Go to Why can't I sue the whole country?
- Add a comment
- Go to ONCE MORE THE CONSERVATIVES REALLY WANT IT BOTH WAYS
Janes,
What Clinton did kept things from falling a part sooner than they have. While it may not have been the best move for long term, it was a great move for the short term. If Bush had been on the ball and thinking a head, he could have stopped it all from crashing down on us, or at least made it so it all would not have crashed as hard.
Of course you did not address how four years ago the housing boom was great thing and showed just how great of a job Bush was doing. Now you are giving all that credit to Clinton, since it fell apart. So is that your side admitting that Bush had nothing to do with the 'record number of people owning houses' which was such a great thing four years ago?
Whatever Clinton may have done, Bush was the man who really should have been doing his job and done something real to keep things from falling apart. But he really has shown that he does not care about the economy. All he cares about is his 'War on Terror' and all the wars he can start using that justification. If he had been doing a good job from the start, we would have been done in Afghanistan years ago and we would never have gone into Iraq. That would them have left time, money and resources to be available to use here at home in building up a stronger economy.
posted by
kooka_lives
on October 22, 2008 at 8:14 AM
| link to this | reply
For myself I'd like to see material money and a person's handshake again for credit *** w/TLC, BCA *** Bill*s Wave* Blog on ***
posted by
BC-A
on October 14, 2008 at 6:42 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka_lives - benzinha is right in the sense that economic cycles transpire
in a time frame only marginally affected by each new administration.
That reality in a nutshell is why a four year administrative term has dramatic pros and cons. It could be argued that 4 years isn't long enough to effect change while at the same time is not long enough to do much damage. Then we must consider the of the democratic electoral process at its root. Because each administration works within a four year time frame, long term solutions are often discarded in favor of band aid solutions. Painful solutions are most definitely avoided at all costs and seem to only be inacted by second term presidents if at all.
The fact will always remain that debt is the underlying problem with the American economy and we all know that you cannot borrow your way out of debt. This reality makes a sound case for letting the chips fall where they may, let the financially infirm die their natural deaths and re-establish a sound economy premised upon checks and balances and founded on a solid framework.
posted by
gomedome
on October 13, 2008 at 10:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Now, all this bubbling goes waaaaay back before Clinton, waay back.
It came from the crashes, unattended to, policies unchanged, sharks unreined and financial institutions allowed to move on forward using what had caused the S and L crashes, which McCain was part and party to, to bring about this past month's crashes.
Same thing as always, begun by creative new accounting and banking and loaning techniques dreamed up and executed under Reagan and alive and well today, still chewing off huge chunks of the poor and average man's ass as they began thien and have since never been stopped from doing.
No one is stopping them now, for Pete's sake. Poor Pete.
One company announced that it was using its bailout funds to buy up other failing institutions. I say, hang them all and change the rules back to ancient decent, sustainable, punishable, transparent and viewable practices, from Before Reaganomics.
posted by
benzinha
on October 13, 2008 at 6:39 PM
| link to this | reply
excuse me, Kooka?
You acknowledge that Clinton recommended/started these risky loans, and then, when the bubble was, well, bubbling, blame it all on Bush? Talk about not wanting to have it both ways!!! Keep in mind it was folks like McCain who tried to implement regulation, but ran up against a democratic wall.
There is blame to go around for both parties, but Democrats and your pal Obama are certainly not as innocent as you make them out to be. Not by a long shot.
posted by
JanesOpinion
on October 13, 2008 at 6:01 PM
| link to this | reply
true
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 13, 2008 at 3:48 PM
| link to this | reply