Let Me Blame Clinton On The Current Economic Crisis

[Armelius]

Two biggest legislation that passed under Clinton was NAFTA and the Crime Bill. He also allowed some deregulation of derivatives or something but I think that would be a sideshow.

NAFTA allowed the economy to boom in the short term. Jobs, factories, and people moving goods across border helped the economy to be sure. But after the boom it collapsed back to malaise with less jobs in the command economy (the US).

The Crime Bill put police everywhere. Departments that didn't need them got to hire five extra and it was just insane amount of government spending attacking crime and filling the jails. Local government still billed the property owners for these additional police. It isn't even practical that property owners are billed for a bloated police force. Some say unions bring factories down well you can blame too many police and the tax bill that goes along with it. I would say if you eliminated nearly all property taxes then people would be able to afford their mortgage.

Don't get me wrong there are other factors that got us where we are today. But I see most of the problem stemming from Clinton. I just as much think Bush should have seen the writing on the wall with Enron collapsing. And some people might point to some legislation to get minority ownership in houses or some legislation pushing for all people to be able to get a loan for a house. I am just looking at the bigger economic picture.

Some might even say that the economy got so robust that they were supposed to pay 4 buck a gallon in gas and like it.

I also think the reason Obama went to Canada first on his foreign trip is because they are upset with the Buy American clause in the new stimulus package.

We have borders and should be making some sort of money off of them instead of free trade. Unless you want North America to be one nation without a US Constitution.

[Jacko3]

Have you ever heard of anchoring and confirmation bias? Multiple and active elements of policy and legislation converge to create the ethos of any nation, at an given point in time. How, you selected Crime Bill and NAFTA in only one administraton (Clinton Administration) is befuddling. By the way, NAFTA was the idea and creation of Bush I. Clinton only took the baton and ran with it.

And as for the Crime Bill, every locality has a choice of hiring more police people or not. Not every locality obliged the Clinton administration on that matter because of potential unintended consequences such as rising cost of municipal administration. So, why would some localities act in the long-term interest of their communities and why would some rather act in the short-term interest of their communities? The answer is ethics. The ethics of leadership in one community differs from other communities. Clinton has nothing to do with this.

And the idea of fighting crime or creating a national standard for fighting crime, can find its root sin the Federal Sentencing Guidelines which was created in 1978/79. So, how you came to such spurious conclusions, is a little interesting. What do you think?


Modified by Jacko3 at 12:12 PM 2/23/2009

[Armelius]

Simple. Short term growth projects that increased spending that if it wasn't implemented the stagnated economy of Bush/Clinton wouldn't have been as bad as what it is now.

[Jacko3]

If I relate your current comments to law enforcement, I am not sure how growth can be associated with law enforcement, to the extent that they are not a business entity. Of course, we do have private prisons, and to that extent, and perhaps, one can see the possibility of growth.

[smockers83]

Jacko, don't even try to understand his arguments. You can tie him up in his own arguments until he can't get out of them because he just doesn't understand. He's a protectionist/isolationist from the early 1900s who tries to rewrite history to fit his view.

But what I think he's trying to say is that NAFTA increased consumer spending, causing the indebtedness we see today. NAFTA increased consumer spending in a couple of different ways. First, it allowed cheaper products into the US without a barrier. Second, economic growth was seen during the first 7-8 years of NAFTA, which increased the standard of living in this country. Therefore it helped increase consumer spending. Has it caused our situation? No, it has not. What has caused our situation is fear and instability in the financial system along with a global economic slowdown. When you have uncertainty and fear in the economy, it causes a slow down because businesses aren't sure what to do and spend less money. Until the certainty and good economic outlooks are restored is when we'll get out of this.

NAFTA was a short term economic growth idea? What's your definition of short term? Short term is usually a couple of years max where as anything long term tends to be 5 years or longer. NAFTA has been doing it's job much longer than 5 years.

[Jacko3]

Excellent comments and arguments.

[Cold_Zero]

I seem to remember the debate leading up to the 1996 Presidential Elections and the fact that no one could account for the supposed 100,000 new police officers that were to be hired, trained and on the beat as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The Clinton Administration couldnt come up with the actual numbers of new police officers on the beat, although this measure and the Federal Assualt Weapons Ban was used as proof during the Campaign that the Clinton Administration was 'fighting crime.'

I remember September 13, 2004 and being at a party at Pops Guns for the sunset of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Was a fun time.

[telcoman]

I remember September 13, 2004 and being at a party at Pops Guns for the sunset of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Was a fun time.

