Comments on: Will Bad Economy Lead To A New Outlook?

CBS Evening News: Some Believe Recession Will Cause Americans To Reassess Their Values

[tincup356]

Victorious in what way? We went in there to take down their WMD. Show me the WMD we took out. Weapons inspectors were ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY when we invaded, we actually had to delay the invasion to get them OUT OF THE COUNTRY. And they were telling us 'WHAT WMD???Posted by ubrew12 at 4:05 PM : Mar 28, 2009.....................................
That is real easy to see now ...the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq.....................what it has done to our economy ...its real simple.

[ubrew12]

evilbusheviks said: "The wealthy have had a good ride during the past 30 years of CONServitard policies and ideology, while the middle class took it in the shorts. "

Putting statistics to your claim: Since 1980, the share of the nations income going to her richest 1% tripled, while the share going to her poorest 90% fell by 20% (or one-fifth). This means that in order for the wealthiest 1% of Americans to triple their income in the last 30 years, the ordinary working American gets paid, on average, $10000 less a year today than he would have been paid in 1980 proportions.

But, you know, thats OK by me cuz Bill Gates and Britney Spears are worth it (/sarcasm).

[curse914]

Clinton was a "Centrist" Free Marketeer who adopted deregulation from the Reagan Revolution
Posted by curse914 at 3:01 PM : Mar 28, 2009

Oh, so it was Reagan's fault that Clinton "adopted" his ideas???

Then it was Clinton's fault that Bush "adopted" Clinton's WMD lie that Saddam still had WMD, even though no WMD were ever found after 1991.

But the liberals all blame Bush for adopting Clinton's WMD lie, but they blame Reagan for Clinton adopting his ideas.

It seems like the common theme is, Clinton gets a free pass on everything, while Republicans get the blame for everything no matter what.

Clinton is the one who CHOSE to "adopt" whatever ideas he CHOSE to think. Clinton is the one thinking the idea, no matter where he learned it.

If you won't blame Clinton even for what Clinton himself was thinking, then you obviously aren't being objective.

Posted by sndkzyaa at 3:36 PM : Mar 28, 2009

Look, pal. You are not pointing out anything profound. I am letting you know that the ideology that put us into this situation has been at the core of the GOP since its inception; 100 years.

Do you know what a Centrist is?

I will play your game; are you a Communist since you think it was bad that Clinton wanted to "Free" the Market to police its self?

The WMD concept was brought to Clinton's attention by Richard Perl and Paul Wolfotiz in 1998 in the form of a thick book on how to deal with Saddam. Did Clinton rush to war, nope. You ranting like a child.

[ubrew12]

sndkzyaa said: "It just fits the pattern too well to say Clinton is not at fault in it. " Deregulation made SENSE in the late '90s, when Gramm and Clinton wanted to leverage American real-estate into investment capital growing with the astonishing rate of Asian growth. Everybody wanted onto THAT train.

What happened when, by 2003, reliable voices, like Buffets, were saying a monster had been unleashed? That Wall Street had used the new de-regulatory environment to go BEYOND investment, and into plain gambling? That was when the 'buck stops here' sheriff was supposed to inject a sense that there would be consequences to pay for shenanigans. Instead, the ONE public official who went after corrupt Wall Street banks in a big way (Spitzer) was outed by his BANK for payments to a prostitute, and the Bush IRS used that to bug his home line and run him out of office. THAT'S the environment that Bush created and supported for eight years.

Madoff was a pimple in the 90s, that grew into skin cancer in the 2000's. Sorry, but the speck in the SEC's eye during Clinton had turned into a oil-slick during Bush and STILL the SEC did nothing about it. Its not like the ONLY warning they ever had about Madoff came in 2000. There were warnings all along.

As troublesome as Madoff was, he was small potatoes compared to AIG and the others. With Spitzers crushing, the way forward for them was clearly illustrated: rip off as many Americans as you can. THAT was Bush's doing.

[ontheleft]

If someone from the 1950s were to be transported by time machine to today, they would not believe what kind of economy we have now. There are no more pensions. No more "jobs for life". The largest company in the U.S. (Wal-Mart) is non union and sells goods primarily made in China. Factories all across the U.S. have been shuttered and lie vacant in decaying cities with crumbling infrastructures. It takes two wage earners to support a family. Median home prices are several times the median income. Need I go on?

We have seen vast increases in productivity since the 1950s with a huge contribution coming from computers. What do we have to show for it? When will the American people wake up and realize they are being fleeced?

Who's doing the fleecing? Follow the money.

[sndkzyaa]

Its especially wild for people that don't know how to read. I was talking about events over the last 8 years, during which Madoffs pyramid scheme grew from under a billion dollars to over 50 billion.
Posted by ubrew12 at 4:05 PM : Mar 28, 2009

And NONE of that would have happened if Clinton hadn't dropped the ball in 2000.

That makes Clinton to blame.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that Clinton dropped the ball in 2000?

Did I say I was defending Bush? No.

But it sounds to me like you're determined to defend Clinton.

Even though Clinton is clearly to blame.

Enron, Worldcomm, Andersen Accounting - it couldn't all be happening on Clinton's watch without him knowing about it. And he CHOSE to look the other way.

It just fits the pattern too well to say Clinton is not at fault in it.

[ubrew12]

sndkzyaa said: "That's a pretty wild theory. "
Its especially wild for people that don't know how to read. I was talking about events over the last 8 years, during which Madoffs pyramid scheme grew from under a billion dollars to over 50 billion. And, it turns out, his was the LEAST of the schemes underway to fleece people like you during the Bush years. Its priceless to hear you defending people, like Bush, who essentially r*ped you.
The motto of the Limbaugh co-opted: 'Please, sir, can I have some more?'

[sndkzyaa]

And how did Clinton make congress and the White House shirk ALL oversight responsibilities from 2001 - 2007 -- you know -- AFTER he left office?
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 3:47 PM : Mar 28, 2009

How did Bush make the SEC shirk all regulatory enforcement responsibillty in 2000, when Madoff was turned in - you know, BEFORE he took office?

[sndkzyaa]

What does Madoff have to do with the mortgage crisis?
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 3:50 PM : Mar 28, 2009

Who said he did?

Perhaps you weren't aware, but Madoff ran the biggest Ponzi scheme in history for 20 years.

He was reported to the SEC in 2000, on Clinton's watch.

The SEC does not regulate mortgages.

And why do you keep trying to skip over Clinton dropping the ball in 2000?

Clinton should have thrown Madoff in the slammer 8 years ago.

Instead they just ignored the mathematical proof that was delivered to the SEC in 2000.

That's inexcusable.

[ubrew12]

Joe-NY-4 said: "Are you upset that we won the war in Iraq ? I mean all these years, you have been railing against the war, it must kill you that we won, that the operation is wrapping up, and America is victorious, despite the loss of life. "

Victorious in what way? We went in there to take down their WMD. Show me the WMD we took out. Weapons inspectors were ALREADY IN THE COUNTRY when we invaded, we actually had to delay the invasion to get them OUT OF THE COUNTRY. And they were telling us 'WHAT WMD???'

It seems to me you are awfully flippant about the deaths of 4000 American soldiers and half-a-million Iraqis.... telling them and us that we accomplished our mission. You are in deep denial. I can assure you the rest of the world understands what a horrible mistake Iraq was. Indeed, the only way our State Dept makes any headway internationally is by ADMITTING IT.

It gives me some comfort knowing that you've been turned into a third world citizen by the cost of the Iraq invasion, among other misteps of the Bush administration. Mission Accomplished: they took you down.

[sndkzyaa]

I thought congress creates the laws.
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 3:47 PM : Mar 28, 2009

I don't know what law you're talking about. I wasn't talking about any law.

I was talking about an executive order and an attack on a foreign country.

Congress does not issue executive orders. Only Clinton could do that.

Congress does not launch military attacks. Only Clinton could do that.

Maybe it would help if you would read the Constitution and understand the division of powers.

[sndkzyaa]

The real question was: where was BUSH in all of this???
Posted by ubrew12 at 3:47 PM : Mar 28, 2009

Whoa. Is it time for your meds? That was totally off the wall.

But to answer your specific question: Bush was serving as governor of Texas when Madoff was reported to the Clinton administration in 2000. Although I don't see how that's relevant to why Clinton dropped the ball on Madoff.

Are you denying that Clinton dropped the ball on Madoff?

Are you suggesting that somehow the governor of Texas was influencing an agency of the Clinton administration to give a free pass to a staunch Democrat from New York who was turned in to the SEC Boston office for committing fraud?

That's a pretty wild theory.

[hungry1968-15]

Hello! Madoff was reported in 2000, BEFORE Bush was president.

Are you saying we should just ignore the fact that the Clinton admin dropped the ball in 2000?

Should we just forget that the Clinton years ever happened, and just focus on bashing Bush?

The only way you can defend Clinton is by bashing Bush?

Clinton gets a free pass, while Bush gets blamed for every burned out lightbulb?

Stop dodging the issue. Clinton dropped the ball. Clinton could have put Madoff in the slammer eight years ago.

Why do you want to give Clinton a free pass on that?
Posted by sndkzyaa at 3:26 PM : Mar 28, 2009





What does Madoff have to do with the mortgage crisis?

[hungry1968-15]

No. It was Clinton. Only Clinton. Nobody else. It was him and only him.

Nobody else could issue executive orders. Clinton did that himself.

Nobody else issued the order to attack suspected WMD sites in Iraq on the eve of Clinton's impeachment vote. Clinton did that himself.

Stop trying to cover up for Clinton. Clinton is to blame. Only Clinton. Nobody else.
Posted by sndkzyaa at 2:55 PM : Mar 28, 2009





I thought congress creates the laws. Since when did Clinton do it?

And why did the congress and senate have to sweeten it up, to lure enough democrats to make it "veto proof", since Clinton promised to veto it?


And how did Clinton make congress and the White House shirk ALL oversight responsibilities from 2001 - 2007 -- you know -- AFTER he left office?

[ubrew12]

sndkzyaa said: "Are you saying we should just ignore the fact that the Clinton admin dropped the ball [on Madoff] in 2000? ... Clinton could have put Madoff in the slammer eight years ago. "

In the late '90s it might have been forgiveable for GOP and DNC members to go hog-wild over the prospect of globalized growth, and wish for a 'mechanism' whereby America could leverage her (obviously overvalued) real-estate assets into investment capital pegged to the extraordinary economic growth in Asia. This gives America a stake in Asian growth: cheap profits for team America. Clinton bought into it, and Gramm did too.

When it became obvious that this had unleashed a massive bubble by 2003 that could upend the American economy... THAT's when we need to understand why the government didn't heed the obvious warnings of a financial Armageddon. I mean, by 2003, many sober voices, including Warren Buffets, were warning that a housing bubble had been hatched, and that proper gov't attention was needed or all h**l was going to break loose.

The real question was: where was BUSH in all of this???

And what kind of attachment does it take to the principles of 'free market' ideology, to WATCH for 6 years as the economy drives itself off a CLIFF... and do NOTHING about it???

Clinton had his faults... but this downturn is Bush's baby.

[hungry1968-15]

First shot ? Republicans shoot first asked questions later.
Posted by Joe-NY-4 at 2:35 PM : Mar 28, 2009





As evidenced by the invasion of Iraq.

"We'll invade first, and find a reason for the invasion later."

[sndkzyaa]

Clinton was a "Centrist" Free Marketeer who adopted deregulation from the Reagan Revolution
Posted by curse914 at 3:01 PM : Mar 28, 2009

Oh, so it was Reagan's fault that Clinton "adopted" his ideas???

Then it was Clinton's fault that Bush "adopted" Clinton's WMD lie that Saddam still had WMD, even though no WMD were ever found after 1991.

But the liberals all blame Bush for adopting Clinton's WMD lie, but they blame Reagan for Clinton adopting his ideas.

It seems like the common theme is, Clinton gets a free pass on everything, while Republicans get the blame for everything no matter what.

Clinton is the one who CHOSE to "adopt" whatever ideas he CHOSE to think. Clinton is the one thinking the idea, no matter where he learned it.

If you won't blame Clinton even for what Clinton himself was thinking, then you obviously aren't being objective.

[sndkzyaa]

This has been going on long before Clinton.
Posted by debinok1 at 3:01 PM : Mar 28, 2009

No, no, and no again. You are the one playing "head games."

The specific events of the Clinton years happened only in the Clinton years.

Madoff was turned in for his Ponzi scheme in 2000, and he went free.

Enron, Worldcomm, Andersen Accounting, and all the rest - those were not happening before Clinton. Those stared on Clinton's watch, and none of them got caught until Bush.

Clinton's exective orders were by Clinton and Clinton alone.

Stop covering up for Clinton. It was Clinton and nobody else.

[sndkzyaa]

One of the very first things Bush did was to cut funding for the SEC.
Posted by curse914 at 3:08 PM : Mar 28, 2009

Hello! Madoff was reported in 2000, BEFORE Bush was president.

Are you saying we should just ignore the fact that the Clinton admin dropped the ball in 2000?

Should we just forget that the Clinton years ever happened, and just focus on bashing Bush?

The only way you can defend Clinton is by bashing Bush?

Clinton gets a free pass, while Bush gets blamed for every burned out lightbulb?

Stop dodging the issue. Clinton dropped the ball. Clinton could have put Madoff in the slammer eight years ago.

Why do you want to give Clinton a free pass on that?

[cheetah-man7]

Let's start with the Repigs.
Posted by johnb8888
___________________________________

I agree! Forget about hanging....I want the first shot!
Posted by cheetah-man7 at 1:56 PM : Mar 28, 2009

Hey, I thought we just said it isn't just one side that's to blame.

Or do people say that only if you blame Clinton....

If you blame Bush, everybody agrees.

If you blame Clinton, everybody either denies it and calls you a lying moron, or they say both sides are to blame so don't blame just Clinton.
Posted by sndkzyaa
________________________

I blame BUSH! The only thing I accuse Clinton of was his bad taste in his choice of women to have an affair with. Monica is a toad!