"SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said Dec. 16 that the agency failed to act on “credible, specific” allegations about Bernard Madoff dating back at least to 1999. ..." From: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.47mLdmtFTE&refer=home Here, from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_bi_ge/madoff_scandal_whistleblower are some details in proof of SEC intentional neglect: "... By 1999, Markopolos was working for Rampart Investment Management Co. and charged with doing competitive research on Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, which was using a similar investment strategy as his company, but far outperforming it. ... Markopolos reached his conclusion with the help of mathematicians like Dan diBartolomeo, whose analysis of the Madoff's methods in 1999 helped fuel Markopolos' suspicions. 'I think he was curious about how his competitor was doing so much better than they were,' diBartolomeo recalled. Researching Madoff's numbers, using data the firm distributed to prospective investors, diBartolomeo concluded within hours that it was impossible for Madoff to get the returns he reported while using the strategy he said he used*. 'As the market goes up and down, this strategy should have done a little better or a little worse, just like everybody else,' he said. 'Instead, it appeared to be indifferent as to whether the market went up or down. They made money all the time.' Markopolos complained to the SEC's Boston office in May 1999, saying it was impossible for the kind of profit Madoff was reporting to have been gained legally. But Madoff continued to thrive, even as Markopolos continued to pursue the case. In 2005, he submitted a report to the SEC saying it was 'highly likely that Madoff Securities is the world's largest Ponzi scheme.' In the report, he says he knew his research could ruin people's careers and asked the SEC be discreet about circulating the report and his name. 'I am worried about the personal safety of myself and my family' he wrote. The {2005} report highlights 29 'red flags' about Madoff's business, among them the returns of a third-party hedge fund managed by Madoff's firm which had negative returns in just seven on the 174 months Markopolos analyzed. …” Obviously, GWB accepted and implemented** the Republican neocon belief that: (1) No regulation is the best policy. (2) The government should "get out of the way" and let "animal spirits" create jobs and prosperity for all, by "Trickle Down" (which in fact made modern factories in China, etc. a destroyed jobs in the USA) -------------- *Also, it has recently come to light (but the SEC should have noticed years ago) that on many days the number of options claimed to have been traded profitably by Madoff were a larger total volume than ALL of the options traded that day! **Bush senior had done the same thing: The SEC's computers had automatically "flagged" the very unusual stock trading pattern in small oil company GWB owned but Bush senior told the SEC to "archive that investigation." (They did. Perhaps now the file will now be opened, as the Bushes have lost almost all political power.) The oil company, which the Saudi Royals had purchased for GWB, was so badly managed that it was going bankrupt, but then the stock rapidly surged upwards. - It was being bought by Hicks, the main owner of "Clear Channel," a popular, right-wing, network of many small radio stations in the South West. When GWB later became Governor of Texas, one of his first acts was to terminate the open disclosure of how the Un. of Texas' multi-million dollar endowment funds were to be managed. GWB turned the entire fund over to Hicks to manage, with no longer any requirement for public disclosure of how the funds were invested! (Hicks was also later part of the reason GWB was given 5% ownership of the "Texas Rangers" - As a “thank-you” for GWB having misused Texas eminent domain laws to force the owners to sell the land the stadium of the Texas Rangers was built on. That stadium was built entire at tax payer's expense - GWB later sold his ownership share in the Texas Rangers for several million dollars. GWB is a multi-millionaire mainly from the many gifts he received in exchange for political favors. – You would think Bushes were “Mayor Daily” politicians from Chicago, like Gov. Blagojevich's clearly is! At least they should have (by US law) registered as agents for the Saudi Arabia, which has given them millions annually for more than a decade. Admittedly this is hard to documment, but from where did their fortune come, if not from the Saudi Royal Family?
