Clinton's Non-involvement In The Bad Loans

[ThomWV]

I wish someone would point out that the bad loans that cause a need for Bailout are certainly not ones that were made 8 years ago during Clinton's watch. If you've got a bundled package of mortgages written during the Clinton years its pure gold. Wonder why nobody's mentioning that?

[barbtries]

1. nobody wants to make him look good?

shout it. i didn't know it, but i'm happy to hear it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29205-2004Jul30.html

read and distribute this - found it via another DU'er yesterday. democrats are ALWAYS better for the economy.

[rosesaylavee]

2. I think most people know that this is a Bush

thing starting with Phil Graham's bill in 1999. I haven't read anyone blaming the Clinton administration. Maybe he could have vetoed it. But that's about all he could have done I think since the repugs were solidly for it in Congress.

[ThomWV]

3. If Clinton had Vetoed it the dam thing would have been back in 6 months

And you know how Bush and the Republican Congress would have treated it. Fast track ...

[rosesaylavee]

5. Yeah, I know.

He would have only delayed it.

[pnwmom]

6. Phil Gramm's work was slipped into a much larger, must-pass bill.

That's why Clinton had to sign it.

In a similar way, Pelosi added the minimum wage increase to an Iraq war funding bill that was a must for Bush. (So he wouldn't veto it.)

[Zenlitened]

4. Duh. Aren't you aware of the Republican party motto:

Republicans: "I didn't do it! It was somebody else's fault!" :cry: :cry: :cry:

Yep. Fine, upstanding people, those Republicans. Values-voters, all. :eyes: