Is Bill Clinton partly to blame for the state of the economy?

The housing crisis is responsible for America's meltdown and the housing crisis is a direct result of irresponsible deregulation by Democrats, and the evidence for that is indisputable. God bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahtuNt3AKCg&feature...

Yes. It's worse than that. He help created the stock market bubble. He refuse to deflate the bubble at his watch because he wants to say that he created an unending growth. But what comes up must go down, and since the high pace growth, the fall is even worse. The problem is during his administration he told people that they would lose money if they put it in the bank and should put it in the stock market, because inflation is higher than the interest rate. The problem is he help created the situation. He used the ignorance of the common man to help prop up false gains. Stock value is a false gauge of value. It's some number that is written on a paper. If people start cashing in their stocks, the stocks would fall. THe money don't come from the profits of the company , but from other people. SO if someone makes a profit from stocks, it usely comes at the expense of someone losing money in stocks. He gave false confidence in people and encourage them to spend recklessly and invest recklessly. THe worse of it all, is that we are still in a stock bubble. There will be a fall that is larger than what we have seen.

Yes, Clinton is partially to blame. And so is Ronald Reagan.

The orgies of deregulation that took place under these two men's regimes make even the stupidest moves by Bushie Jr. and Obama look almost brilliant.

Reagan's "conservatism" is the subject of song and story by conservatives today, who ignore what he did to us all.

And Clinton's apologists _never_ seem to acknowledge the plain and simple fact that although he is labeled otherwise, this man was one of the most far-right presidents of the second half of the 20th century, who slashed and eliminated programs that even Reagan wasn't stupid enough to cut.

And look at what's happening today - a centrist FDR-style liberal is being hailed as a savior by liberals and condemned as a "socialist" by conservatives.

Apparently, most of us Americans don't allow _facts_ to get in the way of our myths.

Clinton never should have signed that bill. (Or the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or the Defense of Marriage Act, which didn't defend anyone's marriage -- not his, nor any Republican's.) But he brought the economy to its strongest point ever in 1999, and it was still better in 2000 than it was in any year of the Bush Administration.

Besides, if you're going to blame Presidents before Dubya, go back to 1982 and the banking deregulation bill signed by Ronald Reagan. It almost singlehandedly created the possibility for the Savings & Loan Scandal of 1989 -- which, of course, would still not have happened if the people Reagan was doing it for had been honest. (Sort of a "Guns don't rob people, people rob people" argument.)

Haven't the Republicans learned YET what happens when you DON'T tax the richest people in the USA ?

May, 2001

The Effects of the Bush Tax Cuts on State Tax Revenues

President Bush's proposed reductions in federal taxes are now under consideration in Congress. They include sharp cuts in personal income tax rates, new income tax breaks, and complete repeal of the federal estate tax. Although the tax cuts have been slightly scaled back in size by the congressional budget resolution, they still are expected to cost the federal government some $1.7 trillion over the next decade (including higher interest payments).

State and local governments, which rely on federal payments and programs for significant shares of their revenues, could find those funds endangered should the Bush tax cuts be enacted. The President's budget outline, for example, projects that to pay for the cost of the tax cuts, federal appropriations will fall by a sixth as a share of the gross domestic product over the next decade. Domestic appropriations could be cut even more given the President's apparent desire to increase defense outlays.

AND THEY DID COST over $1.7 Trillion

ERGO

we are in Deep Doo Doo

Yes Clinton deregulated the mortgage industry as well! He was one of the biggest scamers in presidential history up until now that is

No, I think he was more of a bit player.

If you want to vilify government officials, I'd go after people like Chris Dodd and Barney Franks that actually encouraged the risky lending and prevented reform.

Hey, you forgot to blame Carter... Hahahahaha Why can't the GOP just take responsibility for their handiwork?

Anyone who had his hand in NAFTA and foreign lobbyists in his ear.

And the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

yes indeed