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.
After all that was done before Bush took office, he's responsible for the recession and Obama is free of blame because he inherited Bush's recession?
Actually you hit the nail on the head - Bush didn't much of ANYTHING - except invade Afghanistan & Iraq (and watch a lot of football). For all intents and purposes - especially in regards to the economy - he was a "DO NOTHING" President. Apparently (unbeknowst to us) we might not have even had one. Sounds like your argument is: "Ignore those 8 eight years (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain). It was never HIS responsiblity to actually DO the job he was elected to do. In fact he was never really President - and thus all that befell us during those 8 dark years that included the worst terror attack on the US in history and the onset of the greatest economic, financial and stock collapse in nearly a century - all of that was the result some other President - either the one before or the one after (I don't care which), but NOT the one who was actually in charge at the time."
How typical for the "Party of (NO) Personal Responsibility".
And you EXPECT anyone to take you SERIOUSLY.
Dude! The guy was President for EIGHT LONG YEARS - some of the worst eight years in US HISTORY. There's a reason for that - the guy was a dunce!
If Congress was a Dem majority and 95% of them voted NO then how did we get into Iraq ?
Sorry but Congress is Congress and no matter which party, their decisions are reflective of the majority of voters who put them in office.
Many here just cherry pick from the parts of past administrations they liked.
That just isn't reality.
1. Congress was not majority Dem when the Iraq War vote took place, it was Majority Republican.
2. I never claimed 95% Dems voted against it. I was responding to a post in which someone else said 95% of Dems voted for it. That was false, and the Majority of Democrats voted against the war. It was not 95%, but it was still a majority against it. Even if 95% of Democrats voted against the Authorization war it would not have been enough, because of the GOP majority.
3. Even prior to the war starting quite a few Democrats who voted for the Authorization were upset at due to the reasons they voted for the Authorization not being followed (such as going in only as a last resort, if the inspectors found weapons, etc)
Well he didn't do any of those things. However he did do some nice things to screw us economically:
2 wars (how much was he pushing for Iraq??? congress voted for it, but he was really trying to sell it)
tax cuts for the rich
didn't do anything to fix a problem that could have easily been foreseen and corrected
Bush went much further with his accusations then what Clinton and some of the Democrats were saying. Also 95% of Democrats did not vote for the war in Iraq. The majority in the Senate did, but no where near 95%, about 60% did, and the majority of Democrats in the House voted against the War.
Bush went further then saying Saddam was developing nuclear missiles??
Okay, not 95%, I was not trying to be specific, I was off by a bit
1. Congress was not majority Dem when the Iraq War vote took place, it was Majority Republican.
2. I never claimed 95% Dems voted against it. I was responding to a post in which someone else said 95% of Dems voted for it. That was false, and the Majority of Democrats voted against the war. It was not 95%, but it was still a majority against it. Even if 95% of Democrats voted against the Authorization war it would not have been enough, because of the GOP majority.
3. Even prior to the war starting quite a few Democrats who voted for the Authorization were upset at due to the reasons they voted for the Authorization not being followed (such as going in only as a last resort, if the inspectors found weapons, etc)
The 107th Senate was 50/50, with 23 out of 100 voting no. Of those 23 who voted Nay, one was a republican - Chafee (R-RI), and the other - "Jumping" Jeffords (I-VT), so that means the majority of democrats voted YEA. But who's counting.
The 107th Senate was 50/50, with 23 out of 100 voting no. Of those 23 who voted Nay, one was a republican - Chafee (R-RI), and the other - "Jumping" Jeffords (I-VT), so that means the majority of democrats voted YEA. But who's counting.
Majority in the Senate, voted in favor, Majority in the House voted against, Majority of House and Senate combined which = majority of Democrats, voted against.
Well he didn't do any of those things. However he did do some nice things to screw us economically:
2 wars (how much was he pushing for Iraq??? congress voted for it, but he was really trying to sell it)
tax cuts for the rich
didn't do anything to fix a problem that could have easily been foreseen and corrected
September 11, 2003 New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Actually you hit the nail on the head - Bush didn't much of ANYTHING - except invade Afghanistan & Iraq (and watch a lot of football). For all intents and purposes - especially in regards to the economy - he was a "DO NOTHING" President. Apparently (unbeknowst to us) we might not have even had one. Sounds like your argument is: "Ignore those 8 eight years (pay no attention to the man behind the curtain). It was never HIS responsiblity to actually DO the job he was elected to do. In fact he was never really President - and thus all that befell us during those 8 dark years that included the worst terror attack on the US in history and the onset of the greatest economic, financial and stock collapse in nearly a century - all of that was the result some other President - either the one before or the one after (I don't care which), but NOT the one who was actually in charge at the time."