Billy T, I'll say, because most of your personal speculation is utter bullshit! I'll just hit a few points. Bush did believe in minimal government interference in markets, but not 'no regulation'. The SEC is the independent regulatory body responsible for securities regulation. Madoff 'investment' irregularities were first reported to the SEC during the Clinton administration, and several times thereafter. Stock trading is done on publically owned companies, not privately owned. GWB was investigated by the SEC because he sold his shares in Harken Energy a couple of months before Iraq invaded Kuwait. Harken had a contract to explore off-shore oil for Bahrain. Bush was investigated to see if he had some inside information about the invasion beforehand. The investigation was concluded and dropped. GWB founded Arbusto, an 'wildcatter' operation after the Arab oil embargo, with $20,000 of his own money. He also sought funds from friends (no foreign money) to start operations. GWB had no dealings with Saudi Arabia, and the Harken contract with Bahrain came years later while GWB was a consultant at Harken, a public company. Yes, the small company had drilled "dry wells" and the price of oil was going down as the MiddleEast flooded the market with oil for a few years after the embargo ended. When the company was in financial trouble was when Bush took the company public. Jesus! Hicks never bought Bush's small oil exploration company (let alone a PUBLIC oil company)or Clear Channel Communications. Hicks sold his radio company, and not a "right-wing" network, to Clear Channel. Hicks bought Bush's ownership position in the Texas Rangers. The Texas senate confirmed Hicks as a U.T. regent right before Bush went into the governor's office. Hicks hired lobbists to push a bill through the senate to create the University of Texas Investment Management Company. UTIMCO let contracts out to private investment companies to manage the funds. As a U.T. regent, Hicks sat on the UTIMCO board that awarded contracts, but did not manage any of the funds. Bush's only role was signing the bill into law that the Texas senate had passed creating UTIMCO. Bush bought his share of the Texas Rangers in 1989 for $600,000. He became governor in 1994. Hicks bought the Texas Rangers franchise in 1998. Bush recieved $15 million for his share in the sale. The contract to build the new stadium was signed on Oct. 24, 1990. Construction began in 1992, two years before Bush became governor, and was completed in March 1994.
It was not dropped, exactly - the result was "no conclusion" and a suspension of any action. It is common for the SEC to cut slack in that manner - kind of like probation, with the threat of reinstatement if the bad behavior is repeated - for first time offenders against their admittedly complicated and technical regulations. That W was not exactly a newbie would be convenient to overlook, given the political realities. It would have been very unlikely - a deliberate and inconvenient strategy - for W to raise money for an oil venture among "friends" without dealing with Saudi nationals. W's family is closely associated, to the point of close friendship, with several wealthy Saudis, and they are involved in all aspects of the US oil business and the Bush family finances. W has had dealings with Saudi Arabia from his status as H Bush's son his whole life. Most people assume that is why Harken hired him as a "consultant" - he brought very little else to the table.
iccy, There was no conclusion of any wrong-doing. Are you suggesting Bahrain knew of Iraq's planned invasion of Kuwait over two months ahead of time, and informed GWB about it, but not Kuwait? Why did Bush sell only 60% of his stock and not all of it if he knew Iraq's invasion would cause his stock in a US oil company to fall? Bush's 'oil venture' was a small wildcatting company to search for oil in Texas. It took him two years to raise enough capital to begin operations and drill the first well, a dry hole. His small company was almost broke and deeply in debt when he took his company public in order to raise cash. If that was why he was hired as a 'consultant' and not because Harken had absorbed the company he personally started, 'most people' would have been mistaken about the benefits. Harken signed a contract with Bahrain, not Saudi Arabia.
And there was no conclusion of no wrongdoing. Typical cutting of slack for newbies in cases of minor violations, miscarried for apparent political reasons in this case. Why would Harken absorb W's worthless company, or hire the incompetent W as a consultant, either one?
