[GSeybold]

Hi Mag,
Well I'm sure Irag/Afghanistan expenditure had something to do with it but this doesn't explain at all, the bust of the real estate market leading to the financial collapse of several lenders (WaMu-Countrywide...). That is pure greed at it's worst.

Additionally, the fall of many markets have nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with excess, quality and poor management (Union based benefits is one example). That an exporting so many jobs... (another topic)

I guess one could see the middle east expenditure as cyclical in a sense since that region seems to be in a never-ending war for thousands of years. So yes, a cyclical expectation argument could be made regardless of which president was in office, just by the history of that region alone.

However, if you look back in time, times likes these are preceded by an enormous growth period spurred by unfortunately, a world war. A good example of this would be the growth of suburbia in the 1950's.

IMO-The cycle of the economy is based on the history of greed and catastrophic events.( 9-11, Pearl Harbor, Dust Bowl,... and so on...) Whatever President in office at the time of these catastrophic events has the immediate economic burden; whatever president follows the outcome of these catastorphic events then has the long term burden of economic recovery. Economic circumstances have nothing to do with political ideology and everything to do with the timing of unfortunate circumstances(events) and the wasteful and wanting traits of human beings.

P.S. Political Diplomacy often very much fails for both major U.S. parties and allied leaders, this is why there is no basis for any political ideology when discussing economic issues.

Originally Posted by Magnumutz

I guess it can. Look at Bush, he spent so much with the wars in the Middle East that it brought the whole world down to a financial crisis.