PDA

View Full Version : What was Bill Clinton doing so right and GWBush doing so wrong? Why blame Obama?



metroins
11-12-2011, 07:34 AM
What happened? How did Clinton even get the debt so low? Why do people blame Obama for this financial mess we are in?

This does not include the WallStreet bailouts that GWB started before Obama even got in office.

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2dmfrk5.jpg


The chart above is based on data from the Bureau of Public Debt up to September 8, 2008, the last reporting day before this chart was created. The 2008 Fiscal Year ends on September 30th. It seems likely that the National Debt will exceed $600 Billion (!) for the first time ever in fiscal 2008. Not that any of the Press, mostly owned by Republicans and right-wing foreigners, will report it.

By comparison, please note that Democratic President Bill Clinton increased the National Debt by less than $18 Billion in his ENTIRE LAST YEAR in office! At the rate that the Clinton administration was reducing the debt increases, an Al Gore administration would have almost paid off the entire National Debt by 2008! We would have had EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS OF DEBT DECREASES!!! A far cry from what Bush and the Republicans gave us.

Bill Clinton steadily reduced the debt increase while he was in office, thanks largely to the 1993 Debt Reduction Act* that was OPPOSED BY EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN IN CONGRESS, led by Newt Gingrich! The Republicans claimed that the Debt Reduction Act would result in HIGHER deficits and also result in an economic recession during President Clinton's term. Obviously, with hindsight they were completely wrong. Republicans don't seem to be very good at math, or economics.

Now, after 20 years of huge Republican deficits and Republican recessions, the National Debt has increased from $937 Billion -- LESS than $1 Trillion -- the day Ronald Reagan took office to ALMOST $10 TRILLION!!! The Debt has increased more than TEN TIMES what it was when Ronald Reagan promised to reduce the National Debt by 1983! We and our children and their children will be paying off the debt added by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush for the next 100 years and more! For what !?!? Services have been cut across America. Police and Fire Departments haven't grown nearly as fast as our population. Even the number of troops in the military has been cut while military spending has skyrocketed!

http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Probably a repost but it's my first time seeing it this chart/webpage.

Scoundrel
11-12-2011, 07:38 AM
Yes, historically republicans do spend more, it sa good system of checks and balances imo. With that said, obama is fuking it up, and is gonna completely destroy this chart. But this chart is some partisan b.s., doesnt take into account that clinon just happened to be president during the dot com boom, which is were a large part of his success lies. Lots of money, jobs etc from the boom. Its one thing to tax people when they have money, its quite another to tax them when they dont.

metroins
11-12-2011, 07:46 AM
Yes, historically republicans do spend more, it sa good system of checks and balances imo. With that said, obama is fuking it up, and is gonna completely destroy this chart. But this chart is some partisan b.s., doesnt take into account that clinon just happened to be president during the dot com boom, which is were a large part of his success lies. Lots of money, jobs etc from the boom. Its one thing to tax people when they have money, its quite another to tax them when they dont.

Obama policies added roughly 7% to national debt which is the low end of averages compared to previous presidents. I half-heartedly agree with the Clinton .com boom because it was near the end of his term and he lowered spending during his first 4 years as well.

What is the big jump in '08 from? It does not include the bank bailouts.

FuarkJohnson
11-12-2011, 07:50 AM
Clinton was only successful because of an artificial boom caused by the federal reserve. The Bush era experienced the bust from that boom.

Streetbull
11-12-2011, 07:51 AM
Who ran Congress while Clinton was in there? Was it Gingrich?

So, let's give HIM (Gingrich) credit since Bill was busy getting BJ's and trying to hunt down Juanita Broderick. Fire Obama and put Gingrich in there, with a conservative Congress.

Scoundrel
11-12-2011, 07:52 AM
Obama policies added roughly 7% to national debt which is the low end of averages compared to previous presidents. I half-heartedly agree with the Clinton .com boom because it was near the end of his term and he lowered spending during his first 4 years as well.