How typical for the "Party of (NO) Personal Responsibility".
And you EXPECT anyone to take you SERIOUSLY.
Dude! The guy was President for EIGHT LONG YEARS - some of the worst eight years in US HISTORY. There's a reason for that - the guy was a dunce!
Ken
So we should have never invaded Afghanistan?
Should we have trusted Saddam Hussein to not supply al Qaeda with VX nerve gas while our sons were fighting them in a nearby stink hole?
You are very correct that there was a reason for that.
During the Clinton years we were attacked over and over again by the same al Qaeda that was behind the 9/11 attacks. During the same eight years the CIA was allowed a 25% attrition rate and essentially neutered. Why?
With this group regularly breaching our defenses and blind siding our intelligence shouldn't we have doubled down on intelligence?
How do you suffer attack after attack by the same terrorists then fault the guy who finally took them out for doing so?
Clinton's anti-intelligence plants, implemented a universal 'human rights scrub' of all assets, virtually shutting down operations for 6 months to a year. This was after something happened in Central America (there was an American woman involved who was the common law wife of a commie who went missing there) that got a lot of bad press for the agency. "After that, each asset had to be certified as being 'clean for human rights violations.' "What this did was to put off limits, in effect, terrorists, criminals, and anyone else who would have info on these kinds of people." Roger says the CIA, even under new leadership, has never recovered from the "Human Rights Scrub" policy.
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.
You don't know what you're talking about. The CRA has been around since Carter days and has nothing to do with the subprime crisis. The requirements to take part in the CRA were that the banks still had to adhere to strict lending practices, only for lower income people. It was NOTHING like the subprime loans handed out and funded by Wall Street. Furthermore nobody was "forced" to do anything, that's a total fabrication that you always throw out.
The last few waves of defaults have not been subprime loans, but Alt A and strategic defaults. So your "Poor people did this to us" theory doesn't hold a bit of water.
Also this begs the question, if this was all so inherently bad and you could all see this coming, why then didn't Bush and his GOP congress put an end to it all in the first 6 years? They could have easily changed laws, why didn't they?
Reminds me of my crybaby GOP cousin in law who blames it all on the poor people while he's walking away form 8 properties. Totally fails to see the connection; you guys sure are good for a laugh.
Should we have trusted Saddam Hussein to not supply al Qaeda with VX nerve gas while our sons were fighting them in a nearby stink hole?
You are very correct that there was a reason for that.
During the Clinton years we were attacked over and over again by the same al Qaeda that was behind the 9/11 attacks. During the same eight years the CIA was allowed a 25% attrition rate and essentially neutered. Why?
With this group regularly breaching our defenses and blind siding our intelligence shouldn't we have doubled down on intelligence?
How do you suffer attack after attack by the same terrorists then fault the guy who finally took them out for doing so?
Clinton's anti-intelligence plants, implemented a universal 'human rights scrub' of all assets, virtually shutting down operations for 6 months to a year. This was after something happened in Central America (there was an American woman involved who was the common law wife of a commie who went missing there) that got a lot of bad press for the agency. "After that, each asset had to be certified as being 'clean for human rights violations.' "What this did was to put off limits, in effect, terrorists, criminals, and anyone else who would have info on these kinds of people." Roger says the CIA, even under new leadership, has never recovered from the "Human Rights Scrub" policy.
You are posting a Freeper link and you expect people to take you seriuosly?
Really?
OK, I suppose rightwingers will take you seriously, but Freepers are hard core ideologues who long ago not only abandoned reality but also abandoned the art of compromise. Their viewpoint is as wide as the head of a pin.
You can still find plenty of fellow Kool Aid drinkers who will blame the 8 absolutely disastrous years of Bush Cheney on Clinton, but I will ask you one simple question, just to see if you can get this right:
What was JOB GROWTH like under President Bush?
That is cold, hard, factual data. I want you to first compare his rate of JOB GROWTH to that experienced throughout the 20th century so you get a little better understanding of how to place those 8 years in the proper context.
Enjoy!
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.
