New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The Last Time We Had A Republican President 9/11 Happened

Dino

Russian Asset
I don't know what specific improvements were in reaction to that conspiracy and which improvements were in reaction to otherthreats. But I can point to a whole series of specific anti-terrorist actions from Clinton, including attempts to kill Bin Laden, frequent principals meetings on terrorism to "shake the trees," and creating the Hart-Rudman Commission to study the issue and come up with recommendations for how to respond. If you compare the robust anti-terrorist focus of Clinton to Bush's being asleep at the wheel for eight months, it's pretty dramatic, as recounted by Richard Clarke.
Studying things is good- DOING things is better.

Just look at the commission Al Gore sat in on, and the recommendations for security which were then IGNORED by Clinton Admin..

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html

In the area of security, the Commission believes that the threat against civil aviation is changing and growing, and that the federal government must lead the fight against it. The Commission recommends that the federal government commit greater resources to improving aviation security, and work more cooperatively with the private sector and local authorities in carrying out security responsibilities.

Look into donations the administration received following these findings and the remarkable amount of inaction that occurred.

Or don't. How could it possibly matter at this point?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I didn't claim they did -- although it would have been true for most of those four decades. Like a lot of people I referred to Congress colloquially, meaning the House.

Yes, and not one of them was an accurate attribution.

Yes there was. The Village Voice chronicles the entire program here: http://www.villagevoice.com/content/printVersion/541234?ref=patrick.net
And yet here you are with nothing but a village voice article and nothing else to rebut what I posted.

Even your VV article is talking about the jump in loans as of 2003...Gee...what happened from January of 2001 to the end of 2003 that would have caused a change in the number of subprime mortagages? Clinton wasn't president, Congress (both houses) were controlled by republicans....

In fact, the VV article actually adds weight to what I wrote. It blames Cuomo, but he was long gone by 2004. What happened was the 2003 passage of the "America Dreams Act". That is where the FHA began to guarantee no-down loans.
 

trapdoor

Governor
And yet here you are with nothing but a village voice article and nothing else to rebut what I posted.
The Village Voice article rebuts what you posted, or I wouldn't have linked to it.
In fact, the VV article actually adds weight to what I wrote. It blames Cuomo, but he was long gone by 2004. What happened was the 2003 passage of the "America Dreams Act". That is where the FHA began to guarantee no-down loans.\
It doesn't matter when he left. It matters what he started.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The Village Voice article rebuts what you posted, or I wouldn't have linked to it.


It doesn't matter when he left. It matters what he started.
1. No it doesn't. It doesn't even mention the "America Dreams Act".
2. No mention of the change in bank leveraging rules?
3. CRA is mentioned where?
4. Do explain why the huge jump in subprime mortgages happened in 2003 and not while Clinton was in office.

You linked to it because you don't really want to think about the hard stuff....like what happens when a bank can borrow $40 for every $1 in deposits. They are bankrupt if their investments drop just 3%.....
 

Arkady

President
Most conservative (and certainly most Republican) ideas have had little or no time to be implemented.
Even before the Republican takeover of Congress, conservative Democratic collaborators gave Republicans effective Congressional control for many years. Compare where we were in 1980 to where we were when Clinton first took office, in terms of most subjects of general debate between the parties. Tax levels? In 1980, the top bracket paid 70%. In 1992, it was just 31%... well under half the previous level. Or look at military spending. In 1980, we spent $134 billion on our military. By 1992, we spent $298 billion. That's nearly a 1/3 increase even AFTER accounting for inflation, despite 1992 being after the end of the Cold War, whereas 1980 was the depth of the Brezhnev regime. In what way was the period from 1980 to 1992 NOT an era of growing federal policy conservatism? It was a time known for deregulation (leading, for example, to the S&L meltdown), and no meaningful gun control, and the stacking of the courts with Republicans (7 Republicans to only 2 Democrats by 1992), and federal non-military spending growth rates well below historical norms, etcetera. If you were merely given the budget from 1980 to 1992 and asked to guess which party controlled the Congress in those years, you'd wrongly guess the Republicans controlled both houses, because they were getting almost anything they wanted.

Conservative ideas have been tried repeatedly. They were tried under three consecutive Republican presidents leading up to the Great Depression. They were tried during the Reagan/Bush years, leading to higher poverty, an all-time record for the violent crime, teen pregnancy, and divorce rates, and below-normal GDP growth and job creation, and they were tried during the GW Bush years, leading to a catastrophe surpassed only by the Great Depression. Liberal policies have been tried, too. During the FDR/Truman and Kennedy/Johnson years, we have very meaningful liberal legislative sucesses.... and, to a much lesser extent, we had some serious liberal policymaking in Clinton's and Obama's first couple years. Those periods of liberal policymaking were generally followed by excellent socioeconomic results.

I keep hearing how Obama inherited the disaster, but not a soul can point to anything Bush did to cause it
Bush failed to regulate the explosion of exotic financial derivatives, he ran up lots of economically ineffectual debt on the Iraq War, and he cut taxes for the super-rich, while neglecting the interests of the poor and middle class, resulting in an erosion of our broad economic base.

Here's the funny thing about conservatives. For eight long years, those of us on the left warned, at every step of the way, that there would be serious negative consequences for the policies Bush was pushing. Then, when things did, indeed, go to hell in a handbasket, the conservatives acedt like nobody could have seen this coming, and nobody could point to anything that Bush did wrong to cause the problems. We told you his policies were horrible all along. You ignored it. Ever wonder why every time your ideas get tried the results are bad?
 

Arkady

President
Studying things is good- DOING things is better.

Just look at the commission Al Gore sat in on, and the recommendations for security which were then IGNORED by Clinton Admin..

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html

In the area of security, the Commission believes that the threat against civil aviation is changing and growing, and that the federal government must lead the fight against it. The Commission recommends that the federal government commit greater resources to improving aviation security, and work more cooperatively with the private sector and local authorities in carrying out security responsibilities.

Look into donations the administration received following these findings and the remarkable amount of inaction that occurred.

Or don't. How could it possibly matter at this point?
It's fair to say that Clinton should have done more about the terrorist threat before 9/11. But with Bush, it's fair to say that he should have done SOMETHING. It wasn't just insufficient action, with him. It was almost total inaction. There's a reason Clarke compares Bush so unfavorably to Clinton. It's not that Clarke thinks Clinton was perfect on the topic. But at least he was actively involved in the terrorist issue. Bush was asleep at the switch until we got a wake-up call from Bin Laden one fine September morning in 2001.
 

trapdoor

Governor
1. No it doesn't. It doesn't even mention the "America Dreams Act".
2. No mention of the change in bank leveraging rules?
3. CRA is mentioned where?
4. Do explain why the huge jump in subprime mortgages happened in 2003 and not while Clinton was in office.

You linked to it because you don't really want to think about the hard stuff....like what happens when a bank can borrow $40 for every $1 in deposits. They are bankrupt if their investments drop just 3%.....
It doesn't have to mention the American Dreams Act.

It doesn't have to mention the change in leveraging rules

It doesn't have to mention the CRA

It does have to explain what happened during the Clinton era that encouraged riskier loan-making, and it does that.
 

Zoar

Governor
We prolly should not have killed Bin Laden. He planned that attack in a short 9 months, just after W was sworn in. Wow, what a brilliant military mind he had.
SECOND DUMMEST POST of 2014!!! Congratulations Alvin!!!!

No one ever said Bin Laden had to start and end it in 9 months! Bush and Cheney did NOTHING to stop it, they were asleep at the wheel. The buck stops at the whitehouse and they allowed 9/11 to happen and you Righties never once said: "Geee, how come the US did not defend itself on 9/11?" You never said Bush and Cheney were negligent. Instead you immediately said Obama is to blame for the Benghazi attack that occurred IN another GODDAM country one that is KNOWN to be unsafe!
 

Dino

Russian Asset
It's fair to say that Clinton should have done more about the terrorist threat before 9/11. But with Bush, it's fair to say that he should have done SOMETHING. It wasn't just insufficient action, with him. It was almost total inaction. There's a reason Clarke compares Bush so unfavorably to Clinton. It's not that Clarke thinks Clinton was perfect on the topic. But at least he was actively involved in the terrorist issue. Bush was asleep at the switch until we got a wake-up call from Bin Laden one fine September morning in 2001.
Two quick points:
1. Bush maintained Clinton's dangerous status quo of inaction.
2. Richard Clarke is a political animal.
 

Caroljo

Senator
Eight months passed between Bush's inauguation and the 9/11 attacks. During that time, Clarke and Tenet proposed a plan for taking the fight to Al Qaeda, and Bush declined. The Hart-Rudman report came out, calling for a bunch of urgent reforms, including consolidating the homeland security function under a single agency, and Bush shelved it. Month after month passed without even a single principals meeting on the subject of terrorism. A PDB came in warning that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, at a time when intelligence officials were 'running around with their hair on fire' worried about an imminent attack, and Bush went on vacation for a month. Nobody can know for sure that Bush being AWOL for so long made a difference. It's entirely possible that even competent leadership in Washington wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 attacks the way the Millenium attacks had been stopped during the Clinton years. We'll never know for sure. But what we do know is that those attacks were preceded by eight months of shocking neglect of our national security by the Bush team.
Bush wasn't AWOL....when he went to his ranch they were "working" vacations. He was still available whenever he was needed. Obama goes Hawaii all the time...is he unavailable when he's there? No...I'm sure he can be reached. But I doubt that he really does much "work".
 

Zoar

Governor
THE BIGGEST SECURITY FAILURE of protecting the people OF the United States occurred when a REPUBLICAN administration was IN CHARGE!!!

And Righties want to completely exonerate those who were IN CHARGE and instead blame it on those who were NOT in charge!

Typical Over Rationalizing, In-Complete-DENIAL Righties/Republicans!
 
Last edited:

middleview

President
Supporting Member
It doesn't have to mention the American Dreams Act.

It doesn't have to mention the change in leveraging rules

It doesn't have to mention the CRA

It does have to explain what happened during the Clinton era that encouraged riskier loan-making, and it does that.
It doesn't because the goal of the author was to blame Clinton and Cuomo.

Freddie and Fannie do not make loans and yet the article implied that they controlled lending....they didn't. The companies most responsible for bad mortgages were not banks...it was companies like Countrywide and Aurora Loan Services.

If you can't be honest enough to simply look at the vast increase in subprime loans from 2003 forward then you aren't really interested in why the crash happened.

In any case, your statement that nobody can show how Bush contributed to the crash is false. That you disagree is a different matter.....that it doesn't mention a single one of the factors I've documented means it does not refute my posts.
 
Last edited:

Zoar

Governor
Bush wasn't AWOL....when he went to his ranch they were "working" vacations. He was still available whenever he was needed. Obama goes Hawaii all the time...is he unavailable when he's there? No...I'm sure he can be reached. But I doubt that he really does much "work".
PROJECTION!!!! Carol, you really are over the top demonizing Obama while loving up and always defending George WMD Bush.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Bush wasn't AWOL....when he went to his ranch they were "working" vacations. He was still available whenever he was needed. Obama goes Hawaii all the time...is he unavailable when he's there? No...I'm sure he can be reached. But I doubt that he really does much "work".
Can you explain why Bush first demoted Richard Clarke and then didn't meet with him from the day he was sworn in until 9/12/2001?

Bush wasn't working while he was in the White House...why would anyone accuse him of that while he was on vacation.
 

trapdoor

Governor
It doesn't because the goal of the author was to blame Clinton and Cuomo.

Freddie and Fannie do not make loans and yet the article implied that they controlled lending....they didn't. The companies most responsible for bad mortgages were not banks...it was companies like Countrywide and Aurora Loan Services.

If you can't be honest enough to simply look at the vast increase in subprime loans from 2003 forward then you aren't really interested in why the crash happened.

In any case, your statement that nobody can show how Bush contributed to the crash is false. That you disagree is a different matter.....that it doesn't mention a single one of the factors I've documented means it does not refute my posts.
Yes, yes, that well known conservative outlet the Village Voice was out to slam Clinton and Cuomo for helping the poor. I think you're being a bit obtuse.
 

Zoar

Governor
Exactly!
Can you explain why Bush first demoted Richard Clarke and then didn't meet with him from the day he was sworn in until 9/12/2001?

Bush wasn't working while he was in the White House...why would anyone accuse him of that while he was on vacation.
Exactly!!! And when Bush was asked what was his biggest accomplishment DURING his presidency he said, 'Catching a record bass in my privately stocked pond down on the ranch!'
 

Zoar

Governor
Two quick points:
1. Bush maintained Clinton's dangerous status quo of inaction.
2. Richard Clarke is a political animal.
Two inaccurate points, is all you offered.

Bush was president and Commander In Chief when 9/11 happened. He was asleep at the controls and his administration should have been and never was held accountable for a terrible security lapse. You can be damn sure YOU would have jumping UP and down and screaming "IMPEACH!!!!", if a DEM was in the whitehouse when 9/11 happened.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Two inaccurate points, is all you offered.

Bush was president and Commander In Chief when 9/11 happened. He was asleep at the controls and his administration should have been and never was held accountable for a terrible security lapse. You can be damn sure YOU would have jumping UP and down and screaming "IMPEACH!!!!", if a DEM was in the whitehouse when 9/11 happened.
Funny how you deny both, then offer up a half-hearted denial of just one.
Intellectual lightweight response if ever there was one.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Even before the Republican takeover of Congress, conservative Democratic collaborators gave Republicans effective Congressional control for many years. Compare where we were in 1980 to where we were when Clinton first took office, in terms of most subjects of general debate between the parties. Tax levels? In 1980, the top bracket paid 70%. In 1992, it was just 31%... well under half the previous level. Or look at military spending. In 1980, we spent $134 billion on our military. By 1992, we spent $298 billion. That's nearly a 1/3 increase even AFTER accounting for inflation, despite 1992 being after the end of the Cold War, whereas 1980 was the depth of the Brezhnev regime. In what way was the period from 1980 to 1992 NOT an era of growing federal policy conservatism? It was a time known for deregulation (leading, for example, to the S&L meltdown), and no meaningful gun control, and the stacking of the courts with Republicans (7 Republicans to only 2 Democrats by 1992), and federal non-military spending growth rates well below historical norms, etcetera. If you were merely given the budget from 1980 to 1992 and asked to guess which party controlled the Congress in those years, you'd wrongly guess the Republicans controlled both houses, because they were getting almost anything they wanted.

Conservative ideas have been tried repeatedly. They were tried under three consecutive Republican presidents leading up to the Great Depression. They were tried during the Reagan/Bush years, leading to higher poverty, an all-time record for the violent crime, teen pregnancy, and divorce rates, and below-normal GDP growth and job creation, and they were tried during the GW Bush years, leading to a catastrophe surpassed only by the Great Depression. Liberal policies have been tried, too. During the FDR/Truman and Kennedy/Johnson years, we have very meaningful liberal legislative sucesses.... and, to a much lesser extent, we had some serious liberal policymaking in Clinton's and Obama's first couple years. Those periods of liberal policymaking were generally followed by excellent socioeconomic results.



Bush failed to regulate the explosion of exotic financial derivatives, he ran up lots of economically ineffectual debt on the Iraq War, and he cut taxes for the super-rich, while neglecting the interests of the poor and middle class, resulting in an erosion of our broad economic base.

Here's the funny thing about conservatives. For eight long years, those of us on the left warned, at every step of the way, that there would be serious negative consequences for the policies Bush was pushing. Then, when things did, indeed, go to hell in a handbasket, the conservatives acedt like nobody could have seen this coming, and nobody could point to anything that Bush did wrong to cause the problems. We told you his policies were horrible all along. You ignored it. Ever wonder why every time your ideas get tried the results are bad?
To be fair...while the repeal of Glass-Steagall was written by republicans, Clinton did sign it.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Two quick points:
1. Bush maintained Clinton's dangerous status quo of inaction.
2. Richard Clarke is a political animal.
Richard Clarke worked for both republican and democratic presidents.
He was the only one to say "I failed you" after 911. Calling a guy who has never run for office a "political" animal is one way to avoid having to admit that he was the one guy who didn't need to apologize.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+"richard+clarke"&FORM=VIRE3#view=detail&mid=447B4D7AC1D78A7998AF447B4D7AC1D78A7998AF
 
Last edited:
Top