quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

Congress rubber-stamped whatever Bush wanted? Really?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

How is it that Bush brought up reforming Fannie and Freddie many, many times, but it was never done?

Conspicuous by its absence was ANY repub calling for reform of wall street (banks) or the SEC or any regulatory mechanisms to prevent the meltdown that put Fannie & Freddie's risk to...pale in comparison. The very act of modifying Glass-Steagall was what led to the corruption and was antithesis of reform.

Fannie & Freddie had nothing whatever to do with the meltdown. It was wall street and WAMU and a few other large mortgage cos. that created shit paper mortgages and created (bundled) a whole new piece if paper to sell, (MBS's) given a corrupt AAA rating by a corrupt rating agency all allowed by a corrupt SEC all of which paid off very, very well without anybody going to jail for their fraud or getting fired for their malfeasance.

Freddie & Fannie went way outside their normal lending ratios and borrowing policies because they too...were mananged by greedy capitalist scum.

So you have nothing to say for Hillary except that she isn't Bush, who in case you haven't noticed isn't running. That and the ridiculous notion that all Republicans think alike. I guess that means that all Dems have gay escort services running out of their homes since Barney Frank did. I'm not saying that but if I used what you pass for logic I would have to.

I've already made my point on Hillary's qualifications...they are superfluous as are most and especially since Bush II.

Otherwise I was commenting in specifics on the ridiculousness of the continuing search for dem policies or political obfuscation of the real cause of the financial meltdown beyond the real cause, the corruption of wall street bankers and as always...inspired by their unmitigated greed.

quote:


BankAmerica's next big acquisition came in 1992. The company acquired its California rival, Security Pacific Corporation and its subsidiary Security Pacific National Bank in California and other banks in Arizona, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (which Security Pacific had acquired in a series of acquisitions in the late 1980s). This was, at the time, the largest bank acquisition in history. Federal regulators, however, forced the sale of roughly half of Security Pacific's Washington subsidiary, the former Rainier Bank, as the combination of Seafirst and Security Pacific Washington would have given BankAmerica too large a share of the market in that state. The Washington branches were divided and sold to West One Bancorp (now U.S. Bancorp) and KeyBank.[28] Later that year, BankAmerica expanded into Nevada by acquiring Valley Bank of Nevada.

In 1994, BankAmerica acquired the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, which had become federally owned as part of the same oil industry debacle emanating from Oklahoma City's Penn Square Bank, that had brought down numerous financial institutions including Seafirst. At the time, no bank possessed the resources to bail out Continental, so the federal government operated the bank for nearly a decade. Illinois at that time regulated branch banking extremely heavily, so Bank of America Illinois was a single-unit bank until the 21st century. BankAmerica moved its national lending department to Chicago in an effort to establish a financial beachhead in the region.


Pyramid-shaped Bank of America building towers over Interstate 410 in San Antonio, Texas.
These mergers helped BankAmerica Corporation to once again become the largest U.S. bank holding company in terms of deposits, but the company fell to second place in 1997 behind North Carolina's fast-growing NationsBank Corporation, and to third in 1998 First Union Corp.

On the capital markets side, the acquisition of Continental Illinois helped BankAmerica to build a leveraged finance origination and distribution business (Continental Illinois had extensive leveraged lending relationships) which allowed the firm’s existing broker-dealer, BancAmerica Securities (originally named BA Securities), to become a full-service franchise.[29][30] In addition, in 1997, BankAmerica acquired Robertson Stephens, a San Francisco-based investment bank specializing in high technology for $540 million. Robertson Stephens was integrated into BancAmerica Securities and the combined subsidiary was renamed BancAmerica Robertson Stephens.[31]

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

No need to recall the disaster of a Neocon administration:

We're STILL living it:

1) Still digging out of this economic hole
2) Still paying for Medicare Part D
3) Dealing with a far more powerful Iran
4) Dealing with a far more armed North Korea! (can't forget that from the first term)

Some of the highlights of their legacy.


