Originally Posted by S10
No Reagan did start the mess. Reaganomics turned out to be a huge failure.
What Clinton did in the 90's was good for everybody and, most importantly, possible with the then healthy economy. Bush turned a great economy into a mess in just a few years, and instead of making good adjustments he worsened them... well for 99% of us, not for the 1% that became hugely rich because of it.
And that bit about the US giving huge amounts of money to the rest of the world and never getting anything back... The US never helped without gaining profit of it themselves, and there is nothing wrong with that, this includes the rebuilding of Europe after WWII, a huge investment from the US, but they earned it back a 100000 times too.
Wait - did you actually read the link or just comment on it? Clinton supporting the giving of loans to people who shouldn't have loans! The market was doing what it was supposed to do. It wasn't giving loans to people who shouldn't have them and then people wanted the market to go crazy and make everybody feel all happy so we started giving out all these loans to people who can't afford them. The "creative" financing Clinton supported was the beginning of the end for this. I'm sure people love to see home ownership going up and up but let's face it, not everybody makes enough money to own a house.
Encouraging companies to give loans to those who can't afford it is a bad idea, flat out. This all started because the fed got involved in private practices and then tried to stop being involved but didn't get rid of the freebies and now we have to go get involved again. Had the Clinton administration not started this policy I find it highly, highly unlikely that the Bush administration would have bothered to try to start it up because we were already in a recession as a correction to the tech bubble of the Clinton administration.
I doubt we got it back 100,000 times over, we may have got a fair chunk of it back but still, it's the premise. If the US is really that F-ed then we need to stop sending money ANYWHERE. Pull the troops, pull all the foreign aid funding, pull all of it. But alas it's really not that bad.
Also, while I'm at it, the purported figure of $10 billion/month is horribly inflated. Why? Do you think all those military members would be "laid off" if we didn't have them over there? Do you think we wouldn't be spending money on advancing our weapons systems? Of course we're spending more than we would otherwise but I have yet to find anyone to get the REAL numbers and report them. The people on side of the aisle say the biggest number and the people on the other side say the smallest. Realistically it's somewhere in between.
And, I don't have a link to it right now but Time ran an article that pointed the end of bi-partisan politics. It was the Monica Lewinsky fiasco... No Monica Lewinsky fiasco and Social Security would be fixed (Newt and Bill were working on that when the Lewinsky fiasco broke). So, thanks Monica - you didn't F Bill but you, unknowlingly, F-ed the rest of us, awesome...