Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama attacks Bill Clinton’s economic legacy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 08:48 AM
Original message
Obama attacks Bill Clinton’s economic legacy
Barack Obama on Thursday laid much of the blame for America’s unfolding credit crisis on the financial deregulation of the 1990s in his hardest hitting attack so far on the economic legacy of Bill Clinton’s administration.

Mr Obama’s speech – the fourth so far this week by a presidential candidate focusing on America’s probable recession – called for an overhaul of US financial regulation and another $30bn in fiscal stimulus.

Without mentioning the Clintons by name, the clear target of Mr Obama’s speech was the economic record of the 1990s. Hillary Clinton has portrayed her candidacy as offering a return to the economic successes of the 1990s. She has also presented herself as more competent on the economy than Mr Obama.

In his address Mr Obama associated Mr Clinton’s abolition of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 with the financial scandals that rocked the early years of the Bush administration and which led up to the bailout earlier this month of Bear Stearns.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cf3ddb88-fc22-11dc-9229-000077b07658.html

I question whether Hillary is interested in reversing Bill's policies. Can she be objective enough to erase some of Bill's "legacies"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Obama is connecting dots that need to be connected
Bill Clinton supported, or stood by, while a right-wing Markets Uber Alles philosophy was being rammed down America's throat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
37. NAFTA, Most Favored Trade Status w China, Bank De-Reg, Telecom Act of 96- LINKS:
Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status

Congressional reaction mixed amidst larger China policy issues

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.

Most-favored-nation status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/



The Telecommunications Act of 1996<1> was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934, and leading to media consolidation.<2> It was approved by the 104th Congress on January 3, 1996 and signed into law on February 8, 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996



Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system (November 1999)

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.


The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.


The certain result of repeal of Glass-Steagall will be a wave of mergers surpassing even the colossal combinations of the past several years. The Wall Street Journalwrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.

-snip

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/clintons-legacy-has-caught-up.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
39. More slime and smears from Mr Unity
His whole campaign is based on character assasination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olkaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #39
48. My area suffered greatly because of these policies in the 90's
Either your area didn't or you just haven't noticed.

Manufacturing jobs gone, payday loan places everywhere, only jobs in service sector...

Yeah, the 90's were awesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #39
50. ATTACKS VS FACTS:
Sometimes the economic effects take years to be felt. (Loss of jobs-NAFTA, most favored trade status w China/Current mortgage crisis-Banking deregulation/Media consolidation & propaganda-Telecom Act of '96)



Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status

Congressional reaction mixed amidst larger China policy issues

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.

Most-favored-nation status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/





Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system (November 1999)
An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.


The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.


The certain result of repeal of Glass-Steagall will be a wave of mergers surpassing even the colossal combinations of the past several years. The Wall Street Journalwrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.

-snip

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/clintons-legacy-has-caught-up.php





MEDIA CONSOLIDATION

The Telecommunications Act of 1996<1> was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934, and leading to media consolidation.<2> It was approved by the 104th Congress on January 3, 1996 and signed into law on February 8, 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. Greatest peacetime economic expansion in US history....
Edited on Fri Mar-28-08 10:39 AM by niceypoo
Bill Clinton cut taxes on the lower class and 90% of small businesses while he raised taxes on the top 10% and implemented austerity measures.

Obamas campaign has degenerated into an open smear campaign. Obamites absolutely ignore Bill Clintons 1994 economic plan that passed without a single GOP vote. Blaming Bushes failed economic policies on Bill Clinton is Obama's lowest smear yet; Obama has no economic record at all, thus he defaults to smearing the greatest economy in US history. How low will this guy go?

http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/08-2000/wh-0805.htmltml">Hate Vs Facts





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Where is "hate" in the posted articles concerning the effects of Bill's policies?
Again, let me reiterate...

SOMETIMES IT TAKE YEARS TO FEEL THE EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC POLICY!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #56
90. The HATE is what fuels Obama supporters Clinton obsession...
...next time do the math
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #53
61. sure he raised taxes on the rich before he cut them
the "greatest economy in US history" included the same "rich getting richer" and middle class and lower class stagnating as we saw under Reagan and Bushes. The 1994 economic plan, as much as I like it. was probably a mistake. If a compromise had been worked out and picked up some Republican votes, then we might not have paid such a price in the 1994 elections. Bill didn't help the climate either since he ran for President promising a middle class tax cut and criticized Bush for raising taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #61
91. Greatest PEACETIME ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Obama has no economic record WHATSOEVER

