Isn't the Bush administration responsible for creating the imminent depression?

In 2003 the Bush administration%26#039;s Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC), a part of the Department of Treasury, invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to preempt state laws against predatory lending, thereby rendering those state laws inoperative.

The OCC also formulated new rules prohibiting states from enforcing any of their consumer protection laws against national banks.

So anyone who saw what was going on and wanted to try to stop the predatory lending had their hands tied by the Bush administration.

So basically, the Bush administration gave a green light to their financial buddies on Wall Street to rob Americans blind, and drive the US into a recession in the process.

What a big surprise, considering that Bush has ties to the financial industry.

So shouldn%26#039;t we be thanking the Bush administration for creating our next depression?

Isn%26#039;t the Bush administration responsible for creating the imminent depression?online loan

It is his policies which are at fault, so, yes, Bush would be responsible for the mess that we are currently in.

As far as those who are trying to blame Clinton (don%26#039;t worry, Clinton has enough blame which should be placed on him with NAFTA) BUSH could have STOPPED whatever Clinton put into place! Another words, Bush is responsible for implementing it. I know that Bush stopped all the clean air laws from going into affect...this is no different!

Is it not interesting that right around 2003 is EXACTLY when we first started having problems with the housing market? Things that make you go, Hmmmmmm.

Isn%26#039;t the Bush administration responsible for creating the imminent depression?

loan

yes, mr. bush is partly to blame|||I think you are delusional. It was Mr. Clinton who encouraged lending institutions to ease up on lending rules, as far back as the mid 1990%26#039;s.

There is no depression. If you are scared, transfer all of your assets to gold and move to the Mohave.|||The concept of %26quot;predatory lending%26quot; eludes me. I DO believe that a period of stupidity hit the lending industry a while ago, and they began lending large amounts to people who never should have borrowed, but I have a difficult time attaching that to Bush.|||Actually, it was the failed administration under Slick Willie that brought on the current financial woes... and he current democratic congress...|||Of course. Here is an interesting article using Einstein%26#039;s theories to prove Bush is responsible for the current financial tsunami America is experiencing:

******************************

%26quot;The Great Depression.

George Bush vs Einstein on economic policy

According to the mathematician, Albert Einstein, the policies of George Bush are likely to result in another Great Depression. To quote a recurring quip, %26#039;I know George Bush, and let me tell you, George Bush is no Albert Einstein.%26#039;

During a recent press conference, a reporter asked Ari Fleischer if the President believed that 鈥榙eficits did not matter%26#039;, given the huge size of the tax cuts pushed through in this administration. The press Secretary replied that the President believed that his tax cut proposal was the best way to 鈥榗reate jobs%26#039;. At the present time the Republican Administration is pushing these tax cuts as an 鈥榚conomic stimulus package%26#039; as well as a measure to 鈥榗reate jobs%26#039;. Here we have an old policy being dressed up in new propaganda. The policy has not changed but the sales pitch certainly has.

A few years back it seemed that the American economy was booming and the Republicans were arguing that since huge surpluses were forecast for the next ten years, therefore it was only right that taxes be cut to provide tax relief, and since it was pointed out that about half of the cuts would go to the riches one percent of the population and the majority to the richest ten per cent, the Republicans argued that this was only fair, since they paid the most taxes and therefore should get the most 鈥榯ax relief%26#039;. We now know that the economy was not rosy when the Republicans were making this particular pitch, but rather for years previous to this time, large corporations were cooking their books to hide the fact that they were not showing profits, and the economy was actually caught up in a huge stock market bubble. The tax cut package will reach around two trillion dollars if proposed additional cuts are included, and while the idea of tax cuts has not changed, the propaganda used to peddle the cuts has morphed and now rather than being a well deserved tax relief measure handed out during a time of ever expanding 鈥榮urpluses%26#039; the tax cuts are being peddled as a 鈥榡ob creation measure.%26#039;

At the same time as the 鈥榙on%26#039;t tax and then spend%26#039; Republican party is handing out close to a trillion dollars to the richest one percent of the population, the country is running record breaking deficits, which do not yet include the cost of any war or the tens of billions of dollars of bribes being paid to countries such as Turkey, Egypt, and a handful of African nations as the price for their war support, as well as the reported twelve billion being paid to Israel to bribe them to keep out of the war. When the estimated (low ball figure) 95 billion dollar cost of the war is factored in and the close to 50 billion dollar cost of the bribery required to gain support for the war, the already record breaking deficit swells to about half a trillion dollars, which will have to be borrowed. So in effect, what is happening here is that George Bush is ignoring the state of the economy, and is borrowing heavily in the name of the American people so as to transfer a trillion dollars in borrowed wealth to the richest one per cent of the population.

This transfer of wealth is also known as 鈥榯rickle down%26#039; economics (the doctrine of the Reagan White House). When massive wealth is accumulated at the top of the pecking order, it is argued, it will eventually 鈥榯rickle down%26#039; to everyone at the bottom (or a rising tide raises all ships). I need not comment on the self serving nature of this particular piece of propaganda, since it should be self evident that trickle down theory is simply a means of justifying social inequality. During the Reagan years this policy of transferring trillions of dollars to the very wealthy resulted only in a monster debt so massive that no one seriously considers paying off the principal, and the huge interests payments have robbed America of its future. In the space of just the two Reagan administrations, America went from the largest creditor nation on earth to the world%26#039;s largest debtor, and the impacts are being felt to this very day.

Now the White House press Secretary stated that the President believes that 鈥榯rickle down%26#039; theory is the best way to 鈥榗reate jobs%26#039;, this being the latest bait and switch propaganda technique being used to peddle the tax cuts (the Republicans changing propaganda used to peddle agendas the way others change shirts). However I am led to ask whether anyone would seriously think that George Bush is another Einstein.

Albert Einstein was one the greatest mathematicians of the previous century. This is a claim that could not be made by either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. His father, George Bush One, correctly called this trickle down economic theory 鈥榲oodoo economics%26#039; when he was challenging Reagan for the nomination of his party, but became silent after being selected to be Vice- President. Perhaps it would be better to call it 鈥榲oodoo propaganda%26#039; for that is all it is, for according to Einstein this 鈥榯rickle down%26#039; theory is not a viable economic policy at all, nor is it the way to 鈥榗reate jobs.%26#039; It simply transfers wealth, with disastrous consequences, including in the end the loss of profitability that led to all the book cooking we have become so familiar with in recent times. Reaganomics, as it was called, takes about fifteen years to begin to destroy the economy, or so it would seem based on our present experiences.

Great Depressions were a regular occurrence in the American economy through the 1800s, recurring periodically throughout the century, bringing grief to the nation over and over again. The most famous Great Depression, the one people usually refer to when using the term, was the notorious Depression that lasted throughout the decade of the thirties. Since the analysis of economics involves mathematics and number crunching, Albert Einstein turned his talents to the analysis of the cause of these frequent Great Depressions. What he discovered is that Great Depressions were caused by what he referred to as 鈥榩oorly paid workers who did not provide a profitable market%26#039; (leading to profit loss and book keeping in our day) as well as %26quot;the profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions.%26quot; What he meant here was that so much money accumulates at the top as capitalists fiercely compete to see who can become the richest that eventually the bottom falls out of the bottom, the market can no longer be supported due to an imbalance in the distribution of wealth, which results in a glut of goods on the market that cannot be sold, which results in price deflation, which results in loss of profit, further job cuts, which then leads to a further deterioration in the market, and further deflation, which leads to further job cuts, as the economy spirals into disaster. Great Depressions are not caused when stock market bubbles burst, but rather the bursting of the bubble is merely a reaction to the collapse in the market (a symptom and and not a cause). Great Depressions are caused by the huge transfer of wealth to a tiny minority at the top of the pyramid, which as Einstein put it, causes 鈥榠nstability%26#039; in the 鈥榰tilization of capital%26#039; which then results in 鈥榠ncreasingly severe depressions%26#039; with the severity of the depression correlated directly with the degree of income inequality that has developed in a society.