As Hunter so eloquently pointed out in another thread.... Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. As for me, I have NO party loyalty. I would vote for ANYONE who:

1) Understands the issues we face
2) Has a solid plan to resolve them

My post was not really about who is the lesser of two evils (yes, I agree, Hilary would be FAR less worse (double negative intended) than anyone on the Republican side.

I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding of what people feel Hilary has the ability to accomplish. Not much, it seems (other than keeping Neocons out).


I would actually consider voting for Rand Paul. (if he won the Republican nomination, which we all know he has no chance of accomplishing.)

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

1) I am not aware of any banking scheme initiated by Carter, Clinton, and Barney Frank. I am aware of Barney Frank's meddling in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standard for mortgages they would purchase. Please enlighten me. I always want to learn.

2) I loved the economy, under Clinton. Those were the happiest times for myself and my family.

3) I also ask you to consider Phil Gramm's masterpiece: Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which repealed the important parts of Glass-Steagall and ensured we would have "too big to fail"

4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

5) Iran has been "the way they are" since we installed the Shah there. They have become a nuclear threat, largely because a famous Neocon sold them nuclear technology, and developed their Arak reactor. (As well as developing several oil refineries, to aid in their bypassing of U.S. sanctions). ALL, while sanctions at the time prohibited U.S. business from doing business with Iran). Let's also not forget the Iraq invasion, which diverted billions from Iran's expenditures into defending itself from Iraq (RIGHT into their Nuclear program). The Neocon gifts to Iran keep on giving to this day.

5) RE: North Korea. Clinton had negotiated a deal with North Korea that included the IAEA, Japanese, and South Korean inspectors. North Korea, had NO significant nuclear capability at the time. Fast forward to Bush, who trashed the agreement.
The Bush administration realized it had made a HUGE foreign policy blunder, (of course this was minor in comparison to the many blunders to follow) tried desperately to renegotiate a new agreement, offering far more concessions than Clinton did. With no inspections, and basically no way to sanction North Korea more than they currently are, and no more fuel oil coming in , North Korea had the green light to continue to where they are now. The Neocon gifts to North Korea keep on giving to this day.

Even IF, as the neocons claim, North Korea was cheating on the Plutonium deal, and secretly enriching Uranium, the IAEA inspectors would have most certainly caught it. But, of course, they were expelled from the country.

I find it hugely amusing that liberals, in the seventh year of Obama's presidency, still blame Bush for the economy but still believe the Clinton years were a result of Clinton rather than 16 years of Reagan and Bush. As you'll recall, toward the end of Clinton's years the economy began to go to shit and GW had to deal with it.


You probably don't recall, because it would require a fair and balanced opinion, that both Bush and McCain went to congress and asked the to change Clintons's/Carters terrible legislation. Rush Limbaugh still plays tapes of it. With Barney Frank saying there were no problems and they were going to change nothing.

You might even remember Clinton's op Ed in the NYT after the shit hit the fan saying, well yes these were different times and when he did what he did it was reasonable but in these different times congress should have changed his laws.

So basically, none of what you've said above is true. All of it is BS in which you proudly believe.

Barney Frank didn't go to Freedy and Fannie and change things. Clinton and Carter did. They believed the banks should stop, what is politically correct, called redlining. In other words they should lend to poor people who weren't credit worthy. Carter initialized the law and Clinton put teeth in it. They changed the standards for how a person was determined to be credit worthy. When the banks decided that they didn't want to be involved in that funny business with their money, Clinton had the Janet Reno Justice Dept. Write them and tell them if they didn't mske 40% of their loans per the new rules the Justice Dept. Would sue. Then Clinton relaxed the rules at Freddie and Fannie so the bad dept incurred could be bundled and sold. The fact that Barney Franks was living with the president of, which ever you look it up, Fannie or Freddie just greased the skids. After the big banks succumbed to Janet Reno, predators like Country Wide entered into the business.

If you don't know any of the above, you really have no business making any accusation about any part of the economy.