As always, he is projecting his weakness
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hell-bent Donating Member (593 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #53
85. Intelligently stated!
Don't forget that many of the Obama supporters were just snot-nosed juveniles that really could have cared less about those good economic times during Clinton's presidency. All they care about is HOPE! They are completely taken in by the Messianic message. So tragic....Well, it happen in other European countries in the 30's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #50
92. Al Gore was Bill Clinton's public advocate for NAFTA/Free trade.
I agree those policies are/were awful, but I don't understand how Al Gore is not responsible, while the Clintons are...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #39
59. Clintons super economy died when the tech bubble burst...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #59
93. Clintons super economy died when Bush reversed Clintons economic policies...
Obamites are now making excuses for Bushes failures to fuel their hateful Clinton obsession, how ignorant is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madam Mossfern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #39
76. Stating the facts is not a smear.
If you are a Hillary supporter, then you should understand that, or is there a double standard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightGardener Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. Prediction: Bill takes another low swipe at Obama in the near future--
anytime Obama disses an aspect of the Clinton years, Bill forgets who's running and gives in to pettiness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
14. As he should
Obama's lies should not be allowed to stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yea, Bill's economic legacies were so bad
surplus money id the coffers, people had jobs, our IRA's were rocketing like they were on steroids.....yep, really bad legacy, Bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. The problem is that Bill deregulated but did not contemplate the
Edited on Fri Mar-28-08 09:00 AM by dkf
excessive risk financial institutions would be willing to take that are now leading to possible collapse of some of these firms.

If you are happy with the economy the way it is, and with the lack of confidence people are having in certain sectors of the financial markets then more power to you.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Bullshit
The GOP Congress did most of the deregulation, and the most destruction and deregulation came under Bush II's term.

As with NAFTA, GOP trolls keep selling the line of bs to gullible Obama supporters (I'll refrain from calling them Dems because I'm not sure they are) who aren't old enough to know better that Clinton was somehow responsible for all this.

That Obama's campaign takes advantage of his supporters youth and ignorance to lie about these issues says a great deal about him - he's a liar.


Next thing I expect Obama will be telling us Bill Clinton was responsible for bankruptcy reform. I suppose his supporters would beleive it, they don't bother checking facts, do they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Repeal of Glass Steagall has caused the Subprime Crisis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. Clinton never really fought the Free Market Right Wing
Edited on Fri Mar-28-08 09:15 AM by Armstead
He pushed "free trade" and NAFTA hard.

The so-called "free trad"e agenda is nothing but an effort by ultra-conservative corporatists to impose a right-wing ideology on the entire world. Bill Clinton bought into it hook line and sinker.

He also never openly challenged the Corporate Conservative orthodoxy of trickle-down economics and deregulation and privatization.

As a result, everything was in place for Bush 2 to lead the final blows to a complete corporate takeover.

P.S. I'm 56 years old and have been paying close attention for years. Your snide dismissal of Obama supporters is uncalled for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. and you're wrong about that
as Obama supporters always are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #19
28. You might consider refuting the points.
Your flat declaration that the previous poster is wrong convinces no one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #19
74. Care to back that up with some facts?
Yeah, didn't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
27. Clinton signed it, and nearly every Dem in the Senate went right along.
Edited on Fri Mar-28-08 09:28 AM by redqueen
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #11
41. Smearing the greatest economy in US history...
...which Al Gore would have continued.

The Obama smear campaign rolls on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #41
60. Right....GWB would not have gotten away with half his crap if the Clintons hadn't paved the way
Call it a smear or call it the truth. I don't give a damn, as you have such a close mind that you see any disagreement with some rigid orthodoxy as "smear."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #60
94. It's a smear...
You are making excuses for Bushes failures in your illogical obsession with destroying the Clinton family.

