Quote:
Originally Posted by tstew
Thanks for the info. My statement about forgetting how money is squandered for a minute is not me saying that squandering money is not a huge problem, I'm just saying that in the context of this conversation it was not my question.
I've read equally compelling arguments about how trickle down does not work and how much the economy thrived under Clinton's approach. It all becomes confusing and seems like slant and propaganda at some point. It's difficult to tell what from what.
As to the end of your post, I'm not sure there is a politician alive who has done enough to earn my support.
|
The numbers are the numbers and one can't deny them. Reagan became president when the economy under Carter was a mess. By the time he left office the economy was roaring. It peaked into the mid 90s with only a few years of Clinton as president. Eight years of Reagan and four years of Bush I should be given the lion's share of credit.
And Clinton continued Regean's fundamentals. He cut taxes, he trimmed spending, he revamped Welfare and other government programs. After leaning to the left in 1993-1994 and summarily getting his butt kicked in the '94 midterms, he spent the rest of his presidency leaning back to the right and worked with the Republican led Congress to further promote supply side economics. Under his administration however the seedbed for the 2008 banking collapse took place.
In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas. Additionally, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans.
In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s." Alex Berenson of The New York Times reported in 2003 that Fannie Mae's risk is much larger than is commonly held. Nassim Taleb wrote in The Black Swan: "The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup. But not to worry: their large staff of scientists deem these events 'unlikely'". In his 2006 book, America's Financial Apocalypse, Mike Stathis also warned about the risk of Fannie Mae helping to trigger the financial crisis: “With close to $2 trillion in debt between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae alone, as well as several trillion held by commercial banks, failure of just one GSE or related entity could create a huge disaster that would easily eclipse the Savings & Loan Crisis of the late 1980s. This would certainly devastate the stock, bond and real estate markets. Most likely, there would also be an even bigger mess in the derivatives market, leading to a global sell-off in the capital markets. Not only would investors get crushed, but taxpayers would have to bail them out since the GSEs are backed by the government. Everyone would feel the effects. At its bottom, I would estimate a 30 to 35 percent correction for the average home. And in ‘hot spots’ such as Las Vegas, selected areas of Northern and Southern California and Florida, home prices could plummet by 55 to 60 percent from peak values.”
The critics of Reaganomics are Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman who criticizes Obama for NOT SPENDING MORE MONEY! Krugman believes deeper debt and higher deficit spending would fix this economy. He touted the wonderful European socialist governments for years. Countries that in some places tax people as high as 70% of their income and where the average taxpayer pays 35-45% of their income all of the many government social programs. Now that Europe is on the verge of financial ruin, Krugman spends a lot of his time writing in the NY Times criticizing the Europeans for cutting spending on government programs. AND THE WORLD GIVES GUYS LIKE KRUGMAN NOBEL PRIZES FOR ECONOMICS! Insane.
You can't argue with the results, even if you have critics. The Patriots may win lots of Super Bowls, but a lot of people still don't like Belichick or Brady and they still get criticized. But you can't deny they are winners. Like Reagan or not, the facts are the facts, America's economy THRIVED under his policies.
Threaded Mode