Jobs created under Clinton with a repub house and requiring a tiebreaker in the senate...22 million.

Jobs created under W with 6 years of repubs in both houses... - (minus) 500,000 (the worst ever by a large margin)

Shall we compare deficits ?

Shall we compare GDP ?

Bush was the worst 2 term and maybe the worst pres,...of all time. Who knew it could a generation to recover ?

I find it humorous to see how angry a leftist will,get, and then how deeply into denial they'll go when confronted with facts about what the leftist policies have done. The Great Society and CRA are just two.

Cherry pick your facts. If this is Bush's economy then all of Clinton's jobs were Reagan's and Bush 41. Then when the Clinton economy collapses you attribute lost jobs to him. You can't have it both ways. Oh wait....you can because your hateful mind won't let ideas in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Oh wait, when did it, or was it allowed to market stuff like securities?

On the capital markets side, the acquisition of Continental Illinois helped BankAmerica to build a leveraged finance origination and distribution business (Continental Illinois had extensive leveraged lending relationships) which allowed the firm’s existing broker-dealer, BancAmerica Securities (originally named BA Securities), to become a full-service franchise.[29][30] In addition, in 1997, BankAmerica acquired Robertson Stephens, a San Francisco-based investment bank specializing in high technology for $540 million. Robertson Stephens was integrated into BancAmerica Securities and the combined subsidiary was renamed BancAmerica Robertson Stephens.[31]

Hum, 1997. Who ran the administration then I wonder?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Jobs created under Clinton with a repub house and requiring a tiebreaker in the senate...22 million.

Even you should know that the "Clinton recovery" was fueled by the .com bubble which was in turn based on fraud. Not only that but it was in free fall when he left office. They caught them during the Bush administration. The Bush economy, on the other hand, fell apart at the end when the Dems controlled both houses and fought everything he tried to do, recession was in their best interest.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

ITS CLINTONS FAULT!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Jobs created under Clinton with a repub house and requiring a tiebreaker in the senate...22 million.

Even you should know that the "Clinton recovery" was fueled by the .com bubble which was in turn based on fraud. Not only that but it was in free fall when he left office. They caught them during the Bush administration. The Bush economy, on the other hand, fell apart at the end when the Dems controlled both houses and fought everything he tried to do, recession was in their best interest.

I don't see one link from MR. I think he's spouting bloviated catechism from kool aide drinking time. It's so easy to spout sound bites. That how Democrates get elected.

quote:

Clinton, like Obama have many accomplishments to date. They are easily found with a web search. So cease with all the petty attacks that she has accomplished nothing of note or worth; it just makes you look like a total idiot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

No need to recall the disaster of a Neocon administration:

We're STILL living it:

1) Still digging out of this economic hole
2) Still paying for Medicare Part D
3) Dealing with a far more powerful Iran
4) Dealing with a far more armed North Korea! (can't forget that from the first term)

Some of the highlights of their legacy.


As Hunter so eloquently pointed out in another thread.... Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. As for me, I have NO party loyalty. I would vote for ANYONE who:

1) Understands the issues we face
2) Has a solid plan to resolve them

My post was not really about who is the lesser of two evils (yes, I agree, Hilary would be FAR less worse (double negative intended) than anyone on the Republican side.

I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding of what people feel Hilary has the ability to accomplish. Not much, it seems (other than keeping Neocons out).


I would actually consider voting for Rand Paul. (if he won the Republican nomination, which we all know he has no chance of accomplishing.)

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

1) I am not aware of any banking scheme initiated by Carter, Clinton, and Barney Frank. I am aware of Barney Frank's meddling in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standard for mortgages they would purchase. Please enlighten me. I always want to learn.

2) I loved the economy, under Clinton. Those were the happiest times for myself and my family.

