Poe Dameron Posted August 6, 2016 Share Posted August 6, 2016 You want to pine for a woulda coulda ask why Mitt didn't want to run again. I wish he had. He thought about it. The braintrust within the party didn't want him though. They were busy handing Bush $100 million (that ultimately went to taking out Rubio). And Romney didn't want to embarrass himself with a third failed presidential run when he believed the voters were agitating for something different. It's unfortunate. He would have made a wonderful president. He had all the tools of intellect, drive, and temperament. After 16 years of Bush then Obama, he would have been a fairly non-controversial throwback breather from "history" that this country really needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Mike Pence has already started thinking about what he will do after the election. Hillary's economic plan... I dunno. She doesn't sound as fiscally sound as Bill's administration. It's one of the reasons I kind of lean to her for voting because Bill's administration was good with that. But cut taxes and make plans to spend more money on programs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 What if Bill's policies do you hold as being fiscally sound? And why do you expect that a different administration in a different time would be the same? Since then we've seen massive changes in the economy and two of the major sectors that supported the growth during his presidency have burst. See: dot-com and housing. Do you actually have any policy points or is it just the general "I was better off in the nineties so it must have been the president "? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I don't really like posting long posts from my phone - which sucks as far as exposition goes on a topic. I think some of Bill's best policy making was not taking us to full war and he was able to balance the budget and leave W. with a surplus. I think it waned toward the end of his presidency but he did have a Democratic Congress to help him. Hillary could potentially have this too in a couple of years as people vote out Congressmen. I actually wrote a letter to Clinton because I did pay (relatively) more in taxes back in his administration. Bill was good at taxing and then being UBER cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I think it waned toward the end of his presidency but he did have a Democratic Congress to help him. Clinton only had a Democrat majority in Congress his first two years. Two years that are generally considered the worst of his presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Yes, hence it waning in the last half of his presidency. Clinton's largely credited with the surplus but really it started with George and his tax policies and Newt fighting for a budget in Congress. Clinton just maintained because basically he didn't drag us into long drawn out wars with religious zealots that are more expensive than say focusing on energy policies that help us. I think we can't be 100% happy with any president as I have things I don't like about Obama's administration but Hillary aligns more with things I consider "Top Five Wish List" which include not repealing gay marriage, she won't start a war we can't afford, she's probably going to be the most secure since she burned her ownself on servers and learned a valuable lesson, and they pay their bills (see also lawsuits from previous Clinton administration where they were almost broke after Bill left office they could barely afford a home in Westchester NY) and I think she'll have a better relationship with those that protect us. The failings of the Clinton administration basically are the same things that will be aligned with the same anti-Clinton nuts we see now if she becomes president. That is people will NEVER FORGET BENGHAZI NEVER! and are idiots who focus on prudish things like "GOD NEEDS TO BE IN GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY" because, Jesus, they wouldn't let Clinton get a blow job and leave it alone back then why would they leave that alone concerning queers marrying. Pretty much every politician is a crook so to expect them to not make money or do dumb stuff they get caught for is naive. Because politicians are human too. I think Trump is more repugnant because he doesn't pay his bills or employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 I fail to understand what it is conservatives didn't like about Clinton? NAFTA. Welfare reform. "The age of big government is over." Defense of Marriage. Financial and telecummunication deregulation. Violent crime control and law enforcement. Had the guy privatized social security and medicare and reenacted racial segregation, it's likely the GOP and their mouth pieces would still have ranted and raved about his alleged leftism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 It's about what he could get away with. Yeah, Clinton signed welfare reform, but he vetoed it a couple times before that. Yeah, he balanced the budget, but Congress made a concerted effort to tighten spending, often above his wishes (the government shutdown that he won was about spending more y'know). He signed the last major gun control legislation before the NRA beat him silly over it and scared Democrats away from the issue for two decades. Clinton wanted to govern further from the left. Wanted healthcare reform to the left of Obamacare for example. He was just blocked off from doing so and took his victories where he could while doing his best to weaken the Republicans verbally. Obama ran into the same trouble. Obama just went ahead and did what he wanted anyway and essentially neutered Congress. And Republicans didn't have a Newt this time around to fight back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUAJedi2 Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 I want Canada's PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted August 13, 2016 Share Posted August 13, 2016 He's DREAMY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 The age of Reaganomics 1981-2008 was a very strong economic era. It took a government meddling into the housing sector to end that long era of prosperity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I'm sorry, arguments not made in meme form are no longer accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 I keep going back to look at the old guy in that maymay (meme). That look! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavonis Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 The age of Reaganomics 1981-2008 was a very strong economic era. It took a government meddling into the housing sector to end that long era of prosperity.I thought it was failure of quantitative finance models that crashed the housing sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 God, I really don't feel like going back over the causes of the housing crash tonight. It's been five years since I've really thought about it. The good times ended in 2008, let's just leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Ooo. So Pavonis would not be right about how the quantitative math models caused insurance companies to bet on insuring derivatives that didn't exist and mortgage companies to finance people who were stretched beyond their earning limit? It can be traced to deregulatiion but I'd be interested in to see how that is for you, Poe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kurgan Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 The age of Reaganomics 1981-2008 was a very strong economic era. It took a government meddling into the housing sector to end that long era of prosperity. "strong economic era" and "long era of prosperity" for whom, might I ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Ooo. So Pavonis would not be right about how the quantitative math models caused insurance companies to bet on insuring derivatives that didn't exist and mortgage companies to finance people who were stretched beyond their earning limit? I'd have to re-educate myself in the whole complicated mess to give a non-glib answer, which is why I'm deferring. I know that theory has become popular lately thanks to movies and books, but it's but one piece of the puzzle that got started with the government setting a goal of affordable housing and distorting the market to make it happen. "strong economic era" and "long era of prosperity" for whom, might I ask? Pretty much everyone. The working class took a hit from a loss of manufacturing jobs and that is always brought up by skeptics, but that was essentially baked into the cake as an economic reality and already in progress. The nice long period of high employment with only two relatively minor recessions kept poverty rates low during what probably should have been a very difficult transition period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good God a Bear Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 Ooo. So Pavonis would not be right about how the quantitative math models caused insurance companies to bet on insuring derivatives that didn't exist and mortgage companies to finance people who were stretched beyond their earning limit? It can be traced to deregulatiion but I'd be interested in to see how that is for you, Poe.You realize who was President when this was all passed and began, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 well, yeah, but I think economic collapse in 2008 came for a perfect storm of multiple things in play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Mathison Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Ooo. So Pavonis would not be right about how the quantitative math models caused insurance companies to bet on insuring derivatives that didn't exist and mortgage companies to finance people who were stretched beyond their earning limit? It can be traced to deregulatiion but I'd be interested in to see how that is for you, Poe. The economic crash is a complex occurrence and is a result of many contributing factors. Chaos theory would seem to suggest that altering any one of those could create drastically different outcomes, some possibly much worse. The productive thing, rather than trying to isolate a 'cause,' may be simply to identify behaviors that the crash exposed, and just try to fix those. Anyone trying to simplify the problem, inelegantly, into one "cause" is doing so for political finger-pointing, nothing more and nothing less. Spam, please, just stop. Do you actually know what a derivative is? And the problem wasn't that they "didn't exist." I'm not trying to be harsh here, but it sounds awfully a lot like you picked up some buzz words and phrases from blog articles, but actually don't understand this stuff. But hey, what do I know. It's not like I actually worked on Wall Street or anything (and to my knowledge, the only person here who has). Let's go ahead and let the random teacher from Texas who's never set foot in an investment bank illuminate us all. Please, continue. You're not the only one though. Poe's simple declaration that the "age of Reaganomics 1981-2008 was a very strong economic era" is also just political posturing with unsophisticated (actually, a complete lack of) economic analysis. At least he's admitting that he's not read up on the topic though, which is more than I can say for you Spam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 I started to type a lot, but then realized it was just an overly verbose way of saying that Carrie is right. Looking for simple causes to complex situations is stupid. It would be like saying that the only problem with poorly performing children is that they don't eat breakfast and then ignoring every other factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 I'm sorry, arguments not made in meme form are no longer accepted.I'm beginning to see why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUAJedi2 Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 I'm not trying to be harsh here... But hey, what do I know. It's not like I actually worked on Wall Street or anything (and to my knowledge, the only person here who has). Let's go ahead and let the random teacher from Texas who's never set foot in an investment bank illuminate us all. Please, continue. Were you born a condescending ****, or is it a skill you acquired and honed over the years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts