Question:
why does george bush get blamed for the CRISIS?
eja123
2009-03-10 11:56:59 UTC
read this before you answer it is short
and i want EVIDENCE, not just what you say

back in clinton administration the government SUED banks and FORCED the banks to give loans out to people who could never pay the loans back

why they did that, I have no idea.


the poor people and minorities that got these loans could not pay them back, just like the banks told the government, but the banks were sued for being racists


so how is that bush's fault, are you guys saying that George Bush controlled Bill Clinton??????
25 answers:
JudgeStan
2009-03-10 12:08:55 UTC
You are in denial. You don't really want evidence as you are already making an argument that requires a suspension of belief and common sense.



Bush gets the credit because he was President 8 years with his own party in Congress for 6 of that. If these policies you complain of existed, then Bush had plenty of time to fix it. Of yeah, he increased dereg. And to blame poor people and minorities for the INTERNATIONAL credit crisis doesn't pass the smell test. It reminds me of Repubs blaming Jimmy Carter for 20 years after he left office for the state of the economy. Repubs have a long history of breaking the bank and then blaming everyone but themselves. The shoe fits, wear it; or don't plan on regaining power.
missyboo_79
2009-03-10 12:10:03 UTC
While it may be true that some things went on during the clinton administration that may have set up a bad situation for the housing market, it is only a small portion of our current problem. We are in quite a lot of debt, and a lot of it stems from the unending costs of the war. President Bush decided to cut everyone's taxes, but started up a war that has cost this country dearly, and not just with money but countless lives lost. When you don't have the income necessary to pull off such a large scale war (ie tax money from the people), you run the country's dollar into the ground. You print money and devalue the dollar. Inflation soars and the cost for basic things like food skyrocket. People's salaries surely did not keep up, did it?



Bush racked up quite a large bill, and now the new administration is stuck with the horrible mess. At least Clinton had enough sense to raise taxes to get some money flowing through the government. That is where Bush will be held responsible, for his careless spending without adequate funds. It had quite a huge hand in why we are currently in the situation we are in right now.



Greenspan also has a hand in it as well by lowering the rates and keeping them too low after 9/11. In the end it's just not one person who was involved, but many things aligned at the right time to put us in a horrible position. Many people are to blame. But I believe Bush is more to blame than the others.



Oh and by the way, banks weren't forced to do anything. They were greedy and selfish and saw they could make a buck off of these people, and they chose to lend to subpar people. Look where it got them, right? Clinton did not force that, banks greedily accepted it and made so much money. But the cash cow had to die sometime, and it did at the worst time ever: during the Iraq war when spending was out of control.
2009-03-10 12:17:57 UTC
National debt is the amount of money owed by the government, an idea which Alexander Hamilton came up with way back in the day, and a deficit is the amount of money that exceeds revenue. So although the national debt was higher when Clinton was in office, there wasn't a deficit.

One can't really blame Clinton because the economy was in a surplus when he left office. The national debt is different than a national deficit. When Bush left office, we were (and still are) in a deficit of about $482 billion. He spent tens of billions of dollars on the Iraq War, which went against the advice of the UN, and in his first year in office Bush passed $1.35 trillion in tax cuts. And due to Bush's trade regulations with China, we currently owe them $600 billion dollars. We import more from then than we export to, well, anywhere.

As for whether spending or tax cuts/loans caused the deficit, it pretty much depends on who you want to blame. However, data from the Congressional Budget Office claims that tax cuts during the Bush administration were the major culprits.

I just want to let you know that I'm not trying to offend your political views, but am just responding to the question. Take care!
Rick
2009-03-10 12:07:25 UTC
Thats NOT AT ALL what happened during the clinton admin banks were sued by individals because they were minoritys herein cleveland ohio Charter one bank refused thousands of loans for minority small businesses without cause they sued the banks first and once investigated the goverment then sued to force these banks to give loans to those deemed worthy banks got pissy and just started handing loans to anyone that walked in the door because the a assured money returned though fdic insurance banks were sued because OF THEIR actions deemed racist the problems now are NOT those of clinton it is the republicans looking the other way while rich took advantage of poor american dreamers looking for their piece of the american dream
2016-10-30 18:19:20 UTC
i think of GW replaced right into a bad president. I additionally think of he replaced into an unlucky president who basically got here approximately to be in place of work while the chickens got here living house to roost. The chickens being deregulation, tax cuts which frequently went to the wealthy, a sequence of extreme priced and not very clever wars. i think of the two Kerry or Gore could have been a greater powerful president than the two Bush, yet they could have had to strive against with a number of those comparable chickens hatched with the help of alternative presidents.
J D
2009-03-10 12:01:51 UTC
First of all, I think the blaming the poor people and the minorities is a smoke screen that the politicians know we Americans will eat up like peanut butter.



Further, even though Bush was certainly not the cause of all problems, he did very little if nothing to fix them when he saw it coming and even denied their existence. He was so obsessed with getting more power and useless side issues, he ignored the looming crisis.



That's why.



J
wooper
2009-03-10 12:01:49 UTC
So let's get this straight. Anything bad that happened in the 8 years of Bush is Clintons fault. And anything bad that happens beginning the day after Bush leaves office is Obama's fault.



It's really hard to argue with logic like that.



Except for the fact that you do not accept any accountabilty for the Bush admiinstration.



Grow up.
Dave87gn
2009-03-10 12:03:33 UTC
That is such HORSESHT that the GOP keeps putting out there. Yeah the democrats made these poor banks give bad loans



It was a whole culture of greed, completley enabled by govt deregulation that allowed these wall street guys to steal money on a grand scale



wake up
2009-03-10 12:01:20 UTC
The only evidence i need is him being in office for the last decade. The economy doesnt get affected by actions that occured 9 years ago, it gets affected by the inaction that has taken place the last 8. Truth hurts, bush was a terrible president, one of the worst.
2009-03-10 12:01:07 UTC
They knew about it and could of fixed it, but wall street was making billions on these loans. True Clinton started the fire but Bush sat and watched it get out of control.
2009-03-10 12:07:02 UTC
President Bush inherited record surpluses. When President Bush took office, the federal budget had been balanced for three consecutive years and was on track to balance again in 2001. We hadn't seen such a string of surpluses since the 1920s.



In Fiscal Year 2000, we had a surplus of $236 billion, the largest surplus in American history.



We were not only running a surplus in the unified budget, we were running an on-budget surplus. We were no longer diverting the Social Security Trust Fund surplus to fund other government programs.



In 1999 and 2000, we saved every penny of the surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund. We expected to do so again in 2001. In 1998, we had saved part of those surpluses.



This ended decades of diverting the entire surplus to fund other government programs.



These surpluses were not a temporary phenomenon. The surpluses were expected to continue for the next decade, and beyond.



A total of $5.6 trillion in surpluses were projected for the next decade, Fiscal Years 2002-2011. This included the entire $2.5 trillion Social Security surplus over that decade.



This achievement came at the right time, just when we needed to prepare for the upcoming retirement of the baby boom generation.



These surpluses allowed us to reduce the national debt, putting us in a better position to honor our promise to Social Security beneficiaries.



The Bush fiscal reversal. President Bush took office and quickly turned things around, for the worse.



In 2001, President Bush and a Republican Congress again diverted some of the Social Security surpluses for other purposes. Nevertheless, we still managed to run an overall budget surplus of $127 billion that year.



By 2002, we were back in deficit, to the tune of $158 billion.



In 2003, the deficit soared to $375 billion, its highest level ever.



Deficits matter. The Bush budget deficits will have a real impact on the economy and future taxpayers.



As the economy picks up steam, private businesses will have to compete with the federal government for a limited supply of funds. This will increase interest rates and reduce the amount of investment capital available for new and growing businesses.



Future taxpayers will have to pay higher taxes in order to pay interest on the growing national debt. When President Bush took office, the public debt was shrinking and projected to effectively disappear by 2009. Under his current budget, debt held by the public will reach $7.3 trillion by 2014.



Interest payments will also increase, from $153 billion last year to $374 billion in 2014. Future taxpayers will have to pay those interest bills.



The deficits are not temporary. Under the Bush's budget, according to the CBO, we will run deficits every year for the next decade and will remain near $300 billion.



The actual deficits are likely to be higher still as the estimates do not include any costs for the war on terrorism beyond this year. Nor do they account for the costs of addressing the growing burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax.



