Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He didn't repeal Glass-Steigall or mandate the GSEs buy CRA subprime home loans that later became the toxic elements in the unregulated CDOs behind the subprime meltdown.
He didn't take the advice of Robert Rubin and Larry Summers to leave credit default swaps free of regulation.
On Monday President Clinton announced an "all-out" campaign to lobby Congress to pass permanent most-favored-nation status for China. The lobbying will be rough, with a fully mobilized American business community working as the iron fist inside the administration's velvet glove. The same day Clinton kicked off his new campaign, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue warned, on cue, that members of Congress who oppose permanent trade status for China "will find themselves in an unhappy situation with the business community."
“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency,” Clinton told me.
Clinton vowed to veto the Senate version of the bill unless it was re-written to include "requirements that banks make loans to minorities, farmers, and others who have had little access to credit." The new version passed 90-8 in the Senate, passed the House, and Clinton signed it into law. Clinton's required reworking of the bill should be studied closely to see what role, if any, it played in illegal, often racist, subprime loans at higher rates than Caucasian borrowers were offered.
What specifically did "W" do to trash the US economy?
Every president, congressman, senator and supreme court judge in history has a part in the failures and successes of our economy, but to say that Bush had nothing to do with it is being about as ignorant and blind as a person can be.
Let's look at the facts:
Bush increased spending, started multiple wars, upped spending on all kinds of military matters while cutting taxes.
Bush came into office with a budget surplus and turned it into a deficit.
In Bush's 8 years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell ~22%
In Clinton's 8 years, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose ~223%.
Regardless, if you were a stockholder, you'd have to be retarded to prefer Bush over Clinton...
This is coming from a life-long Republican who voted for Bush Sr., Dole, Libertarian, Libertarian and Libertarian candidates in the last 5 elections.
60% to the top 1%, 90% to the top 10%. That $$ was not pumped back into the economy.
You must have failed math to not understand that the more you earn, the more you'd be allowed to keep if EVERYONE got tax cuts.. As a % of income, the POOR got more.. Its not my fault you brought home less than those who earn more..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
As far as Obama's Stimulus that $$ is being pumped back into the economy, and things were getting so severe (700,000 + job loss per month) drastic actions needed to be taken
Yeah, Obama tax cuts good, Bush tax cuts very very bad.. Got it.. Btw, want to explain to me why unemployment dropped after the tax cuts were passed by Bush?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
We are in the midst of getting out of Iraq....
And have been for years.. Wow, how exciting..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
We did not go after the same people thats a load of crap. In Afghanistan we went after Al Qaeda, the Taliban and those who attacked us on 9/11, we went after our actual threats. In Iraq we did not.
Thats bs. You need to re-read the 911 commission report, in particular the part about terrorists camps operating outside of Bagdad were receiving support..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
As far as the $$$ being spent, not paying for wars caused problems, especially when the bulk of the $$$ was being spent in Iraq.
What problems? Have any data other than "waaaa" to back it up, because Obamas stimulus isnt paid for either..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
I never said their calculations were wrong, nor did I say they included costs that shouldn't be
Yes you did, you stated the military gets paid regardless of us being at war or not, but the total cost of the war, includes salaries..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act is what played a huge role in decreasing poverty rates, also keep in mind the Democrats controlled the 1995 budget which was passed prior to the GOP taking over. Fact of the matter is poverty was already declining when the GOP took over Congress
Poverty rates go up and down all the time and is subjective to a standard of living..
In addition, the poverty rates were an indication of a declining value of the dollar during the Clinton years..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
The bulk of the cuts went to the very wealthy. The policy changed from focusing on the middle class and working class, to focusing on the wealthy. The tax cuts proposed by Gore for one would have been focused on those in the middle and would have provided more tax cuts to those in the middle than Bush.
Wrong, the very wealthy got incentives to INVEST and create jobs.. and only through job creations, which assisted the middle and working class did the wealthy get a higher tax cut.. Really, you need to become more educated on these facts and stop reading whatever garbage your reading..
So now you admit Obamas "stimulus" plan had negative effects upon the economy? Or is it only Republican programs which have negative ones?
