Lol. Nice.

Don't forget, they stormed into closed door hearings live streaming the whole thing, even though electronic devices are 100% not allowed in such hearings by law to maintain state secrets, protect witnesses, and even to protect the president from baseless or unproven accusations becoming public. Closed door hearings are like classified information, and the Republicans just tried to broadcast them to the world.

Hilariously, hypocritically, the thing they're so faux outraged about today is the rules Republicans enacted so they could make it easier to impeach Clintons....

https://crooksandliars.com/2019/10/karma-republicans-clinton-rules-apply

Just a taste.....
Andrew Napolitano reminded Fox and Friends viewers...that Republicans wrote the rules on impeachment proceedings during the Bill Clinton years. Uh oh.

Yes, the US had a nice boom during the Clinton years. I'm sure the bubble that burst in 2008 was completely unrelated.

"Most economists" did not see the collapse coming, so why believe "most economists" know anything now?

The economic collapse was set in motion with the Free Houses for Poor People Act in the 70s, a liberal creation muscled-up during the Clinton years.

Government "guaranteed" bank loans to people who had no business owning homes, because it's "unfair" that not everyone has a house. So, half-coercion, half promising bailouts with taxpayer money.

Even in decades-old systems like Medicare, where you'd think there would be built-in watchdogs, we lose 60 billion A YEAR to fraud, waste and abuse, so how anyone sane thought a one-time scamulus would be closely monitored for fraud...

A similar Nude Eel scamulus was attempted in the 40s with little to no effect. FDR's bacon was only saved by WW2.


Government: If you think the problems are bad, wait till you see our solutions!

"Frontline: The Warning" covers some of the same material covered in the interview above - Greenspan, Rubin, Summers and Geithner during the Clinton years. It also profiles Brooksley Born and her concern about derivatives.

http://videosift.com/video/Frontline-The-Warning-Sneak-Peek-PBS

Lodurr

All 4 links clearly and plainly show a liberal/democrat bias in the news media. It is what it is. I'd love to see all bias (left or right) vanish but it is a free society and as such it is more important to have freedom of speech - warts and all. Cable news is awful. Affiliate news is better. Newspapers are liberal bastions. Radio is owned by the right.

I remember how they did this all the time when Bush was president.

FOX didn't need to because every other news agency was showing all the Bush stupidity. They gave up on that critical role once the guy they liked got the gig. The only TV news outlet filling this role now is FOX. I'd rather have a crappy news channel hitting on his faults than no one at all. Clearly NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, AP, et al are very biased in favor of Obama. They want him to do well, and prop him up when he makes mistakes. Like when during the Clinton years they sat on the Lewinsky story for weeks until a plucky guy that tilted right broke the story. The media gave up on journalistic integrity due to bias long before FOX. But I'd rather have a free news media full of bias on both sides than just one biased side.

The PEOPLE love Obama and his health care proposal, and therefore the media has to report on it if it is to remain viable in the free market

Uh - no - they don't. That is you projecting YOUR bias. The majority of Americans are against both Obama and his reforms.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

The Nashville Network?

Haw haw. No - of course I mean Turner News Network before it went belly up.

At least the guy holds news confresnces, and can go out in public. I recall that Bush had less press confreences in 8 years, then I have college degrees.

The war in afghanistan was not Obama's war. He didn't start it, nor run it in the the ground in favor of the OTHER unwise war in Iraq. No, no, no, that's Bush's fault. He has to get the US Military's eye back o nthe back in Afghanistan. It sucks to be honest. But if you can explain how we can get out of afghanistan, and NOT, allow the taliban/al quedia re-emerge itself, please explain.

Bad economy is the result of many systems within the federal goverment, being removed, reduced, and limited by Mr. Bush. Go look it up if you dont believe me. We had less regulators watching Wall Street during the Bush years, then in the Clinton years. So yes, Mr. Obama has had to shore up our economy. And THAT, is no easy or simple task.

A famous poet (whose name escapes me at the moment) once said of America "America gets the president she deserves" We had to endure a total idiot, with a fanatical White House, and a god-wishing deluded VP for 8 years, to finally, have a good president. Mr. Obama understands the forces and concepts in play right now. The things that are polarizing our nation into, two extreme halves that bicker over the little stuff, not to mention big things like health care and such.

But if you want to disagree, that's your right as American. And if your not an American, talking about my president? STFU! =)

>> ^bleedingsnowman:
80% + 70% + 26% = 176%?
WTF?!?


Bush and bankers are jointly responsible for the economic meltdown. The guys who deregulated wall street during the Clinton years should also be in the poll.

>> ^Doc_M:
It's a shame to see the median income has dropped so low bellow the mean.
I'm guessing it will be even more shocking in a year when we see the 2009 national debt and inflation rate. The rate at which we have been printing money this year makes Al Gore's "hockey stick" look like a tooth pick. Not to mention the other trillions that the new administration and the Dem congress want to dish out.


Not to pick on you, DocM, but your comment (and the fact that it's gotten several upvotes), is a prime example of how I think most conservatives misunderstand the relationship of various aspects of our economy.

First, you make a comment about median incomes dropping so far below the mean. As a liberal/progressive, I think after unemployment, that's one of the largest issues with our economy today.

Second, you say you think that issue will be somehow directly affected by the national debt and inflation rate (with the implication that those two things also have direct correlation to each other).

Third, you blame Democrats, and not the Fed, for the increase in the money supply, and presumably the inflation rate and national debt too.

The charts already on display should dispel all of these assertions, but somehow, they haven't.

If you look at real national debt, you will see that the curve had a brief slope downward during the Clinton years. CPI during that time continued to rise. National Debt and inflation do not have a causal relationship, nor do Democrats and National Debt, if you look at joedirt's chart.

Now, Fed interest rates and inflation rates have a high correlation, though that's not a perfect fit, either. I don't think we have a chart that shows us inflation vs. income disparity, but I'd love to see that, along with top marginal tax rates, and see which has a higher degree of correlation, because I think income disparity has more to do with tax rates than inflation.

Lastly, there is actually a reason why Democrats (and the Fed) are dishing out trillions. Notice how the CPI has a hook downward? That's deflation, and the last time we had that was during the Great Depression. So Ben Bernanke, being a student of Milton Friedman, is pumping out massive amounts of cash to try to prevent a deflationary cycle from taking root. Unfortunately, Fed rates have been at zero for a while now, and it can't get any lower, which brings us to fiscal stimulus, like what Obama got passed.

Now, imstellar subscribes to a theory of economics that essentially says deflation is a good and natural thing. That's fine. I disagree, but at least there are plenty of people smarter than both he and I who take up opposing sides of that debate.

Most conservatives though, have never heard of Austrian Economics, and certainly can't explain why they disagree with most mainstream economists about what to do right now. They're operating on a much simpler philosophy: say anything to encourage people to think everything bad happens because of (Democratic) government.

Lots of people repeat ludicrously nonsensical economic "policy" on that foundation alone, and do things like relentlessly point at the green line in Chart #3 and say "see, our debt is insane!" When the real issue is the size of the gap between the Red and Green lines on that chart, not the height of the Green line itself. Then they mix in inflation, not understanding that inflation actually helps keep our debt under control to some degree, since the dollars we owe are fixed, but the value of the dollars we use to pay off the debt are worth less as time goes on.

They also seem to propose, with just as much vigor, that what government needs to do is slash taxes, without remembering their momentary concern over debt. They also seem to think cutting government spending in a recession will help speed the recovery, not deepen the decline (ditto for letting banks and auto manufacturers collapse spectacularly). They also fail to see that a contracting economy can create a government deficit all on its own, since tax revenues fall as unemployment rises and mean income falls, and dismiss the proposition that government spending to get us out of a recession is likely better for the debt in the long run.

So in the end, we end up fighting about the same tired bromides about the size of government, rather than noticing that income disparity has been growing steadily despite an overwhelmingly conservative swing in our government's policy for the last 30+ years.

But people go on merrily slitting their own economic throats by demonizing Democrats as "big spending liberals" or more recently "socialists", not realizing that we're the ones that want to cut your taxes, and make government serve the people and not just the top 1% of income earners, and make fixing income disparity a top issue.

I'm not really surprised by that, but I'm constantly fascinated at how many knots people have to twist themselves in to defend the Republican party line.

The Democratic Party hasn't learned this lesson yet.

But the netroots have.

This is why the right wing try to smear Daily Kos and Huffington Post every chance they get. They've learned the lesson Bruno's talking about here. They've learned that we shouldn't cower and hide who we are and what we believe. We shouldn't accept the labels others place on us to demean and distort our philosophy, we need to defend ourselves, and toss some demeaning yet completely accurate labels going back the other way.

The game has changed since the Clinton years.

"I think, deedub, ya need to go looking for facts elsewhere than the Heritage Foundation, which is just another one of these think tanks whose raison d'etre is to support Republican/conservative policy."

The Heritage Foundation does profess to be a conservative think tank. Neither they, nor I have ever tried to downplay that fact. The fact that they are conservative doesn't make them wrong.


