Nope, he didn't. You know as well as I do there were a lot of backroom deals done for him to get more funding for the Iraq War. He got his funding, the dems got their spending pushed through. As the saying goes, politics makes for strange bedfellows.
I think the reaction by Bush was not helpful. What "should" have happened, is the bursting of the dot.com bubble should have been allowed to happen, and the washout should have been allow to happen in a more natural process. The housing bubble was just another bubble to stay the pain of the bursting dot.com bubble, and there were many to blame for the housing bubble, on every side of the aisle. The globalization without a plan for how that was going to impact American began with Reagan, and was followed by every other president. Greenspan was a much bigger devil than Bernanke, no question. The most important point, and the one that escapes most people, is the blame goes to everyone involved. We see nothing from DC but the blame game. One party just blames the other. Fruitless. If both sides said, it is our "collective fault" and now we need to work together in a cooperative manner to fix the problems...now that would be a move toward a solution. If the American people said collectively, it is "my fault" for not paying attention, for trusting blindly the politicians, for getting caught up in the greed wheel...and it is "my" responsibility to be part of the solution. If we are not part of the solution collectively, there will no resolution to the problems we collectively face (excluding the 2% that are above the problems, pulling the strings.)
I agree with those who say Bush essentially gave the surplus to the wealthy via the tax cuts. What I don't know is if he held the rate of government spending growth fairly constant, or if he increased the rate. Assuming the former, all he did was give the rich what they value more than balanced budgets. Assuming the latter, then yes, he was a bigger spender than his predecessors. I also agree with Tsing Tao, the financial crisis was a wake up call. Not sure the electorate learned the lesson though, gambling is a tough addiction to break, but as home prices are still stagnant or worse, they may learn.
As usual, and in the fullness of time, your posts in just about every thread devolve to genitalia and sexuality. I can only imagine what passes for family conversation in your household.
Seeing as how it's only me and the wife at home the conversation can get a bit juicy sometimes. Give women a try gayfly, you might even like them.
So blame doesn't go to just one party, does it? Blame should be shared, but that's not what pols do...they blame the other side.
Anyone familiar with the most basic of accounting principles would readily recognize that, given the spending amidst the sizeable tax cuts, the Chinese have essentially been funding Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. How was THAT not a wake up call? No, against the background of 8 full years of fiscal irresponsibility that apparently went largely unnoticed by the Right, I continue to believe that the historic election had a catalytic value in the whole uprising thing.
Bush did decrease revenues. Tax breaks for corporations and allowing they to avoid taxes did decrease revenues. Does anyone really believe Bush cared about cutting taxes more for the 98% or the 2%? It was not necessary to cut taxes for the wealthy. They would have survived quite nicely during the recession that followed the dot.com bubble bursting. Spending also did increase...two wars, department of homeland security, special breaks for oil companies...all under the rationalization of terrorism, and a need to avoid a deeper recession following the dot.com bubble bursting...and of course, the need on Wall Street for liquidity to prop up the market following the dot.com bubble bursting. Blame goes to everyone involved, which includes both parties, and the power brokers, special interests, etc. Here is another question that doesn't get asked, nor answered: With the end of the cold war, why wasn't our military budget slashed dramatically?
Clearly the electorate didnt learn the lesson, I dont like most dem politicians, but i think republicans are just as retarded...... They came in preaching that they would cut apart the deficit like hacksaw jim duggan.... then they offer out like 60 billion in spending cuts..... WTF?!!?!? Its a goddamn joke, until we get a guy like Christie in charge there will never be serious spending cuts, because all these politicians are pussies who are worried about getting re-elected. The funny thing about it all is that Christie is 1 of the most popular politicians for cutting spending drastically, and being open and blunt about it all and alot of these idiots in the republican party are still scared shitless that if they cut spending they will be voted out. <object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R9e8nPkT3rg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R9e8nPkT3rg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>