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

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!

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Oh puh-leeze. The market came out of the Depression despite the New Deal, not because of it.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninja9578

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drewmandan

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.

---

Lack of regulation is what caused the current economic collapse. Have you been under a rock the last couple of weeks? Lack of regulation caused the greedy banks to loan as much money as possible, thinking that they would get far more in return. They loaned them to people who couldn't afford the loans, and went bankrupt. All of that money was lost from the banks, and they collapsed. And where did you get the idea that I'm a socialist? Liberal != Socialist, stop watching Fox.

And no, the Clinton money wasn't fake. It was squandered. It's still around, but now in the hands of Haloburten and Iraq.

Nice title for the thread. All presidents (other than maybe carter) since Kennedy have been corrupt politicians. Why do people trust people who have proven themselves untrustworthy. Clinton was a coke dealing bastard.


Youtube search CLinton Chronicles for the rest.

Because our economy is linked to the world's economy, it's pretty stable. As long as there is money in it. The problem is that Dubya doesn't seem to understand that the military's money comes directly out of the economy. It comes from tax payers.

So far the Iraq war has cost 562 billion dollars. That's an average of $1700 from every person. That's why the economy collapsed, there just wasn't enough money in it.

BTW, discussion of politics belongs in ED.

the one thing i'll say is that we need a war...

Guys, have a little optimism. The economy isn't completely screwed yet. We may still have a chance if this next president doesn't screw it up first. But then, I don't really have high hopes either. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!

Quote:

---

Lack of regulation caused the greedy banks to loan as much money as possible, thinking that they would get far more in return. They loaned them to people who couldn't afford the loans, and went bankrupt.

---

Yep, they overstretched and loaned to those who couldn't afford it. But...

How can you blame them when it is the law that thye do that? Clinton mandated that a mortage/loan corporation X large has to give out X non-verifiable loans a year.

It's the law that they do that! Sound stupid? Well, that's government regulation for you...

Are you referring to the CRA?

The CRA never mandated how many loans that the banks should give out, it mandated that banks not refuse loans to those who need it. A family making $100,000 a year does not need a loan for a half a million dollar house. The CRA regulated that and those people would not get that loan.

Bush took down the regulations that investigated loans, so now those banks were giving the half a million to the family that couldn't afford it. It's the lack of regulation that caused the current economic collapse, not the regulations.

People lied that they were making 100K a year since the best way to follow new regulation was to give non-verifiable loans. The banks would have invested properly, and they were investing properly, until the regulation.

Lying about your income to get a loan in a felony.

Besides, the Bush administration was the ones that abolished mandatory credit checking and background checking. If the banks had actually looked at the people's financial situation before approving the loan like they had to under the previous administration then they wouldn't be in this mess.

Man, watching Fox News is the ultimate insult on this forum. Once you throw in that card, you know it's going down.

I actually learned alot of what I know first hand from a newscaster on FOX news.

Said newscaster saw all of this coming and invested in the real estate which he figured would go up instead of crashing, like alot of it has.

Because of it, he's now one of the richer men in Denver.

((Is FOX any more biased than NBC? Nope.))

Lets just say, NAFTA didnt help our economy either. Also, of course we had such a huge surplus in the 90's, thanks to the internet boom. When that bubble popped, it was the start of a land slide. I really dont think either party knows what it is doing with the economy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spockman

I actually learned alot of what I know first hand from a newscaster on FOX news.

Said newscaster saw all of this coming and invested in the real estate which he figured would go up instead of crashing, like alot of it has.

Because of it, he's now one of the richer men in Denver.

((Is FOX any more biased than NBC? Nope.))

---

I recommend CNN, that's real news. NBC is better than Fox. Do I need to bring up the video of the informal poll at the diner again? Learning about politics from Fox news is like learning about the holocaust from a nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tdkyo

Also, of course we had such a huge surplus in the 90's, thanks to the internet boom. When that bubble popped, it was the start of a land slide. I really dont think either party knows what it is doing with the economy.

---

Actually, Silicon Valley is one of the wealthiest and most progressive areas in the countries. The internet burst didn't loose as much money as people think. I know, I have family who made millions in it and I'm in the computer industry myself.

Quote:

---

NBC is better than Fox.

---

Fox's bias is there to outweigh the bias spewed by NBC and then by CNN, (though less severe than NBC and less sever than FOX.)

I admit to the truth about bias and say that the best one to watch is the naked news.

Not because it's any better than the others, but because watching it has a secondary purpose. That purpose is fulfilled, unlike most news stations.

Quote:

---

Adv. Tasks Completed- Fly Nina Style, Be in Multiple Places at Once, Swap Gender

---

Wait a minute! That nina task was long before you came to DV. If you're a dup from a banned member I'll figure it out.


Okay, I'm brining out the Fox News informal poll. Not only biased, but in denial too.

Ha ha... No, Ninja, I'm not a banned member. I just happened to complete that task in an LD before I knew that it was a task... or what LDin was called for that matter.

We've been screwed since we killed Jesus.