Bill Clinton says raising taxes won't work

Read the article again. He is strictly talking about the short term.

Yes he had a hand in it, but that is not the issue. If this speaks to his credibility then you should either ignore the entire article or take it for what it is - a valid point.

Nope, do you even understand what the CRA is/was? The only people that forced them to take bad were the greedy bastards that saw it as a way to get rich. Besides, do you understand what banks had become by bundling bad mortgages? They essentially became crooked mortgage brokers. No liability whatsoever. How can that be blamed on the government? It would almost be like blaming the government for allowing cars that go 120 mph. CRA was in no way the cause of the mortgage crisis. I'd agree the failure was partly to blame in Washington for not regulating Wall Street, but to say they forced the banks into giving bad loans is certainly not true.

 

Clinton is largely responsible for the current crisis. He pushed for this trade situation with China. He was in bed with the Red Chinese for his entire presidency. The Chinese contributed to his campaigns.

Could you conjure an even greater fallacy, this is beyond ridiculous, this is shameless unaccountability. The greater irony is the use of Pres Clinton's words for the argument against raising, with the assumption that Pres Clinton knows how to work the economy, to your words that Pres Clinton caused the economic mess.

You contradict yourself, this post, this thread, this theme that Demorats/Liberals/Clinton are the sole reason for the economic crisis is a waste of bandwidth. What is even worse, are right wingers like yourelf will thump their chests, post some immature rant about not understanding what is going on.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill...ses-debt-impasse-deal-fears/story?id=13963218

Nice try...any other statements you morons wanna cherry pick?

 

It's funny to hear the difference between a liberal and a conservative. I really think Clinton was giving his honest opinion on this and yes, some could say it goes against what Obama is pushing for, but I believe this is his nonpartisan opinion based on where the economy is now. On the other hand, you hear a partisan like Bernie Marcus talk, it sounds like most conservatives on this forum. It is entirely one party's fault and actions that is causing this recession.

 

Yes I agree.
I also think its interesting that Clinton...a DEMOCRAT...is capable of expressing his own thoughts on the matter and not just regurgitate the party line.

This takes us back to an old discussion concerning the intellect of the average T-Bagging Republican...

 

Now Bill needs to throw down and call for the resignation of the Chicago thug politician in chief !

Sweet revenge, a dish best served cold

 

Unless we halt the spending juggernaut, we're doomed. It's just that simple.

 

Intellect? How about honesty? Nothing worse than an unintelligent liar.

 

Yeah, let's just bring in the tax cutting idiots that will simply conceal the fact that we are drowning in debt by not paying for any program they create.

 

BS, Washington can change the time frame at will.


Hand in it? He was its champion. He is the largest reason jobs have left American shores. He owns the destruction of the American middle class. Progressives really don't want an independent middle class that may vote Republican. They want a large dependent underclass that will always vote for the Democrats and the promise of the public dole.


Baloney, the banks were strong-armed into making loans to low-income, poor credit people, just as their jobs were being sent overseas to China. The outcome should surprise no one, and the Democrats in congress ignored the warnings made by conservatives. This is indisputable.



_

 

Trade

Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993)
Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993) Bill Clinton.ogv
Clinton's December 8, 1993 remarks on the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement
Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993)
audio only version
Problems listening to these files? See media help.

Clinton made it one of his goals as president to pass trade legislation that lowered the barriers to trade with other nations. He broke with many of his supporters, including labor unions, and those in his own party to support free-trade legislation.[72] Opponents argued that lowering tariffs and relaxing rules on imports would cost American jobs because people would buy cheaper products from other countries. Clinton countered that free trade would help America because it would allow the U.S. to boost its exports and grow the economy. Clinton also believed that free trade could help move foreign nations to economic and political reform.

The three-nation NAFTA was signed by President George H. W. Bush during December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation, making NAFTA the first "green" trade treaty and the first trade treaty concerned with each country's labor laws, albeit with very weak sanctions.[73] NAFTA provided for gradually reduced tariffs and the creation of a free-trading bloc of North American countries–the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Opponents of NAFTA, led by Ross Perot, claimed it would force American companies to move their workforces to Mexico, where they could produce goods with cheaper labor and ship them back to the United States at lower prices. Clinton, however, argued that NAFTA would increase U.S. exports and create new jobs. Clinton while signing the NAFTA bill stated: "…NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.”[74] He convinced many Democrats to join most Republicans in supporting trade agreement and in 1993 the Congress passed the treaty.[75]

Clinton also held meetings with leaders of Pacific Rim nations to discuss lowering trade barriers. In November 1993 he hosted a meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in Seattle, Washington, which was attended by the leaders of 12 Pacific Rim nations. In 1994, Clinton arranged an agreement in Indonesia with Pacific Rim nations to gradually remove trade barriers and open their markets.

Officials in the Clinton administration also participated in the final round of trade negotiations sponsored by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), an international trade organization. The negotiations had been ongoing since 1986. In a rare move, Clinton convened Congress to ratify the trade agreement in the winter of 1994, during which the treaty was approved. As part of the GATT agreement, a new international trade body, the World Trade Organization (WTO), replaced GATT in 1995. The new WTO had stronger authority to enforce trade agreements and covered a wider range of trade than did GATT.

Clinton faced his first defeat on trade legislation during his second term. In November 1997, the Republican-controlled Congress delayed voting on a bill to restore a presidential trade authority that had expired in 1994. The bill would have given the president the authority to negotiate trade agreements which the Congress was not authorized to modify–known as "fast-track negotiating" because it streamlines the treaty process. Clinton was unable to generate sufficient support for the legislation, even among the Democratic Party.

Clinton faced yet another trade setback in December 1999, when the WTO met in Seattle for a new round of trade negotiations. Clinton hoped that new agreements on issues such as agriculture and intellectual property could be proposed at the meeting, but the talks fell through. Anti-WTO protesters in the streets of Seattle disrupted the meetings[76] and the international delegates attending the meetings were unable to compromise mainly because delegates from smaller, poorer countries resisted Clinton's efforts to discuss labor and environmental standards.[77]

That same year, Clinton signed a landmark trade agreement with the People's Republic of China. The agreement–the result of more than a decade of negotiations–would lower many trade barriers between the two countries, making it easier to export U.S. products such as automobiles, banking services, and motion pictures. However, the agreement could only take effect if China was accepted into the WTO and was granted permanent "normal trade relations" status by the U.S. Congress. Under the pact, the United States would support China's membership in the WTO. Many Democrats as well as Republicans were reluctant to grant permanent status to China because they were concerned about human rights in the country and the impact of Chinese imports on U.S. industries and jobs. Congress, however, voted in 2000 to grant permanent normal trade relations with China. Several economic studies have since been released that indicate the increase in trade resulting lowered American prices and increased the U.S. GDP by 0.7% throughout the following decade.[78]

The Clinton administration negotiated a total of about 300 trade agreements with other countries.[79] Clinton's last treasury secretary, Lawrence Summers, stated that the lowered tariffs that resulted from Clinton's trade policies, which reduced prices to consumers and kept inflation low, were technically "the largest tax cut in the history of the world."[80]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton#Trade



1996 United States campaign finance controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a featured article. Click here for more information.

The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy, also known as Chinagate, was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics during the 1996 federal elections.

The issue first received public attention in early 1997, with news that a Justice Department investigation had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in violation of U.S. laws regarding foreign political contributions.[1] The Chinese government denied all accusations. Twenty-two people were eventually convicted of fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections, and others fled U.S. jurisdiction. Several of these were associates of Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy



_

 

What does this have to do with what Bill Clinton said?

Another conservative with their foot in their mouth. I offer no defense to Clinton because he signed the crap, but he certainly wasn't it's champion. Got three names for you Gramm, Leach, Bliley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act#Repeal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafta#Negotiation_and_U.S._ratification

As they say on this site, prove it. What IS proven is that banks charged higher interest rates to inner city poor people than they did to suburban people with the same credit scores.

WTF?

Like I've said many times, the Democrats and Republicans in Congress as well as the Republican in the White House failed us. You had warnings from both sides. I guess the Democrats were responsible for the AAA ratings received by these mortgage backed CDO's, right? LOL, it was a failure on all fronts. Stop playing the blame game. That's what they want you to do so they can do it all over again. Haven't you learned anything?

 

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Freddie, Fannie and Democrats

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were accidents looking for a place to happen. Their collapse was not inevitable, but the way they were managed, as placed to enrich political pals made their end tragically foreseeable.

They were so-called “private” corporations with an implicit government guarantee on their bonds. They were able to borrow money at rates only a few tenths of a percentage point higher than the treasury because of the implicit guarantee. Using “cheap” money the Fannie (and Freddie) bought mortgagees from banks, put them in a package and resold them, making a profit on the difference. Knowing they could sell their mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, banks were willing to lend to anyone who could fog a mirror, knowing that the loans would be off their books by the time the homeowner defaulted. This left Fannie and Freddie with the debris once the housing bubble burst.