The recession, terrorist attacks, and operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have all contributed to the deficit in the short term. But addressing these problems did not require the permanent deficits that President Bush has created.



The major reason we are experiencing permanent deficits is the Bush's tax cuts, which have brought revenues down to their lowest level since 1950, as a share of the economy.



Indeed, the CBO baseline, which assumes the tax cuts are temporary, shows budget surpluses returning soon after the tax cuts sunset. On the other hand, if we adopt the President's proposals, the deficits would remain in place indefinitely.



Bush and the GOP Congress worked to worsen deficits. Bush and congressional Republicans have declined to take action to respond to our deteriorating fiscal outlook. Republicans tout budgets that reduce the deficit in half. But that goal is only reached by leaving out significant costs and providing numbers for only the next five years rather than the customary ten years.



It would be charitable to describe the Republican budgets as neglecting the deficit problem. The reality is far worse. The deficit reduction in the Bush's budgets and both the House and Senate budget resolutions results from a falling budget baseline.
2009-03-10 12:04:07 UTC
Because there must be a satan and a Christ. Christ is responsible for everything that is good and satan is responsible for everything that is bad. In Obamacism, the chosen messianic figure is Obama who must be unerringly found to be virtuous in all instances or else the religion starts to crack from the weight of truth. The role for Bush, ironically, is to cleanse Obama of his sins.
Baked Toaster Strudel
2009-03-10 12:02:57 UTC
George Bush did 911, he put secret messages in the money and sent it to a bunch of Jews who sent remote controlled planes at the WTC. WANT PROOF, FINE HERE: LIKE PLANE FUEL CANNOT BRING DOWN A BUILDING, MANY INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED LIKE WTC AND NONE OF THE PREVIOUS BUILDINGS COLLAPSED!!!



MORE PROOF? WHY DID ALL THE JEWS LEAVE THE WTC BEFORE THE ATTACKS???



MORE PROOF? http://www.linkydinky.com/20billsecrets.shtml



I COULD SAY MORE LIKE THE FBI NOT RELEASING CAMERA FOOTAGE OR PEOPLE SEEING MISSILES ETC. BUT THAT SHOULD SPEAK FOR ITSELF!!!
Ally
2009-03-10 12:01:45 UTC
The overall population doesn't really like him so they try to blame him for stupid things like what the Clinton Administration did. I feel bad for Bush even though he wasn't the best president.

~hope this helps
Busy Lady 2010
2009-03-10 12:02:07 UTC
The Democrats are to blame for it all.

Look around you'll see the answers.



What did the USA do? They voted in another Democrat.
Stephanie D
2009-03-10 12:01:01 UTC
B-kuz people are always mean 2 old guyss!!!!And ppl always hav to blame some 1 so they go 4 the old guys!
NewBeginning
2009-03-10 12:01:05 UTC
Wow! Your racism really shines through! You are an angry Bush voter and another reason I am happy to be rid of that criminal.
Joe_D
2009-03-10 12:01:02 UTC
Because he distracted the nation, ran up spending, didn't see the crisis, or didn't do anything to prevent it from happening.
skatergirl1743
2009-03-10 12:01:15 UTC
Exactly!!! Finally, someone agrees with me! Sometimes I think the president just becomes someone to blame, so that others feel better. He was such a classy president, especially with all the crap he took...
00mar7
2009-03-10 12:05:01 UTC
i thought bush was a good president.. he had to much **** on his hand for one guy to handle.. like the attack in america.. katrina..political ****.. and what not..

hate democrates.. with their gay passing laws..



well the reason why we doing bad.. is because 9/11 happen.. most of our resources where establish there..

people of america... wanted to kick/kill some *** for the people who died in 9/11/.. people wanted war.. so now were paying for it..

BUT NOW I HAVE NO PRESIDENT..
2009-03-10 11:59:58 UTC
oui bien merci et vu?
cheyanne
2009-03-10 12:01:00 UTC
cliton got the us out of dept bush sent us to war so that he could get oil need i say more...
2009-03-10 12:00:28 UTC
Probably because he's f*cked up everything else he's ever attempted? Research his background.
underwater
2009-03-10 12:01:02 UTC
dont you know?this isthw end
2009-03-10 12:00:23 UTC
eh...

people


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...