By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel on 02 October 2012
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
dsgrue3 said:

Bush shouldn't even enter into this discussion, but as you cited his policies for the economic downturn, I will educate you on what caused the economic mess. Ready?

Clinton. Bill Clinton could have easily vetoed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, but he did not. This not only deregulated "big banks" but offered sub-prime mortgage rates to unqualified people in order for Clinton to bloat the housing market. When people could not afford their mortgages, the bubble burst. Welcome to the present. 

In regard to Romney's job creation, as you've stated it is difficult to find accurate statistics as Bain Capital only invested in companies. That investment promoted growth and expansion (in most cases), which in turn created jobs. I've had this discussion before, and grown tired of it, but the wall street journal did a fact check on the claim that he created hundreds of thousands and concluded it was tens of thousands instead.

Look at his unemployment statistics as governor...that should suffice for why his job creation was slim in comparison.

You will not find me defending the Bush administration. Unfounded war-mongerers at best.

I cannot fathom how you can support a president that promises one thing and does the exact opposite. (Deficit, war, budget, economy, jobs)

Social issues come secondary to jobs and the economy.

As far as why I want Romney as president. He is a proven success in business, job creation, profiting. Exactly what this country needs. (Why do you think Herman Cain was leading the GOP race prior to those allegations?)

Seriously?  The way this political nonsense is going, it is going to end up with people arguing that Bush was never president.  The reality is, if you want to fault Clinton for not vetoing a bill that had huge political support (and in line with normal Republican policies),  then you give GW Bush a pass for not reversing it either?

As far as the Bain argument, investing consists on betting on winners and losers, and not actually doing management stuff in order to make money.  So, you want to say Romney's claim to fame is that he is good at betting on winners and losers?  Also, government is a different beast than the private sector.  Reality is that Romney may know how to make money for investor's, but that doesn't mean job creation.  One can make money by gutting a company and selling off parts, which is what Romney's company did.  Again, you can't run government like you do a business, because you can go and downsize and fire portions of the population you don't like.  Well, maybe getting rid of 47% of the moocher class is what you think would be a good idea.  So, do you suggest poisoning their water supply or just lining them up against a wall and shooting them?  After all, you never can teach them to take responsibility for themselves.

Thing is that, it comes down to picking A or B.  Maybe can vote third party here as an option.  I am in NY so my vote really doesn't matter anyhow, because NY is going Obama.  


The (vast) majority of the laws and conditions that changed to create the housing bubble occurred under Clinton as a way of increasing home ownership for the "poor"; and poor minorities in particular.  In 2004/2005 many Republicans (including George W. Bush) tried to reverse some of these changes due to the housing bubble and were called racists for trying.

While both Presidents are (somewhat) responsible for the crisis, it could be argued that Clinton was the president that caused the bubble while Bush was the president who failed to fix/react to the bubble in time.