It is true that the Boston officeof the SEC in May1999 did get some information questioning how Madoff did so well consistently. The WJS (or NYTimes?) also published some speculative comments while Clinton was still President; however, these were only suspicions. The specific report, with 23 "red flagged" items backed by extensive mathematical analysis was not delivered to the SEC until 2005, well into GWB's administration. On 16Dec08, GWB's SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox, admitted that the SEC failed and should have acted on these “credible and specific” allegations. That is interesting and if I knew about it, I had forgotten; however, that was not the thing that triggered the SEC's stock price monitoring computers as suspicious activity. It was the sudden surge upward in stock price of a public company about to go bankrupt. GWB was the CEO of that small Texas oil company. It is true that initially it was private, not public company, and also true that the Saudis did not buy it and give it to GWB. - They gave the money to GWB's father, who bought it and then gave it to his son. GWB may, as you suggest, have sought more funds from friends later when it was hitting dry hole after dry hole. It also may be true that GWB had $20,000 invested in the company, but that would hardly pay for one dry hole. - There were dozens. I admit I may have some of the details confused - It has been about 30years since this was in the news; but are you seriously suggesting that the Saudi Royal Family has not given millions to both Bushes? That the Saudis were not very major supporter of them in their election efforts, etc.? I never said he BOUGHT the oil company. He bought the stock of it, and in such quantity so quickly that the SEC's surveillance computers automatically flagged those transaction for investigation, but that investigation never happen as Bush senior was POTUS and told (presumably) the SEC to archive the investigation. (What is certain is that the SEC did simply file it - I think the files probably still exist and hope they get open soon, if they do. It is possible that someone high up in the SEC, acted independently to kill any investigation. I believe that some of GWB's youthful drunk driving arrests were hushed up in Texas also to avoid embarrassing his father. It is very natural and common thing that the "sins” of the children of high officials are suppressed by underlings, even without orders from the top. I never intended to say Hicks MANAGED the U.T. endowment himself - only that the former university committee which controlled it was disbanded, the former policy of public disclosure of how the funds were invested was terminated, and Hick got effective CONTROL of the funds. Even if Hicks only got to select the professional managers, there are many opportunities to profit when you are giving out millions.* You are probably correct on all these details - I am only remembering things. I knew that GWB did buy some shares but less than one percent. On two separate occasions, GWB was given many more: One was when the citizens of the town agreed to pay 100% of the stadium cost and the other was when Texas law of emanate Domain was abused to force the owners of the land selected for the stadium site to sell. (Emanate domain laws are only for exceptional essential things necessary for the public good - things like forcing a holdout blocking a sewer line to sell, etc. As I recall GWB ended up with about 14% owner ship and had paid for less than 1% - Guess he just had generous friends - his politic favors and influence had nothing to do with these gifts. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As further proof of GWB's wrong doings, using your own numbers: Transfoming $600,000 into $15,000.000 in only a couple of years is a 25 fold gain! - Doing that legally by investing in a ball culb is essentailly impossible, especially when the ball club itself also failed financially, I think. You have avoided any response to my question that if not from the Saudis and "compensation" for political influence and favors, where did GWB's million (more than 100 million prior to becoming POTUS, I believe) come from? I bet his first speech after 20Jan09 to some meeting of Oil and/or Corn-to-Alcohol CEOs, adds another million, at least. A Harry Truman, GWB ain't.** ---------------------- *My daughter had control over the fixed assets component of Delta Airline’s pension plan (almost 4 billion dollars)! It was then a “defined benefit” plan, so the profits or losses went straight to the bottom line. (In several years, her success was the greatest single “profit center” of the whole company.) She keep less than 10% to manage directly and had 12 to 14 firms working for her to manage the rest, some in London but most in NYC. She visited them all often and typical replaced one with another each year. She was always offered many perks, like tickets to Broadway shows etc. by them but she never accepted. During one working lunch, a long presentation to her in NYC, they served hot pastrami sandwiches and she remarked how good they were. A few days later, I happen to be passing thru ATL on way back to Brazil and arriving at lunch time, so she asked me to come met her small group. Just before I arrived at her office, a huge insulated box full of at least a couple dozen hot pastrami sandwiches had arrived (special delivery, air freight from NYC). They were good! Don’t try to tell me Hicks did not make much more than he lost when helping GWB out financially. Hicks had control over T.U.’s entire endowment and the rules had just been changed to no longer require any public disclosure as to how they were invested! You need morals of steel, to avoid becoming rich even if you only are passing out the management of billions to others. Hicks, and Texas government in general, are not known for that. Again, I ask where did all of GWB’s millions come from? (or perhaps it is billions?) **See post about Harry Truman’s high morals at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1966052&postcount=23
