Skip to comments.Roubini: Bush Responsible for Economic Woes
Posted on 08/12/2011 4:04:17 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
In a clip from his interview with WSJ's Simon Constable, Dr. Nouriel Roubini insists that it was the policies of George W. Bush that caused the current U.S. economic crisis.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
And you believe this limousine liberal horsecrap?
Please, Obama’s term is nearly up, and he’s still trying to complain about how his inability to fix things is all the fault of his predecessor. Great men lead, weak men make excuses.
I think Bush deserves some blame, but 0bama deserves most of the blame.
This just proves that even well-educated people can turn stupid by their politics ...
Now go away
That would make a great tag line.....hint, hint ;)
I guess it’s Bush’s fault for adding another $5 Trillion to the US debt in the last years too - from his ranch in Texas.
Wrong Lefty, Rats took the House in the 06 Midterms and it was all down hill after that.
And this idiot is a “Dr”?
Yes, because the market takes eight years to react to economic policy. </sarc>
He wants another stimulus
Another America-hating foreigner heard from...taking U.S. investors’ money for bilge like this, of course.
I agree. Without Bush and his policies we would not have an Obama.
But. Getting FReepers to look past the "R" next to his name is pretty hard.
from Roubini’s bio:
“After moving to the United States Treasury Department as a senior adviser to Timothy Geithner, who is now Treasury Secretary.”...
Bush made some big mistakes but Roubini has to be a moron or a jackass not to note:
a/ Bush didn’t start the Fannie / Freddi BS, on the contrary, he repeatedly sent Treasury officials to beg Congress to STOP / SLOW DOWN THE MORTGAGE BS and Congress said “NO, we need more BS LOANS!”
b/ From 2006 it was a DEM CONGRESS.
c/ as others have noted Ø has tripled it in 2 years ALL ON HIS OWN / w/ a Dem Congress till 2010.
Either this video is highly edited or, Roubini, while getting credit for speaking out early on the impending housing market crash, is nothing but a hack.
O’Bummer is an absolute disaster, of course. One of the worst presidents in history. And that’s saying a lot.
But Bush’s complicity in big government grows more clear every day. Look at his awful education law. Obama is now using the hugely powerful Department of Education to stop school kids from bullying — just wait until the Department forces our neighborhood school to put homosexual students on a pedestal. And look at how the Atlanta teachers are breaking the law to help students cheat on the Bush tests.
All because Bush came up with his big government bureaucratic law. With the the compassionate fascist slogan of No Child Left Behind. Really? No child? No child anywhere? Thanks for Big Brother Bush, the education of all children are the now responsibility of the federal government!
Roubini worked with Geithner...........he’s part of the in-crowd.
I will never give the ramblings of this A-hole any consideration again. He’s totally demented Obama worshiper and leftist idiot.
Im not gonna watch this now .....what specific policies did GW Bush adopt that caused this mess?
Why isn’t the left admitting NCLB was Ted Kennedy’s law?
If one wants to get technical the economy took a dive in April of the year 2000 when Bill Clinton was still in office.
9-11 did not help. Ir has been up and down every since.
They revised all that for the elections.
Agreed. As much as Bush was a gentleman, he signed off on Medicare part D, did more than his fair share in enlarging the federal government (think Homeland Security/TSA), let the leftist media propaganda about Iraq and Afghanistan go unrebutted, and did not groom a viable Republican successor. Bush has alot of secondary blame to shoulder in our current state of affairs, IMO.
Senior Economist for International Affairs, White House Council of Economic Advisers, 1998-1999
Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for International Affairs; Director of the Office of Policy Development and Review (U.S. Treasury) , July 1999 June 2000
Advisor to the U.S. Treasury Department, July 2000 June 2001
Roubini is Egyptian and is a fraud.
It has been brewing since Roosevelt and topped off by Obama.
Look at the increase in gov’t “saving” under Obama and Dems from 2007-2010.
Let’s not forget that Bush did NOT VETO one spending bill. Heck, I don’t even remember him coming out and publicly calling for ANY spending cuts.
So you too bought the leftist BS?
Keep on swallowing it and see where you end up
i think Roubini is Persian. are you thinking of Mohammed el Erian?
