While no one person was responsible for the 2008 financial crisis, there were many involved: both Democrat and Republican (and others). I listened to Bill Clinton's speech at the DNC in Charlotte; it was a very good speech. Bill can speak with eloquence and that "believability" that only the former President can evoke. If we take it on its surface, it all sounded so "right" and those "bastards" the Bush people caused all our current, pitiable, state of the union. Unfortunately, "Brother Bill" left out several important points that are worth noting.
First, it was during the early Clinton Administration (with both houses of Congress Democratic) that the pressure was put on the financial markets to increase their share of "risky" loans to communities. Several financial institutions come to mind: Chevy Chase, Bank of America, Sovereign Bank, and C&S Bank among others. This was with full support of the House Finance Committee and the Senate Banking Committee. It first started with private institutions, and then Fannie and Freddie got into the fray. Wall Street then joined the effort. So, was greed part of the mess: sure! However, it was greed in the federal government, greed in Fannie and Freddie, and greed on Wall Street (and other areas of the world).
So, did Obama inherit a mess - yes of course! Did Reagan inherit a mess - yes, and a worse one too boot! History will show the difference of these two responses to crisis.
The other was that "Brother Bill" was solely responsible for the budget surpluses in the 1990's. Hogwash! To his credit, he did sign the budget. However, the main architects of the federal budget (which starts in the House) were: Newt Gringrich, John Kasich, and Dick Armey (all Republicans from a Republican Congress, at the time). So both parties were responsible for the "surplus" not just Democrats!
Here are some links to support the case:
http://money.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=2814749...
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny...
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-...
Sure, you can find some blogs and detractors, but the point was that the mortgage crisis started LONG before G.W. Bush came into office - period! So, to blame Bush only is a BIG, BALDFACE LIE! In fact, G. W. Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie and was rebuffed by House and Senate Democrats!
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-propos...
This is from CSPAN in 2005 (During the Bush Administration):
Senate Hearing on Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae Washington, DC Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Chairman Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL) and witnesses Mr. Ray Christman , President of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, Mr. Richard F. Syron , Chairman and CEO of Freddie Mac, and Mr. Daniel H. Mudd , Interim CEO of Fannie Mae, hold a hearing on "Proposals for Improving the Regulation of Housing Government Sponsored Enterprises."
There are other YouTube and clips posted by many on this subject, but the truth is Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and others blocked efforts to control the two GSEs, and flatly stated that there was NO CRISIS with Fannie and Freddie as far back as 2003 and 2005 (not Obama years).
One more tidbit on the employment bit. While it may be statistically "factual" that more employment over the last fifty years might have been under Democratic administrations, one has to question the cooperation between the Executive and the Congress. The fact is that Democrats have been in charge of Congress most of the last eighty years, and may have not gone along with all proposals by Republican Presidents. The fact is that Democrats have been in charge of Congress more than Republicans and have "hatched" most of the entitlements that are currently threatening our financial soundness. So, let's not just "blame Bush"; this is nonfactual, inaccurate, and baseless.
http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/congress.htm
It is time for all Americans to dig deeper into what is said, take a more active role in looking deeper into issues, and stop being the "sound bite society" like a bunch of baby birds sitting in the nest waiting for the next "dribble" out of the mouths of either of the current major parties. Unfortunately, with the internet and many other sources which make up the "plethora" of voices in the marketplace. One thing I do like about this website is whether we agree or not, the folks seem to make a genuine effort to support their postulate with points other than the "talking points" regurgitated by the established parties.
I think it was Bill Clinton who coined the phrase, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky". Well, Bill hasn't changed much!
I'm pretty cynical about either party taking credit or giving blame for economic success and failure. IMHO when it comes to our current situation, we made too many promises to the boomers, we shouldn't have so fully repealed Glass Steagall, and "starving the beast" has failed as a means to shrink the size of government. Both parties are in bed with interests to their detriment. But that's how they retain power, by promising it away. By power going back and forth, we get a bit less than totally screwed as the parties make and unmake each others' plans, all the while adding complexity, which does bring some stability. If either party had a majority for 20 years, we'd probably end up in a very bad place. When it comes to Clinton, he was an effective President, and a very smart guy. Bush senior was too, but he lacked the charisma. IMO we need more presidents like them.
It's too bad Newt and the gang pulled the Lewinsky thing out of the Whitewater investigation. Aside from the hypocrisy of what Newt was doing at the time, they might have gotten another welfare reform type of legislation during that presidency. IMO the country got nothing good from that debacle, and we still suffer from a partisan mistrust that came from it.
I don't know what Newt's hypocrisy has to do with the budget, but he was forced to RESIGN from pressure from his REPUBLICAN colleagues as well as the Dems. The bottom line: Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas for LYING about his affair when investigated and was IMPEACHED in the House - period - those are facts not hyperbole. Newt needed to go and get his "wild-penis" under control - which I hope he has - finally!
What I mean by Newt's hipocrisy, is that he was using Clinton's affair to take him down while he was cheating on his wife who was battling cancer. If Clinton was a Republican president, the GOP would have never been so interested in getting the guy to perjure himself. It was the worst kind of politics. I'd be disgusted if the Dems tried it on a Republican. It weakens the nation.