Yes, but he also made the legislative changes to the CRA. These changes are the ones that rewarded banks for giving out bad loans to unqualified people. Thus, the bubble started. And all throught bush's term, and even bush himself, tried setting up agencies to keep an eye on em, yet were constantly blocked by D's like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. And lets not forget, D's has control of congress during Bush's last couple of years, he couldnt do sh!t without them. They are more responsible than people realize.

But enough with D hate, truth is both sides are fukn us over. POLITICIANS are to be blamed. Money in politics, creating special interests, etc. Bunch of greasy bastards in there.

Flakker
11-12-2011, 08:08 AM
What happened? How did Clinton even get the debt so low? Why do people blame Obama for this financial mess we are in?

This does not include the WallStreet bailouts that GWB started before Obama even got in office.

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2dmfrk5.jpg

http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Probably a repost but it's my first time seeing it this chart/webpage.

Clinton didn't get the "debt so low" he just lowered the % of deficit spending. Your graph shows federal spending less federal revenue, not national debt.

PSToolman
11-12-2011, 08:28 AM
Yes, historically republicans do spend more, it sa good system of checks and balances imo. With that said, obama is fuking it up, and is gonna completely destroy this chart. But this chart is some partisan b.s., doesnt take into account that clinon just happened to be president during the dot com boom, which is were a large part of his success lies. Lots of money, jobs etc from the boom. Its one thing to tax people when they have money, its quite another to tax them when they dont.

How have taxes changed under Obama?

Scoundrel
11-12-2011, 08:34 AM
How have taxes changed under Obama?

Tobacco taxes, gas taxes, etc

Flakker
11-12-2011, 08:40 AM
All together now!

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2dmfrk5.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y6PQ98ENKjU/TisNgvJSQRI/AAAAAAAACWk/Gq-8akd__VU/s1600/Big_Spending_Dems-04c.jpg

http://www.nyse.tv/dow-jones-industrial-average-djia-history.gif

PSToolman
11-12-2011, 08:52 AM
Clinton was only successful because of an artificial boom caused by the federal reserve. The Bush era experienced the bust from that boom.

I have trouble buying this. I look at the GDP chart for the last twenty years or so, and it, and the debt, are rising steadily with no bump in the nineties or dips in the 2000's.

Clinton never ran a surplus, per se. His claims about the cutting the deficit during his presidency are true only when compared to GDP. We still ran in the red.

The only time we see GDP drop begins with the last year of the last administration, and it picked back up again last year.

PSToolman
11-12-2011, 08:58 AM
Tobacco taxes, gas taxes, etc

Explain. The federal gas tax has been 18.4 cents since 1993. I couldn't care less about tobacco taxes. Whatever it is, it's too low. We still have too many people getting sick and dying from it and it's costing us too much money.

I notice you didn't mention federal income tax.

PSToolman
11-12-2011, 09:00 AM
All together now!

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2dmfrk5.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y6PQ98ENKjU/TisNgvJSQRI/AAAAAAAACWk/Gq-8akd__VU/s1600/Big_Spending_Dems-04c.jpg

http://www.nyse.tv/dow-jones-industrial-average-djia-history.gif

(In Unison) "There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans."

Scoundrel
11-12-2011, 09:09 AM
Explain. The federal gas tax has been 18.4 cents since 1993. I couldn't care less about tobacco taxes. Whatever it is, it's too low. We still have too many people getting sick and dying from it and it's costing us too much money.

I notice you didn't mention federal income tax.

Whatever it is, its too low? Lets raise alcohol taxes while were at it, fast food taxes as well. Mountain dew tax as well. Diet soda taxes as well. Lets ration out the amount of meat one can purchase in a week, as large amounts of meat have been shown to increase the chance of getting cancer, etc. Better yet, lets just give the people the knowledge and freedom to make their own choices.

metroins
11-12-2011, 09:17 AM
(In Unison) "There is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans."

<3 <3

jked4life
11-12-2011, 09:30 AM
Nothing. Overall economic policy hasn't changed that much since Reagan took office. When Reagan came on board, he shifted the country towards Supply Side economics, ie "trickle down". That has been the overarching theme ever since. This is the BIG thing. Most of the rest is details.

30 year trends:

- Trickle down philosophy - With confused, befuddled arguments between Austrian economics/Keynsian. Not really getting either right.