Just because Bush had an R behind his name doesn't absolve him of his profound mistakes.
The undisputed facts are:
Average federal spending was a smaller share of the economy during the George W. Bush administration than during each of the Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Reagan administrations.
The same is true for taxes. Average federal taxes were a smaller share of the economy under our 43rd President than under our 40th, 41st, or 42nd.
Of the four, President Clintons deficits were smallest, almost entirely because his revenues were highest. President George W. Bush had the second-smallest deficits of the four.
The budget deficit during President Bushs tenure averaged two percent, below the fifty-year average of three percent.
My conclusions: Relative to the economy, the federal government was smaller during the Bush Administration than under any of its three predecessors, and his deficits were small by historic standards.
Yes, federal spending increased over President Bushs tenure. The biggest increases were for defense and homeland security. While critics often focus on the $50 billion in increased Medicare spending for drugs in 2008, they ignore the much larger $350 billion in increased baseline Social Security and Medicare spending from 2000 to 2008. President Bush took political risks to propose specific changes to significantly slow the growth of both Social Security and Medicare spending. These proposals were largely ignored by Congress.
And yet even at its highest point during the Bush tenure, spending as a share of GDP was still lower than the lowest year of the Reagan Administration. Should we give Reagan credit for the slight decline and blame Bush for the increase, or should we say the Bush years were better because government was smaller?
I wish that we (in the Bush Administration) had been enable to convince multiple Congresses to enact more of the spending cuts proposed by President Bush. While President Bushs critics frequently remind us of his decision to fulfill a campaign promise to add a drug benefit to Medicare, they forget or ignore his important fiscal policy moves in the other direction. President Bush vetoed the second farm bill; that veto was overridden. President Bush twice vetoed bills unnecessarily increasing spending for childrens health insurance. President Bush repeatedly proposed hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare and Medicaid savings, only to find these proposals routinely ignored by Congress. President Bush proposed a long-term budget neutral drug benefit plus Medicare reform package to House and Senate Republican leaders in 2003. Those leaders supported the drug benefit but rejected the savings from the aggressive structural reforms. President Bush received little support for Social Security reform proposals that would have significantly addressed our long-term entitlement spending problem. If you dont like the net spending increases during President Bushs tenure, ask why Congress so often resisted the Presidents proposals to cut spending.
I'm pretty sure he's Turkish.
I'm pretty sure he's Turkish.
Which goes to prove that you can be a “doctor” AND a moron at the same time.
see #36 for a little more light on it all
i see he was born to Persian Jewish parents in Istanbul, moving to Iran, later to Israel.
Dr. Nouriel Roubini insists that it was the policies of George W. Bush that caused the current U.S. economic crisis.
thanks for the reminder, that’s why I go to FR...
I think what he is saying at the end is Obama has not had enough Stimulus not too much
I find him hard to listen to though
Actually, these a-holes should take a look...
Let's not forget the Community Reinvestment Act with sub-prime mortgages, Fannie and Freddie that Bush tried to rein in.
These past 3 years, the people were tuned in, more so than ever before. Obama, all his twitter stuff, all his greek pillars, all his speaches are falling short. Words are just that, words. His actions spoke louder than anything he said. And we saw who is is. He’s worse than Carter, us old codgers are onto him, and we’re spreading the word to our kids. They can trash the tea party all they want. We’re immune.
Liberty baby. It will win every time it’s challenged. We don’t care. F them. He can raise 100 billion dollars. It won’t matter. They threw the entire fed dem party at Wisconsin, 35 million bucks, and we beat them. Why? We know the outcome, we could care less about their commie message. We don’t want their message, and we won’t live their message. We can spend a hundred dollars and the conservatives will win. I hope this is the end of the progressive movement. We need to put a nail in this coffin.
Responsibility. We’re the grown ups. We will prevail.
He must not have gotten the memo from the DNC stating that everything bad is now the TEA Party's fault.
The explanation is so devoid of creativity that it sounds like he’s sticking to very rigidly programmed talking points; it sounds like an alibi, not an explanation. I was going to ask who he’s covering for, but you answered it. The banality of evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.