9/11 happened under Bush
CRA happened in 1977 under Ford (?)
anyway, life was good in the 90ies..

wow... boys are arguing with boys, girls are having a cat fight. can't we all just be nice? :-)

Zoya, giving your place of residence, you should have said: "can't we all just get along?" Or am I too old and nobody remembers LA riots anymore?

Citing a great thinker of our time - you: We had the same thought. Don't get used to it.

don't mean to interrupt your lovely dialogue..just want to address some points made earlier..
Clinton added massive provisions and expanded the CRA in the late 90s..without the Congress..
Clinton had 8 years to confront terror treats..9/11 was in the works way before Bush became pres..instead, Clinton made it difficult for the CIA and FBI to communicate..just the usual political correctness crap loved by the left..protecting the rights of the terrorists instead of worrying about innocent people's security..and Bush is guilty of it too to a lesser extent..
the 90s were great..because of the natural economic expansion, not because of the Clinton...and they were good despite of the Clinton..but once you ignore so many red flags there is always a price to pay later..

Светлана, what price are you talking about? Are you referring to the overwhelming budget deficit that was created under Reagan's administration, and was only paid off by Clinton? Or the mess and the mistakes that were made by Bush W, that wewill have to pay for many years to come? From the war in Iraq to the worst financial crises in 4 generations.

Economic cycles come and go, there is almost nothing the government can do to stop them, what they can do, however is to
create higher highs and/or lower lows
I'm probably repeating myself for about the 20ies time here, but
for the last 20 years the government/fed were trying to get a smoothout effect.. basically to have milder recessions, of course this created a series of bubbles, which none of the presidents wanted to deal with and just pushed them forward, causing the fallout of 2007-2009
Government inaction is the best possible policy though, hence i vote of stalemate :).
Btw, Svetlana, please tell us how the republicans when they gained total control in 2000 pushed to swiftly reverse all the bad Clinton policies? :)

Mike, while I agree with your point about government doing nothing helps sometimes..I also know you know better than that about republicans' ability to do something without, at least, some dem support...
1. Bush and republicans, the feds have warned repeatedly about sub-prime, and were told by the dems, not to touch it, and that it was the republicans' life long desire to do away with the "public option" mortgage..if you are not aware of it, I will find you links..
2. republicans never had 60 votes..for the 100s times!!
3. who told you, I like EVERYTHING republicans and Bush did..far from it..I like the republicans and conservative principles, which a lot of them don't follow..

Mike is correct in that many republicans in their futile attempt to be "compassionate" were doing the same thing as democrats - being financially irresponsible spendthrifts - spending our money, not theirs.
I say through all of the rascals out - from both party. It's long overdue. There is only a handful of republicans I would keep in the Senate, about 10-15. Jim DeMint comes to mind. A few others. Can't think of a single democrat. Perhaps Joe Lieberman. That's it. The same goes for Congress. In similar proportions.

Сергей
Please get your facts straight. See ***********.heritage.org/Research/budget/bg2178.cfm
Also, budget deficit under Clinton (2000) as a percentage of GDP was higher than the one under Reagan/Bush administrations in 1990.
********en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt