How much of the problem with the terrible economy is based on President Bush’s leadership and oversight of the banking industry, federal reserve nominations, deregulation and administrative and oversight decisions by the cabinet departments under his control?
Or would the economy crashed if any President was in office?
April 29th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Anytime you get a president of one party, going up against a stubborn congress lead by the opposing party, you’re bound to have problems. This could happen to any president, at any time.
April 29th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
All of it.
The Buck Stops Here.
H. S. T.
April 29th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Who cares!? He sucked the whole time. He didn’t do anything good in my opinion. Clinton was better.
April 29th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
95%
April 29th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
The seeds for this collapse were planted long before Bush took office, however, he certainly shoulders responsibility for out of control spending and a failure to react sooner. I’d say it’s about 10% his fault.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Well, considering that the congress must pretty must vote on the things that impact the economy and war and all such things, 95% or more of anything the President does has to be green lighted by the congress.
So, if you blame the president, the congress must share that blame as well.
April 29th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
I believe Bush is partly to blame because it was his economic policies that allowed for the collapse to happen. However, I believe most of the blame goes to investors who traded in the shady, adjustable rate mortgages. Those mortgages only held value while the economy was booming and house prices were skyrocketing. When the eventual downturn came, that market crashed and dragged a lot of other markets down with it.
April 29th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
George W. Bush has been isolated from any information that might have helped him make decisions that ran contrary to what Dick Cheney and his staff wanted. Thus, the blame is only partly his.
Certainly the buck stops in the Oval Office, as Harry Truman said, but the blame must be shared by the entire administration. It also falls on the citizens who were stupid enough to elect a man who was content to let others do his thinking for him.
April 29th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Very little blame Pelosi,Reed and Barney Franks and Obama for refusing to regulate when Bush requested in 2003 and they refused to pass the bill yet people voted in the same people that destroyed our economy to make matters worse Obama put Raines and Johnson the Ceo’s of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in charge of his economic planning the same men that destroyed the housing market! INSANE!
April 29th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Sorry, but those that advocate for more government would probably have imposed regulations on some of those companies that went under. There was bad stuff going on and it was nobody’s responsibility to watch out for the people.
April 29th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
It goes to all of the republican party going back to Reagan for their refusal to see any regulation as good policy.
CSM -By Mark Lange Mark Lange – Wed Nov 5, 3:00 am ET
“Arguing to strip the Commodity Futures Trading Commission of any regulatory authority over derivatives in 2000, then Chairman Greenspan asserted his confidence in “markets in which many of the larger risks are dramatically – I should say, fully – hedged. ” Regulators and members of Congress were cowed into compliance. “
April 29th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
There is plenty of blame to go around, beginning way back when the Senate passed a mandate to banks forcing them to give sub prime loans to people who could not afford to pay them back. It allowed realtors to talk fast and make themselves a lot of money at the expense of our people and our nation. It was followed up by regulations that were so strict that business couldn’t function in the mandated ways. Following that was the lessening of regulations that went to the point of removing all controls. Then there was the lack of oversight on the part of not only the Bush Administration but also of the Clinton Administration. No one was watching the banks to make sure they were not overentending. This crisis did not begin eight years ago. It began way back and has only excalated to the final straw that broke the largest banks (including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Then, our legislative branch once again took it upon themselves to do something about the crisis but failed to include save guards to make sure the purpose of the bailout funds was met. Currently, they are not being met The banks are using the money to shore up their own positions rather than to loan it to smaller banks or businesses. It is a SNAFU from beginning to end and shows just one more example why we here in the U. S. can not count on our oversized government to save us. By the looks of the stock market this morning, we are heading for another bad day. Watching a news program last night during which Donald Trump spoke, he warns that we should be looking at another 1929 as no credit is available even for those like him. No credit, no money, no deals. . . . . . . no deals, no job growth, no recovery. I’m afraid that the only answer to is prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Unemployment numbers are expected to be up 19% for October. Retail sales have already slowed to a trickle compared to last year, and more and more businesses are asking Uncle Same for a bailout to keep them going. One car company alone layed off 18,000 people.
If the feds decide to bail them and the other businesses out, it will mean trillions being added to our already overextended deficit. I sincerely hope Mr. Obama will be up to dealing with what is likely to be the most difficult time in our nation
s history. . .