Nixon Presidency set it up, Clinton Presidency Set it on, Bush Presidency Sped it up

[spockman]

I'm talking about the economic screw ups going on. Personally, I believe that Nixon's presidency taking us off the gold standard made this inevitable. Something bad would happen as a result. (Even if you say that alot of good came from it.) Then the Clinton administration kind of decided where the economy would screw up. What with forcing people to have 'non-verification loans' and such. The fall-out was going to deal heavily with real-estate when it happened. When was the fall-out going to happen if left alone? Don't know. But it probably wouldn't be happening for longer, or at least it could be dealt with better, if under Bush the government hadn't thrown money around like it was confetti for 8 years. Do you guys agree with this logic? I'm trying to make sense of it by looking at what the economists and the research/studies are saying and deciding where to believe evidences. Oppossing views? Agreements? I'm trying to educate myself more by seeing what other people deduce of the current situation so post away!

[The Prodigy]

No, we were screwed when we adopted the federal reserve system. The federal reserve is a privately owned institution not regulated by the government. They pay no taxes and arent subject to any audits. The federal reserve bank prints our money and loans it to the US at interest. How can you pay off the interest owed to the fed if you have to borrow more money from the fed to do so? You cant. The collapse of the dollar is inevitable

[ninja9578]

Nixon, Clinton, and Bush had completely different economic systems. Clinton's economic system worked out well, it was very similar to FDR's economic system which was so good that it brought us out of the great depression. I'm hoping Obama will use the same system (like he says.) Nixon's economic system was not very good, but it wasn't quiet as bad as Reagan's and Bush's. It was the first step towards trickle down economic and a less regulated market, but he battled with JFK's congress so very little of it got passed. Reaganomics weakened the economy, but he also had a democratic congress which kept it in check. The first time we saw a red congress and president was Bush Jr. That's where the economy started to fall apart. It's mostly Bush's fault with his congress. Bush pushed the trickle down economics which weakened the middle class. The congress took down all of the regulations which destroyed wall street. Because the economy was already weakened by trickle down economics, it couldn't fix itself. The US economy is very strong, it takes quiet a bit to make it collapse, the combination of bush and the red congress just happened to be too much.

[drewmandan]

Nixon, Clinton, and Bush had completely different economic systems. Clinton's economic system worked out well, it was very similar to FDR's economic system which was so good that it brought us out of the great depression. Oh puh-leeze. The market came out of the Depression despite the New Deal, not because of it.

[spockman]

I believe the war took us out of the depression, not the policies. I respect the opinion, but disagree that Clinton's economy worked. His policies made false money appear. A false sense of security and lack of debt. Agreed that the policies are very different but they can still have thier own progression.

[ninja9578]

Oh puh-leeze. The market came out of the Depression despite the New Deal, not because of it. No, The New Deal was the reason that we came out of the depression. Anyone who knows simple economics knows that. It also created the strongest economy we'd ever seen until the Clinton administration. How exactly did Clinton make money appear? He raised taxes to give the government more money. He then used that money to invest in sound investments which increased the surplus, which he then gave back to the tax payers which boosted the economy even more.

[drewmandan]

No, The New Deal was the reason that we came out of the depression. Anyone who knows simple economics knows that. Anyone who knows simple economics knows that economies are supposed to be self-regulating and are only not self-regulating when some dick puts his sticky fingers in the machine and starts manipulating the money supply. But of course, I'm arguing with a socialist which is like competing in the special Olympics, so I'll just quit before I shit myself out of frustration.

[spockman]

I don't think that there was a real surplus under Clinton. For a couple reasons. 1. Alot of the money was fake. (I'll go into that.) 2. The lack of debt was only existant if you didn't count all of the extra Welfare/S.S. money we owed or would owe due to his policies. If we look at mortages, we pay them and the loan companies package them up and sell them to investors as equitable assets. The safest investment in the world, right? Not if Clinton had anything to say about it. 'It's to hard for an American to get a home, let's make X number of non-verifiable home loans per year mandated.' What happens, all kinds of people that earlier were renting now can get a loan and purchase. What happens? Homes start flying off the shelves. Money circulates with the money that these formaly lower class people now have. SO now the middle class gets bumped up as the lower class fills in, (In a sense. It's more complex than that but anyway...) So now equity in middle class homes rises. So what do they do? They refinance. They purchase boats and vacations and fuel efficient cars for their kids in college. Money circulates again, so the economy is jump started again. And so it appears that a positive cycle is re-occuring. 'Good job CLinton, your an economic genius!' But... Everyone's forgotten... It's all funny money. It's all an artificial ruse created by the real estate policies, (as well as a few that go with it I'm pretty sure.) Fast forward years in the future. That funny money starts to come back down to Earth. It certainly doesn't help that some point during this fall a major center of trade and commece is destroyed and the government is eating up cash like a hungry hippo, but that was only a factor, not the cause. At any rate, now those people who should have been renting have now bought, have to deal with thier loans. (Now, if Nixon had us still on the gold standard, the homeowners wouldn't have as many problems with dealing with it.) At any rate, those loans have to be payed for. But since the people who are living beyond thier means have the same level job as they had 10 years ago, they can't make the payments. That wasn't a problem earlier, since the economy was booming, but it had startled to level back down a while ago. It leveled down even faster do to other variables, too. The homeowners with thier fake loans can't pay for it. Thye loose it and go back to thier olf lifestyle. Now those middle class who had been temporarily boosted fall back down to thier previous standing, but with a problem. They had overstretched themselves. Thier boats and cruises and cars had scarred them. They default on thier mortages like crazy. Mortage fallout is greater than it's been in forever, investors get scared, and pull out. Mortage companies still own the equity, but it is not being invested in. It stagnates. At what happens to a stagnate economy, especially in one not based on a commodity standard? It goes kablooey. That's my belief anyway.