So, therefore, while George Bush might 鈥榖elieve%26#039; that a huge transfer of wealth to a very tiny elite group is the way to 鈥榢ick start%26#039; the economy, Albert Einstein, if he were alive, would argue otherwise. The policies being pursued by George Bush are, according to the Great Mathematician, the recipe for a severe Great Depression, and not a big time 鈥榡ob creator%26#039;. These would be the kind of policies that would capsize the economy, rather than priming the pump and bringing the country up to speed. The paltry 300 dollars that was the middle class share of the tax cut will in no stimulate growth or job creation, and the massive deficits that will result not only threaten to jack up interest rates but, given the threat of deflation, are actually extremely dangerous since deflation makes debt much worse. One thing you would not want is deficits and deflation at the same time, and you certainly do not want monster debt growing by the trillions of dollars at the same time as the economy is at the risk of suffering deflation.

The enormous transfer of wealth that was the result of the Reagan Years is partly responsible for the trouble the economy is experiencing now, as Albert Einstein would remind everyone, if he were alive today. He is not, and so I remind you on his behalf. The problem was compounded by the Free Slave Trade concept, pushed by Reagan. The so called 鈥楻eagan Miracle%26#039; which resulted in huge profits for a time, was the short term gains that resulted from exporting jobs to low wage maquiladoras, and importing cheaply produced goods which could then be sold for higher profits. While this Free Slave Trade strategy brought in short term gains, over the long run it eroded benefits and wages, driving down wage levels, as workers in different countries found themselves locked into a race to the bottom (who would work for less money, who would work more hours for less money and fewer benefits). As jobs were exported and wages eroded the short terms gains of the Free Slave Trade were lost, and at the end of it all, in pretty short order (about 15 years) even the world%26#039;|||it would be the spending of congress and the laws enacted by the same|||It started with Reagan. His passion for deregulation brought on an era and climate of criminal fiduciary behaviors in many government agencies and industries such as the savings and loan institutions. Michael Milikan, ( junk bonds), Keating and even Neal Bush, ( Silverado bankrupty), all were Republicans.

Clinton did nothing to insure oversight on Wall Street and the 2 Bush administrations that followed kept to the policy of deregulation and lax oversight.

I DO blame much of the current recession on Bush jr.

They foster a climate where Enrons can thrive.

What was Alan Greenspan doing in the last years of his tenure? Just another Republican - who admires Anne Rand...that%26#039;s too funny.|||No. Blame Clinton. It was under his administration that the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated banking from investment services, was abolished. It was also under Clinton that many statistical measures were changed to mask true inflation, true unemployment rates, etc. By 1998, when Long Term Credit Management collapsed, followed by the bursting of the tech stock bubble, the writing was on the wall as to the problems being created.

Read %26quot;When Genius Failed%26quot; (Roger Lowenstein) about LTCM collapse to begin to understand some of the factors involved.

Also, Americans tend to blame the President for economic conditions, but the seeds of problems are often sown much earlier than the effects become widely apparent. Also the President does not personally and individually control the economy, although he has some impact depending on appointments, and Congress bears most of the responsibility since they pass laws impacting the economy.|||Bush is the best president we ever have so stop blame him for everything is wrong in this country ..

the democrats and liberals are the one to decide to go to war and invade the wrong country not the republicans or neoconservative so please is time to clean your own mess

cuz we don%26#039;t have nothing to do with that..

republicans wants withdraw from iraq but the democrats want keep us in war forever!!!|||No, If Clinton hadn%26#039;t forced lenders to give loans to miscreants we wouldn%26#039;t be here today.

REMINDER: If you make under 70K a year, you cannot, repeat, cannot afford a million dollar house.