|QUOTE (Oblivion Knight @ Nov 16 2012, 04:34 AM)|
You mean how much Clinton ****ed up that Bush had to deal with? Yeah, I totally get where you're coming from.
I think you need more data than that.
We are certainly aware that Bush was President during the emergence of the crisis and failed to do anything meaningful. What makes you so sure his hands are tied the same way Obama's have?
A simple way to look at it is due diligence - What would a competent person in that field do? If the answer is "do more than what they did", then they were negligent...pretty simple legal definition. So, I think we have far more than enough data to say that Obama was handed a ticking time bomb. The overriding factors were already at play: money had been stretched too thin and that magic multiplier that exists due to bank/loan relation made it such that any real jolt would deal this sort of damage (which, incidentally, is why the EU is hurting pretty bad too: they actually loaned at a far higher ratio if memory serves). Any competent President (nor, in my opinion, even an amazing President) would not have the means to navigate this crisis effectively.
If you don't understand the basic theory of how money is used to far greater means than the money that actually exists (As Holy Kensai mentions, it's part of Macroeconomic theory), please consult a video on it. It's a very easy concept to pick up and important for understanding the events that occurred.
So what lets Bush off the hook?