reply to post by buster2010
Nice try but that is not a true cause and effect.
I always laugh when I hear people cry about taxes then complain about the bad economy. History shows that when taxes go up the economy goes up. When
tax breaks are given the economy goes down. Clinton raised taxes just a little and had a surplus Bush came in office gave out the tax breaks and
everything started to go down hill.
CLINTON ratified the World Trade Organization and Gene Sperling (Clinton's head of the National Economic Council) and William Daley (Clinton's Sec
of Commerce) worked on China’s entry into the World Trade Organization
these events caused millions of manufacturing jobs in U.S. to be permanently lost.
Next is the Banking fiasco. Clinton signed into law many of the "new improved" Banking Laws that lead to the Economic meltdown:
Consolidation of Mega Banks, AIG Bailout and Foreclosuregate: Quick list of Banking
After the Great Depression, several laws were put in place to prevent another depression. The 1933 and 1934 Security and Exchange laws
McFadden Act of 1927
, The Glass-Steagall Act
or Banking Act of 1933. Also Bank Holding Company Act of 1956
Clinton's laws Negating above: Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994
and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of
More pro-banking Clinton laws:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991
: Allowed big banks to gobble up smaller banks more easily.
Housing and Community Development Act of 1992
and RTC Completion Act
- Housing and business loans to minorities.
Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
- left CDSs unregulated and set up AIG bailout and Foreclosuregate.[/url]
A Great article detailing the set up of the AIG bailout and
The ramifications of all these changes showed up AFTER Clinton left office. Between Reagan's Leveraged buyout feeding frenzy of the 1980's and
Clinton's shipping jobs overseas, US manufacturing (aka WEALTH CREATION) was permanently gutted.
The US went from 24% of the labor force working in manufacturing in 1970 to less than 9% now. With all the regulations, fines and fees and other
government sponsored headaches you have to be a real masochist to try and start a small business in todays anti-business environment.
80% of new business fail. Contrary to most people's belief it is not because of financial reasons, only 10% close because of bankruptcy, for many it
is because the hassle is just not worth it. When you put in so many hours filling out paperwork, that you are earning $1.00 an hour, if you are lucky,
you might as well get a job flipping burgers at minimum wage -$7.25 in my state.
This anti-business attitude is really bad for the USA because about 52% of the jobs here in the USA are provided by small business.
Small businesses provided three-fourths of the new jobs between 1990 and 1995. Create more than 1/2 of the GDP (especially if you include farmers)
Hire 40% of the high tech crowd. They are 97% of the exporters and produced 28.6% of the export value in 2004. Small business has 13 times as many
patents per employee and those patents are twice as likely to be among the 1% most cited!
Reagan's contribution to the current mess:
The Looting of U.S. Corporations under Reagan...
The "deregulation" that occurred under Ronald Reagan resulted in the takeover and looting of many cash-rich U.S. corporations through leveraged
buyouts involving junk bonds.....
This looting resulted in the loss of many jobs and in the significant reduction of pension benefits. Many corporate pension plans that were
well-funded and invested in very safe securities were closed. The proceeds were used to set up new pension plans through the purchase of junk bonds.
This scam was permitted by the passage of a law that allowed a pension plan to be closed and a new one established, provided that the new pension plan
had the same "expected benefits" as the old plan. Pension actuaries were paid off to attest that this was the case. The sellers of the junk bonds
made out like bandits. But when the junk bonds collapsed, many retirees saw their pension benefits reduced significantly--in some cases by more than