Do you think this Republican Administration under Bush is responsible for this recess

In today's post, Michael Moore goes with the bold statement that the bailout is "The biggest robbery in the history of this country ", that they (the Bush administration) "are looting the U.S. Treasury of every dollar they can grab. They are swiping as much of the silverware as they can on their way out the door". Link to the entire post.

 

Gotta agree with NPT. It is also a general theme of Obama's perspective.

I've had this perspective. I've been a business person since the start of the 1980's. That makes me older than a lot here. LOL. I've worked in markets. I've climbed from low man to owner.

Here is my perspective (for its $0.02).

Personal/Business Perspective

Everyone loves the concept of lower taxes. I do.

From a business perspective it does one thing. It puts more money in my pocket. That is assuming I'm earning money.

It does not necessarily translate into my putting more money into my business or investing in other businesses. I'll invest when I see opportunities. I shouldn't invest when I don't see opportunities. Just having more money is definitely not a recipe for investment. In fact that is stupid.

Who follows that path? Warren Buffett. He likes to buy low. When he is buying low he doesn't need to skim every last penny out of a deal. He needs to buy or invest in a low price range, that if things go right he'll make money.

For many many years he hasn't invested and simply hoarded cash. That is why he is making investments now. He can buy on what he perceives to be good value.

The trickle down theory that states that when business owners make more money they have more money to invest validates that theory. Having more money to put into speculative or high risk ventures, or poorly valued ventures doesn't fly.

Its taken me a long time to see this. I've made mistakes over time. With any investment there is risk. Nobody can foresee the future. Still, buying low is a far far far better investment strategy than simply spending more on investments when you have it. Dramatically better.

National Side

Tax cuts without reducing govt expenditures have no value. They simply increase govt. debt. At the beginning of the Reagon administration, economists supportive of the program pushed the "Laffer Curve" developed by the economist Laffer. It theorized that with lower taxes there would be more investment and overall higher profits and greater overall tax revenues. The increased tax revenues would negate the impact of the tax cuts and work to balance the budget.

It hasn't worked. Laffer rejected it. Over close to 30 years increased tax cuts have simply created bigger govt. budget deficits. There haven't been matching decreases in budget costs.

Democratic and Republican administrations and members of Congress are both big spenders. Don't kid yourselves.

What is the biggest part of the fed budget? Defense. Who increases it? Repubs. You can take all your social programs. They don't add up to defense. Attacks on big spending aren't met by real actions.

Actually in the last few days both McCain and Obama have made vague statements about cutting costs or slowing their own initiatives. McCain has said he is going to cut the Defense Budget. Obama has admitted his programs will not all be done immediately and he will cut back.

In a vague way both candidates have somewhat acknowledged the reality of today's financial world. I hope they do more of that.

 

Yes, The Bush Administration is responsible to a larger extent but cannot be directly blamed, The collapsing companies equally are responsible incase of any miscalculations