likely.

Mmm... Cookies. And economic common-sense welfare solutions. At the same time. Yummy!

He got that cookie to break in half *perfectly*. Now, only if we could do that with spending as much as needed in those areas...

Never mind that. I think I'm just amazed he broke it in half perfectly. I could never do that.

Guaraldi, have you ever paid at visit to new york city, in manhatten? I did several months ago. there thou shalt find if thou seeketh it a large sign keeping track of the US national deficit (which was, frankly, a frightening number and which grew by the hundreds by the seconds). The interesting thing is that while Clinton was president, he eliminated the deficit. Now, anyone who's studies economy knows it goes through swings lasting generally 20 years, between economic prosperity and various levels of depression.

However, goverment money could be better spent. Around the same time I read an article in a newsletter stating that millions of dollars are spent by the Pentagon each year and no-one knows how they were spent, not even the Pentagon. It's not that it's classified; they honestly don't know when that money was wasted away. Well? When was it? Where did it go?

Yes, I've seen that board. That's one hell of a big number and it increases so fast... The US debt increase by half a million dollars while I popped into a coffee shop for a takeout latte and a danish... very scary...

Anyways, it's true what Missy says about the economy. If people spend too much, the economy gets overheated and needs to be slowed down a bit. I don't recall why this is such a bad thing, maybe it's something to do with the finite amount an economy can grow before it collapses on itself due to greedy investors pulling their money out once it's tripled or something. Conversely, during a slump, the economy needs protecting enough until a faint glimmer of recovery happens.

It's all about maintaining the balance. It's a constantly moving target and it's impossible to fiddle with interest rates on an hourly basis in order to keep things on an even keel. If they did change too much, who would bother investing? Who would borrow money? So we forever move between the two posts, and hope that whoever sets these rates makes a reasonable enough estimate to make sure it doesn't swing too far.

Anyway, GWB has as much control over the economy as Clinton. Or Blair. Or any politico. None. It's the banks that control the money, and ultimately they control the economy. Yeah, we have the finance ministers who tweak interest rates, but they only set the base rate - it's an idea of a figure that the banks choose to accept or ignore as they see fit. Banks make money (and hence boost the economy) by loaning money. If things need changing, they either loan money at very low rates during bust periods, or at extortionately high ones during booms. At boom times, people don't want to pay shedloads of interest, so they stop borrowing. It's the same deal with exchange rates; When a currency is low, people will buy into it. When it's hitting a peak, they sell.

The truth is, banks don't want a stable economy. Banks don't make money out of stability. They make money from wildly fluctuating exchange rates, fuelled by ever changing interest rates. Which, of course, also herald cash in the forms of loans and mortgages, not to mention their investments.

So no, I don't hold Bush responsible. I don't hold any politician responsible. This is one area they don't have control over.

I just want to throw in some Bush quotes here, replying to Mata's post for saying he is unsure of his intellect.. This is what we like to call "Bushisms"

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

"[W]hether they be Christian, Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu, people have heard the universal call to love a neighbor just like they'd like to be called themselves."—Washington, Oct. 8, 2003

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."—Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves."—Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

"I'm so pleased to be able to say hello to Bill Scranton. He's one of the great Pennsylvania political families."—Drexel Hill, Penn., Sept. 15, 2003

"My answer is bring them on."—On Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003

"I'm the master of low expectations."—Aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

"I think the American people—I hope the American–I don't think, let me—I hope the American people trust me."—Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2002

Anyway.. [/spam]

I really don't know many who blame the economy on Bush. Oh and on your topic definition, I believe it would be "sense"

some of you might find this bush song anim amusing. it's a music videoish thing for a nofx song. conservatives or the easily offended should avoid. warning: it makes a matazone anim download look like a bmw on the autobahn.
gee I love bushisms (at least blair sounds remotely intelligent whilest making assinine warmongering speeches). thanks for the laughs, spoon.


anyway, back to the economic issue, I agree, you cannot hold bush or any other politician or regime solely responsible, especially in capitalism. however, it may be said that although wars usually generate revenue and stimulate the economy, this war isn't. in fact, if anything, it has hurt economies wordwide. going by this trend of wars generating jobs and economic stability-- which has proved fairly constant over hundreds of years-- one must wonder why it proved wrong this time. if bush did not directly take an ax to the economy, then at the very least there was indirect damage.