3) I also ask you to consider Phil Gramm's masterpiece: Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which repealed the important parts of Glass-Steagall and ensured we would have "too big to fail"

4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

5) Iran has been "the way they are" since we installed the Shah there. They have become a nuclear threat, largely because a famous Neocon sold them nuclear technology, and developed their Arak reactor. (As well as developing several oil refineries, to aid in their bypassing of U.S. sanctions). ALL, while sanctions at the time prohibited U.S. business from doing business with Iran). Let's also not forget the Iraq invasion, which diverted billions from Iran's expenditures into defending itself from Iraq (RIGHT into their Nuclear program). The Neocon gifts to Iran keep on giving to this day.

5) RE: North Korea. Clinton had negotiated a deal with North Korea that included the IAEA, Japanese, and South Korean inspectors. North Korea, had NO significant nuclear capability at the time. Fast forward to Bush, who trashed the agreement.
The Bush administration realized it had made a HUGE foreign policy blunder, (of course this was minor in comparison to the many blunders to follow) tried desperately to renegotiate a new agreement, offering far more concessions than Clinton did. With no inspections, and basically no way to sanction North Korea more than they currently are, and no more fuel oil coming in , North Korea had the green light to continue to where they are now. The Neocon gifts to North Korea keep on giving to this day.

Even IF, as the neocons claim, North Korea was cheating on the Plutonium deal, and secretly enriching Uranium, the IAEA inspectors would have most certainly caught it. But, of course, they were expelled from the country.

I find it hugely amusing that liberals, in the seventh year of Obama's presidency, still blame Bush for the economy but still believe the Clinton years were a result of Clinton rather than 16 years of Reagan and Bush. As you'll recall, toward the end of Clinton's years the economy began to go to shit and GW had to deal with it.


You probably don't recall, because it would require a fair and balanced opinion, that both Bush and McCain went to congress and asked the to change Clintons's/Carters terrible legislation. Rush Limbaugh still plays tapes of it. With Barney Frank saying there were no problems and they were going to change nothing.

You might even remember Clinton's op Ed in the NYT after the shit hit the fan saying, well yes these were different times and when he did what he did it was reasonable but in these different times congress should have changed his laws.

So basically, none of what you've said above is true. All of it is BS in which you proudly believe.

Barney Frank didn't go to Freedy and Fannie and change things. Clinton and Carter did. They believed the banks should stop, what is politically correct, called redlining. In other words they should lend to poor people who weren't credit worthy. Carter initialized the law and Clinton put teeth in it. They changed the standards for how a person was determined to be credit worthy. When the banks decided that they didn't want to be involved in that funny business with their money, Clinton had the Janet Reno Justice Dept. Write them and tell them if they didn't mske 40% of their loans per the new rules the Justice Dept. Would sue. Then Clinton relaxed the rules at Freddie and Fannie so the bad dept incurred could be bundled and sold. The fact that Barney Franks was living with the president of, which ever you look it up, Fannie or Freddie just greased the skids. After the big banks succumbed to Janet Reno, predators like Country Wide entered into the business.

If you don't know any of the above, you really have no business making any accusation about any part of the economy.

Jobs created under Clinton with a repub house and requiring a tiebreaker in the senate...22 million.

Jobs created under W with 6 years of repubs in both houses... - (minus) 500,000 (the worst ever by a large margin)

Shall we compare deficits ?

Shall we compare GDP ?

Bush was the worst 2 term and maybe the worst pres,...of all time. Who knew it could a generation to recover ?

Oh, and, Bubba had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget by Newt. So it's really not fair comparing Newt's deficient to GW's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

We're still paying for Eisenhower's fuckups in the region.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

We're still paying for Eisenhower's fuckups in the region.

Whuuuuuu????????

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

No need to recall the disaster of a Neocon administration:

We're STILL living it:

1) Still digging out of this economic hole
2) Still paying for Medicare Part D
3) Dealing with a far more powerful Iran
4) Dealing with a far more armed North Korea! (can't forget that from the first term)

Some of the highlights of their legacy.


As Hunter so eloquently pointed out in another thread.... Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. As for me, I have NO party loyalty. I would vote for ANYONE who:

1) Understands the issues we face
2) Has a solid plan to resolve them

My post was not really about who is the lesser of two evils (yes, I agree, Hilary would be FAR less worse (double negative intended) than anyone on the Republican side.

I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding of what people feel Hilary has the ability to accomplish. Not much, it seems (other than keeping Neocons out).


I would actually consider voting for Rand Paul. (if he won the Republican nomination, which we all know he has no chance of accomplishing.)

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

1) I am not aware of any banking scheme initiated by Carter, Clinton, and Barney Frank. I am aware of Barney Frank's meddling in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower the standard for mortgages they would purchase. Please enlighten me. I always want to learn.

2) I loved the economy, under Clinton. Those were the happiest times for myself and my family.

3) I also ask you to consider Phil Gramm's masterpiece: Gramm-Leach-Billey Act which repealed the important parts of Glass-Steagall and ensured we would have "too big to fail"

4) Barney Frank's lowering of mortgage standards, and Phil Gramm's creation of bank/insurance company free-for-all, both occurred pre-Bush. The problem is, Bush did nothing to correct it. Congress, the Senate especially, was rubber stamping anything he came up with. He could have corrected both of these. Instead, he went on a massive spending spree, (Iraq War, Medicare Part D), with no stimulative effect. Unlike Ronald Reagan's peace time defense spending, which was HUGELY stimulative, because it spurred innovation, Bush's was simply spending money, which was never allocated. We'll just authorize whatever we spent at the end of the year. (Let's never raise the debt ceiling, Mr. Rubio?)

5) Iran has been "the way they are" since we installed the Shah there. They have become a nuclear threat, largely because a famous Neocon sold them nuclear technology, and developed their Arak reactor. (As well as developing several oil refineries, to aid in their bypassing of U.S. sanctions). ALL, while sanctions at the time prohibited U.S. business from doing business with Iran). Let's also not forget the Iraq invasion, which diverted billions from Iran's expenditures into defending itself from Iraq (RIGHT into their Nuclear program). The Neocon gifts to Iran keep on giving to this day.

5) RE: North Korea. Clinton had negotiated a deal with North Korea that included the IAEA, Japanese, and South Korean inspectors. North Korea, had NO significant nuclear capability at the time. Fast forward to Bush, who trashed the agreement.
The Bush administration realized it had made a HUGE foreign policy blunder, (of course this was minor in comparison to the many blunders to follow) tried desperately to renegotiate a new agreement, offering far more concessions than Clinton did. With no inspections, and basically no way to sanction North Korea more than they currently are, and no more fuel oil coming in , North Korea had the green light to continue to where they are now. The Neocon gifts to North Korea keep on giving to this day.

Even IF, as the neocons claim, North Korea was cheating on the Plutonium deal, and secretly enriching Uranium, the IAEA inspectors would have most certainly caught it. But, of course, they were expelled from the country.

I find it hugely amusing that liberals, in the seventh year of Obama's presidency, still blame Bush for the economy but still believe the Clinton years were a result of Clinton rather than 16 years of Reagan and Bush. As you'll recall, toward the end of Clinton's years the economy began to go to shit and GW had to deal with it.


You probably don't recall, because it would require a fair and balanced opinion, that both Bush and McCain went to congress and asked the to change Clintons's/Carters terrible legislation. Rush Limbaugh still plays tapes of it. With Barney Frank saying there were no problems and they were going to change nothing.

You might even remember Clinton's op Ed in the NYT after the shit hit the fan saying, well yes these were different times and when he did what he did it was reasonable but in these different times congress should have changed his laws.

So basically, none of what you've said above is true. All of it is BS in which you proudly believe.

