Liberal HuffingPost shocker: Clinton policies sent economy off course

[Jeebus]

Well duh. Just look at the roll we've been on since the Bush tax cuts.

So why did Obama extend them if they were so bad?

I guess that last 2 years of "Bush tax cuts" (that Obama signed into law) were all his fault?

Or is (gasp!) Obama a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of his mouth, loudly flapping his gums about tax increases to the media and His Sheep while doing what he knew was the best thing for the economy, keeping taxes low.

[pickles]

So why did Obama extend them if they were so bad?

I guess that last 2 years of "Bush tax cuts" (that Obama signed into law) were all his fault?

Or is (gasp!) Obama a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of his mouth, loudly flapping his gums about tax increases to the media and His Sheep while doing what he knew was the best thing for the economy, keeping taxes low.

He extended them as part of a compromise to get uninusrance benefits extended as well. And they won't be extended again.

BTW, isn't it odd that the party of fiscal responsibility, who hate the deficit like sin itself, would increase spending to lower taxes???? Ironic isn't it?

[pickles]

Both parties bear responsibility for the economic situation we're in.

To be honest, part of the problem is liberals not being liberal- Clinton signing off on the repeal of Glass-Steagal. (Although it's rather misleading imo to act as if the impetus for that came from him.)

And conservatives not being conservative- Reagan and Bush w record deficits, and expanded bureaucracy.

[Jeebus]

He extended them as part of a compromise to get uninusrance benefits extended as well.

So he is not a man of principals, he caved to something that he and His Sheep point to as the #1 cause for blame for the economy?

(PS - "uninsurance"??? Did you make that word up? )

(nevermind, I realize it's a non-standard English combinations of "unemployment" and "insurance")

[Calamari]

Poor jeebus, reduced to babbling feebly about a typo.

[musicmd]

Poor jeebus, reduced to babbling feebly about a typo.

He does does it everyday.

[musicmd]

So he is not a man of principals, he caved to something that he and His Sheep point to as the #1 cause for blame for the economy?

(PS - "uninsurance"??? Did you make that word up? )

(nevermind, I realize it's a non-standard English combinations of "unemployment" and "insurance")

Take a chill pill, who cares.

[pickles]

So he is not a man of principals, he caved to something that he and His Sheep point to as the #1 cause for blame for the economy?

(PS - "uninsurance"??? Did you make that word up? )

(nevermind, I realize it's a non-standard English combinations of "unemployment" and "insurance")

Haha. You caught me. I made a typo. Completely invalidates my point.

Compromise is just that: compromise. It isn't a dirty word- unless you're a deranged tbagger.

BTW, you conveniently didn't comment on the second part of my post. Shall I restate it?

[Jeebus]

He does does it everyday.

The lazy and shiftless one returns.

[ms maggie]

So why did Obama extend them if they were so bad?

I guess that last 2 years of "Bush tax cuts" (that Obama signed into law) were all his fault?

Or is (gasp!) Obama a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of his mouth, loudly flapping his gums about tax increases to the media and His Sheep while doing what he knew was the best thing for the economy, keeping taxes low.

Because he was negotiating w the Republicans.

And my comment was to highlight the ludicrous nature of the claim made that tax cuts are the solution to every economic woe.

[bmorepunk]

The damage in 2008/2009 that could have been avoided if Greenspan, Summers, and Rubin hand't marginalized Brooksley Born in the derivatives markets particularly in the face of the over-leveraging failure of Long Term Capital Management is incredible.

[Joy in Mudville]

I sometimes marvel at people's propensity to post articles based on a sensational headline without ever bothering to read the article.

I wonder if Jeebus also agrees with this...

"To have a sustainable growth path we have to reverse one of the other central policies of the Clinton years, the over-valued dollar.

Directing tax cuts to the wealthy was a foolish policy response to the downturn, but it was reasonable to turn to fiscal stimulus following the collapse of the stock bubble, just as it was reasonable for President Obama to turn to fiscal stimulus following the collapse of the housing bubble. The Bush tax cuts did provide a boost to the economy, although they would have provided a larger boost if this money had been directed at moderate and middle income people or devoted to long-term investments like education and infrastructure.

In Washington it is common to tout the budget surpluses of the Clinton years as some momentous achievement, as though the point of economic policy is to run budget surpluses. Of course the point of economic policy is to produce an economy that improves the lives of the people in a sustainable way. "

So let's have it Jeebus... the author, an excellent economist by the way, suggests that we shouldn't be too concerned about the deficit, raise taxes on the risk, engage in deficit spending to stimulate the economy and allow the dollar's value to fail. Certainly you agree with all this since you seem to embrace the author's critique of the Clinton years. Discuss!

[Joy in Mudville]

Both parties bear responsibility for the economic situation we're in.

To be honest, part of the problem is liberals not being liberal- Clinton signing off on the repeal of Glass-Steagal. (Although it's rather misleading imo to act as if the impetus for that came from him.)

And conservatives not being conservative- Reagan and Bush w record deficits, and expanded bureaucracy.

Yeah, Phil Gramm was the driver behind the gutting of Glass Steagal. Clinton should have never signed it although I believe it had the votes to override a veto.

[Joy in Mudville]

It may have burst on Bush's watch but it actually started during Bush Sr. Presidency to help lower income families get home loans. The standards to qualify got lower under Clinton's watch. Bush Jr. did warn Congress a housing issue was developing but Congress failed to act.

Hogwash.

Look up the numbers. CRA mortgages have been defaulting at lower rates than the unregulated subprime loans that were being driven by the demand for mortgage back securities, credit default swaps, and complex derivatives that took on the Wild West of Wall Street in 2000s. This isn't necessarily Bush's fault either but he did nothing to regulate this new, essentially shadow, banking industry created by Goldman Sachs and their ilk.

If we had just had a housing bubble we would have had a cyclical correction similar to the stock market correction and tech sector retrenchment that happened in late 2000 and 2001. Because of the derivatives market we had a full fledged economic panic of the type not seen since 29 or the late 19th century.

[Joy in Mudville]

One area where I disagree with Baker and those who tend to lump the tech bubble and the housing bubble together (in the interest of full disclosure I did work for an internet company at the end of the party) is this...

At the end of the tech bubble we had Amazon, Google, Yahoo, cloud computing, AOL, video conferencing, a resurgent Apple, a retooled IBM, and a previously little known powerhouse that became a household word - Intel. It changed the way we communicate, pay bills, conduct business, and shop. This very board was almost unthinkable to most before the tech bubble. In other words, we saw a complete and utter transformation of the economy and it is having a profound impact on society as we are still seeing with things like the Arab Spring.

What can we say came out of the housing bubble?