kane

It has been the early to mid 60's then again in the later part of the 70's since the democrats controlled both the house and senate as well as the white house (although they did have for a short time right after Clinton was elected too) and you could argue that the got bloated and corrupt. When I made my statement it was not meant as saying the democrats are better or that they are above that, it was simply a statement that when the republicans last had all the power they squandered it and I am hoping the democrats don't do that this time around. I guess time will tell.

As for Clinton starting the downward spiral he does play a roll in it, but so do many republicans. I actually just read a big article about Clinton and in it he responds to the critics about his roll in the economic meltdown. He takes the blame for signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act which allowed for regular banks to act like investment banks. This allowed them to start buying and selling off these sub prime mortgages and overextending themselves with un-backed investments. He also says that he should take some of the blame for allowing Greenspan to convince him not to regulate derivative investments. He claims that Greenspan told him that they wouldn't be a major player so there was no need to regulate them. He now says had he know that Bush was basically going to neuter the SEC for 8 years and that derivatives would run wild and cause all kinds of chaos he would have done more about it. I guess hindsight is always 20/20.

So for sure he is to take some of the blame, but you can't lay it all at his feet. There is plenty of blame to go around and he is one of the people on the list.