Who Should Be Held responsible for Creating the U.S. Economic Meltdown?

Who should be held responsible for creating the U.S. economic meltdown? My vote is Bush & Cheney should be ultimately held responsible. Both of them for the past 8 years were to busy dumping a trillion $$$$ of taxpayer's money into Iraq and Afganistan and chasing WMD to really care about what's happening in the U.S. and it's financial institutions. You only only have to take a look at the forclosure, unemployment numbers and Salvation Army food lines to figure that one out. What do you think? Go for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not even close!

The real culprits were greedy bank executives (and underlings) who's bonuses were based on the dollar amount of loans their banks made. Thay made billions of dollar's woth of bad loans, sliced/diced/repakaged those loans and sold them across the country and the world as sound, safe investments.

It's NOT the job of the president OR VP to keep watch on banking activities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

O.K.

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-2-171

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Phooey! I'm neither Democrat nor Republican and it's EASY to see that that article - written solely by Democrats - is heavily biased against Bush and all Republicans in general. What else would any sane person expect from the opposing party????????????

I answered your question fully in my first response. Propaganda like this kind of garbage you linked to does nothing at all to change the real facts.

Sorry.

 

If you think that anyone can believe what you believe about how great you think Bush has done as president, then you might want to read his popularity polls. The lowest in U.S. history for an sitting president. And that's no garbage either.......

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/bushs-popularity-a-really-new-low/

And by-the-way, size 10 shoes are more popular than ever in Iraq these days. It's very doubtful that the Iraqi people are going to welcome your popular Bush back anytime to soon until they can get their shoe stores stocked again with the ever popular size 10 Iraqi boot.

 

Absolutely none of that has ANYTHING to do with the economic meltdown. Do a little serious research in politically unbiased sources.

Certainly Bush isn't popular! Hasn't been for some time. But again, that, shoes, and the rest of your nonsense has nothing at all to do with the question you originally asked.

Quit being so political and become more rational.

 

I just state the facts. You should too if you want people to absorb your nonsence. Bush spent over a trillion U.S. dollars of the tax payers money and thousands of innocent lives in Iraq and Afganistan and for what? To make the U.S. and Americans the most hated country in the world. Is that money well spent? Most certainly not. He didn't take care business back home. He didn't pay attention to those who knew more than he did and who told him that the U.S. economy was going into free-fall and what Bush reluctantly had to finally admit, a recession. He is the captain of the ship and he's in charge. So who are you going to blame for the sad state of the U.S. economy? Not the boy scouts. Not the Salvation Army. The only person you can blame and who rightfully deserves it is BUSH. But this is a free forum and you state anything you want except personal insult & etc. So anyone is welcome to state their opinion, to agree or disagree with another's opinion. Personally, I don't care if you or anyone agrees or disagrees with me. It' a free world and you do or say anything you want. So go for it.

 

let's look at a couple of your stated "facts":

which is quite simply wrong.

which is also wrong.

 

Like I said, Bush's popularity is based on his job performance rated by the American people (His boss). Most polls don't lie. Apparently the American people 'don't' approve of his job performance as president, either here or abroad. And I don't think the American people are wrong about how Bush and his administration has performed over the past 8 years. 'Poorly' would best describe it. And that's probably giving him to much credit. But I don't plan to comment anymore about your psots. It's a free forum and you can go for it. I have my opinion and you have yours. That's why I started this particular thread, so you can state your particular opinion. Whether I agree with it or not is of no consequence here. Enjoy.

 

Blaming something as complicated as an Economic downturn on two people is stupid.

 

That's great, but unfortunately a great deal of the American public who vote are whiners and idiots who have nothing better to do than see a situation and jump to conclusions. Ask an American (I am one, btw, but I'm just making a point) what the securities market is and how it works and 90%+ would look at you with a confused look. They have no idea what's going on - all they see is that the economy is going down and then go, "Oh, it must be Bush!" People like that are idiotic and retarded.

I blame the banks that gave out loans that they KNEW could not be paid back to them. I have my own theories as to why they did it, but the one thing I DO know is that they shouldn't have caved into greed, or whatever else it was that motivated them, so easily.

 

Hey dark this might be a crude quistion but did you ever took a loan that you could not pay back if you took your pay check of then with the subbrime rates of let's say 6 months ago?

 

Firstly It is illogical to try to find a specific person or small group of persons to blame for something as complex as this, especially as in all likelihood there are many people who are at least partly to blame.
Secondly, even hypothetically if you did decide to pin the blame on one person (as you have), what will this accomplish? apart from, of course, making you feel better by having 'solved' the problem via finding someone to blame.
Thirdly, shouting "OMG-BUSH-DID-IT" (or rants to that effect) merely demonstrates your lack of knowledge in regards to the subject at hand.

 

As I and others here have told you, you are doing nothing but showing your HIGH degree of ignorance on this topic. Sure, everyone can have an opinion but your particular opinion is very, very stupid, naive, and obviously heavily politically biased by partisan politics. None of that shows you have any ability at all for rational, logical thinking. Again - what you're spouting about such a complex issue is nothing but propaganda nonsense.

Grow up a little and learn how to examine a full picture rather than just believing what some people on only ONE side of the issue are saying.

 

um how about the little fact that the average american consumer is dumber than a box of rocks.
yes the greedy ceo's helped. yes the neocons control of government helped yes the republican stripping away regulation helped. but none of these could have done it with out the stupidity of the consumer.

 

Just exactly what regulations were "stripped away"?????

And while you're at it, you STILL haven't told us just how in the world you can claim that the AMA controls the number of doctors in the country.:bugeye: (I know that's off-topic, but you appear to be dodging the question!)

 

The banking ones. The ones implemented after the S&L scandals

Why should i support a claim i never made? I never said that the ama controls or for that matter try to limit the amount of doctors. I said some groups try to limit the amount of doctors.

 

You'll have to be much more specific tha that, Bud. I'm not aware of one single banking regulation that has been stripped away. I rather doubt that you have either.

Ok, then, I stand corrected - not the AMA. Just what GROUPS are you blathering about????????

 

I don't even see a logical question in that :\ You mind restating it and trying again?

 

No propaganda here......

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/s...ncial-crisis-was-ignored-bush-administration/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/01/national/main4641772.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._4641772

Enjoy.........