Man. I really never knew the 90s were so bad economically.

[Drunken Irishman]

The things you learn on DU.

[NYC_SKP]

1. From my POV, the gains made weren't based on sustainable economic models.

Props to the Clinton administration for leaving a surplus and keeping it together, but the 90's brought us NAFTA and outsourcing, a freeze in CAFE (fuel economy) standards, and there were some good times had by all, but these could not have been sustained over time.

Needless to say, the Bush administration threw out any sense of responsibility and, with that second term, may have delivered a fatal blow.

Certainly a severely crippling blow.

Ouch.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

2. Maybe they couldn't be sustained, but I feel a Gore administration would have changed course

to correct for the downturn.

[NYC_SKP]

5. No doubt. We were led blindly through the next two terms.

My personal theory is that, under Cheney, the PNAC group felt that success in the ME would make us so powerful that we'd sail through the irresponsible behaviors and policies.

After that failed, I feel that they scuttled the ship, hand-grenaded the whole situation.

Their ilk are pretty insulated from all the horror you and I are going through now.

[Drunken Irishman]

3. No. They wouldn't have been sustained.

But it isn't like a recession doesn't happen. We saw three recessions during a stretch of the 50s and that is widely seen as one of the most prosperous economically for the United States post-war.

Had Clinton been allowed a third term, or Gore took office and kept much of Clinton's economic policies in place - we probably don't stagnate nearly as badly as we did in the 00s.

[sandnsea]

6. Gore would have shifted to energy

That's why Enron and energy trading was created in the first place. The purpose ws to create a market where wind, wave, solar, and whatever other energies could effectively compete with coal. Clearly Enron screwed that up, but I don't think Gore would have abandoned a new energy economy. Instead, Bush put us on this home building spree, and really the problem with it was what Wall Street did with it, not the home ownership itself. People still have to live in homes. They were paying a monthly mortgage. Just because they couldn't pay it after interest reset to 10%, doesn't mean they bought homes they couldn't afford. It means the financial industry created a mortgage product that was assinine. Until we stop letting Wall Street run this balloon economy, we're always going to have these booms and busts.

[CBR]

4. Everything is bad economically because it is all

based on capitalism. Nobody (politician) could win with those who feel this way because nobody is going to end capitalism immediately. I am no fan of pure capitalism and I do agree that it in and of itself is unsustainable without government regulation and a robust social safety net; however, you cannot argue with people who want revolution at any cost. Everybody in society, according to them, is perpetuating capitalism and, therefore, complicit in promoting inequality. College education, sports fans, pure bred dog owners (everyone) is guilty.... all of the time.