Wow Bud

I never would have imagined you had such an exciting lifestyle living out there in mid America

I guess it was a change from watching the corn grow

Have you done anything as exciting since?

Telcoman

[audtatious]

Tipping cows is much safer than walking the streets in NY/NJ. Don't knock it unless you've tried it.

[dusred]

Jacko, don't even try to understand his arguments. You can tie him up in his own arguments until he can't get out of them because he just doesn't understand. He's a protectionist/isolationist from the early 1900s who tries to rewrite history to fit his view.

Jacko and Armelius were a match made in heaven. Now let them hash it out .

[OriginalWheelman]

I guess it was a change from watching the corn grow

When I need a change from watching the corn grow I go to NJ and watch the smokestacks grow.

[liquid_cool]

Jacko, don't even try to understand his arguments. You can tie him up in his own arguments until he can't get out of them because he just doesn't understand. He's a protectionist/isolationist from the early 1900s who tries to rewrite history to fit his view.

But what I think he's trying to say is that NAFTA increased consumer spending, causing the indebtedness we see today. NAFTA increased consumer spending in a couple of different ways. First, it allowed cheaper products into the US without a barrier. Second, economic growth was seen during the first 7-8 years of NAFTA, which increased the standard of living in this country. Therefore it helped increase consumer spending. Has it caused our situation? No, it has not. What has caused our situation is fear and instability in the financial system along with a global economic slowdown. When you have uncertainty and fear in the economy, it causes a slow down because businesses aren't sure what to do and spend less money. Until the certainty and good economic outlooks are restored is when we'll get out of this.

NAFTA was a short term economic growth idea? What's your definition of short term? Short term is usually a couple of years max where as anything long term tends to be 5 years or longer. NAFTA has been doing it's job much longer than 5 years.

What coused our tragic slowdowns and a meltdown of the stock market is fear..fear that the new administration is going to take or confiscate/steal/socialize the banking , 401k investments and anything else they can grab up as fast as possible to force this country down the road to a comunistic state!..make no mistakes about it..thats whats happening...its the fastes power grab ive ever seen and ive been around a while...and if you remember back when Obama was running..he said " I think gas should be at a price close to european levels, i just dint think it would come so close this fast"..thats his view as he stated it on national televission during the run for his presidency...

"Urban Redeveloupment Act"this is the big crappy bill that started this all...sighned by bill clinton into law..written by "Barny Frank(D),Criss Dodd(D), Nancy Pelosie (D), Harry Reed (D) ,Olimpia Snow (R) and a host of other non important dems..sorry dems..only 1 republican helpd creat that mess..allthou..a few did vote for it like john the dumb-arse McCain!..anyways this crafty little bill hidding as a normal pork redevelopment bill pass on the back of a milityary budget procurement bill...what it did was force bank..FORCE bank to lend to someone reguardless of there ability to pay it back..what did the bank do with the bad paper?..they sold it around the world as a secrurity(s) and down we went..with that paper actually holding no value,the end was neer..who bought those bad papers?...well FannyMae & Freddy Mac!..both GOVERNMENT run industrys...who did we bail out first..uummhu..Fanny and Freddy..follow the coin folks..we have been had..the Economy is a product of the government imposing its self on Market forces under the guise of being "FAIR" .....how do you commiewalk again..i have to get practicing for the first Forced march for the emaculate one Obama our leader!

[Jacko3]

What coused our tragic slowdowns and a meltdown of the stock market is fear..fear that the new administration is going to take or confiscate/steal/socialize the banking , 401k investments and anything else they can grab up as fast as possible to force this country down the road to a comunistic state!..make no mistakes about it..thats whats happening...its the fastes power grab ive ever seen and ive been around a while...and if you remember back when Obama was running..he said " I think gas should be at a price close to european levels, i just dint think it would come so close this fast"..thats his view as he stated it on national televission during the run for his presidency...

"Urban Redeveloupment Act"this is the big crappy bill that started this all...sighned by bill clinton into law..written by "Barny Frank(D),Criss Dodd(D), Nancy Pelosie (D), Harry Reed (D) ,Olimpia Snow (R) and a host of other non important dems..sorry dems..only 1 republican helpd creat that mess..allthou..a few did vote for it like john the dumb-arse McCain!..anyways this crafty little bill hidding as a normal pork redevelopment bill pass on the back of a milityary budget procurement bill...what it did was force bank..FORCE bank to lend to someone reguardless of there ability to pay it back..what did the bank do with the bad paper?..they sold it around the world as a secrurity(s) and down we went..with that paper actually holding no value,the end was neer..who bought those bad papers?...well FannyMae & Freddy Mac!..both GOVERNMENT run industrys...who did we bail out first..uummhu..Fanny and Freddy..follow the coin folks..we have been had..the Economy is a product of the government imposing its self on Market forces under the guise of being "FAIR" .....how do you commiewalk again..i have to get practicing for the first Forced march for the emaculate one Obama our leader!

Stock markest are driven by fear and greed on one extreme, and by pessimism and optimism, on another extreme. In the current economy, and while i disagree with portions of your thesis statement where you stated, "fear that the new administration is going to take or confiscate/steal/socialize the banking , 401k investments and anything else they can grab up as fast as possible.....", the market is responding to the state and health of US corporations relative to government policies, and relative to the health of the global economy. Simply suggesting that the market is acting out of a single set of internal parameters, is spurious.

And what do you consider pork---the $10 billion a month spent fighting phantoms (terrorists) in Iraq, a war of choice for 8 years, while handing the largest contracts of the war (spoils of war) to a single unvetted and non-compete organization tied to the republican party (Haliburton)?

The fact of the matter is that every administration has to deal with pork. simply suggesting that one administration is more pork prone that the other, may appear disingenous, to say the least. I didn't see anyone raise eye-brows when Haliburton was made the primary contractor for the iraq war, did I?

[480sx]

Did you really just call the Terrorists in Iraq 'Phantoms'?

Tell that to the GI's who have lost limbs, friends, eyes, ect to these people.

Tell that to the familys of servicemen who have been killed in action. "Oh im sorry, your son was killed in Iraq by Phantoms made up by the US government for REASONS THAT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH PORK?!". You X Y.


Modified by 480sx at 8:03 PM 2/28/2009

[liquid_cool]

hay jaco...name me one corparation other than halaberton that can do what haliburton does on such a large scale..name just one!...there isent any..so who ya gona call bud.....if ya wana use the largest monopalized corparation lets look at the IRS!....or how bout the DMV!..but wait..no one does what they do ither.

[S13_love]

...meh, I don't know how exactly i feel about that whole nafta deal.

Sure, it's great to buy hondas and toyotas for cheap...blah, blah, blah.

But, I think it should go away now...and hopefully that will give consumers enough of an incentive to go buy American products or something.

[Jacko3]

hay jaco...name me one corparation other than halaberton that can do what haliburton does on such a large scale..name just one!...there isent any..so who ya gona call bud.....if ya wana use the largest monopalized corparation lets look at the IRS!....or how bout the DMV!..but wait..no one does what they do ither.

There are defense companies such as Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, etc. who can do the same job. Then, in the oil servicing iindustry, there is the german company Schlumberger, who does generally the same type of business as Haliburton. Haliburton is still primarily an oil servicing company. Then there is a company like GE (General Electric), the one company that does literally everything. GE is in every conceivable business you can imagine. They are larger than Haliburton in size and capabilities. Every home in the US probably has one item, no matter how small, made by GE or its affiliates--miniaturized electronic components, plastics, medical equipment, aircraft engines, locomotive engines, light bulbs, etc. Haliburton may not be able make such a claim.

Why the contract to Halburton was a no-bid contract, is a potential conflict of interest, since Chenney, the former VP of the US, was once its CEO. Are you aware that the spoils of war or Iraq contracts would have propped up our economy much faster and more productively if small businesses were given more direct contracts in Iraq, rather than farming those contracts out to them, indirectly, through Haliburton? small businesses matter a great deal. Of course, coordination of logistics was a real issue and perhaps one reason why they decided to give it ot a single company.

[liquid_cool]

There are defense companies such as Northrop Grumman, Lockheed, etc. who can do the same job. Then, in the oil servicing iindustry, there is the german company Schlumberger, who does generally the same type of business as Haliburton. Haliburton is still primarily an oil servicing company. Then there is a company like GE (General Electric), the one company that does literally everything. GE is in every conceivable business you can imagine. They are larger than Haliburton in size and capabilities. Every home in the US probably has one item, no matter how small, made by GE or its affiliates--miniaturized electronic components, plastics, medical equipment, aircraft engines, locomotive engines, light bulbs, etc. Haliburton may not be able make such a claim.

Why the contract to Halburton was a no-bid contract, is a potential conflict of interest, since Chenney, the former VP of the US, was once its CEO. Are you aware that the spoils of war or Iraq contracts would have propped up our economy much faster and more productively if small businesses were given more direct contracts in Iraq, rather than farming those contracts out to them, indirectly, through Haliburton? small businesses matter a great deal. Of course, coordination of logistics was a real issue and perhaps one reason why they decided to give it ot a single company.

haliburton does RISKY ..ie..dangorus logistics to places only soldiers would be sent to....in a massive way..there really is only 1 company for that...GE may be large..but they dont send there executives to the battle front...use your head..haliburton is a company specializing in that field..."Dangerous Logistics Under Battlefield Conditions"..find a company that is primarily Ex-Military employess trained to deal with combat situations..while mooving massive amounts of equipment and supplys.

[Jacko3]

haliburton does RISKY ..ie..dangorus logistics to places only soldiers would be sent to....in a massive way..there really is only 1 company for that...GE may be large..but they dont send there executives to the battle front...use your head..haliburton is a company specializing in that field..."Dangerous Logistics Under Battlefield Conditions"..find a company that is primarily Ex-Military employess trained to deal with combat situations..while mooving massive amounts of equipment and supplys.

Please, go to this website and see for yourself what Haliburton is all about. I don't see anything related to what you are talking about. Risk???? So, are the oil compnaies they service not also taking risks by drilling for oil in very unstable places such as in the middle east?? And if this is the case, why are the oil companies not getting the same contracts offered to Haliburton?

http://www.halliburton.com/Abo...=2458

Here is the website detailing what Schlumberger is all about as well

http://www.slb.com/content/about/index.asp?

Seems to me Schlumberger, which is also listed on the NYSE takes as much RISK as Haliburton. yet. Haliburton gets the no-bid contract to supply everything in Iraq and the oil companies and schlumberger, are shafted. Amazing, don't you think?

[Armelius]

NAFTA was a short term economic growth idea? What's your definition of short term? Short term is usually a couple of years max where as anything long term tends to be 5 years or longer. NAFTA has been doing it's job much longer than 5 years.

Did I say NAFTA? No, but it sure sent plenty of factories to Mexico and else where. That was very short term thinking as far as factories leaving.

Biggest problem I have with NAFTA is that the individual doesn't benefit from it. Unless you are a Mexican truck driver.

Corporations have been figuring out how to cut labor costs for years and they came up with NAFTA. Now we are bailing them out.

I think blaming Clinton for signing that bill and then putting extra police on the streets in case of a rebellion is justified.

[Jacko3]

NAFTA was a short term economic growth idea? What's your definition of short term? Short term is usually a couple of years max where as anything long term tends to be 5 years or longer. NAFTA has been doing it's job much longer than 5 years.

Did I say NAFTA? No, but it sure sent plenty of factories to Mexico and else where. That was very short term thinking as far as factories leaving.

Biggest problem I have with NAFTA is that the individual doesn't benefit from it. Unless you are a Mexican truck driver.

Corporations have been figuring out how to cut labor costs for years and they came up with NAFTA. Now we are bailing them out.

I think blaming Clinton for signing that bill and then putting extra police on the streets in case of a rebellion is justified.

Lets be clear again, NAFTA was signed into law by GW Bush in 1992 in "San Antonio Texas on December 17, 1992 in the presence of Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexico's President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement,......."

Why and how people keep blaming Clinton for implementing what was signed by a republican president, continues to befuddle me.

[Armelius]

That's true but it was something Clinton could have stopped or hindered. It was ratified by the Senate during Clinton's term.

If you want Bush to take acculades for the New World Order. Then be my guest.

[Jacko3]

That's true but it was something Clinton could have stopped or hindered. It was ratified by the Senate during Clinton's term.

If you want Bush to take acculades for the New World Order. Then be my guest.

I stil don't get it Congress then was largely a republican Congress. How do you hinder what has already been signed by three neighboring countries with the stroke of a pen without any sort of backlash from those countries?

[liquid_cool]

Please, go to this website and see for yourself what Haliburton is all about. I don't see anything related to what you are talking about. Risk???? So, are the oil compnaies they service not also taking risks by drilling for oil in very unstable places such as in the middle east?? And if this is the case, why are the oil companies not getting the same contracts offered to Haliburton?

http://www.halliburton.com/Abo...=2458

Here is the website detailing what Schlumberger is all about as well

http://www.slb.com/content/about/index.asp?

Seems to me Schlumberger, which is also listed on the NYSE takes as much RISK as Haliburton. yet. Haliburton gets the no-bid contract to supply everything in Iraq and the oil companies and schlumberger, are shafted. Amazing, don't you think?

lolo..your fun jaco..haliburton is the largest company that actually puts out OIL FIRES!..by using explosives...do some more reaserch bro..there's lots to cover.

[Jacko3]

lolo..your fun jaco..haliburton is the largest company that actually puts out OIL FIRES!..by using explosives...do some more reaserch bro..there's lots to cover.

