Bush vs. Obama: How do they compare in the economic crisis?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 29, 2012 8:07 p.m.

    Actually a president can do much to influence the economy. After the Great Depression the passing of the Glass-Steagall act separated commercial and investment banks. Under Clinton that law was repealed. The banks invented mortgage backed securities, greed kicked in and everyone was making lots of money. Mortgage brokers were financing homes to people that could not afford them, They didn't care they just turned around and sold them to the banks. The banks wanted them so they could sell them to investors. Banks are now much bigger than when they were too big to fail and they are still taking great financial risks. The national debt is now $16 trillion and another 4 years of Obama will probably add another 6 or 7 trillion to the debt. Just think where we might be had Ross Perot been elected when he was warning the country about the debt when it was a mear 3 or 4 trillion. The US can print money but what happens when the rest of the world no longer accepts the dollar. We'll all be multi-billionaires, just like the people of zimbabwe. Prepare for the next collapse.

  • bluejean Farmington, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 6:00 p.m.

    Where are the jobs in this rosy scenario? Obama has single handedly created a better and even perhaps a more solid business climate for business, but truly not for people. Look at the results of his policy. Business has totally cut the fat, stored reserves because of profit uncertainty and won't invest in the future. they can no longer afford to train upcomers or improve products due to Obama/Frank over-regulation. Soon American ingenuity will dry up in the regulation vacuum. The very people (middle class and poor, students and minorities) Obama campaigned for and claimed he would help have been obviously effected and hurt the worst. And what does he do to help them? He does this amazing thing: calls business fatcats and prints more money...and that's it. Is anyone really dilusional enough to believe Obamanomics will sort all our economic woes because it just needs four more years?

    This article's premise is Obama is better than Bush. Maybe that's true, but I believe that within 15 minutes after Romney wins the presidency, we will be on the true road to recovery not the wait and hope-road to recovery.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 4:03 p.m.

    tol must be reading russian newspapers

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 1:40 p.m.

    so you're saying BO cut the deficit in half? Oh, that's too funny, haven't had a laugh that good in a long time.

    But I guess when BO runs the deficit to $1.8 trillion and if the repubs can force him to get it down to $900 billion he might be able to spin it that he cut it in half.

    What caused the recession? The housing bubble brought on by barny frank.

    What ended it? TARP and the way Paulsen used it to stabilize the economy.

    What did the porkulus do? wasted $800 billion and put us further in debt. the recession ended 2Q 2009, and only 4% of the porlukus had been spent by then, so it clearly was NOT the porkulus that ended the recession

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Sept. 27, 2012 11:56 a.m.

    remember when only one of those things had anything to do with our current "American President?" oh thats right its now.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 26, 2012 9:22 p.m.

    Remember when:

    * NAFTA was going to grow our economy
    * Head Start was going to lower poverty
    * Obama was going to cut the deficit in half
    * Standardized testing in school, will improve education
    * state lotteries were to going to fund education
    * women bought there own contraceptives
    * Wal-Mart were going to sell mostly American products
    * gasoline was seventeen cents a gallon

    We need an American President.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 3:23 p.m.

    why does the Dn continually insist on trying to pas off political commentary as news?

  • Pa. Reader Harrisburg, PA
    Sept. 26, 2012 3:17 p.m.

    The recession began in 2007 not 2009.
    Is there a sinister motive in misrepresenting the date or is it simply bad reportage?

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 26, 2012 1:30 p.m.

    The bush years ended in economic freefall. Actually, the economy is cyclical and responds to so many external factors that I don't believe any president, including the ones I disparage in these columns, has much impact on it. Further, I suspect that energy prices, another item the president has little control over, will increasingly dictate how the economy performs.