Skip to main content

The newest job figures are even worse than people had originally feared. US employers shed 80,000 jobs in March, Labor Department figures have shown, in the latest sign that the US economy may be falling into recession.

I think a great deal of what we're now seeing can be attributed to George W. Bush's economic policies and the impunity with which the Haves are able to lord over the Have-Nots. It may lead to short term benefits but the system is inherently flawed. We are now seeing the consequences of predatory lenders, credit card bankruptcy reform, a tax code that preys on the working class for the benefit of the few, the outrageous spending and national debt and the weakening of the U.S. dollar.

Am I putting to much blame on a President for our country's economic woes? I don't claim to be a well versed economist but I think that his administration's policies have had an unusually high impact.

A report on the most recent job figures -

and here is a segment on the ripple effect the U.S. economic woes are having on immigrant workers and other countries:

Originally posted to PDonaldson on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:00 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  right and wrong (8+ / 0-)

    Bush will get blamed and that is good, but don't imagine removing him will solve the problem - it's systemic.

    •  Partly (9+ / 0-)

      Markets don't respond well to lack of transparency. Even a slightly less secretive administration will help restore some confidence.

      Also, while part of the problem is poor regulation, part of the problem is that current regulations aren't enforced.

      Getting rid of Bush should fix both of those, and thus 15-30% of the problem.

      "The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're gonna have a lot more wars."

      by slaney black on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:09:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  More or less (7+ / 0-)

      I have two close friends who are active traders on Wall Street. Greed and incompetence are running unchecked.

      Also, both are furious about the bailout for Bear Stearns. Since Bush appointed Bernanke, he definitely deserves some of the blame. However, the system in place that has allowed this to come to pass could have been reined in by Bush, but he refused. So, he's definitely failed to lead, which is his job. So, basically, he is responsible.

      But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor. (1776)

      by banjolele on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:12:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Subprime ripoff is Bush's version of S&L ripoff (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        0hio, Stranded Wind

        Subprime served at least two purposes for the Bush admin. 1. Kept the economy afloat while we were ripped off for the occupation of Iraq and obscene oil profits. 2. Allowed a direct rip off of investors, home buyers and now, taxpayers by organized crime, Bush's base. The S&L thieves were GHWBush's base.

        "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony 1896

        by Everbody on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:33:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You are probably right (7+ / 0-)

      I've always been told that Presidents have very little impact on the U.S. economy and I do grant that a great deal of things have been trending downhill long before George W. Bush came to power.

      However, I can't help but look at the Tax Cuts alone and fear for the consequences. The U.S. appears to be willfully heading towards third world status in the sense that we'll have a class based hereditary society (estate tax gone for now, too) in which the working class have no sense of collectiveness with the ruling class.

      One President may not be able to single-handedly usher us into such a dark era but this one seems hell bent on trying.

      •  I see very little (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        corvo, Pris from LA, Stranded Wind keep the U.S. from falling into third world status right now.

        We are ALWAYS underdogs. The other side has infinite funds, skulduggery, domination of the media and legal system, and an electoral college advantage.

        by Bronx59 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:41:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  third world? (0+ / 0-)

          You've never been to a third world country. We'll take a tumble, but not that far. We've got infrastructure that needs a little help, the rule of the law that needs a little spiffing up after the Bush years, and then off we go. If we can avoid triggering an Anglo/Hispanic civil war (more Republican stupidity) we should do OK, well, how does "At least as well as the rest will do." instead?

          •  Violent response to decline is the big danger (0+ / 0-)

            I consider it more likely than not.  

            We are ALWAYS underdogs. The other side has infinite funds, skulduggery, domination of the media and legal system, and an electoral college advantage.

            by Bronx59 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:17:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Yes, it is Bush's fault (7+ / 0-)

    It's his fault for awarding the key positions in government responsible for oversight and regulation of our financial sector to people who were not qualified to hold them, to people who hate government and regulation and who believe that the market will always fix itself.

    The more you study this, the more you learn that as far as the economy goes, we basically haven't had any government for the past 8 years. "Go regulate yourself, or not, whatever you like" was the attitude. So, in a sense, yes it's his fault because there were warnings about all this and his people refused to listen.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:12:26 AM PDT

  •  Bush and Rove implemented conservative policies (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ExStr8, corvo, nytcek, Pris from LA

    full tilt, this is the result.  This is where lopsided tax cuts have gotten us, this is where unbalanced spending, heavy on military, light domestically have gotten us.  This is conservatism in all it's glory.  Conservatives would like to tell us that it was not conservatism that failed but how George W Bush implemented it.  George Bush implemented conservatism exactly how conservatives wanted him to implement conservatism, and with their enthusiastic support and encouragement.

    "You may be on the right track, but if you sit still, you'll get run over" Will Rogers

    by gaspare on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:18:19 AM PDT

  •  Blame him, yes, but (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ExStr8, corvo, Pris from LA

    he has achieved precisely what he (and his cronies/pals) wanted.  Generating economic busts enables the economic elites to buy (at firesale prices) the properties the middle class has acquired.  To concentrate wealth it is periodically necessary to break the middle class.  

    They (the financial/political oligarchs) don't want us to be secure, to own our homes.  They want us to be as dependent as possible.  They want us fearful and subject to manipulation.

    In the "recovery" these elites will sells us (the middle class) back (at a profit) everything we owned before the bust.  When we reach a certain threshold of stability they will bust us again.  

    It's what they do.  It is a conspiracy.  They are not our friends.

  •  Not to play devil's advocate, but... (0+ / 0-)

    The recession at the start of the Bush Presidency...who was to blame for that one?

    Or the one in 1981-1982?

    This one is all under Bush's watch, and driven largely by a combination of the White House and congressional policies, which were essentially dictated by Bush.

    Those previous two examples are a little more complicated, becauase as has been stated, these things are systemic.

    If Presidential dictates are to blame for recessions, then the one that started in March 2001 has to be laid at the feet of Bill Clinton, in that Bush wasn't around long enough to do the damage by that point.

    Agree? Disagree?

    I'm not making this argument in an effort to tear down the Clinton economic legacy, or HRC in any way, I'm just looking for logical consistancy.

    I still haven't made up my mind about how much a President and his administration can be blamed for specific instances of economic trouble, generally speaking.

    •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pmukh, Pris from LA

      The recession at the start of the Bush Presidency...who was to blame for that one?

      This is certainly less a matter of "who" than of "what," namely the bursting of the tech bubble.  Could Clinton have done more to soften that blow?  Perhaps.  But his fiscal policies didn't create and abet that bubble.  The same cannot be said about Bush with regard to what we're going through now.  

  •  We need to hang this around McSame's neck (0+ / 0-)

    The Bush Economy will continue if McSame is elected.

    We must defeat John McCain. Period. End of story.

    by Pris from LA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 08:55:28 AM PDT

  •  The crazy are never too blame (0+ / 0-)

    they are just let to run off and do it all over again.

    80 percent of success is just showing up - Woody Allen.

    by Churchill on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:07:31 AM PDT

  •  Tanking? (0+ / 0-)

    The economy is getting worse, but it hasn't been good enough to be described as tanking.

    "The three main issues in this campaign are Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq." -- Bill Foster

    by Frank Palmer on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 09:38:13 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site