- Cut taxes/allow loopholes for Rich- Again, wealth will trickle down to the little people if the rich get rich enough. When the wealth did in fact start shifting the opposite way, the masses were appeased with more govt. entitlements to keep them quiet. The combination of the two is a disaster.

- De-Regulation- Get rid of Glass/Steagall, other regulatory precautions that keep the business cycle smaller and prevent massive shifts of wealth from market fluctuations... generally from YOU to others more intelligent in the markets than you.

- Speculation over Savings Philosophy- Constantly lowering the interest rates, thus keeping capital flowing rather than being saved. This is true from the fat cats down to the little guy. It can be a good idea in the short run, but 30 years of it has been a disaster. This lead to people living on credit and overextending themselves on mortgages, and banks that hold these debts gambling with speculation. This combined with the deregulation is what caused '08, and consequently a large part of our current predicament.

- Ever growing amounts of fraud, malfeasance, ignoring of the current laws on the books. Financial sector has grown ever more into a wild west situation. Politicians and regulators are basically bought off.

- Clinton- MAGIC- He raised taxes, slashed the military budget. The real magic was from the Social Security accounting changes. Social Security was funded through paryroll, but many feared it might not be enough to cover the baby boomers. Through magic, all of the sudden it became an "unfunded mandate", i.e. deceptive accounting changes. Now all the Republican candidates that want to cut "unfunded mandates" like SS, are correct. They are unfunded now.

- Short run mentality- All economic changes are geared towards benefit for the next election. Often in economic policy, the short run benefits of decisions can spell long term disaster. China on the other hand has the long run mentality. They play economics like a game of chess.




The problem is that Congress passes laws to benefit their constituents, and the President's advisors/Federal Reserve make the financial policy. Often they are opposite in philosophy. Most congressman have no clue about economics and just spend to appease constituents. A better analysis would be to see who are the key players on the financial side for the past 30 years:


Greenspan- Fed Chairman from Reagan until right around 07'. Deregulation philosphy/favored speculation, ect. Steered Reagan, HW, Clinton, W in that direction. Largely responsible for '08 disaster.

Geithner- International Banker/Goldman Sachs, ect... Worked under Clinton, now Obama. Questionable background if you ask me.

Rubin- Goldman Sachs- (good buddy of Corzine- Former Governor of NJ, G.Sacks guy, MF Global- who is now possibly going to go to trial for outright theft in that job)- Speculatory hero who ridiculed watchdog groups that warned about a derivatives crisis down the line.

Larry Summers- Harvard/London School of Economics, World Bank- Adviser under Clinton/Obama

Paulson- G.Sacks- Harvard, - Speculator



The major economic ruin theme seems to be advisers with a resume that reads:

Harvard/U of Chicago, G. Saks, maybe some Council for Foreign Relations, Central Banker... Then become advisers... then back to Harvard or G.Sacks.


And we wonder why we have big deficits and a poor economy?

leafs43
11-12-2011, 10:51 AM
It's very simple.

When the economy does well, government is seen as running decently enough. When the economy does poorly the gov't uses deficit spending to keep the economy running along for almost purely political reasons.


Bush got hit with 3 economic bombshells. He got hit with the dotcom bubble. He got hit with 9/11. Then he got hit with the housing market bubble. So Bush looking to get reelected obviously pushed as much money out into the economy he could and keep political favor.

kusok
11-12-2011, 10:56 AM
Neither of them did anything good for you and me, and neither of them is any different from one another. Usually democrats tax and spend, republicans borrow and spend, the result is the same - spending. They then go ahead and jerk you around by attacking each other for democrats taxing you, or for republicans borrowing (aka putting you in more debt).

They are all the same: republicrats. The small differences they have are 100% irrelevant, and are only there for show. The agenda never changes: more wars, bigger government, further loss of your purchasing power and freedom.

nutsy54
11-12-2011, 11:19 AM
The primary fallacy with your thread is using a chart which pretends that "The President" is the sole factor in the nation's deficits. Just at the basic level, no piece of spending legislation has ever been signed into law before first being written and passed by Congress. Then, larger economic factors come into play, which a President has no control over (tech bubble under Clinton, housing bubble under Bush, etc).

You'll notice the "Bush" deficit skyrocketed when Pelosi/Reid regained control of Congress - then exploded when their policies were compounded by Obama in the White House (Hmmm.... interesting that your chart doesn't include the monstrously larger deficits of 2009, 2010, 2011, and expected for 2012).


This does not include the WallStreet bailouts that GWB started before Obama even got in office.The moronic bailouts which Obama supported as a Senator, and continued/expanded as President? Not really sure how your criticism is solely directed at Bush, when it was clearly a Bush/Obama/Pelosi/Reid policy :confused:

Obama policies added roughly 7% to national debtHow does that statement make any sense at all? The national debt has increased nearly 50% since Obama took office. Deficits are now described on the order of "Trillion". He's been in office for nearly three years, two years of that with solid Democrat control and rubber-stamping of his policies in Congress.

"Obama policies"? How is anything not an "Obama policy" at this stage? He chose to double the size of our war in Afghanistan, continued the Iraq War 1 1/2 years beyond his promised end date, signed trillions of dollars in new deficit/debt into law (under the guise of "fiscal responsibility"), poured $800 Billion into a "Stimulus" bill that didn't deliver the promised results, continued and expanded the "Bush" tax cuts...


What is the big jump in '08 from? That was the first fiscal year under the control of a Pelosi/Reid Congress... It was also the start of slightly reduced revenue as the economy began to go downhill.

Meanwhile, the "big jump" to a $458 Billion deficit in 2008 pales in comparison to the deficits left out of your OP chart:
2009: $1,412 Billion
2010: $1,555 Billion
2011: $1,300 Billion
2012 budget request by President Obama: $1,100 deficit (which even the Senate voted down 97-0)

Once again:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y6PQ98ENKjU/TisNgvJSQRI/AAAAAAAACWk/Gq-8akd__VU/s1600/Big_Spending_Dems-04c.jpg

lordofchaos
11-12-2011, 11:40 AM
I think honestly, the best takeaway from this thread is that we need to get the current congress the F out, they doubled the worst over spending ever before no matter the party. Holy crap, I mean I knew it was bad, but that graph shows just how bad.

nutsy54
11-12-2011, 11:53 AM
Why blame Obama?By the way... We can "Blame Obama", because Barack Obama believes that failed "leadership" should be blamed:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
-- Barack Obama, Senate Floor, 2006

Meanwhile, $4.4 Trillion in deficit spending since he took office, a 41% increase in the national debt, with no end in sight if his stated policies are implemented.

metroins
11-12-2011, 12:03 PM
I think honestly, the best takeaway from this thread is that we need to get the current congress the F out, they doubled the worst over spending ever before no matter the party. Holy crap, I mean I knew it was bad, but that graph shows just how bad.

I can agree with this statement.

Streetbull
11-12-2011, 03:29 PM
By the way... We can "Blame Obama", because Barack Obama believes that failed "leadership" should be blamed:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
-- Barack Obama, Senate Floor, 2006

Meanwhile, $4.4 Trillion in deficit spending since he took office, a 41% increase in the national debt, with no end in sight if his stated policies are implemented.

The reason Obama's statement in the Senate conflicts entirely with the actions of his presidency is that, once he became POTUS, someone sat him down (several people actually) and told him: "Remember, Mr. President, you have two daughters." Guess what they meant?

Does anyone here seriously think that leadership of the most powerful country on earth is turned over to the occasional con artist (Obama) or boob (Bush) who manages to convince the swarming masses (most of whom are simply dullards who seek only as much booze, sex, drugs, violent sports, as possible) to vote for him?

Its all Kabuki theatre. The banking houses run the show.

nutsy54
11-12-2011, 03:35 PM
The reason Obama's statement in the Senate conflicts entirely with the actions of his presidency is that, once he became POTUS, someone sat him down (several people actually) and told him: "Remember, Mr. President, you have two daughters." Guess what they meant?In before you provide absolutely no proof of that bullsh!t claim :rolleyes:

jked4life
11-12-2011, 04:10 PM
In before you provide absolutely no proof of that bullsh!t claim :rolleyes:

His claim is basically the same as my claim.

Do a little research and find out who is dictating financial policy for Washington and it should be blatantly obvious.

I provided some of the info regarding a few key players. There's a lot more if you dig through the info. The resume's of these clowns should tell an intelligent person what is going on.

cavymeister
11-12-2011, 04:18 PM
All together now!

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2dmfrk5.jpg[/i]

[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y6PQ98ENKjU/TisNgvJSQRI/AAAAAAAACWk/Gq-8akd__VU/s1600/Big_Spending_Dems-04c.jpg

http://www.nyse.tv/dow-jones-industrial-average-djia-history.gif

So, what you're saying, is that the President doesn't make that much of a difference? It's ACTUALLY congress, where spending legislation originates, that determines how much goes out versus in?

Who would have thunk it?

bcop
11-12-2011, 04:51 PM
What happened? How did Clinton even get the debt so low? Why do people blame Obama for this financial mess we are in?

This does not include the WallStreet bailouts that GWB started before Obama even got in office.

http://oi44.tinypic.com/2dmfrk5.jpg



http://jimcgreevy.com/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Probably a repost but it's my first time seeing it this chart/webpage.

You won't find me, a conservative, defend bush for this. Although he was great on taxes, he was terrible on spending, even on non war dependent spending. Don't forget that during the last 6 years of clinton's presidency, their was a very anti spending republican congress in power. Congress also matters in this.

I blame Obama for spending more than anyone else before. Between his bailouts, his healthcare pans, and his stimuli, his spending plans are killing this economy. And until last year, the fully democratic congress fully supported him.

Flakker
11-12-2011, 05:11 PM
So, what you're saying, is that the President doesn't make that much of a difference? It's ACTUALLY congress, where spending legislation originates, that determines how much goes out versus in?

Who would have thunk it?

Eh, not really. The direction of the market seems to have the strongest correlation. The dates of the booms and busts line up almost exactly with the increases and decreases of deficit spending. Congressional control is only vaguely causative.

You could argue that federal policy effects the booms/busts, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms due to the lagging effect of policy.

What doesn't make sense is why our modern deficits haven't corrected. From the depths of '09 until now, the market did amazingly well.

My theory it that it's entitlement programs and failed stimulus cash.
1) Some stimulus cash went to stupid things like Solyndra... burning the money would have been just as useful.
2) Other stimulus money went to "teachers" and "firefighters" (read: union backed pension plans).
3) The first of the baby boomers are retiring.

So we wasted a lot of money, we have a titlewave of unfunded entitlement bills coming due (S.S., M.C., M.A.) and we took it a step further and nationalized State held entitlement liabilities.

Streetbull
11-12-2011, 05:24 PM
In before you provide absolutely no proof of that bullsh!t claim :rolleyes:

Can you think of a reason why he is doing precisely the opposite of everything he campaigned on?

He ran on change and staffed his administration with Goldman Sachs insiders (well, he had little to do with choosing them actually).

He promised the most open and above board administration ever and everything gets done in secret, killing with drones and bailing out banks.

Isn't everyone baffled why the campaign and the resulting administration are so startlingly different? Ever wonder why?

Government of the money, by the money, and for the money...

jked4life
11-12-2011, 05:37 PM
Eh, not really. The direction of the market seems to have the strongest correlation. The dates of the booms and busts line up almost exactly with the increases and decreases of deficit spending. Congressional control is only vaguely causative.

You could argue that federal policy
effects the booms/busts, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms due to the lagging effect of policy.

What doesn't make sense is why our modern deficits haven't corrected. From the depths of '09 until now, the market did amazingly well.

My theory it that it's entitlement programs and failed stimulus cash.
1) Some stimulus cash went to stupid things like Solyndra... burning the money would have been just as useful.
2) Other stimulus money went to "teachers" and "firefighters" (read: union backed pension plans).
3) The first of the baby boomers are retiring.

So we wasted a lot of money, we have a titlewave of unfunded entitlement bills coming due (S.S., M.C., M.A.) and we took it a step further and nationalized State held entitlement liabilities.

