You couldn't be more wrong, but judging from the tone of your posts here, you're not open to learn anything that refutes your beliefs. As far as the economic meltdown during W's administration, Clinton was the cause of that. In fact Clinton caused a lot of bad outcomes based on his desire to do something good. The regulations on bank lending were changed by the clinton administration because they wanted to get more minorities and poor people invested into home ownership. This was smart because people who own something have a sense of personal pride and belonging, plus they are invested in the increasing valuation of their community. Fannymae was run by a Clinton appointee named Franklin Raines. You should look him up. He cooked the books at Fanny Mae so he could recieve his 100 million dollar bonus for it's reaching it's performance goals. When W took office, his transition team accepted the data and the reccomendations of the Clinton administration to continue their banking policies and the Fanny Mae lending. The scummy bankers were making bad loans to people who couldn't possibly make the payments on properties that were wildly overpriced because of the policies that flooded the marked with new buyers (illegitimately qualified ones) All of these loans were backed up by the garauntees of the Fed, so bankers were making these loans and also bundling them and reselling them as "good" investments
You should look up the repeal of the "glass-steagall act" which clinton supported in '99 which paved the way for bankers to sell mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations as investments. This was the last lynch pin in the collapse.
While I don't fault the idea of the clinton administration of trying to create more home ownership, they are a bunch of corrupt incompetent ideologs who didn't realize and probably to this day don't accept the blame for their shortsighted policies.
There were some decent things about clinton's administration. He was younger man and he had a huge ego, so he wanted to succeed for his "legacy" (you hear that word a lot regarding the clintons) He decided that he would get more legislation done if he made deals with the republicans led by Gingrich, rather than go with the Obama tactic and present a completely ideological agenda, then demonize anyone who opposed it. Hence the rise in the interpertation of everything opposing the ideas of a black president as "racist" these days. Obama seems like a "cool guy" to me, who's wrong about a lot of things. Sadly, he's extremely ideological, which is part of the reason people elected Trump. They were sick of being told that everything is racial in some way, or sexist, or anti-lgbtq, etc, etc... Clinton on the other hand tried to make deals and the perception that both sides of the isle were cooperating led to a great deal of optimism, which is a factor in economics that has a great effect.
The truth is that Obama caused Trump. Had he been more compromising and less ideologically left, Trump wouldn't have stood a chance. In some ways, public opinion acts like a pendulum. Swing it too hard to one direction or the other and it swings back harder the other way...
Mostly, this is a sad thread because it doesn't talk about policy. It's turned into a thread where people call trump and anyone who supports him a racist, without any proof. Of course, it's all claimed that there's a "dogwhistle" of some sort involved, which is to say that, "we can't prove it but,..."
Discuss policy and what's right or wrong with it, not how much you hate a person for his policy. Playing the race card over and over when proof is always claimed to be a dog whistle fact really diminishes actual debate about important things like policies and their effects.
*You have to laugh that trump wants to bring the troops home from syria and afghanistan, which seems like a vietnam solution to me and Both parties seem to oppose him on that. It has to make you wonder...
BTW, I'm not going to step in and defend all the allegations against Trump in this thread now, because I'm sure a few of you have the need to express your hate for him to signal your bretheren where you stand ideologically. I'm not going to argue with you here regardless of your fervor. I just think you all should talk about policy and result, not speculate on accusations, hyperbole, and inuendo...