• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton says he could have prevented economic collapse

WillRockwell

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
387
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's a softball for you Bushlovers. In an interview with NBC, Bill Clinton was asked about the economy:

President Clinton: Obama off to good start - White House- msnbc.com

Here's your chance to tell each other how deluded the Big Dog is. Of course, he's right.
 
How well did Citibank do under Robert Rubin, Clinton's miracle boy treasury secretary?

(I ask this, of course, knowing full well that you don't know.)
 
By the way, perhaps you should read this fully, an article from 1999 -- before Bush -- about the Clinton banking deregulation and what it could lead to. It's posted on the website of those renowned Bush lovers, the World Socialists.

Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system

Some of this should sound shockingly familiar.
 
Clinton opened the door to allow those on small incomes the ability to purchase their own property.
Naturally these folk saw this as an opportunity and grasped it with alacrity.
Not realizing what a Low starter Mortgage actually meant.
To facilitate these cheap rate Mortgages, Clinton started the printing presses rolling.
Did he know what he was doing?-----------Oh yes.
 

Sometimes I watch college basketball and swear up and down that I could have made "that" three pointer.
However, as much as I swear I can do something it does not really mean anything.

Mr. Clinton is flapping his gum.
 
Of course, the OP said "he's right" and then just took off without explaining what he'd have done differently.
 
Can we really destroy the economy by trying to help a small percentage of minorities get home loans over 10 years?

Just sounds fishy to me.
 
sazerac said:
Can we really destroy the economy by trying to help a small percentage of minorities get home loans over 10 years?

Just sounds fishy to me.
Click to expand...

How does that fit in here?
 
Harshaw said:
How does that fit in here?
Click to expand...

The Glass-Seigel act that you mentioned and Clinton's "American Dream" program. Also Bush's "Zero Down" program. Isn't this what is being blamed for a lot of the crisis?
 
sazerac said:
Can we really destroy the economy by trying to help a small percentage of minorities get home loans over 10 years?

Just sounds fishy to me.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. The financial system is like an organic entity. When you introduce bubonic plague into a cut in your finger, the damage doesn't just stay in your finger but quickly spreads throughout the entire organism.

When government mandates the minorities with poor credit be given more favorable loan terms then it becomes DISCRIMINATORY for lenders to apply more stringent terms to non-minorities. This relaxation in lending standards, designed to boost minority home ownership levels, produces more speculation and a lowering of purchaser standards in the home market. The ripple effects spread far and wide through an integrated economy and a worldwide financial market.

Purposely infecting the financial system with a political goal is not a wise thing to do.
 
They're all factors, but the deregulation of 1999 didn't have to do with mortgages, etc..

In any case, Clinton would not have done away with any of it. In fact, he was asked very recently if his 1999 deregulation was to blame, and he said it wasn't, and in fact it had helped . . . so it's a safe bet it wouldn't have been changed.
 
Wild Bill sure kept the sexual harassment lawyers in business.
 

On the contrary... Clinton was recently on Larry King Live. He said something to the effect that it appears now that some decisions he made during his Presidency may have contributed to the economic crisis. He was very apologetic about it.

Rip him apart if that is what makes you feel good. At least he's man enough to admit he made mistakes.
 
The only thing Clinton was good at stopping,was abortions,because he liked blow jobs
 
And, of course, the OP ran from his own topic. :roll:
 
Folks, it takes 2 to tango, in this case, Republicans and Democrats.

In 1999, Phil Gramm (Republican) introduced the Gramm-Bliley Act, which passed Congress, and was signed into law by Bill Clinton (Democrat). The Gramm Act was instrumental in removing the protections of the Glass-Steagal Act, passed in 1933, which was the prevention for what happened to our economy in the 21st Century.

[rant]
You know, I get kind of miffed when I see Republicans blaming Democrats and Democrats blaming Republicans instead of blaming their own party, whichever one it was that danced with the other. How about you hyper-partisans putting America first, for a change? Until you do, you guys at both extremes are just part of the problem. Try being part of the solution instead. Finger pointing is not only too easy, it is wrong.
[/rant]
 
Last edited:
Just thought of something else. In the interview, Clinton called the Republicans hypocrites. I have one important question to ask:

If the Democrats are correct (just for the sake of argument) in asserting that Republicans have spent us into a hole, then isn't it important that Democrats right that wrong by..............

Not doing the same damn thing the Republicans did?

Who's the hypocrites now??
 
Last edited:
I agree. Just as only Nixon could have gone to China,
only Clinton could have passed welfare reform (he did),
and only Clinton could have opposed selling impossible
mortgages to menial laborors.
 
lawshume said:
I agree. Just as only Nixon could have gone to China,
only Clinton could have passed welfare reform (he did),
and only Clinton could have opposed selling impossible
mortgages to menial laborors.
Click to expand...

But Clinton signed the Gramm bill, which made selling impossible mortgages to menial laborers.... possible, through the repackaging of those loans into derivatives, after the sale was complete.
 

That isn't the point of the thread.

The point of the thread is that Clinton claimed this wouldn't have happened if he had been president.

The record does not bear out that claim.
 
Harshaw said:
That isn't the point of the thread.

The point of the thread is that Clinton claimed this wouldn't have happened if he had been president.

The record does not bear out that claim.
Click to expand...

The record bears out that Clinton's team had the foresight, the intelligence, and the authority to change policy when necessary to take advantage of the economic situation as it changed. Clinton advocated deregulation when it was appropriate, and the economy grew. The point of his statement, and this OP, is that when he saw problems developing in the policy, he would have adapted to them, changing policy to anticipate coming difficulties.

This is what responsible economists do, in fact Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil would have acted responsibly had he not been silenced by internal jealosy and the inability of the president to tolerate independent thought.
 
WillRockwell said:
The record bears out that Clinton's team had the foresight, the intelligence, and the authority to change policy when necessary to take advantage of the economic situation as it changed.
Click to expand...
Hmm.
If you really believe this, then maybe you can explain how his policies did not prevent the recession of 2001.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…