LOl!!!!

Economics 101 - F

Foxinomics 101- A +

Try trillions in toxic assets being bought by the fed, Zombie banks not lending because they are still pretty insolvent, broke out of work people saving rather than buying. You could also look at millions of previously employed people now needing govt help. Or those greedy public unions that had their previously funded pensions decimated by behavior that was once illegal. I could go on.

Our economy is 70% consumer driven. Keeping teachers employed, unemployed still able to shop at Walmart is going to help, at least in the short run. The stimulus was poorly executed though.

We need to overhaul economic policy, with a number of changes that work together as a program. Right now the only road we can take is the austerity road. It's a long painful and sad road, despite it's current world wide media acclaim. Ask any European.

nutsy54
11-12-2011, 05:41 PM
Can you think of a reason why he is doing precisely the opposite of everything he campaigned on?Because he's a naive, inexperienced politician who's in way over his head, propelled through the election with a combination of good speech-making, reverse racism, and the convenience of an economy which allowed easy hatred of George Bush (and therefore the Republican candidate).

Not because his daughters were threatened with death if he didn't follow the orders of some imaginary organization :rolleyes:

Spetsnazos
11-12-2011, 05:44 PM
repuyblicans are failures we all know that

nutsy54
11-12-2011, 05:47 PM
repuyblicans are failures we all know thatSo.... You've ignored the contents of this thread, just so you could once again prove your posting abilities are limited to absurd insults which don't match reality. Brilliant!

BRB - Deficits consistently go down when Republicans are writing the budget legislation, while deficits go up under Democrats, and exploded into insanity under Pelosi/Reid/Obama... So that somehow means republicans are the failures :confused:

Another swing-and-a-miss for Spetz. That's OK, it took you a while to figure out the gun thing, so there's still hope :)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-y6PQ98ENKjU/TisNgvJSQRI/AAAAAAAACWk/Gq-8akd__VU/s1600/Big_Spending_Dems-04c.jpg

Streetbull
11-12-2011, 05:59 PM
Because he's a naive, inexperienced politician who's in way over his head, propelled through the election with a combination of good speech-making, reverse racism, and the convenience of an economy which allowed easy hatred of George Bush (and therefore the Republican candidate).

Not because his daughters were threatened with death if he didn't follow the orders of some imaginary organization :rolleyes:

You really think that senators, congressman, the CIA, the banking houses, don't have people killed? Do you think they would tolerate for ONE INSTANT anyone threatening to change a system built up since Andrew Jackson killed off our second central bank?

"Jackson then had an investigation done on the Bank which he said established “beyond question that this great and powerful institution had been actively engaged in attempting to influence the elections of the public officers by means of its money.” Although its charter was bound to run out in 1836, Jackson wanted to "kill" the Second Bank of the United States even earlier." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States

Bankers, who deal in billions and trillions, at the mercy of any stray con man who convinces boobs to vote for him for POTUS? Huge industries, huge entrenched bureaucracies, the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about (at great risk to his family, but he did it any way...man had real balls), all at the mercy of politicians? Uhhh...okay.......

nutsy54
11-12-2011, 06:04 PM
You really think that senators, congressman, the CIA, the banking houses, don't have people killed? Do you think they would tolerate for ONE INSTANT anyone threatening to change a system built up since Andrew Jackson killed off our second central bank?Yeah... This is where I stop feeding your conspiracy insanity. Buh-bye now :)

jked4life
11-12-2011, 06:08 PM
You really think that senators, congressman, the CIA, the banking houses, don't have people killed? Do you think they would tolerate for ONE INSTANT anyone threatening to change a system built up since Andrew Jackson killed off our second central bank?

"Jackson then had an investigation done on the Bank which he said established “beyond question that this great and powerful institution had been actively engaged in attempting to influence the elections of the public officers by means of its money.” Although its charter was bound to run out in 1836, Jackson wanted to "kill" the Second Bank of the United States even earlier." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States

Bankers, who deal in billions and trillions, at the mercy of any stray con man who convinces boobs to vote for him for POTUS? Huge industries, huge entrenched bureaucracies, the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about (at great risk to his family, but he did it any way...man had real balls), all at the mercy of politicians? Uhhh...okay.......

