It's Bill Clinton's Fault!

wkmac

Well-Known Member
As per Robert Scheer of TruthDig!

Does Bill Clinton still not grasp that the current economic crisis is in large measure his legacy? Obviously that’s the case, or he wouldn’t have had the temerity to write a 14-point memo for Newsweek on how to fix the economy that never once refers to the home mortgage collapse and other manifestations of Wall Street greed that he enabled as president.

Endorsing the Republican agenda of financial industry deregulation, reversing New Deal safeguards, President Clinton pursued policies that in the long run created more damage to the American economy than any other president since Herbert Hoover, whose tenure is linked to the Great Depression. Now, in his Newsweek piece, Clinton has the effrontery to once again revive his 1992 campaign mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid,” as the article’s title without any sense of irony, let alone accountability. But that has always been the man’s special gift—to rise above, and indeed benefit from, the messes he created.

"More damage to the American economy than any other president since Herbert Hoover..."

OUCH!!!!!!!!!
 

Buddybrown

Well-Known Member
You mean more damage than Bush? How in the hell did that happen? I'm sure there are others here that would BEG to differ with you sir. :)
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
You mean more damage than Bush? How in the hell did that happen? I'm sure there are others here that would BEG to differ with you sir. :)

Oh, I've no doubt there are those that would differ and that's who's puddin' I'm trying to stir!
:happy-very:

Seriously, even Robert Scheer would argue there were others at fault and he would be right. He's the author of a book entitled, "The Great American Stickup, How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street" so Scheer is by no means playing the partisan here.

Ya, Reagan was a real meanie. He is credited with causing the collapse of the communist empire of USSR.

That's not entirely true and the myth is built around one that both republicans and democrats have used to their own ends. Democrats like it because they get to say Reagan in his quest to bring down the Soviets, armed the muslim radicals to the teeth and of course republicans can be the big military winner having had their man bring down the big bear. Both positions when you actually look at the document record, read the politicos there and otherwise analyze from the policy makers own writings, the truth begins to crack open the myths painted and used for political benefit.

Reagan defeated the Soviet bear by arming the muslim radicals? He did do that but the policy was first established and started under Carter (a fact neither republicans or democrats want publicly discussed) and in fact the ground was likely set even before Carter took office. When you take the events in the timeline and even trace those individual events out, a whole other picture from the state mythology begins to emerge and you also begin to realize there is no 2 differing sides in the American political system.

And while you are at it, you can also investigate the so-called deregulation of Reagan which is another myth both parties enjoy for self interest reasons spreading about. As per a piece from Oct. 2000' in the libertarian, free market website Mises Institute (not exactly pro democrat party) William Anderson now 20 years later reflecting on Carter and the subsequent mythology that had arisen said the following:

As the political season stumbles to a close, we need to remember that the historical relationship between economic policy, economic performance, and political rhetoric can be wildly unpredictable. For example, all these years later, it is worth reconsidering the presidency of Jimmy Carter, from 1977 to 1981. Many of the reforms that took place under his watch are responsible for at least some of the current prosperity.
Now, sitting in gasoline lines in 1973 and 1979 was no fun, and inflation, unemployment and general economic uncertainty seemed to rule during much of that period. We especially remember that during Carter's presidency a number of these awful things occurred simultaneously. In fact, these economic calamities plus the humiliating Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979 and 1980 certainly contributed to his 1980 electoral defeat by Ronald Reagan and to the general conclusion that Carter's term as President of the United States was marked by failure.
In one sense, this is true. I was truly ecstatic in voting against Carter in 1980 and cheered his exit from the Oval Office. In retrospect, however, I believe that my judgment of the man was too harsh. Carter does not receive the due that should be coming to him regarding his economic record, and in many ways he is the real architect of our current prosperity, not the present set of clowns in the White House. That he does not receive more credit, I believe, is mostly due to the fact that Carter is nearly clueless about his own accomplishments and has never sought to promote them. In other words, we had a chief executive who could not tell the good from the bad about his administration.

And if you google "de-regulation President Carter" the real picture you'll find may do 2 things, if you love Reagan and hate Carter, you may be confronted with the fact that Reagan's de-regulation was a Carter policy continued and if you love Carter and hate Reagan de-regulation among other economic policies, you've only to blame yourself and that vote for Carter in 1976'!
 
Top