How is it possible to put out fires with explosives? I am confused here. Can you elaborate some more?

[Armelius]

I stil don't get it Congress then was largely a republican Congress. How do you hinder what has already been signed by three neighboring countries with the stroke of a pen without any sort of backlash from those countries?

The president is the chief executive. He can make or break treaties.

Also to note that the housing market was in a huge slump before Clinton. To spur growth in the housing markets Clinton let loose with interstate banking regulations and made borrowing much easier.

I remember trying to get credit in the late 80's. Couldn't get it even though I worked steady for over five years. Even went to this bank in Fargo, ND that everyone is congratulating for being so conservative. They refused me a car loan. Had to go back to my bank and ask for about a 14 percent loan. A few years later I was hit by the Savings and Loan Crisis in California. You really think I want the banks to be bailed out?

But during Clinton years banks were all out in force asking people to open credit accounts. Complete bullcrap.

[smockers83]

NAFTA was a short term economic growth idea? What's your definition of short term? Short term is usually a couple of years max where as anything long term tends to be 5 years or longer. NAFTA has been doing it's job much longer than 5 years.

Did I say NAFTA? No, but it sure sent plenty of factories to Mexico and else where. That was very short term thinking as far as factories leaving.

Biggest problem I have with NAFTA is that the individual doesn't benefit from it. Unless you are a Mexican truck driver.

Corporations have been figuring out how to cut labor costs for years and they came up with NAFTA. Now we are bailing them out.

Wrong in every paragraph except for the one that you quoted me and sort of the last one, but your thought process in it is wrong.

Did you say NAFTA? I'm pretty sure you did. Can I show you?

Two biggest legislation that passed under Clinton was NAFTA and the Crime Bill. He also allowed some deregulation of derivatives or something but I think that would be a sideshow.

NAFTA allowed the economy to boom in the short term. Jobs, factories, and people moving goods across border helped the economy to be sure. But after the boom it collapsed back to malaise with less jobs in the command economy (the US).

NAFTA does benefit the individual consumer. Refer back to the Prices thread, more specifically the the consumer surplus/producer surplus post. Taxes also create an inneficiency in the economy called dead weight loss. When a tariff is enacted, consumer surplus decreases dramatically due to the government capturing some of the surplus along with the producers and some of it just being lost in nothingness due to economic inefficiencies. So, without tariffs and with NAFTA, the individual consumer benefits.

Corporations came up with NAFTA? The countries involved created NAFTA. Corporations may have asked and pushed for something like NAFTA, but they didn't create it. According to you, we're only bailing out 3 corporations due to NAFTA, the Big 3. But the biggest reason we're bailing them out is because of labor costs, yet you say they tried to cut labor costs by wanting NAFTA and NAFTA helped achieve that. But the domestic labor supply is still way too expensive for them regardless of their use of cheaper labor internationally. Wake up and learn something, then come here and make some sense.

I stil don't get it

He's attempting to back up and cover his butt.

The president is the chief executive. He can make or break treaties.

Easier said than done.

Edit Note: No text has changed. Only edited to copy the text to show someone how to use the quote function like I did.
Modified by smockers83 at 5:05 PM 3/7/2009

[liquid_cool]

How is it possible to put out fires with explosives? I am confused here. Can you elaborate some more?

wow man..your kidding rite...reaserch..before you argue..thats how its done!..i believe in you jaco..i believe there is hope for you..and we are here to help bro..to inform you and show you the light

[smockers83]

How is it possible to put out fires with explosives? I am confused here. Can you elaborate some more?

MythBusters, Episode 76.

It is a common way to put out oil fires.

[Jacko3]

The president is the chief executive. He can make or break treaties.

Also to note that the housing market was in a huge slump before Clinton. To spur growth in the housing markets Clinton let loose with interstate banking regulations and made borrowing much easier.

Do you understand what a treaty really means? Let me help you: A treaty is like a contract, but this time it is between nations, and lawyers are sometimes needed when treaties are developed, implemented, and signed.

Therefore, treaties being a sort of legal contract, if broken, can come at a huge cost to the entity who breaches the letter of the treaty. Thats why Clinton could only do very little to change the NAFTA treaty signed by Bush I. All treaties, as far as I am concerned, if broken, WILL come at a cost. What the cost will be depends on the parties involved. Sometimes, the costs can be dire.

And the International Court of Justice at the Hague will uphold every letter of any treaty signed and breached. And historically, nations have gone to war over a breach of one treaty or the other.

Modified by Jacko3 at 9:52 AM 3/4/2009
Modified by Jacko3 at 9:54 AM 3/4/2009