-During Reagan's last year in office, the rate of increase of Federal Debt to GDP was lower than the previous years of his term in office.

-During Bush 41's last year in office, the rate of increase of Federal Debt to GDP was lower than the previous years of his term in office.

-During Clinton's last year in office, the rate of increase was much higher than the previous year.

-Don't get me started on "W." Federal spending under George W. Bush has skyrocketed and the economy has plummeted.

Just when we start to get it right, some other dummy comes in and messes it all up.


"Obama's supposed "largest tax increase in history" is to restore the capital gains tax to the level we had under Clinton, and raise taxes from 36% to 39% on net income above $250K, while cutting them on all income (including capital gains) below $250K."

I don't have a problem with the wealthy paying a higher tax rate than the poor. I have a problem with raising that tax rate even further. I don't care what it was during the Clinton years. I have a problem with Obama's reasoning behind increasing tax rates for some, and decreasing it for others.

Everyone knows that some people work harder than others. We've all witnessed it. If John Q chooses to work 60 hours a week to advance his career, and Henry Y prefers to spend time playing video games, who is to say that Henry deserves some of the extra income John has earned? Is that fairness? I call it completely unfair.

Not only is it unfair, it doesn't work (according to the House Joint Economic Committee Report, April 1996)

>> ^quantumushroom:
I have to give you credit for consistency, QM, your ignorance and apparent racism extend even to the boundaries of space.
You mean I'm not permitted to hate on a country whose tyrannical government promotes censorship, trial-free imprisonment, forced abortions, invasion of Tibet and harvesting prisoners' organs?
It's likely the Chy-knees rockets were built with tech stolen (or given) to them during the criminal Clinton years.
Only liberals hate Bush and waterboarding more than the evil empires.


Soo... What about the invasion of America? I mean honestly, lets look back at history, Native Americans got a raw deal, they just don't complain enough about it. You want to talk about trial-free imprisonment, is that anything like slavery or trial free interment camps? Censorship... Like firing librarians for not removing certain books from their shelves? I'm not trying to say that I agree with Chinese politics, I think there is a lot going wrong in that country, but I have faith that the Chinese people will be able to liberate themselves from it in the coming years. I just find it amusing that racists like you, like to hide behind some sense of patriotism. And don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good off color joke as much as the next person, which was why I was looking past your first comment about rice-o-nauts, but comments like this one, are just plain ignorant.

I have to give you credit for consistency, QM, your ignorance and apparent racism extend even to the boundaries of space.

You mean I'm not permitted to hate on a country whose tyrannical government promotes censorship, trial-free imprisonment, forced abortions, invasion of Tibet and harvesting prisoners' organs?

It's likely the Chy-knees rockets were built with tech stolen (or given) to them during the criminal Clinton years.

Only liberals hate Bush and waterboarding more than the evil empires.

Hey, if you promise to vote Obama, you can call me anything you like.

Force of habit on the Phil Gramm swipe. I think that story is absolute gold for showing anyone who's paying attention just what kind of economic advisers McCain has surrounded himself with. But that's negative-campaigning kind've stuff, not an issues-based conversation.

I don't think all Democrats have been perfect, and I disagreed with Clinton on several of his deregulation moves. Usually I bitch about telecomm deregulation (it needed it, but he went too far), but the bill I accuse Phil Gramm of writing, Bill Clinton signed into law. Same with the Enron loophole; Phil Gramm wrote it, Bill Clinton signed it.

I hadn't heard that Clinton had eroded the standards on lending, but I doubt that was the main/only factor in the mortgage failures we're seeing now. I do think without the deregulation of Phil Gramm, companies wouldn't have been able to massively overextend themselves like this, and turn the U.S. mortgage problem into a global financial crisis.

As for where were the Democrats in 2004? Not the White House, in the minority of both chambers of Congress, and with little support in the Supreme Court.

As for Congress now, I think their 9% approval is well-earned. If I were polled on my approval of Congress, I'd say I disapprove -- ask me why and I'd say "because my party is caving". Ask the average Republican, and it's because they haven't been able to utterly silence Democrats. Ask the average Independent, and they'll say "because all they do is bicker, and nothing gets done".

I know I'm sappy about Obama, but he's very much trying to get politics back to the point where people like you and I have more opportunities to see balanced proposals passed, without everything turning into a mortal battle for supremacy between the two parties/ideologies.

Democrats, especially under Obama, are not absolutists -- we're just arguing from the position that some government meddling is necessary, and that there should be some equalizing pressure on the market (e.g. public education, progresive taxes, universal healthcare) keeping things from getting too lopsided.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
Forget all these loser politicians! You and I should start our own country! CommonSenseville.
I'll be the King, you can be the Queen.