Billy T, Jesus, Billy. You just keep making up more and more crap that is totally false. What is your obsession with 'GWB' anyway? Do you not have a clue how to do a google search for info? Can you not evaluate a conspiracy site from legitimate info? I am not Bush's defense counsel, I didn't agree with many of his policies or the Iraq invasion, but sometimes will correct the misinformation I see you post here. You post so much, I can't possibly have time to correct it all. Bush borrowed $500,000 of the money he invested in the Texas Rangers from a bank. He soon after sold over $800,000 of his shares in Harken to repay the bank loan, which he did repay. After he sold the shares in Harken, the stock tumbled in value, not gained. He was investigated to determine if he had inside information the stock was going to tumble in value at the time he sold. Some conspiracy theories say he knew the financies of Harken were bad before it was known to the public (insider trading), some say hehad knowledge of Iraq's planned invasion of Kuwait and the detrimental effect it would have on oil stocks that had business dealings in the Persian Gulf region (Harken's Bahrain exploration), but what he was investigated for was like Martha Stewart, inside information that the stock was going to tumble before he sold most of his shares. No, he was a paid consultant for Harken, and a stock holder. I imagine he was kept as a consultant because the company he founded was an oil exploration company, you know, like what Harken was doing in Bahrain. No, GWB used money left over from his educational trust fund, just $20,000, to begin the private company. Bush enlisted several other investors in his small start-up, one of them I believe was a Houston financier named Bass, who conspiracy theorist said had connections to one of Osama bin Laudin's brothers in Saudi Arabia. The funds came from his friends before drilling began. The small company was deeply in debt from all the dry holes (wildcatting is a risky business) when Bush decided to take the company public to secure more funding. The company changed names then to something like Bush exploration company, than merged later with another public company, Specter 7 or something like that, and the last merger was with Harken, another public company. Some sources say 1.8%, others state 2%. Before the new stadium was built, the Texas Rangers played at a minor league stadium with no premium seating, etc. The group that owned the team, of which Bush was a member, threatened to move the team to another city because of the small stadium. Bush played a major role in getting the Mayor to raise sales taxes by one cent to help pay for a new stadium. The team owners were to invest $60 million of their own money in construction, about half the cost. I read where the owners placed a $1 surcharge on the tickets to raise their share of the money. The same conspiracy site stated that the city's share of construction cost was not repaid until the team was sold to another owner. The site said Bush was given an additional 10% share in the franchise because of his influence in getting the new stadium built, for a total of 11.8% ownership. Arlington used emanate domain to secure additional land surronding the stadium for parking spaces. The new stadium and parking spaces added immense value to the franchise, which was later sold to Hicks for $250 million dollars. After paying the city for the stadium debt, Bush's share of the money was a profit of $16,999,685. I found a copy of Bush's 1998 tax return. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That profit came over a period of nine years. When the team was first bought by Bush & company, 'big-time' major league teams refused to play in the small minor league stadium and they couldn't sign big name baseball players. The new stadium allowed the franchise to expand in value, signing better players and playing top baseball teams.
True, I seldom search and work mainly from my memory of things I read in the reputable press, such as WSJ, NYTs, Time, News Week and years ago: US News and World Report, who published a couple of my letters to the editor.) Nothing I have posted comes directly from "a conspiracy site." Because I fear viruses, I go to less than 12 sites and they are all very safe, I think (places like Schwab, TD Amtrade, The Economist, Wiki occasionally. etc.). I do get more than 40 business related Emails via Yahoo.com every weekday (and one is from MoringStar.com which, for free, helps me follow daily news about more than 60 stocks - my clicks on these items just take me to very reputable sites, which probably MorningStar thinks are safe.) I trust Yahoo to do some screening also, but in last three days I have received via them Emails asking me to up-date or "confirm" information about bank accounts in banks I have never dealt with etc.) I do not understand why you keep telling about Harken and the investigation of GWB's association with it. As I said in earlier post, I never knew about that, or it is wiped clean out of my memory. I have only been referring to two things I remember reading about: (1) The termination of Texas Univeristy's internal committee managing the TU endowment fund (and their prior policy of telling publicly how it was invested) on or about the time GWB became Gov. of Texas. Hicks got control of the money and did not need to tell anyone where it was invested. (I know this is a huge opportunity to make money, if so inclined – see footnote of prior post about my daughter.) (2) Hicks had helped GWB avoid losses on the small Texas oil company, by buying its stock, even though it was essentially bankrupt. The stock price suddenly surged up, so much so that the SEC's computers automatically flagged it for investigation. Bush senior was POTUS at the time, and there was no investigation; the file was “archived." I have already admitted that perhaps this was done by someone high in the SEC, without any orders to do so from the top, to avoid possible embarrassing the POTUS, (just like GWB’s youthful drunk driving arrests were.) Of course I am also asserting that the profit potential Hicks got with (1) was his reward from GWB for (2) and that GWB ending up with more ownership in the Texas Rangers, than he paid for (more than 10 times GWB's investment) was also due to GWB's political power and influence related to getting the stadium site, via eminent domain laws, and getting the people of the city to build it at no cost to the owners. I.e. Hick had a significant role in the Texas Rangers and as he made a lot of money via his controlling role with the TU's endowment funds, Hicks helped get GWB much more ownership in the Texas Rangers AT NO COST to GWB, so GWB's investment (by your figures) grew 25 fold in a couple of years. As I remember it the Texas Rangers failed - no longer exist, not even by new name, but I do not follow sports so really do not even have much memory (true or false) about that. If what I imply with (1) and (2) above (and the paragraph immediately following them) is false, it is due to memory distortions (that is a common psychological effect - I do hate GWB as think he has destroyed the USA economically - so subconsciously it is quite possible that as the years have passed I now remember falsely what I read back then.) Despite that possibility, I still tend to trust my memory of what I read in reputable sources AT THE TIME IT WAS HAPENING, much more than what I might find written in a site in the internet now. Knowing what actually happened in the past is about as hard as knowing what will happen in the future, IMHO, if the only "information" you have is from websites. Memory is not perfect, nor is perception at the time, but at least it is not "re-written" to fit the current politics. (Stalin even doctored old photo graphs to remove people who later fell from political favor. Most governments do this to some extent. For US consumption, the US is the world's main force for “the good and democracy” etc. but living outside of the US one sees how distorted this is. - That is not new: for example, the Monroe Doctrine was presented to me in highschool history as the US protecting South American from exploitation by Europeans. Etc.) If my memory is seriously wrong on what I have posted, I will welcome correction of it, but telling me details about the investigation of Harken, that its stock tumbled in value, not gained, etc. seems to be totally irrelevant to the (1) and (2) etc. above I have been posting about.
Billy T, Billy, your memory is faulty concerning the events. Hicks never bought any stock in a "small texas oil company". The only SEC investigation concerning Bush was because Bush sold stock in Harken Energy shortly before the stock price fell. Harken did not go out of business, Hicks did not buy any shares in the company. Harken is today a multinational company still in business with yet another namechange, HKN Inc. Here is a link to website: http://www.hkninc.com/index.php Gov. Richards, whom Bush defeated for gov. of Texas, appointed Tom Hicks as the U.T regent. Hicks lobbied the Texas congress to turn over U.T. investments to private investment funds in 1994, the year Bush won the governor's race, but before he took office in 1995. Bush signed the legislation shortly after he took office. Most large universities hire private investment companies to manage their endowment funds. Hicks did not manage the funds personally, but had considerable influence as to which companies were picked to manage the funds. Hicks was already an extremely wealthy businessman when he was picked to head UTIMCO as chairman. Hicks was never an oilman, he gained his fortune through leveraged buyouts of businesses and turning them around. Here is a link to his bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Hicks Billy, the Univ. of Texas had no connection to the Texas Rangers, a professional baseball franchise. The new stadium was built before either Bush was elected governor or Hicks was appointed U.T. regent. No, the Texas Rangers are still a professional baseball team and Hicks still owns them. They have never won a World Series, but they did win the American League West championship in 1998 and 1999, the two years after Hicks bought them from Bush & Co. Here is a link to their website: http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=tex
I would imagine there were much better reasons than W's contribution of business and oil exploration skills to "absorb" his worthless company and keep his incompetent ass on the payroll. Such as his numerous and significant US political connections, Saudi oil business connections, et al.
