but wait a second, Bush apparently didn't need the congress or senate to go to war...well he might have needed their approval, but he didn't ask for it. So I'm just wondering what difference does it make which party has the majority seat. Meaning, If we go by Bush's example the president clearly doesn't need any of the other executive branches in D.C. I've been noticing a lot of people blaming Obama for the current economy but none of their reasoning is rational. He inherited the recession (Unlike Bush who inherited a surplus then turned it into the worst economy since the G.D.) I should probably stick to talking green instead of politics, i mean i can see it from both sides, but i'm not going to pretend it's due to the political shift in congress. IMO It's clearly due to the greedy self-serving executives that were shuffling invisible money around. And the mass populous of Americans that are living incredibly beyond their means can share some of the blame too.
What most people don't realize is that economics is a living thing. With the stock market, trading, businesses, and inflation there are multiple things going on simultaneously....
Right now the people 'blaming' Obama are blaming him for the future of the economy not the present. If they are blaming him for the present then they're not that bright.
Here's how it works ... Dems like to spend A LOT .. Clinton did it and the money circled around providing for growth in a fairly stable post war economy, taxes went up but the money kept going around.
Bush Jr, cut a serious ammount of Tax dollars out of the coffers and still spent, far more than Clinton ever did. He cut taxes for the people who don't spend, they invest and/or save. Those with multi-millions tend to spend less as they really don't 'need' so they invest to increase their money.
Bush 'broke' the rules with his methodology. Reps are supposed to be cut and reduce expenses. Dems are tax and spend. Both have their merrits, but the bottom line is that the recession we're in goes back to Regan and possibly before. We were headed for a REALLY bad recession comming out of the 70's. Reganomics provided a band aid that allowed people to keep eating, but didn't really 'solve' any of the problems. Bush Sr. fired up the war machine and re-allocated money to Desert Storm and military production, which is ultimately good for the economy. Clinton came in and increased taxes on the stupid rich (and a little on everyone else) and spent a lot of money on initatives. The dot com bubble again prevented the decline left over from the 70's from slipping. However under Clinton things like Enron went fairly unregulated and they 'falsified' monies with their reports so there was a 'false economy' occuring because of Enron and corporations like their ilk. When the dot com bubble burst the decline accellerated and effected Real Estate. Bush Jr, cut AND spent meaning less money in circulation. The result is that the crash of the 70's didn't hit until the 2000's. Now Obama is in office trying to do a patch job of 30 years of bad ideas. He's doing what Clinton did, but unless there's another 'dot com' that comes along it will only float for a while and possibly continue to decline.
Is Obama the problem, or was it Regan? Actually in reality it's the natural ups and downs of a living system like economics. The artificial meddling done by the government only prolongs the process to the point where eventually the true crash that happens is going to be VERY bad, worse than the great depression.
Inflationary spending doesn' help the situation which is what Bush did and to a degree what Obama is doing as it devalues the dollar. There will come a point where there's no value left in money. It happened in Mexico not too long ago. In 1992 a pack of cigarettes was a little over 2000 pesos, which equated to $1.25. They corrected by restructuring their money. This didn't solve their economic problems, but forstalled the inevitable again.
As prices rise we'll feel pain while we wait for salaries to catch up. The day will come a pack of smokes is hundreds of dollars and the average salary is in the $300,000 range and that will equal a 40K a year job today. It will get to the point of absolutely stupid and then we'll crash and crash VERY hard. Much worse than the great depression and it will be very global.
If the governments would get out of the business of money and the free market were allowed to correct itself then we'd have low highs and high lows and less of these major lows and major highs. So it's not one party or another but governmental philosophies that don't really address the issue and simply prolong the problem.
-RT76