You're quick to point the finger at Phil Gramm. He's not without fault, but neither are many of the Democrats (including Papa Clinton).

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

Take that with a grain of salt. I'm simply pointing out that this hasn't been a one-sided mistake. I agree with the "bit of fine tuning" that you talk about, but Clinton practically took away the ability of Fannie and Freddie to turn down "bad loans." It's not like he twisted their arm, but still.

I used to work as a loan officer in CA. Did so for 4 years starting in 2000 (right after the Clinton years). Even I saw it coming. I could fit almost anybody with a job a mortgage program that would get approved (and purchased on the secondary market). The other LO's and the Branch Managers would talk about how awesome Bill Clinton was for forcing the secondary market to buy riskier loans. We were all reaping the benefits (little did we know...). I'm no economist, but like I said, I started to realize that it wasn't headed in the right direction back in 2004.

Where were the democrats then?

http://politics.videosift.com/talk/The-OLD-Bush-Plan-for-Fannie-Mae-and-Freddie-Mac-Oversight

There is a reason that Congress has a 9% approval rating and it's not only the Republican's fault. The Dems have had the majority since the last election, remember?


I do want to let you know that I think you're mostly right about what the next step should be.

Forget all these loser politicians! You and I should start our own country! CommonSenseville.
I'll be the King, you can be the Queen.


You're quick to point the finger at Phil Gramm. He's not without fault, but neither are many of the Democrats (including Papa Clinton).

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

Take that with a grain of salt. I'm simply pointing out that this hasn't been a one-sided mistake. I agree with the "bit of fine tuning" that you talk about, but Clinton practically took away the ability of Fannie and Freddie to turn down "bad loans." It's not like he twisted their arm, but still.

I used to work as a loan officer in CA. Did so for 4 years starting in 2000 (right after the Clinton years). Even I saw it coming. I could fit almost anybody with a job a mortgage program that would get approved (and purchased on the secondary market). The other LO's and the Branch Managers would talk about how awesome Bill Clinton was for forcing the secondary market to buy riskier loans. We were all reaping the benefits (little did we know...). I'm no economist, but like I said, I started to realize that it wasn't headed in the right direction back in 2004.

Where were the democrats then?

http://politics.videosift.com/talk/The-OLD-Bush-Plan-for-Fannie-Mae-and-Freddie-Mac-Oversight

There is a reason that Congress has a 9% approval rating and it's not only the Republican's fault. The Dems have had the majority since the last election, remember?


I do want to let you know that I think you're mostly right about what the next step should be.



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
I think on this count, you're in agreement with me, and the Democratic party.

However, I think we're looking at more than a lull right now. The Democrats would prefer our actions be focused on putting money into the bottom of the economy, instead of the top, but I think that something needed to be done to bail out Fannie and Freddie at this point. I just don't think preserving the executives' bonus compensation packages should have been part of the deal.

I'd rather Phil Gramm and the Republicans hadn't deregulated the finance markets in the first place -- that's what opened the door for this kind of unchecked expansion into an area where no one was being honest about the risks.

Now those risks everyone denied or concealed are turning out to be real, and they're turning to the taxpayers to keep them solvent.

I think a modern-day leftie like me would say that so long as we had unemployment insurance for everyone, universal healthcare, and fair bankruptcy laws, we don't need to bail any company out -- let the downturn happen, and rely on the social safety net to keep people from starving or dying.

I also think that once it becomes clear what the root cause of the market failure was, we should add some regulation (as little as possible) to reduce the likelihood of a similar catastrophe from happening in the future.

I think the biggest misconception people have of Democrats is that they think we don't believe in the benefits of a free market -- we absolutely do -- we just think it needs a bit of fine tuning from time to time to keep it healthy.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I do think the eonomy thrives when most things are left up to the market. The gov't doesn't need to pour money into the economy every time there is a lull.

>> ^Crosswords:
Depending on who you talk to it last happened during the Clinton administration where a surplus was reported for several years.


Ah, the Clinton surplus myth rears its ugly head again. The "surplus" was merely a projection based on the unrealistic expectation of continued illusory tech stock bubble growth that occurred in the 90s which finally crashed and filtered into real estate (thanks, Greenspan) to delay a smaller recession then. The CPI calculations on inflation were changed during the Clinton years to understate real inflation. As a result, a greater excess of Social Security funds were freed up to be raided by congress (invested in itself, roundabout theft). Public debt went down by borrowing from government holdings, but total debt continued to increase. This site does a pretty good job of explaining it. He has a good section on the Social Security ponzi scheme, too.

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16