I would also add the Lincoln and Kennedy debacle. Both crossed the bankers in a way that no other presidents since Jackson had. I'm sure the fact that 2 of 3 presidents in American history who dared to cross them wound up dead. Jackson only escaped death because both pistols of his assasin jammed. Probably just a coincidence. The "free" market would never do that. :rolleyes:

There's a reason for the old saying "money is the root of all evil".

jked4life
11-12-2011, 06:22 PM
Nothing. Overall economic policy hasn't changed that much since Reagan took office. When Reagan came on board, he shifted the country towards Supply Side economics, ie "trickle down". That has been the overarching theme ever since. This is the BIG thing. Most of the rest is details.

30 year trends:

- Trickle down philosophy - With confused, befuddled arguments between Austrian economics/Keynsian. Not really getting either right.

- Cut taxes/allow loopholes for Rich- Again, wealth will trickle down to the little people if the rich get rich enough. When the wealth did in fact start shifting the opposite way, the masses were appeased with more govt. entitlements to keep them quiet. The combination of the two is a disaster.

- De-Regulation- Get rid of Glass/Steagall, other regulatory precautions that keep the business cycle smaller and prevent massive shifts of wealth from market fluctuations... generally from YOU to others more intelligent in the markets than you.

- Speculation over Savings Philosophy- Constantly lowering the interest rates, thus keeping capital flowing rather than being saved. This is true from the fat cats down to the little guy. It can be a good idea in the short run, but 30 years of it has been a disaster. This lead to people living on credit and overextending themselves on mortgages, and banks that hold these debts gambling with speculation. This combined with the deregulation is what caused '08, and consequently a large part of our current predicament.

- Ever growing amounts of fraud, malfeasance, ignoring of the current laws on the books. Financial sector has grown ever more into a wild west situation. Politicians and regulators are basically bought off.

- Clinton- MAGIC- He raised taxes, slashed the military budget. The real magic was from the Social Security accounting changes. Social Security was funded through paryroll, but many feared it might not be enough to cover the baby boomers. Through magic, all of the sudden it became an "unfunded mandate", i.e. deceptive accounting changes. Now all the Republican candidates that want to cut "unfunded mandates" like SS, are correct. They are unfunded now.

- Short run mentality- All economic changes are geared towards benefit for the next election. Often in economic policy, the short run benefits of decisions can spell long term disaster. China on the other hand has the long run mentality. They play economics like a game of chess.




The problem is that Congress passes laws to benefit their constituents, and the President's advisors/Federal Reserve make the financial policy. Often they are opposite in philosophy. Most congressman have no clue about economics and just spend to appease constituents. A better analysis would be to see who are the key players on the financial side for the past 30 years:


Greenspan- Fed Chairman from Reagan until right around 07'. Deregulation philosphy/favored speculation, ect. Steered Reagan, HW, Clinton, W in that direction. Largely responsible for '08 disaster.

Geithner- International Banker/Goldman Sachs, ect... Worked under Clinton, now Obama. Questionable background if you ask me.

Rubin- Goldman Sachs- (good buddy of Corzine- Former Governor of NJ, G.Sacks guy, MF Global- who is now possibly going to go to trial for outright theft in that job)- Speculatory hero who ridiculed watchdog groups that warned about a derivatives crisis down the line.

Larry Summers- Harvard/London School of Economics, World Bank- Adviser under Clinton/Obama

Paulson- G.Sacks- Harvard, - Speculator



The major economic ruin theme seems to be advisers with a resume that reads:

Harvard/U of Chicago, G. Saks, maybe some Council for Foreign Relations, Central Banker... Then become advisers... then back to Harvard or G.Sacks.


And we wonder why we have big deficits and a poor economy?

See the above post.


Yeah... This is where I stop feeding your conspiracy insanity. Buh-bye now :)

You can take history and interpret facts however you want. I think your point of view is insanely naive and dangerous.

I started the research process for you, I'm not doing any more homework for you. I suggest you do an in depth study of the people in the white house cabinet, largely responsible for monetary policy. You don't think it's a bit they all came from the same 2-3 colleges, worked for the Federal Reserve or European equivalent, Goldman Sachs... go to advise the president... then return to these places when they are done. Laws are changed to favor speculation, the main business model of these entities. Economic disasters just "happen", and their buddies walk away with all the loot.

There is no red or blue party, donkeys or elephants. This is not football. There is only one party. Their color is green and their mascot is the temple and eye.

Un-elected Bankers thrust into power in 2 democratic countries, and a "Super" Congress (members essentially un touchable in elections) in the United States should be the first dead giveaway.


I'm sure it's all legit. Nothing to see here. Move along. Everyone keep your head in the sand.

Streetbull
11-12-2011, 06:34 PM
I would also add the Lincoln and Kennedy debacle. Both crossed the bankers in a way that no other presidents since Jackson had. I'm sure the fact that 2 of 3 presidents in American history who dared to cross them wound up dead. Jackson only escaped death because both pistols of his assasin jammed. Probably just a coincidence. The "free" market would never do that. :rolleyes:

There's a reason for the old saying "money is the root of all evil".

Yep. It amazes me how anyone could think that these very powerful people (especially the bankers) would allow themselves to take orders from some smooth talking con man who managed to win an election.

Imagine Donald Trump and Barack Obama in a big meeting room, and Obama starts giving orders to Trump. Trump will, of course, happily go along, not try to replace Obama with someone he (Trump) can control, not try to get out from under the thumb of the All-Wise, All-Knowing Obama. LOL!

jked4life
11-12-2011, 06:58 PM
Yep. It amazes me how anyone could think that these very powerful people (especially the bankers) would allow themselves to take orders from some smooth talking con man who managed to win an election.

Imagine Donald Trump and Barack Obama in a big meeting room, and Obama starts giving orders to Trump. Trump will, of course, happily go along, not try to replace Obama with someone he (Trump) can control, not try to get out from under the thumb of the All-Wise, All-Knowing Obama. LOL!

Most definitely.

These people bring down nations. A little consulting with elected officials to help them with their nation's finances, a little phone call to their buddies at the ratings agencies.... Downgrades and the attacks with Credit Default swaps ensue until the nation is on it's knees begging for mercy. Then the real looting begins.

I don't have the figures, but I do believe Italy had balanced their budget this past year. This was in terms of Income/Obligations. With a similar interest rate to what we have, it's balanced. The shortfall was strictly extra interest tacked on through the speculative attacks. With a bond rate up to 7% or higher, the interest is crippling.

jked4life
11-12-2011, 07:14 PM
http://rt.com/news/eus-scapegoat-berlusconi-problem-945/


“Italy is used as a scapegoat very easily, because of the peculiarity of its Prime Minister. He may have been a problem at a certain point for his attitude, but it is not the real issue at stake now. The point at stake is the role of Italy as a nation. In fact this way of acting towards a sovereign state can backlash very harshly on the European system. If things continue to progress the way they do at present, the system may well collapse, creating chaos instead of a solution,” Raffone said.

In his view, what is happening is an attempt to force Italians into changing their government with a more complacent one” Raffone also hinted that the country’s problems “go far beyond the case of Mr. Berlusconi himself”.

“What we see on the financial vine is the effect of a very strong speculative movement that has been going on for several months over the Italian economy and Italian state,” Raffone explained “The resignation of Mr. Berlusconi has been pushed if not forced from the outside of Italy, claiming that the debt/GDP rate was unsustainable. In fact the problem of Italy is of course the debt, but the major one is the absence of growth, which is imposed by various policies at the European level mostly by the German decision on how to handle the monetary union”.


Death of a soverign nation. Death of a Democracy. Unelected banksters put in place, ready to impose brutal Austerity on the Italian people. People need to understand that this is a method of warfare/terrorism. Credit Default Swaps are Economic "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Italy will be looted of all assets to appease the speculators. People WILL die of starvation, illness, ect. due to this attack.

LN11
11-12-2011, 07:17 PM
In response to the title on what Clinton was doing right = Monica Lewinski