I seem to recall Clinton giving credit to the republican legislature during his speech, essentially saying that back then they were willing to get things done and weren't the Mitch McConnell party of "no". I listened to Clintons speech and I have to say that it may have been one of the best delivered speeches I've ever seen anybody (politician or otherwise) give. Clinton's powers stem beyond being an ex-president, though that helps too. He has a rare, natural gift to communicate. He's a master and any politician would do well to study him. His policies or perceived inaccuracies aside, he's damn fun to watch. Like watching Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods in their prime. One of a kind.
The credit he DIDN'T attribute to them was actually formulating the budget. Brother Bill made it sound like it was all him - Bunk! Bunk I say! Brother Bill, did sign the budget, TO HIS CREDIT, into law (a raving rebuke of the current Senate which has failed to produce one of their own - which is unconstitutional and they completely rejected, on a bi-partisan basis Barak Obama's proposed budget – HISTORICAL FACT!) - However, to say "I left with a budget surplus, like he came up with it" is deceptive (a three quarter truth). By the way, I don't give any credit to the post 9-11 Republican Congresses for helping squander the surplus (they became like the past politicians and got FAT and ambivalent about the fiscal sanity produced in earlier years) a albeit after 9-11. I also did not agree with G. W. Bush’s expansion of federal power (even in the name of “compassionate capitalism”). We all seem to be "Monday morning quarterbacks" about 9-11. We don't know how a Democratic President would have responded, but surely it was a most trying situation for ANY AMERICAN to face (the worst loss of life in that type of attack in American history and the first on our shores). I guess, unlike many who read this, I will read his book to understand his, GW's, response. It is easy to sit back and criticize someone else, but what would any of US have done? So, while he gave some credit to the Republican congress, he minimized it to say the least.while he gave some credit to the Republican congress, he minimized it to say the least.
Brother Bill does what EVERY politician does which is to take complete credit for the good things they were involved with. Hypocrtich... I mean, Gingrich takes full credit for it too. No doubt it was shaped by both the executive and the legislative forcing compromises. Which can be the best governance there is unless one of the two branches is completely unwilling to work with the other.
That's exactly WHY the American people don't need to remain, for a large part, in ignorance and DEMAND that "politicians" change and become representatives with integrity and truth. It is our responsibility to enforce that as VOTERS and take active parts in writing and corresponding with our representatives in local, state and federal arenas.
I would be surprised if he's ever delivered a better speech. I think circumstances have placed him in a very favorable light, which may mean he is in his "prime".
I could not be in more wholehearted agreement on promises made to not only Boomers (and I are one - and willing to make sacrifices but not until our federal government gets their economic head on straight) , but the Gen X folks and subsequent generations as well. You cannot give everything to everybody for sure. We need to keep the "safety nets" (not I'd like to haves) and then folks need to get back to common sense (something lacking in today's mentality) solutions like, "I need to work to get it myself". Sometimes, there are job losses (had a couple myself and they are a challenge - but nobody "owes it to me"), but hopefully economic "sanity" takes over and we get more jobs created.
Not really the point I want to make, but Reagan most certainly did not inherit a bigger disaster than the current one. Pretty much everyone agrees that the calamity of 08-09 was the worst since the Depression. There's an interesting caveat to the mortgage crisis that you don't hear brought up too much, and it transcends party. In the early 2000s Greenspan gave a policy speech where he basically vowed that the US wasn't going to raise interest rates any time soon (for who knows what reason). At the same time, we were seeing the leading edge of a booming economy in China, India and the Mid-East. As it isn't very lucrative to invest cash in the stock markets of those countries, and investing in Treasuries (the most normal safe bet for large investments) wasn't going to pay anything, the largest amount of capital started flowing into housing, which was largely unregulated and had new found financial products that seemed to be cash cows. As wealth begets wealth the capital kept on coming, until you know, everyone realized that in fact that 1200 sq ft house in the burbs isn't really worth $300,000 and the house of cards collapsed. Except for Glass-Steagall, I'm not sure what would have stopped this. Maybe not even G-S, because these were new financial products and therefore no regulations had been written yet. The thing that drives me crazy is not that this happened, but that we don't seem to have learned our lesson. No one is even entertaining the idea of re-instituting G-S. The finance industry has grown too big in the last 30 years, and they have both parties over a barrel.
The Glass-Steagall regulatory provisions that were changed, and signed by President Clinton, was the Gramm-Leach-Bailey (all Republicans). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act To blame it all on Reagan is an over-reach of reasoning. Also, Obama did not inherit 21 % interest rates and 13% inflation with no job growth. Reagan also inherited a Middle East Crisis (the Iranian Islamic revolt and the hostage crisis) and a declining economy. The term "worst recession since the Great Depression" is "sound byte" jargon and an over-reach as well. Reagan also had created 7 million jobs, without corresponding declines in the structural labor force, by the end of his third year of the Presidency. There are business cycles, and almost every president has one; even Bill Clinton had a recession by the year 2000; then we had 9-11.
Just said he was the father of financial deregulation didn't blame him for everything bad that ever happened, planted the seeds for S&L and some other bank misery. The 1st Reagan Recession was the 2nd biggest recession since the great depression (just a fact didn't even say worst since the great depression but it was until the latest). It wasn't going to be the worst until he got his hands on it (until Volcker got his hands on it actually), it had nothing to do with the business cycle (or almost nothing). Thanks for the business cycle reminder but I hadn't forgotten that they exist. I'm a big fan of Schumpeter, so the business cycle is near and dear to my heart.