While the going was good, they made tons of money, and paid their executives handsomely until something happened: the housing market went south and all those mortgage holders could not pay. For a long time the management played fast and loose with the books, paying themselves multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses with not a care in the world. And why would they? The government would be there to pick up the pieces. Their friends in government gave them the jobs for which they were eminently unqualified. Becoming a Fannie and Freddie executive was a plum handed out by Democrat administrations as a way of making you rich.

Which brings me to Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson and Franklin Raines, Democrat biggies all. Two of them are now close advisors of Barack Obama. Just three of the geniuses who ran Fannie and Freddie into the ground, saddling the taxpayers with billions of dollars in debts while walking away with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonus.

Here’s the story on Jamie Gorlelick,

It's not often that one person plays key roles in two -- count 'em, two -- trillion-dollar disasters. Welcome, my friends, to the world of well-connected Democrat Jamie Gorelick.

In 2004, observers were "astonished" to discover that a key member of the 9/11 Commission had a fatal conflict-of-interest. Jamie Gorelick had served as a Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997.
The result: shortly before 9/11, Gorelick's wall "specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui", the so-called "20th hijacker."

At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a memo to headquarters which included the sentence, 'Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective..."

Though she had no training or experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed the Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and served in the role from 1997 to 2003. During that six-year period, she earned over $26 million.



Read the whole thing here.

Glenn Reynolds enters the fray with some good ideas for a new McCain ad:


I would put together a commercial that said…
James A. Johnson - former Fannie Mae CEO and Obama Advisor
Just cost you billions in taxes
Franklin Raines – former Fannie Mae CEO and Obama Advisor
Just cost you billions in taxes
Barack Obama – If we can’t afford his advisors, how can we afford him?

At JustOneMinute we learn a lot of the history and it turn out that Democrats blocked legislation to regulate Freddie and Fannie.

The Bush administration today [in 2002] recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

Prescient! So what happened?

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

But who could be opposed to more stringent regulation?

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.


http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/2008/09/freddie-fannie-and-democrats.html

 

Perhaps you'd like to point out where I've lied?

 

Because, he knows how Washington works.


He was it champion. Read the Wiki article. It was his trade policy.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64&feature=player_embedded"]EVIDENCE FOUND!!! Clinton administration's "BANK AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" They forced banks to make BAD LOANS and ACORN and Obama's tie to all of it!!! - YouTube[/ame]



Jobs went to China. What is eluding you?


Ok, show us the Democrats warning that Fannie and Freddie were acting in a highly irresponsible manner.

_

 

Actually I was just piggybacking on your statement about the Tea Party folks. It was directed at them specifically. If they can't be intelligent, I'd at least like them to be honest.

 

Oh...sorry.

Pssst...Hey Donny-boy...if you're gonna make accusations like this...might wanna make sure you know what the hell you're talking about...

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

Well well well...looks like the architects of NAFA were none other than Ronnie and George Sr. Ain't THAT a kick in the seat o' the pants...LOL

Dude allow me to introduce you to 2 helpful links.
1. www.google.com
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

You should consider using these BEFORE you make silly statements and force us to question your intellect.

 

He's right, only the little guys will be hurt from it! Too, too many loopholes, exemptions, tax breaks and other government welfare for the rich to actually make an impact. If he (Obummer) was serious about saving the US economy and doing what is in the best interest for the nation as a whole (neither party really is), he, they would completely overhaul the tax code that already only caters to the needs of the rich, cut spending, especially military spending and almost all foreign aid, and they would put a stop to illegal’s benefiting from government subsidies, anchor babies, the illegal use of slave labor everywhere and civil rights violations that come with it, rewarding corporations who outsource making it impossible for competition to become a national tradition once again, and eliminate the power held over the best government corporate money can buy.
　
IOW stop the cronyism tht is so obviously rampant and the unconstitutional choke hold this plutocracy has inflicted on this nation.

 

Again, has nothing to do with his opinion on what will get our economy back.

So he was the champion as he was governor of Arkansas?

This sounds like the banks were discriminating to me. And what's up with cutting up the video to make their talking points? I think conservatives have forgotten what affirmitive action actually means. Why am I not surprised you have a Fox conspiracy story in there. The actual reason our economy fell was because of derivitives and CDOs. Neither of which was created by the government. When banks figured out they didn't have to be on the hook for these loans, they lowered the standards needed to get a loan. They lowered the requirements, credit scores, etc.

They went to a lot of places. So what, I thought you conservatives supported the global economy? This sounds like a liberal rant.

I said Democrats warned of the housing bubble. YOU are the one that wants to blame every person not labled GOP. Fannie and Freddie were not the only culprits in creating the subprime mess. The blame spreads to pretty much every party involved.