doublegunshop.com - home Forums A sigh of relief?

Your community is to be commended, Stan. That's a great turn-out. My point is that we vote for representation of our interests in Congress and Parliament and get what the White House and the Prime Minister's Office decides will keep their parties in power, with big money a significant influence. Spending alleged $100 million in Kentucky is corruption of the process.

William Jefferson Clinton left this country in decent shape. I'm still shocked we survived next eight years. Quite honestly while WJC was far from perfect I much preferred him to Ronald Reagan.

clinton was great as long as he had the republican congress telling him what was good policy for the country.jagermeister you didn't vote so don't talk.well you cant discuss the Reagan administration with out talking about carter.yes the republican congress left the country in good shape in spite of Clinton.King do you understand what caused the economic meltdown?value was attached to paper, value was added by real estate secured by paper (no skin in the game)and based on a ever expanding bubble that the democrat congress created.their policy was "if you get into trouble you can sell your property and no one gets hurt and you make a little money"and please look at who voted for the iraq "blunder"

I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat this but here we go again:

The primary reason Clinton had no economic problems while he was in office was due to Reagans' economic policy for the prior 8 years. The positive effects of Reagans' policy really didn't bear fruit until after he left office. Economics 101: There is usually a substantial lag time between a change in policy and the policy actually taking effect.

Some of you might want to copy this down somewhere for your future reference!
Clinton's economic policy was essentialy "Leave well enough alone"!
Jim

I read several books on the meltdown, as I'm sure you did. I believe weak regulations by successive governments in finance and real estate tore the guts out of the country, and you'll note the red-suspender boys want them weakened again. Canada's tough regulations got us through better than all other economies. Our federal government is pondering where to spend its big surplus.

Comrade King,

Next time you read a book on the meltdown, I suggest you avoid the fiction section. It was government involvement in the housing market for political purposes that caused it. We've beaten that horse so many times I won't go into it again. That is, unless you post some statist lies and propaganda in response. Then, I'll be happy to. I suggest you start a new thread.

King has been told umteen times about CRA and still thinks he can ignore it and its cause in the housing crisis/"meltdown"

ACORN-and its community organizer's-like our golfer in chief are the ones that should be blamed !

Two things. And I hope some of you are smart enough to be embarassed.

If the economic success of Clinton's presidency was entirely attributable to Reagan, why can't the same position be extended to Obama? Or Bush ll ? That is, that there is a considerable lag between cause and effect on an economy as large as ours.

It's dishonest or ignorant to cherry pick which pieces of policy made things better or worse based on party. Applying abbreviated time frames to those you hate, yet allowing decades for your patron saints. Or choosing to omit looking at root sources of the bad, instead automatically laying them on whomever you oppose.

Our economy is cyclical with gigantic stores of demand, consequently, when a company feels they can't wait any longer, they spend. A coincidence of pent-up demand being forced to break loose by necessity is the hallmark of an economy rising from recession. Typically, those capital budgeting decisions are made without looking toward Washington.

Lastly, I want to mention the CRA.
I was on the board of an urban lending entity when the CRA was enacted. There is nothing in the CRA that forces a bank to make bad loans or change credit policy, or in any way deviate from whatever their std lending policy was at the time of the CRA's enactment. Good lending practice is good lending practice.

Please read it. Find the abandonment of std's that your propagandists claim are there. They aren't.

If you expand your condemnations to de-regulation and industry competiton, that can explain the rise of mega regional banks.
But for the system to grow, banks needed liquidity. A financial system pumped full of money to keep the economy stimulated with demand for loans.
The third leg of the stool was allowing the growth of unregulated securities markets.

As long as there was a place to dump the paper, the game of musical chairs could continue.

You should be able to read the CRA easily understand it.
Anyone here should also be able to discern who was running the show when the other pieces found each other. The pressure to flood the market with money and allow the derivative markets to flourish didn't come from urban residents that had no place to cash a Social Security check without paying a fee, or for that matter, couldn't get a loan to side their house when they worked in an auto plant.

I know it's inconvenient to believe other than the party propagandist's lies, but as someone who was actually there, I can only invite you to read the CRA, and see where your beliefs actually come from.

Lets see we can believe the "Baghdad bob" (clapper)of the misfires forum or.........................

It could be thought a little dishonest to discount the contribution of the Gingrich congress when ole bill was fraternizing with subordinates.

Interesting, you state nothing 'forces a bank to make bad loans'. Why wouldn't you state, from your experiences at the time, that bad loans were PREVENTED. Maybe, it's too embarrassing that questionable loans were, wink encouraged, rather than the half technical demonization of big financial corps.