Politics You pro-Trump, anti-govenment types are fools

You've always been the problem. In fact, when you were born the doctor said "Houston, we have a problem".

barfo

 

I copy and paste those stubborn facts. I also research what I post exactly for the purpose of being factual.

You insist on making assertions that just aren't facts or factual. My sources are left wing, not from some conservative leaning sites. I bolded just one of your statements that simply is 100% incorrect. The senate voted 85-15 for the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, while the house voted 346-85 for it. "0 Republicans voted for," my ass.

If you want to continue to dispute Clinton only submitted a budget that would balance the budget in 2004, while the budget was balanced in 1998 - six years sooner than Clinton proposed, feel free to do so at your peril.

The economy was fine until 2007, right? What happened in 2006? (Pelosi/Reid control of congress). For all the blame you want to heap on W Bush, he warned of the dangers posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in most of his State of the Union Addresses, and his proposals (McCain's proposals, too), to protect us from what eventually did happen were rebuffed, opposed by Democrats who wanted people who normally would not qualify to own homes to own homes (a nice sentiment, but at massive risk).

If Obama did nothing at all, the economy would have gotten stronger faster, but that's a matter of opinion. The facts are that Obama's recovery was the weakest and slowest of any in modern history. He also left us with massive debt that our grandchildren will be paying off, money that will be squeezing out your favorite social programs in the budget (what would $400B in interest payments, so far this year alone, buy?)

Clinton's surplus was built on taxing peoples' life savings (capital gains), not their income. When the stock bubble burst, buh bye $7T in peoples' wealth. As bad as 2007/08 was, 2000 was damned close. The NASDAQ lost 78% of its value in 2000. While Fed Chairman Greenspan was warning of "irrational exuberance," Clinton was telling us all the economy was in the sweet spot. People paid capital gains taxes on that 78% that was lost in 1999 when their mutual funds showed massive gains (up to 100% even).

I know you're giving Clinton credit for Reagan's pro growth policies that lasted decades (with only GHW Bush's recession, and Clinton's dot bomb bubble in between), and you desperately want to give Clinton credit for Kasich's balanced budgets (all spending bills originate in the House).

In fact, while Kasich was writing the balanced budgets, Clinton was out on the road claiming we'd balance the budget in 7 years, or 8 years, or 10 years (depending on the crowd or day of the week - he had no clue).


From fivethirtyeight.com:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/no-bill-clinton-does-not-know-how-to-fix-the-economy/

The bursting of the tech bubble in 2000, and the subsequent recession, revealed that the 1990s boom was, at least to some degree, a mirage, the result of cheap money and, in then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan’s famous phrase, “irrational exuberance.” The recession that followed the tech bust, however, was relatively mild. If that were the worst consequence of the Clinton era, it might seem a small price to pay for a decade of solid growth.

But the Clinton boom, and even some specific Clinton policies, also helped sow the seeds for the far more severe Great Recession of the late 2000s. Mortgage-backed securities and subprime loans weren’t invented in the 1990s, but they expanded greatly during the period, part of a broader “financialization” of the U.S. economy that contributed directly to the severity of the Great Recession. Critics on the right argue Clinton-administration policies promoting increased lending to low-income and minority applicants contributed to the subsequent bubble; critics on the left, including Bernie Sanders, argue that Clinton’s deregulation of the banking industry paved the way for the crisis.

Bill Clinton deserves, at most, a small sliver of the blame for the financial crisis. But he probably doesn’t deserve much credit for the late-’90s boom, either.
​

Politifact. Note that the budget was balanced by 1998 or 1999.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ng-out-john-kasichs-claim-he-was-one-chief-a/

When the Clinton administration submitted a budget that would eliminate the deficit by 2004, Kasich was the first Republican to reject and call for a do-over. In a February op-ed, Kasich wrote that "it is not that difficult to cobble together a budget that could at least appear to be balanced within five years." But he said a balanced budget amendment would force leaders to deal honestly with every budget in the future.

"If the politicians know they must not only achieve a balanced budget but also must maintain a balanced budget, they will have no choice but to develop credible solutions and do so sooner rather than later," Kasich wrote.

No amendment emerged, but a bipartisan deal was struck by July, and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, sponsored by Kasich, had a clear path. Kasich was at Clinton’s side when the bill was signed into law. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said of Kasich, "More than any single man, he is responsible for balancing the budget."​

2003. NY Times (no friend to republicans).
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
By STEPHEN LABATON SEPT. 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
​

factcheck.org, another left wing talking points site.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/

It’s true that key Democrats opposed the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have established a single, independent regulatory body with jurisdiction over Fannie and Freddie – a move that the Government Accountability Office had recommended in a 2004 report. Current House Banking Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts opposed legislation to reorganize oversight in 2000 (when Clinton was still president), 2003 and 2004, saying of the 2000 legislation that concern about Fannie and Freddie was "overblown." Just last summer, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd called a Bush proposal for an independent agency to regulate the two entities "ill-advised."​

 

You aren't describing anti-government types, and certainly Libertarians.

Your argument is straw man, by the literal definition of the term.

 

"A murder-suicide should be between 1 man and 1 woman"

barfo