This has nothing to do with politics nor the "quality" of the job Clinton did as President, but I was just saying: Bill Clinton didnt know how to ride his bike without training wheels until he was 22 years old. Dont believe me? Read his book. I havent read it yet, but I heard thats what it said on the radio today.
I think the corruption that was the economy in the late 90s is responsible. The Clinton administration if anything was just too lax. I actually think that it is a good example of the fact that we need a strong central government that actively pursues fraud. Kind of a lesson in the problems of deregulation.
I don't think there is anyone here who is pro terrorist as you imply. I think many people just don't agree with how this is being done. I posted a note the other day on the UN and the ICC. Personally I think we should be going more in that direction. More international cooperation not less.
We did not need to fight this war in Iraq. It was a mistake. Now we have little choice but to try and rectify the situation. I think Kerry has a better chance of doing that. I think the people in this administration are just leading us to ruin.
re: We can thank Bill Clinton for the unbridled growth of the late 90's for the price we're paying today on the economy. Anyone who disputes this can simply pull up a NASDAQ chart from 1995 until now and see how the peak ends in March of 2000 (on Clinton's dime).
A chart only tells you what happened not why. It amazes me that so many people credit the health of the economy to a president as if thousands of bad business decisions made by corporate executives were mandated by presidential fiat.
If you want to read a good assessment of the nuts and bolts of what went wrong and why, read this interview with Ravi Suria, the Lehman bond analyst who saw it all coming:
snip:
Brett D. Fromson: What happened in 2000 to change the game?
Ravi Suria: A couple of things caused the endgame to fall apart, which is why you are seeing the problems right now. First, look at the companies that were supposed to be the buyers of the New Economy companies. They had gone on their own buying and borrowing binge in the wake of the Telecommunications Act. [1996. passed by a bi-partisan congress]
First, the big guys started consolidating. So, among the long-distance carriers and the Baby Bells, you came down from about 13 companies to seven. So, the number of potential buyers sharply contracted. And second, they borrowed more money to do this. Between 1997-2000, EBITDA in the big telecom companies grew by 65%, but interest costs grew by 85% and debt grew by 140%. The leveraging up by the old-line companies limited their ability to take on the debt that comes with acquiring a New Economy company. So the business plans of 1996 that envisioned the old-line companies with pristine balance sheets swooping in to buy the new guys fell apart with each passing year. Then, in 2000, credit spreads really exploded for the big guys. Their credit quality started falling off a cliff, and their borrowing costs started going way up.
BTW, Suria's report was ignored and chastised at Lehman. They were heavily into telecom investment banking. It was also discounted by Jack Grubman at Salomon, but no surprise there.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
