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!

mk:

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.


posted 4229 days ago