The first footnote in the OP is: *Also, it has recently come to light (but the SEC should have noticed years ago) that on many days the number of options claimed to have been traded profitably by Madoff were a larger total volume than ALL of the options traded that day! When I posted that, I had no documentation but I now have. See: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=audn.j3PIjnI Which has title: “…Madoff Strategy Dwarfed Market in Trades ‘Never Done’ …” Even a half wit in charge of the SEC should know that someone claiming to profit by trading option is lying if the claimed number of options traded is several times greater than ALL the option traded that day. Thus, this thread is well titled. (i.e."By direction" is true.) The administration of GWB and the neocons advising him firmly believed that government regulation was wrong. The free enterprise market system, unfetter by government interference, was fully capable or controlling abuses and wiser than government in doing so. Even John McCain said this regularly for many years, until the economic realities forced him to "flip-flop" to be a viable candidate for POTUS. There are three alternatives: 1) The SEC can not do simple math or even tell which of two numbers is greater. 2) The SEC never even read Madoff's annual reports, and certainly never checked anything in them. 3) The SEC was restrained from doing its job, even as well and an idiot could. For 30 years China has practiced exactly the opposite policy - strong government intervention and a very Keysian policy that has astounded the world with financial success. A recent example is the US$568 billion stimulus plan. (much larger than the US's wrt the GDP.) Also, China is realizing that major part of why Chinese save 40% of their income is the lack of government "safety net" (no unemployment insurance, not much in the way of health care services, etc.) especially in the rural areas, so to grow domestic consumption even more rapidly (in 2007 it grew 22% !) part of the 568 billion will provide these services. Also, it difficult to overestimate the expansionary effects that the recent changes farm land laws will have. While the peasant still cannot sell the land he farms, he can mortgage it and rent it to others to form larger more efficient units etc. Previously almost all of the growth in domestic consumption was urban based, but with these reforms (and the more than 100 large new cities being built in the interior) all of China's 1.35 billion will be consuming more. This is all part of the plan, which I forecast years ago, of China growing ever less in need of exporting anything to the US and EU by rapidly growing domestic consumption. Then China will no longer accept US's Treauries promisses (bonds) or green paper and it will become nearly worthless, if it has not already done so. The dollar is only slowing erroding in value now* as China is willing to trade goods and services for US paper now. When that stops, the dollar's slide down will feed on itsself as all creditors try to get out of dollars at the same time. ----- *I speak of the multi-year trends. Of course there are periods of several months with the dollar rising in value.
In fairness, I note that the SEC alone did not cause the current economic mess: "... Blame has been laid at the feet of the U.S. Federal Reserve, and an investment bankers’ brew of toxic financial products. Ultimately, however, it was the supposedly trustworthy rating agencies that got everyone to drink the poisoned Kool-Aid. The sheer fraud and greed of rating agency analysts and executives is staggering. That no one has gone to jail, and none of the agencies have been shut down is a travesty of justice on an infinitely larger scale than Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. Until depositors, bankers and investors regain confidence in the quality of ratings we rely upon to measure financial stability and creditworthiness, the tremors that underlie the credit crisis will drag on indefinitely. ..." From: http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/12/18/debt-rating-agencies/ PS- As I have often noted, Brazil is rated at the lowest investment grade while the USA is the highest rated. One country is a "creditor nation," self suficient in energy with 200 billion in hard currency reserves and a positve trade balance. The other is the world's largest debitor, very and increasingly every year dependent on imported oil, with essentially zero foreign reserves (but can print dollars) and a chronic large trade and domestic deficits (about 1 trillion deficit this year and probably about 2 trillion dollars in 2009). It appears that only a great collapse of the US economy will cause these rating to become rationally baised. Yes, the rating system is the world greatest con-game. Markoff is small peanuts by comparision, and this truth will eventually comeout - it always does in the long run. The rateing agencies are not predictive - they only reflect what has happened. For example, now they are drastically dropping ratings on the funds Maroff managed. For this they collect great fees! - What a scam!
I am not alone in thinking that GWB's policies are too a large extent the reason why the US (and RoW) is in the economic mess it now is: "... From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone. He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards. ..." FROM the New York Times: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown_secrets Which currently is THE most popular download of all.
No, you're not alone, Billy. But just because there's a few or even a lot of you, don't make it correct. Blaming President Bush is a favorite tactic, but it leaves out so much that's a major part of our government. All of those parts are to blame, but the "blamers" can't grasp the complexities, so they chose to place all the blame on President Bush ...as if he's a dictator or king. President Franklin Roosevelt thought exactly the same way. So did several previous and subsequent US presidents. Baron Max
No. Roosevelt regulated banks (and war contractors, etc) tightly. Reagan, maybe Bush but less ideologically, being the only ones really similar to W. Reagan's S&L debacle a direct consequence.