Barney Frank didn't go to Freedy and Fannie and change things. Clinton and Carter did. They believed the banks should stop, what is politically correct, called redlining. In other words they should lend to poor people who weren't credit worthy. Carter initialized the law and Clinton put teeth in it. They changed the standards for how a person was determined to be credit worthy. When the banks decided that they didn't want to be involved in that funny business with their money, Clinton had the Janet Reno Justice Dept. Write them and tell them if they didn't mske 40% of their loans per the new rules the Justice Dept. Would sue. Then Clinton relaxed the rules at Freddie and Fannie so the bad dept incurred could be bundled and sold. The fact that Barney Franks was living with the president of, which ever you look it up, Fannie or Freddie just greased the skids. After the big banks succumbed to Janet Reno, predators like Country Wide entered into the business.

If you don't know any of the above, you really have no business making any accusation about any part of the economy.

Jobs created under Clinton with a repub house and requiring a tiebreaker in the senate...22 million.

Jobs created under W with 6 years of repubs in both houses... - (minus) 500,000 (the worst ever by a large margin)

Shall we compare deficits ?

Shall we compare GDP ?

Bush was the worst 2 term and maybe the worst pres,...of all time. Who knew it could a generation to recover ?

Oh, and, Bubba had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a balanced budget by Newt. So it's really not fair comparing Newt's deficient to GW's.

Gingrich shut down the govt. to stop a fiscally sane and relatively small tax increase on the rich freedom-of-speech, plutocratic few and lost his fucking job as speaker for his great success.

quote:

Clinton did a complete economic turn-around with an equally complete and absolute reversal of policy by raising rather than cutting taxes, created 22 million jobs and explosions of GDP without inflation, doing much better than either of his predecessors, created a surplus and all doing so based on his policies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Then Eisenhower is in the same boat as every foreign leader since the Khanites were driven from the area.

With the exception of a young Saddam Hussein going on CIA payroll in 1959.

Probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Theres no truth to that. Even if that were true (which in some cases things like that did happen), the USSR was a far bigger threat at the time, forcing us to ally with unsavory characters around the globe for the sake of survival

It was like a deadly chess match, or a real game of Risk in many ways. If we didnt have a particular nation under our wing, chances were good that they would end up as another in a long series of brutally controlled Soviet-sponsored slave states

Perhaps the Realpolitic of it all wasnt attractive but the alternative was much worse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

With the exception of a young Saddam Hussein going on CIA payroll in 1959.

Probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Which is why a LOT of people (Hillary, John Kerry, a veritable plethora of democrats) supported going into Iraq in '03 (I feel old. I said "aught-three" in my head, as I was typing that); because we caused the issue. It was our fucking mess to clean up.

Michael

How was it ours. The British literally created Iraq, Saddam was on the Egyptians payroll

The CIA was surprised when the successful coup occurred in 1963... The Baathists acted according to their own agenda... And the Soviets forced everyons' hand on the issue

We were involved, yes. But the notion that somehow we owned Iraq is misinformation and lies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Theres no truth to that. Even if that were true (which in some cases things like that did happen), the USSR was a far bigger threat at the time, forcing us to ally with unsavory characters around the globe for the sake of survival

It was like a deadly chess match, or a real game of Risk in many ways. If we didnt have a particular nation under our wing, chances were good that they would end up as another in a long series of brutally controlled Soviet-sponsored slave states

Perhaps the Realpolitic of it all wasnt attractive but the alternative was much worse

Oh dear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6EH5YRONc

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

With the exception of a young Saddam Hussein going on CIA payroll in 1959.

Probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

Which is why a LOT of people (Hillary, John Kerry, a veritable plethora of democrats) supported going into Iraq in '03 (I feel old. I said "aught-three" in my head, as I was typing that); because we caused the issue. It was our fucking mess to clean up.

Michael

How was it ours. The British literally created Iraq, Saddam was on the Egyptians payroll

The CIA was surprised when the successful coup occurred in 1963... The Baathists acted according to their own agenda... And the Soviets forced everyons' hand on the issue

We were involved, yes. But the notion that somehow we owned Iraq is misinformation and lies

A revision of history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Again

Saddam was on the Egyptians payroll

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Again

Saddam was on the Egyptians payroll

Again, the US govt. has been fucking with the ME for over 60 fucking years...get over it.