Every Republican presidential term in my lifetime has had a recession start. None of the Democratic ones have…
Regan; one started each term. First Bush had one in his term. Clinton had none in his 2 terms. Second Bush had a HUGE one each time (dot com and great recession). Obama had none in his 2 terms. trump had one in his first term (triggered by covid & shutdowns; which his (in)actions intensified…). Biden didn’t have one (but; just barely… and only by the official definition [NBER]; he did have two negative real GDP quarters, so one could argue this point). Now we’re starting trump’s second term, so we’ll see (it’s pretty clear we’ll have a recession within 2 years).
This isn’t really debatable unless you ignore the evidence. Stock market and real GDP growth are overall way higher under Democrat presidents. One link for reference (but many more are available): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-021-00912-y
Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagal Act, inflating a massive bubble (especially in Finance) which blew up in 2008.
If you’re going to laud him for the positive effects of the bubble he inflated, then it’s only fair to criticize him for the ultimate result of his bubble-pumping policies, which wiped out all the gains from the bubble.
Or do you think the responsibility of a shooter ends when the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun?
For the Economy, repealing Glass-Steagal was the most widely impactful measure taken by politicians in the US since the New Deal and the current situation of a massive property bubble and growing inequality can be traced all the way back to it as a cascade of consequences of that act: the repeal leading to Retail banks going into ultra speculative investing and the overextending of Finance, leading to the 2008 Crash and the need for Government bailouts to save all the bank accounts of common people as the banks that were sinking due to their own speculative investing were (because of there being no Glass-Steagal) taking down retail customer funds with them, leading to the slowest recovery from a Crash ever and ultra low interest rate policy which was supposedly temporary but really wasn’t (interest rates are still below the historical average), which in turn pumped up of massive bubbles in housing because of that ultra-cheap money and continuation of speculative investment by Retail banks.
Clinton and the Democrat Congressmen’s actions (as I stated elsewhere, fully supported by the Republicans, who if I remember it correctly wanted even more derregulation of Finance) directly led to the present situation of empoverishment of all layers of American society except the top (who have become far richer, the higher they are the more so) and probably also to Trump getting elected because of so many desperate drowning people trying to grab any perceived buoy ended up voting for the biggest scammer of all because he doesn’t sound like a mainstream politician.
Whilst I seriously doubt that Trump was the result Clinton expected when he repealed the Glass-Steagal, he was the one who started the chain and before doing so he was definitely warned that removing the main regulatory protection on Finance put in place after the Great Depression to stop a similar Crash and Depression from happening again was going to have nasty consequences.
For the benefit of a few Finance fatcats (for which he got massively rewarded for it with things like millionaire gigs in the speech circuit, as did his wife) Clinton fucked up massively and hundreds of millions now suffer for it, so let’s not laud that disgusting sold out politician a great statesman and steady hand steering the Economy.
Bullet? If anything, a venomous snail or something like that.
The builders of the titanic weren’t to blame for the sinking, it was the guy at the Helm at the moment. In my book “some guy 8 (at least) years ago plotted this course” is not a valid excuse for sinking the economy.
Now that’s just a tribalist attempt at excusing “one of your guys” with any excuse you can come up with no matter how illogical.
The speed with which the consequences unfold is irrelevant to responsability, only the awareness that there could be such consequences or lack thereof.
If somebody sets up a factory which releases contaminated water that poisons the region’s water table with carcinogenic material resulting after several years in many people there dying of cancer, are those who set up a factory leaking carcinogetic materials not responsible anymore because of the time it took for people to end up dead?
Same thing with tobacco manufacturers once they had the scientific reports that tobacco caused lung cancer. Were they not responsible for continuing to sell their product without warning people of the dangers just because it took decades for the users of their product to die?