It is what Obama support has degenerated into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
62. then he must have signed the bills into law then right?
Bubba isn't the sweet little baby jesus you make him out to be...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. I do not understand enough
about economics to judge whether Bill Clinton's policies were good or bad. What I DO know though is that much of what happened in the 90s (Internet boom, etc.) would have happened no matter who was at the helm or their policies. So to take full credit of the good economic times we had back then is disingenous. I do not know how many people stop to think about this for a moment though....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. This is a nice piece on Bill's repeal of Glass Steagall & the subprime mess.
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/missouri-tigers.php?message=5408339

A second parallel is what today we would call securitization of credit. Some people think this is a recent innovation, but in fact it was the core technique that made possible the dangerous practices of the 1920. Banks would originate and repackage highly speculative loans, market them as securities through their retail networks, using the prestigious brand name of the bank -- e.g. Morgan or Chase -- as a proxy for the soundness of the security. It was this practice, and the ensuing collapse when so much of the paper went bad, that led Congress to enact the Glass-Steagall Act, requiring bankers to decide either to be commercial banks -- part of the monetary system, closely supervised and subject to reserve requirements, given deposit insurance, and access to the Fed's discount window; or investment banks that were not government guaranteed, but that were soon subjected to an extensive disclosure regime under the SEC.

Since repeal of Glass Steagall in 1999, after more than a decade of de facto inroads, super-banks have been able to re-enact the same kinds of structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s -- lending to speculators, packaging and securitizing credits and then selling them off, wholesale or retail, and extracting fees at every step along the way. And, much of this paper is even more opaque to bank examiners than its counterparts were in the 1920s. Much of it isn't paper at all, and the whole process is supercharged by computers and automated formulas. An independent source of instability is that while these credit derivatives are said to increase liquidity and serve as shock absorbers, in fact their bets are often in the same direction -- assuming perpetually rising asset prices -- so in a credit crisis they can act as net de-stabilizers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. Remember the GOP majority in Congress?
Go read up on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:26 AM
Original message
You mean the GOP majority that partly resulted from the Hillarycare mess?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
32. More GOP spin
You really aren't old enough to know what happened back then, are you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Not as old as McCain or apparently OzarkDem.
And my first vote was for Dukakis. Not the most inspiring vote I ever cast but whatever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
42. Hillary invented universal healthcare...
Everything is a smear to the Obama campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. Oh, she did, huh?
Gee, all those European countries who had universal healthcare years before Clinton ever introduced her plan are going to be very surprised to learn this!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #46
54. In this country, yes, she did
We aren't in Europe, Einstein

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. If you think this was originally Hillary's idea, you are profoundly ignorant.
Various groups had been lobbying for universal healthcare for YEARS before Hillary introduced her plan.

Whether in this country, or in Europe--"Einstein"--the idea was not original.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #58
68. i don't know whether to laugh or cry at poo's assertion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #54
69. are you that profoundly ignorant of history?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #42
64. ROFL
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

unintentional DUzy by you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dana_b Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #42
71. wtf??!! wow, just, wow.....
I guess those European countries, Canada and other countries don't know anything... Maybe they all phoned Sen. Clinton for advice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. Deregulation allowed for Economic expansion but at the same time
created the mess we have now. Also
The 1996 Telecom Act was a landmark piece of legislation that drastically altered U.S. media and communications policy. The Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton on February 8, 1996, deregulated the media and communications sectors, leading to increased consolidation in both industries. In the years that followed, radio companies like Clear Channel ballooned in size (Clear Channel now owns over 1,200 radio stations) because radio ownership limits had been removed. The new policies also led to a number of mega-mergers among telephone companies and other media businesses.


Bill Clinton:


"Today I have signed into law S. 652, the "Telecommunications Act of 1996." This landmark legislation fulfills my Administration's promise to reform our telecommunications laws in a manner that leads to competition and private investment, promotes universal service and open access to information networks, and provides for flexible government regulation. This Act seeks to remove unnecessary regulation and open the way for freer markets. I support that philosophy. "


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #22
43. The telecom act had nothing to do with the economic miracle...
Bill Clinton cut taxes on the lower class and 90% of small businesses while raising them on the top 10%. He also cut the size of the federal government.

More smears and slime from the "Unity" crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #43
70.  Business Week- "Telecom was the driving economic growth of the 90s"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #7
31. Not very many.
Not on this side of the aisle.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #3
23. "steroids" ... that's the right metaphor
The equities markets were awash in excess dollars, leading to inflation: too much money chasing too few stocks. When the P/E ratios soared to 25, 30, 35, and more, the impending deflation was unavoidable. The "dot com boom" was attributable to a combination of Gore's work putting both the Federal contracts and the country on the "information superhighway" AND the suddenly cash-rich investment class looking around like kids in a candy store. The MBA 'culture' was shipping manufacturing jobs south and offshore as fast as the freighters could be loaded up with the equipment from disassembled factories. The collapse of venture capital led to the off-shoring of the survivors of the 'dot com' collapse ... with most going ot India.

The 'boom' was a result of "funny money" ... over-leveraging fundmental equities and then pressuring the underlying industries to cut costs (i.e. wages) to decrease their P/E leading to more off-shoring. NAFTA and WTO effectively lowered the barriers to shipping vast amounts of production capacity to unregulated cheap labor markets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
40. Sometimes it takes time to see the REAL effects. Mortgage Crisis-banking dereg;
Loss of jobs overseas-NAFTA & Most favored trading status w China. Media Consolidation-Telecom Act of '96
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. The repeal of Glass-Steagall has lead to Corporate Welfare that I never thought I would see
in my lifetime.

When the Fed opens the discount window to unregulated INVESTMENT banks, you know we are in a world of hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. Good.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Anyone who believes that isn't a Democrat
and is very ignorant when it comes to the history of this issue. Were you even old enough to read the newspaper back then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #9
34. How dare you question our liberal creds. Bill Clinton is NOT above criticism.
And you should stop making bogus attacks about what you think someone's age might have been--one, because it's insulting, and two, because you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

Clinton was not perfect, and he signed (and in a lot of cases lobbied for) legislation that did great harm. Glass-Steagall is only one. There's also NAFTA, DOMA, that hideously harmful welfare reform....he was not a saint. As much as we all loved him, he also did some harm (that was very much in the tradition of Reagan).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #34
65. b-b-b-but, bill is the little baby jesus reincarnate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pringles Donating Member (69 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Thank you for your comment, Mr. McCain.
It's now time to check in for your daily colonoscopy so you can start fresh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Welcome to DU
Why don't you crawl back under your rock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgorth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
81. That's Mr. Dean
troll!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. One of the dumbest and most dishonest things he's done so far
Just as Obama was willing to destroy universal health care reform to make himself look good, he's now choosing to destroy Dem's most recent legacy of good economic policies for the US to score cheap political points.

The man is a menace, a self centered fool who doesn't care how much he hurts the Democratic party to advance his own personal career.

BTW, when was the last time we heard him criticize GOP policies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
35. Didn't he praise Reagan for his ideas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
16. It Was The Longest Economic Expansion In The History Of The Republic
If it was just serendipity as a poster above suggests than one must logically conclude it doesn't matter who is president...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Do you remember the crazy talk during the 90's?
The End of History....There will be no more economic cycles.....etc.

yes there was growth and some good surface results. But the foundation was rotting below.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #18
26. There Was Crazy Talk
But most economists without an oxe to grind would admit Bill Clinton was a responsible and successful steward of the economy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #26
36. In terms of taxes and spending yes.
But he was rather naive on how pure deregulation could result in excessive risk taking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #36
44. List examples please...
you are rather naive on the greatest economic expansion in US history

Just admit Obama is running a smear campaign......out with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #44
49. He didn't see the dangers when all the players leveraged up the wazoo.
Edited on Fri Mar-28-08 10:03 AM by dkf
A former colleague who left Bear to head a division at a Japanese bank told me, "Unless you're in this full time, you've got no idea how bad it is. So many assets created in a system with leverage upon leverage upon leverage, and neither the Fed nor the system is big enough to bail itself out."

The overriding view that the Fed bailed out this investment bank is wrong. One senior managing director I once worked with said, "This isn't a blowup because of one bad traceable bond trade, but a concerted effort on the part of the government. The Fed closed us down. We had no choice. If we went into bankruptcy, we'd have taken 30 or 40 other firms, all hedge funds that borrow from us, down too. They needed people to think the worst was over. They wanted to open a discount window to banks with a statement they were in control."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2008/03/ode-to-bear-stearns.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #44
57. Here's a good analysis of financial deregulaiton
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml

It was very prescient in its predictions.

Yes, I know it is a socialist website. But -- whether one is a socialist or not -- their analysis of these issues is often spot on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #26
38. NOBODY is saying that he wasn't fiscally responsible on the whole.
But yes, he did oversee some legislation that led directly to the nightmare we're now experiencing. Are we not all intelligent enough to understand that Clinton is neither all good nor all bad? That he did, indeed, oversee some BAD legislation? Just because we point out the harm that Glass-Steagall has done does NOT mean we don't like Bill Clinton or that we think he was a bad president.

This business of black and white absolutes is making intelligent discussion in this forum almost impossible. Sad, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
25. Why do you say it as if it were a title, capitals and all?
DSB, you are a pretty smart guy and we all know that. We also know that the 90's were pretty damn good in many ways. Clinton can take some credit for that, but not all of that. We also know that there were a lot of policies enacted under Clinton that are hurting us now, and that is what Obama is alluding to.

Also, we should also be mindful of the fact that 2009 to 2017 is a totally different era than 1992 to 2000. Times change. We now have an ascendant Russia, a dominant China, and a globalized economy that is increasingly industrialized and populated. We have been the tail wagging the dog for a long time. Only now, the dog is bigger, the tail is in more debt, and we may be facing peak oil and the tipping point in climate change. This is on top of day to day mundane crises like health care, borrowing to pay our national bills, and people working harder for less and less security.

We are in a different world with a whole new set of dynamics to challenge us. We need a new approach and a new perspective.

"Bringing back the '90's" is just folly.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #25
30. I Usually Capitalize My Subject Title
But Clinton was a good steward of the economy .

I remember when the Republicans said his tax increase on the wealthy would ham string the economy and instead it led to unprecedented prosperity.

Plus, I don't see the need to tear Bill Clinton down to build Senator Obama up...It is demeaning to both of them...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #30
47. Well, I really wish we WOULD stay away from personal attacks...
and if we can ALL shake hands and agree on that, I'd be a happy camper.

However, you have to admit the "kitchen sink" strategy (their words, not mine) employed by the Clinton campaign was a PERSONAL based tact and not a policy-based one. I hope we would all hold our leaders to an equal or higher standard than we hold ourselves. In other words, if we want civil discourse then we have to call out our candidates and their campaign people first and foremost, because they set the tone. They are supposed to be our leaders.

With that said, I think we should stick away from making personal attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton and focus on policy issues. I think Bill and the DLC can fairly be criticized on policy issues and we NEED to have that debate. Frankly, we need to know what the Party stands for and what our political soul is about. We can not shy away from a healthy argument.

I can honestly say that the Obama campaign is not perfect, but by the standards of the last 2 decades, I think his campaign has pretty decent in terms of focusing on having a healthy argument.

Can you really say the same about the Clinton campaign, "kitchen sink" and all?

With all that said, I want to make it quite certain that PERSONAL CHARACTER matters as do values. Having a healthy debate is not just about issues alone. As a matter of fact, people vote more on values and character than they do on policy alone.

That's why I think we should also be very critical, but fair, when it comes to evaluating the personal character of our candidates. As such, I put these things at the top of the list that we should have in a candidate:

Honesty
Truthfulness
Temperament
Judgment
Resolve
Integrity
Consistency
Fortitude
Intellect
Wisdom


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
88. Maybe. Or maybe Obama is correct: the move in question was led directly to this point.
Why is that not possible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
20. This kind of thing is what really makes me wonder
is this man a Democrat?

He praises Ron Reagan and disses Bill Clinton???

WTF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasmine621 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
24. The only thing that people really can identify with is their own pockets.
During the Clinton administrations their pockets were full and their country was not at war and dishing out billions upon billions into the war machine. Reality is the present...not the past...not even the future. They know what they are feeling now, they know what they were feeling then. People are much meaner now, more selfish. Bill Clinton evoked an air of compassion and service for many during that time. There was momentary reversal of the Reagan era of me first and damn the rest of the world. Now we are back to that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
29. A good source on the repeal of Glass-Steagall
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
45. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #45
51. WHAT AN UGLY RACIST REMARK-SHOWING YOUR TRUE COLORS!
Sometimes the economic effects take years to be felt. (Loss of jobs-NAFTA, most favored trade status w China/Current mortgage crisis-Banking deregulation/Media consolidation & propaganda-Telecom Act of '96)



Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status

Congressional reaction mixed amidst larger China policy issues

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.

Most-favored-nation status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/





Clinton, Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system (November 1999)
An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.


The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.


The certain result of repeal of Glass-Steagall will be a wave of mergers surpassing even the colossal combinations of the past several years. The Wall Street Journalwrote, "With the stroke of the president's pen, investment firms like Merrill Lynch & Co. and banks like Bank of America Corp., are expected to be on the prowl for acquisitions." The financial press predicted that the most likely mergers would come from big banks acquiring insurance companies, with John Hancock, Prudential and The Hartford all expected to be targeted.

-snip

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/clintons-legacy-has-caught-up.php





MEDIA CONSOLIDATION

The Telecommunications Act of 1996<1> was the first major overhaul of United States telecommunications law in nearly 62 years, amending the Communications Act of 1934, and leading to media consolidation.<2> It was approved by the 104th Congress on January 3, 1996 and signed into law on February 8, 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #51
89. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #45
63. You have officially crossed the reality threshold and created your own Bizarro universe
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #45
67. you got your white sheets back from the cleaners?
how would you feel if people started making racist jokes about jews? i bet you wouldn't like it at all, so cut this racist shit out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
52. Obama is disgraceful
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
55. And you hypocrites criticize Hillary
for meeting with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune?

Obama has the balls to criticize the best administration that we had in the last 40 years????????

Go to hell Obama!!!!!!

P.S. Still praising much your buddy Reagan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #55
66. Well, professor hyperbole, he didn't criticize the Clinton administration, did he?
No, he did not. He did not mention Clinton's name, in fact. He mentioned specifically the Glass-Steagall act as one example of deregulation that has proven to be disastrous.

I know it may be difficult for you to understand this, but it IS possible to take issue with specific legislation Clinton signed without condemning his entire presidency.

Now, if you'll calm down for five minutes, kindly explain to my why Glass-Steagall ISN'T a disaster, if you feel Clinton's presidency was 100% pure and good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #66
72. Call it what you want,
but Obama has been criticizing Bill and his administration for months. He just uses terms such as "not going back to the 90s".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. The things he's criticizing are worthy of criticism.
I believe it was Molly Ivins who said that Clinton was the greatest republican president we ever had.

You cannot defent NAFTA, DOMA, the welfare reform act, Glass-Steagall, the telecom bill.....these are all among Clinton's "accomplishments," and not ones we should be proud of.

I adore Bill Clinton, but there were many things he got very, very wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. Well,
I don't have time now to go through the details of what went on inside the administration, but a lot of the things that you object to were the best compromises that could be reached at the time. The Republican alternatives would have been much worse. For example, Bill got clobbered over the issue of gays in the military. The best they were able to get was the "don't ask, don't tell" that pleased no one but was slightly bit better than the Repug. alternative. Ditto for DOMA.

Just as now, one party can't impose its policies unless it has an overwhelming majority in Congress and must compromise whenever possible, hoping to change it in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #77
78. Nobody held a gun to his head and made him sign DOMA.
He should have vetoed it; if they were going to override the veto anyway, there was zero political loss for him, and a huge moral victory to be gained. But he didn't.

I'm stunned by the cognitive dissonance of Hillary supporters who scream that Obama is somehow anti-gay, but then rabidly defend the man who signed the single most anti-gay piece of legislation in the history of this country.

And the same is true for the other things; on NAFTA, especially, he didn't compromise. He actively campaigned for its passage. Your argument, I'm afraid, doesn't hold up to history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
75. internet bubble?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeFleur1 Donating Member (973 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #75
79. Okay. I've Made Up My Mind
I can't vote for Obama. He appears to know nothing about Clinton's administration except that he wants to criticize it, and he is pussying up to the Republicans. Well, he can have the Republican votes he earns by criticizing Democrats. I am a loyal Democrat and I will not vote for him. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Be very careful of this man.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-28-08 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. Vote Nader!
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #79
82. NADER!
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ericgtr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
83. Nice to see them attacking issues instead of each other
K&R

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 09:42 AM
Response to Original message
84. See, Barack? That's what you get when you COMPROMISE with REPUBLICANS.
BTW, thanks for making the Republican argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
86. Wow, attacking Clinton and praising Reagan and GW Bush.
You'd think this was a Republican running...oh, wait...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
87. Hm. I guess the Clintons won't be nearly so enthusiastic about Obama anymore.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hell-bent Donating Member (593 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-29-08 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
95. Here is an excerpt from Bloomberg News on this issue.
Obama didn't call for reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act. Instead, he said, there is a need to ``build new regulatory systems that are flexible and reflect new realities.'' He has called for the Federal Reserve to have more regulatory authority over financial institutions, which would have to increase capital reserves held to protect against losses.

Clinton also acknowledged that deregulation may have gone too far in 1999, saying conditions have changed. ``The global economy when Glass-Steagall passed was not what it is today,'' she said. ``We have to deal with things now that didn't exist, like sovereign-wealth funds.

Clinton hasn't called for any new regulatory powers for the Federal Reserve or other new laws.

She reiterated her three-point plan to put a moratorium on foreclosures, a five-year freeze on subprime adjustable interest rates and a $30 billion fund to help towns and states to deal with consequences of foreclosures.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC