When Clinton created his "surplus budget" it was on paper , not real or current. If we stayed on his budget then after 8 to 10 years we would have a 10 trillion dollar surplus. It was then the economy started booming , ppl started buying , etc etc. But they were doing it based on what Clinton said was coming, not what ppl actually had in their pockets.
Well Clinton didnt budget in a terrorist attacK and the dot com bubble busting. The first part of your post is wrong, the market and economy numbers started going down in late 2000. We were heading down hill when Busch let go the first barrage of refunds and tax cuts. And it turned around what Clinton had messed up, but Afganastan and Iraq have taken a financial toll... A toll I have no problem paying for. But all of the purchased made during the Clinton years of promised surplus were made on credit , credit given based on numbers that never materialized.
Now we are paying for it.
__________________ You can't reach the world with your talents. People are sick and tired of religious talents. People need a Holy Ghost annointed church with real fruits to reach out and touch their lives. ~ Pastor Burrell Crabtree
In fact I think that the insinuation of "hateful" Pentecostals is coming mostly from the fertile imaginations of bitter, backslidden ex Apostolics who are constantly trying to find a way to justify their actions. ~ strait shooter
When Clinton created his "surplus budget" it was on paper , not real or current. If we stayed on his budget then after 8 to 10 years we would have a 10 trillion dollar surplus. It was then the economy started booming , ppl started buying , etc etc. But they were doing it based on what Clinton said was coming, not what ppl actually had in their pockets.
Well Clinton didnt budget in a terrorist attacK and the dot com bubble busting. The first part of your post is wrong, the market and economy numbers started going down in late 2000. We were heading down hill when Busch let go the first barrage of refunds and tax cuts. And it turned around what Clinton had messed up, but Afganastan and Iraq have taken a financial toll... A toll I have no problem paying for. But all of the purchased made during the Clinton years of promised surplus were made on credit , credit given based on numbers that never materialized.
Now we are paying for it.
SCOTTY!!
Good to see you! i remember you from when I first joined AFF.
I disagree with you. If things were financially sound in America right now, we'd have 8 years of Republican leadership to thank.
But since things are bad, we would rather reach back to the policies of another decade and try to point the fingers.
In 8 years, you would think that this Administration's "Financial Gatekeepers" would have seen this coming and warned our country to take action.
But the truth is, they were asleep on the job-- drunk on greed and excess.
One could try to put most of this on Clinton, but it would be naive at best.
Republicans have been in power for 8 years. It's happening on their watch, at the end of their watch. This is their baby!
__________________
"The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character."
AN ARTICLE FROM WINTER 2000 (WORTH THE READ)...Long, but worth reading...Notice the reference to law passed in 1977 during Carter's presidency and how it was pushed during the Clinton era: http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_...on_dollar.html
The link below to forums goes to an inactive page..Wonder why?..It was entitled "Social Engineers of 1977 Caused Bank Failures"
THE LEFTISTS HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TURN AMERICAN INTO A SOCIALIST COUNTRY EVEN PRIOR TO THE 60s....Collapse everything and where do the people turn?...It was NOT a failure of the Free Market but a Failure of the Government to do Social Engineering!
Actually, I believe this is what the experts are saying.
Carter got the plans approved and built a lttle house (most likely with good intentions)..Clinton came along and built a big, big, house that no one could pay for and then it turned into a monster that began to implode with American financial institutes, real estate and the stock market investments inside. Bush has just helped to promote socialism...I don't hate any of these men nor are my posts intended to bash them. Please don't misinterpret my post...Not saying that I agree with everything at the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, but when I read it now it makes more sense than it did a few days ago.
This is good info but remember the Dems can not pass everything without a 2/3 or great percentage of "yea's"
I think the dems would be protected had they offered a single bill for consideration that would have dealt with this mess.
they didnt. in fact, there has been NO congress in 50 years that has done less than the 110th. It has been a disgrace.
The only thing the democrats (read barak obama) has done is point to Phil Graham and say he wrote a bad deregulation bill that caused this.
A closer look at that bill reviels that 90 Senators voted for it (including Joe Biden) and the president (Bill Clinton) signed it. and the Tresury Secretary (Robert Rubin, democrat) said it was VERY NEEDED....
All that bill did was allow investment banks and regular banks to diversify into areas they had not been able to do before. That bill is what has kept the likes of Bank of America strong. Had Leahman Brothers done what BOA did, it would not have failed.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
I think the dems would be protected had they offered a single bill for consideration that would have dealt with this mess.
they didnt. in fact, there has been NO congress in 50 years that has done less than the 110th. It has been a disgrace.
The only thing the democrats (read barak obama) has done is point to Phil Graham and say he wrote a bad deregulation bill that caused this.
A closer look at that bill reviels that 90 Senators voted for it (including Joe Biden) and the president (Bill Clinton) signed it. and the Tresury Secretary (Robert Rubin, democrat) said it was VERY NEEDED....
All that bill did was allow investment banks and regular banks to diversify into areas they had not been able to do before. That bill is what has kept the likes of Bank of America strong. Had Leahman Brothers done what BOA did, it would not have failed.
There is no way to say that with any fair amount of conviction other than your thoughts. LB had other issues too not just this.
__________________
"If we don't learn to live together we're gonna die alone"
Jack Shephard.
There is no way to say that with any fair amount of conviction other than your thoughts. LB had other issues too not just this.
The point JT, is that Leahman didnt diversify. they stuck with being an investment bank and didnt take advantage of the law that would have allowed them to move into regular banking areas.
BOA did. they moved to diversify and they are strong today. You can say that because that is exactly what happened with each.
Leahmans problems are directly related to mortgage backed securities and being over leveraged based on these securities having such little value.
__________________ If I do something stupid blame the Lortab!
Hybrid Mode