Whilst they didn’t mean to kill people, they knew it could and went ahead anyway, hence they are responsible - just because it took years and was indirect doesn’t reduce the responsability.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the repeal of Glass-Steagal led to the 2008 Crash - it’s one of those rare measures where one can show a direct line between that specific piece of deregulation, retail banks engaging in massive speculative investing and them having to be saved as they would have taken depositor’s money as they went down: what Glass-Steagal did was exactly to force the banks to keep the retail operations separate from proprietary investment hence with it in place even if the banks had a separate arm doing speculation which failed, depositor’s money would never have been at risk and only said investment arm would have gone under.
There is no question Clinton was unaware of the possible consequences of repealing Glass-Steagal because that act had been very explicitly put in place after the Great Crash and the Great Depression exactly to stop another major Crash and Depression, which was widelly discussed at the time.
Clinton was responsible for the direct consequences of repealing Glass-Steagal because retail banks could never had started investing in a speculative way and end up sinking and taking depositors money with them with Glass-Steagal in place since that its purpose was exactly to stop that (and it worked for over half a century) - so it’s there’s a first order causal relation between the repealing in 2000 and the retail banks starting going under in 2008 - and because at the time he repealed Glass-Steagal he knew it had been put in place exactly to avoid a major Crash and Depression - he both did the deed and was aware of the possible consequences.
The only question there is around it was if he was reckless, deeply incompetent or Machiavelic (if he acted to benefit from it expecting problems would take years to come and hence be somebody else’s) in chosing to repeal that act which he knew was meant to stop major crashes and depressions and which had worked successfully doing just that for over half a century.
The 2008 Crash was the direct result of Clinton’s repealing of the Glass-Steagal Act (with the full support from the Republicans, so I’m not actually excusing them).
In the process of pointing out just how bad the Republicans are for the Economy, let’s not excuse the Democrats so much that it turns into whitewashing.
Every Republican presidential term in my lifetime has had a recession start. None of the Democratic ones have…
Regan; one started each term. First Bush had one in his term. Clinton had none in his 2 terms. Second Bush had a HUGE one each time (dot com and great recession). Obama had none in his 2 terms. trump had one in his first term (triggered by covid & shutdowns; which his (in)actions intensified…). Biden didn’t have one (but; just barely… and only by the official definition [NBER]; he did have two negative real GDP quarters, so one could argue this point). Now we’re starting trump’s second term, so we’ll see (it’s pretty clear we’ll have a recession within 2 years).
This isn’t really debatable unless you ignore the evidence. Stock market and real GDP growth are overall way higher under Democrat presidents. One link for reference (but many more are available): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-021-00912-y
Same with budget deficits, Clinton even got surpluses…
Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagal Act, inflating a massive bubble (especially in Finance) which blew up in 2008.
If you’re going to laud him for the positive effects of the bubble he inflated, then it’s only fair to criticize him for the ultimate result of his bubble-pumping policies, which wiped out all the gains from the bubble.
He also had an affair
Did he have an affair? I hadn’t heard about that… probably wasn’t a big deal and people likely didn’t blow it out of proportion.
obviously /s
That’s up to him, his wife and his mistress.
I only care about his track record when it applies to the Economy.
His track record ends in 2000.
Actions have consequences.
Or do you think the responsibility of a shooter ends when the bullet leaves the barrel of the gun?
For the Economy, repealing Glass-Steagal was the most widely impactful measure taken by politicians in the US since the New Deal and the current situation of a massive property bubble and growing inequality can be traced all the way back to it as a cascade of consequences of that act: the repeal leading to Retail banks going into ultra speculative investing and the overextending of Finance, leading to the 2008 Crash and the need for Government bailouts to save all the bank accounts of common people as the banks that were sinking due to their own speculative investing were (because of there being no Glass-Steagal) taking down retail customer funds with them, leading to the slowest recovery from a Crash ever and ultra low interest rate policy which was supposedly temporary but really wasn’t (interest rates are still below the historical average), which in turn pumped up of massive bubbles in housing because of that ultra-cheap money and continuation of speculative investment by Retail banks.
Clinton and the Democrat Congressmen’s actions (as I stated elsewhere, fully supported by the Republicans, who if I remember it correctly wanted even more derregulation of Finance) directly led to the present situation of empoverishment of all layers of American society except the top (who have become far richer, the higher they are the more so) and probably also to Trump getting elected because of so many desperate drowning people trying to grab any perceived buoy ended up voting for the biggest scammer of all because he doesn’t sound like a mainstream politician.
Whilst I seriously doubt that Trump was the result Clinton expected when he repealed the Glass-Steagal, he was the one who started the chain and before doing so he was definitely warned that removing the main regulatory protection on Finance put in place after the Great Depression to stop a similar Crash and Depression from happening again was going to have nasty consequences.
For the benefit of a few Finance fatcats (for which he got massively rewarded for it with things like millionaire gigs in the speech circuit, as did his wife) Clinton fucked up massively and hundreds of millions now suffer for it, so let’s not laud that disgusting sold out politician a great statesman and steady hand steering the Economy.
Bullet? If anything, a venomous snail or something like that.
The builders of the titanic weren’t to blame for the sinking, it was the guy at the Helm at the moment. In my book “some guy 8 (at least) years ago plotted this course” is not a valid excuse for sinking the economy.
Now that’s just a tribalist attempt at excusing “one of your guys” with any excuse you can come up with no matter how illogical.
The speed with which the consequences unfold is irrelevant to responsability, only the awareness that there could be such consequences or lack thereof.
If somebody sets up a factory which releases contaminated water that poisons the region’s water table with carcinogenic material resulting after several years in many people there dying of cancer, are those who set up a factory leaking carcinogetic materials not responsible anymore because of the time it took for people to end up dead?
Same thing with tobacco manufacturers once they had the scientific reports that tobacco caused lung cancer. Were they not responsible for continuing to sell their product without warning people of the dangers just because it took decades for the users of their product to die?
Whilst they didn’t mean to kill people, they knew it could and went ahead anyway, hence they are responsible - just because it took years and was indirect doesn’t reduce the responsability.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the repeal of Glass-Steagal led to the 2008 Crash - it’s one of those rare measures where one can show a direct line between that specific piece of deregulation, retail banks engaging in massive speculative investing and them having to be saved as they would have taken depositor’s money as they went down: what Glass-Steagal did was exactly to force the banks to keep the retail operations separate from proprietary investment hence with it in place even if the banks had a separate arm doing speculation which failed, depositor’s money would never have been at risk and only said investment arm would have gone under.
There is no question Clinton was unaware of the possible consequences of repealing Glass-Steagal because that act had been very explicitly put in place after the Great Crash and the Great Depression exactly to stop another major Crash and Depression, which was widelly discussed at the time.
Clinton was responsible for the direct consequences of repealing Glass-Steagal because retail banks could never had started investing in a speculative way and end up sinking and taking depositors money with them with Glass-Steagal in place since that its purpose was exactly to stop that (and it worked for over half a century) - so it’s there’s a first order causal relation between the repealing in 2000 and the retail banks starting going under in 2008 - and because at the time he repealed Glass-Steagal he knew it had been put in place exactly to avoid a major Crash and Depression - he both did the deed and was aware of the possible consequences.
The only question there is around it was if he was reckless, deeply incompetent or Machiavelic (if he acted to benefit from it expecting problems would take years to come and hence be somebody else’s) in chosing to repeal that act which he knew was meant to stop major crashes and depressions and which had worked successfully doing just that for over half a century.
Thanks for the link.
The 2008 Crash was the direct result of Clinton’s repealing of the Glass-Steagal Act (with the full support from the Republicans, so I’m not actually excusing them).
In the process of pointing out just how bad the Republicans are for the Economy, let’s not excuse the Democrats so much that it turns into whitewashing.