The first gargantuan bailout was indeed in the last budget of the previous administration. However, let's not assume that the previous administration would have made that sort of government largesse the "new normal." Which is what it has become. Now, we seem to congratulate ourselves if deficit spending is not increasing beyond $1.5T, for heaven's sake. How twisted is that?
Furthermore, the events that precipitated the crisis, the housing bubble burst, was caused by a fairly small (well, less than 20 percent anyway) default of reckless government guaranteed home loans to people unable to repay them. That was also not your typical Republican social program, by any stretch of anyone's imagination.
Lastly, a "well known economic fact"? When people say, "It's a well known fact," that's when I brace for the unsubstantiated leap of faith.
Stimulus spending is an adrenaline shot. It takes money out of the real economy and puts it in the hands of politicians. You can't keep injecting adrenaline and expect the patient to recover.
The problems are far mor structural than that. Credit cards are certain,y part of the problem, but the nature of the economies are more to blame. This includes a paralyzed governmental structure.
A major problem in the EU is that these countries really don't like each other, and don't trust each other. Neither do they trust the EU government, which has little power anyway.
In addition, the fear Germany has of debt. Is making it almost impossible for them to agree on the correct steps, because the voting public, and therefor the politicians, refuse to do anything that will burden them with the EU's woes. Interestingly, as has been
Listed out by some, whatever Germany is doi g seems to benefit Germany itself. Ironic, huh?
China has significant problems of their own which will haunt them so eBay, just as happened to the high flying Japanese when we all thought they would take over the world financially.
No matter how badly an economy is run, when good times are here, it always looks good. When times turn bad however, that's when really badly, and highly corrupt, economies have problems.
It was actually the previous administration that got us into this problem, and it was also them that pleaded for the first almost trillion dollar bailout. Let's not forget that.
It's a well understood economic rule that you must spend yourself out of a recession, and this one was a doozy. Unfortunately, the previous administration had already spent the money.
@Bert22306, that's what I meant by the role of lobbies and special interest groups. It's the way they fund political parties and politicians, the way they wine and dine politicians, often in secret, in order to influence their policies, all under the cloak of "representativity"!
Of course, I do not mind lobbies expressing views to influence policy, but let that be in the open and keep money out of it by all means. Special interests and lobbies should be summoned to parliament, not the other way round.
PS. And yes, I include trade unions in this too.
Sorry, KB, we thoroughly disagree on this one. I do agree that the contributions to polticians should either be forbidden or severely limited, but aside from that, there are NO ALTERNATIVES to lobbies and other interest groups getting to speak with politicians. By the way, in case this helps your political leanings, labor unions are part of that equation too.
To deny this would be to pretend that politicians and their staffs of devotees know all there is to know about what their constituents do. And they obviously cannot. They are typically clueless about most of the details of what happens in their districts. So something has to be in place to educate them, to present points of view they may not have heard clearly articulated before.
Also, there is no one man one vote principle in the US. The one man one vote principle applies to the House of Representatives only. The Senate, the Executive, and the Judiciary, DO NOT operate on a one man one vote principle. E.g., two senators per state can hardly be described as representing one vote for each citizen. A one man one vote principle would put minority parties and minority interests at too great a disadvantage.
IMO, one of the biggest problems I'm seeing in politics these days is that people expect their politicans to tell them what to do, instead of the other way around.
The justification of special interest groups and lobbys on the grounds of "representativity" is one of the biggest CONS American people have been sold. It's fundamentally anti-democratic and anti-constitutional I would add for it gives people, groups and institutions with deeper pockets a greater influence on Government, often at the expense of those who have less. The one-man one-vote principle is eroded and we are back to the feudal system under more sanitised and modern guises of course (money and media replacing land and hereditary privileges).