What Would Bush (or McCain) Do?

[Bravus]

I've asked this numerous times, to deafening silence and zero replies.

There have been plenty of criticisms of Obama's stimulus bill, but to me it doesn't look dramatically different from the Bush stimulus package that preceded it.

So tell me: had McCain won the election, what would he have done? Had the election been timed differently and Bush been in office, what would he have done?

Not wishlists, or what you would do - your best realistic set of assumptions, based on their policies and beliefs and past actions, of what they would actually do in this economic crisis.

[Key Guy]

My take

1. Bush signed the first stimulus bill before the election and, in fact, signed a previous 'stimulus'-type bill (which returned to us $600) sometime last winter, I believe.

2. McCain howled, but voted for the autumn stimulus, I believe.

3. I personally did not want ANY stimulus bill, preferring instead to have the gov't stay out of private enterprise. They should have done that long before, which helped set up the disaster we're in now.

4. "This bill didn't look 'dramatically different'": Really? How about earmarks by the hundreds, totaling billions of dollars that we don't have? How about steps toward socialized medicine in this bill? What about the establishment of even more federal departments, growing more gov't than ever before. I could go on, but you see what I mean. As much as I don't like the previous bills, this current one takes socialism to a whole new level. It's dramatically different, all right.

5. Although the bill would not have been as bad, sadly, I do believe there would have been a similar bill passed with either Bush or McCain. Why? They are both politicians, unwilling to stand against congress, our collection of money hungry sows. Do you realize how few times Bush vetoed anything that hit his desk? Reagan's veto pen ran out of ink! (not literally).

6. In the Bush and in the McCain primaries, I didn't vote for either of them, preferring a more conservative candidate. But once they were selected, you bet I voted for them... I easily saw the alternative. I simply voted for the better of the choices. It didn't mean they were the best for the job of all the candidates. It hurts me to say these things.

7. Someone like Alan Keyes or Lamar Alexander (who never had a chance) would have stood firmly for the best of this country (and still do).

8. Summary: Obama was the worst choice. He's dramatically different.

[Gerr]

Bush and McCain would do the same thing but probably not to the same scale. Bush tried to stimulate the economy earlier in '08 with, if I recall, either $50 bil or was it $150 bil? That stimulus money didn't do anything because it was all sucked out to China, Korea, Japan, and from wherever else we import the stuff we now buy. It seems that Washington has become addicted to gov't Keynesian stimuli whenever the economy goes south. That's why I didn't vote for either one in the past election. To me, from an economic policy standpoint, Obama & McCain were just tweedledee and tweedledum.

I am not an economist, but common sense tells me that no one, including the gov't, can keep on living on prosperity based on debt. The reason I'm skeptical that this massive stimulus is going to work is this: After each economic orgasm (boom), comes the inevitable resolution [downturn/recession]. Since no president wants to be caught in a prolonged recession, the inevitable stimulus comes again. Pardon the metaphor, but just like sex, you can only do that for so long. That's why I'm pessimistic about this massive stimulus. It is possible it will work in the short term, but the interest alone on the national debt will have reached the point where it will suck out so much of the federal budget that there will be little else left to cover expenses for all the gov't programs.

The solution? A more painful but slower pace of recovery where the gov't has to be weaned off debt. They all promise to cut the deficit and balance the budget by such and such a time. But how many times has that happened?

[Key Guy]

Quote:

The solution? A more painful but slower pace of recovery where the gov't has to be weaned off debt. They all promise to cut the deficit and balance the budget by such and such a time. But how many times has that happened?

All true. I cannot operate my business or home for very long running a deficit, the gov't cannot either. Everybody wants to avoid the inevitable pain but that's just gonna make the pain worse.

The medicine is nasty. The disease is worse.

[Woody]

I've asked this numerous times, to deafening silence and zero replies.

There have been plenty of criticisms of Obama's stimulus bill, but to me it doesn't look dramatically different from the Bush stimulus package that preceded it.

So tell me: had McCain won the election, what would he have done? Had the election been timed differently and Bush been in office, what would he have done?

Not wishlists, or what you would do - your best realistic set of assumptions, based on their policies and beliefs and past actions, of what they would actually do in this economic crisis.

The answer to this is very simple. Just watch the news and listen to what McCain is saying. Two words ...

No earmarks

With McCain there would be a line item veto also. This way ... the pork fest that the Demos are having would be eliminated. McCain and the republicans want responsibility. IOWs ... if you want some expenditure ... it has to stand on it's own merits and you will have to go on record for supporting it. Simple.

No More Pork

Obama promised that he would stop this practice during the campaign but now is thick into promoting it. What a shame.

[Neil D]

Quote:

With McCain there would be a line item veto also. This way ... the pork fest that the Demos are having would be eliminated. McCain and the republicans want responsibility. IOWs ...

[cough, cough] You say that YOU want RESPONSIBILITY??????

Then you had better talk to your fellow republicans...My sources tell me that between the two parties, there was a near equal dollar amount of pork put in the last bill. Each party put in, personally, about the same amount of pork spending...

The problem is that your "responsible" republican friends are fewer than the Dems...Hence they spend MORE person than the Dems do...And you say you want "responsiblity".....

[Neil D]

I cannot operate my business or home for very long running a deficit, the gov't cannot either. Everybody wants to avoid the inevitable pain but that's just gonna make the pain worse.

The medicine is nasty. The disease is worse.

I keep hearing this arguement, but I keep wondering whether we are comparing apples to apples here or are we comparing apples to squash....A country has the right to set a value on it's currency....a family cannot...Hence, the arguement is not the same...and therefore, disingenious...

[Woody]

You asked what McCain wanted and what he would do ... I just reported what he has been preaching to the public the last few days on the 'news'.

[Woody]

BTW ... WHO is two faced?

Who said one thing in the campaign and now is doing totally different?

[Neil D]

Yeah, well, you can vote ONE person out of office, which I know you are planing to do...but I am talking about a GROUP of people, whose philosophy, you have sold your soul for hook, line and sinker.

The amount of pork money per group is more per republican than for democrat....Your party, who preaches spendthrifting, non-pork-in-the-bills, is taking people like you for a ride and getting high off YOUR taxes. Congratulations, Redwood.

[Dr. Shane]

Given that either Bush or McCain would have been working with a Democrat Congress I think they would have done pretty much the same thing. The edge dressing would have been different but it would have been the same. Bush did this on smaller scale after 9/11 so we pretty much have a historical record that answers this question. We must also remember that the President is influenced a lot by the Federal Reserve so regardless who is in there a lot of what they are going to do is going to be the same.

If a real conservative like Newt Gingrich was President, then we would likely see something a lot different.

[Gerr]

Remember Newt's contract with America? They had the White House and both houses of Congress. Did Newt deliver? No! He broke my heart!

[Woody]

I agree with you Gerry. Newt didn't deliever. But I don't fault him. I just think that America didn't get behind his good ideas. He tried but failed yes.

[Dr. Shane]

Newt did deliver. They read the Contract with American every day at the beginning of COngress for the first 100 days. They went down it item by item. Imagine if all politicians addressed all their promises like that.

[Neil D]

Gerry, you want to say this or shall I...?

[Woody]

The question of this thread is What would Bush or McCain do?

Well .... we can only guess. But we do know what Bama is doing and it ain't workin'. The market is loudly saying that. Just since Bama has taken office ... the market has dropped 20%. That is huge. The market is one that anticipates. And they are anticipating that what Obama is doing ... is not helpful.

[Neil D]

Let's see....Obama has been in office...how many weeks?

And how long did it take for the economic problems to come to fruition on Bush's watch? And you want it correccted how soon????

Come on, Redwood...You're hatred for Obama is showing again...

[Dr. Shane]

Remember Newt's contract with America? They had the White House and both houses of Congress.

This is incorrect. The Republicans never had the White House when Newt was Speaker of the House. Newt left Congress when Bush was elected President.

[Dr. Shane]

how long did it take for the economic problems to come to fruition on Bush's watch?

It took a lot longer than Bush's watch.

[Neil D]

MOst of the activity happened on Bush's watch, and what makes him far more culpable is that he attempted, very weakly, to slow the problem....People in his administration KNEW it was going to happen, Bernicke being one of them, and tried to raise an alarm....but the cronies kept saying that it was alright and not worth the effort....and Bush listened to them...and gave up his efforts to reform the problems...early...

[Dr. Shane]

The Federal Reserve deserves the most blame for what happened. The Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to all time lows. Interest is the price we pay for money. When the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates they are making money cheap. That resulted in the housing boom. Money was cheap so everyone wanted to buy or build a bigger and better house. Money is still cheap but because of Wall Street falling so far and so fast it is in short supply.

So the low interest rates created an artificial boom in the housing market.

In addition to that was the sub-prime loans being made. This is where the Washington politicians looked the other way. Democrat Barney Frank said, if it an't broke don't fix it, when the issue of additional oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack came up. The sub-prime loans allowed poor people, especially minorities, to get loans to buy a home. That contributed to the artificial boom in the housing market that was created by the low interest rates.

The Bush Administration was involved in the mess undeniably. However so was all the other politicians in Washington. To only point fingers and Bush and say "it happen on his watch" is very disingenuous. The house of cards fell down on his watch but it had been being built for years before Bush made it to Washington. If we want to point fingers and assign blame I think Alan Greenspan deserve much more that G.W Bush.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Remember Newt's contract with America? They had the White House and both houses of Congress.

This is incorrect. The Republicans never had the White House when Newt was Speaker of the House. Newt left Congress when Bush was elected President.

You're right. But the Reps had both houses. They could have done a lot more if they were really serious.

[there buster]

They brought every item on the Contract to a vote. Dems opposed, and had more than enough to filibuster in the Senate. Republicans under Newt balanced the budget. Later, they blew it. But under Newt, they balanced it, despite Clinton's resistance.

[Dr. Shane]

Newt was the most powerful Speaker of the House since the Civil War. One might remember that the Constitution gives the purse strings to Congress. Most of the time Congress allows the President to direct the budget because he has the bully pulpit. It is not the President's job to manage the budget. That is why it is such a joke when people try to credit Clinton with balancing the budget. Congress holds the purse strings. If the budget is ever balanced it is because of Congress.

The only way a President could balance the budget is if he got the line-item veto. The Newt Gingrich Congress gave Clinton the line-item veto but the Supreme Court took it away because they said it was a violation of the separation of powers. It took power away from Congress and gave it to the President. So it comes back to the fact that only Congress can balance the budget.