Nice try at the deflect and spin of being proven wrong quite a few times in this thread. When did I EVER say that the stimulus did or did not have a impact on the economy. So why are you trying to make it appear as if I did? If you have a post of mine to the contrary, lets see it.
So your saying Unpaid Programs have absolutely no impact on the economy?
NO, they have no impact on the current economy. They indeed have impacts on FUTURE economies when the debts need to be paid off. Coming from an Obama supporter, I'd think you'd know this because of the push for the stimulus package which also wasnt paid for..
NO, they have no impact on the current economy. They indeed have impacts on FUTURE economies when the debts need to be paid off. Coming from an Obama supporter, I'd think you'd know this because of the push for the stimulus package which also wasnt paid for..
Wow, your just batting a thousand today completely contradicting all of the economists. Now are you still searching those posts of mine we're your now stating that I pushed for the stimulas, where I stated that the stimulas would or would not have an impact on the economy.
Nice try at the deflect and spin of being proven wrong quite a few times in this thread. When did I EVER say that the stimulus did or did not have a impact on the economy. So why are you trying to make it appear as if I did? If you have a post of mine to the contrary, lets see it.
Wow, your just batting a thousand today completely contradicting all of the economists. Now are you still searching those posts of mine we're your now stating that I pushed for the stimulas, where I stated that the stimulas would or would not have an impact on the economy.
Tell me what economists say deficit spending doesnt affect future economies because thats how its going to be paid back. FUTURE tax revenues... Seriously, is this that difficult for you to understand..
Spend today, and dont collect the money to pay for it now, then you need to collect it LATER to pay the bills..
Hell, its like buying something and putting it on your credit card..
If you buy a $50K tv and put it on a credit card, (total exageration for the sake of the example), did you cause a negative effect upon your families lifestyle when you charged it, or when you have to pay it back? You might have affected the budget when you bought it, but the lifestyle doesnt begin to change until you have to take funds out of your own pocket. The War, had NO funds taken out of our pocket, thereby it created NO negative effects upon the economy.. The spending went out now, thereby it created a stimulus, but no payback occured..
You must have failed math to not understand that the more you earn, the more you'd be allowed to keep if EVERYONE got tax cuts.. As a % of income, the POOR got more.. Its not my fault you brought home less than those who earn more..
Those in the middle and working class would have gotten more with the Gore plan, instead they got less so Bush could give the very wealthy the bulk of the cut
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Yeah, Obama tax cuts good, Bush tax cuts very very bad.. Got it.. Btw, want to explain to me why unemployment dropped after the tax cuts were passed by Bush?
One was focused on the middle and working class, the other focused on the poor. Unemployment did not drop after Bush's 1st round of tax cuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
And have been for years.. Wow, how exciting..
This time we are actually doing so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Thats bs. You need to re-read the 911 commission report, in particular the part about terrorists camps operating outside of Bagdad were receiving support..
They were not connected to those who attacked us, not part of our threats. We put those who attacked us on 9/11 on the back burner to go after those who weren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
What problems? Have any data other than "waaaa" to back it up, because Obamas stimulus isnt paid for either..
Out of control deficits. The Stimulus wasn't paid for either, but when heading in the direction we were, drastic actions needed to be taken.
Quote:
Yes you did, you stated the military gets paid regardless of us being at war or not, but the total cost of the war, includes salaries..
And the bulk of the spending did not include that...
Quote:
Poverty rates go up and down all the time and is subjective to a standard of living..
In addition, the poverty rates were an indication of a declining value of the dollar during the Clinton years..
Poverty rates went down as a result of policies focusing on the middle and working class starting with the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Wrong, the very wealthy got incentives to INVEST and create jobs.. and only through job creations, which assisted the middle and working class did the wealthy get a higher tax cut.. Really, you need to become more educated on these facts and stop reading whatever garbage your reading..
No, the wealthy got a larger tax cut, no matter whether or not they invested the $$, created jobs or shoved it back in their pocket. Those tax cuts worked so well for job creation that Bush had the worst job creation record of any President since the data started being kept in 1939.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Btw, want to explain to me why unemployment dropped after the tax cuts were passed by Bush?
