« And the Winner Is.... | Main | An Apology »

October 08, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a011168f5832c970c017d3c937be9970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Just How Much Can a President Be Held Responsible For?:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bill Perkins

"I have to seriously disagree with that point of view [stop blaming Bush], and obviously with the type of personality that would allow the degradation of the United States throughout the world and suggest that people who weren't even involved with the decision making at the time somehow hold all the responsibility."

I'm sure you've poured through "Reckless Endangerment" since two of your vaunted NYT financial reporters wrote it and for the first time in the various books I've seen, the burden of this crisis is properly placed on the direction of congress starting as far back as Jimmy Carter, but primarily in the 1990's directing banks and mortgage lenders to go bat-shit crazy as you put it. Why? To make sure borrowers who couldn't possibly qualify under sound mortgage underwriting procedures were waived on through. Wrap in Cong. Franks and Sen. Dodd and the boys at Fannie and Freddie funding and enabling this practice, with the result of sticking the public, or should I say the 53%, with the liability for bad debts on half the country's mortgages.

Sure, Wall Street took this ball and ran with it. The bond rating companies all gave it a stamp of approval. AIG went wild selling "insurance" on AAA rated debt--how big a risk could that possibly be, right? The securities brokers marketed the stuff all over the world. Houses were built and sold by the millions and the value of housing "bubbled up" so to speak.

All from the supposed good intentions of entitlement-oriented folks in government for twenty years wanting to buy vo--help the disenfranchised to enjoy the American dream. Right.

While Bush did make some efforts to get the Fannie/Freddie mess under control, he couldn't push it through congress. But it's not just his fault, as the dems want to suggest.

Bottom line: The federal government's meddling with financial enterprises' business practices (and their lovers and cronies at fannie and freddie)in order to implement social change is what created and nurtured this financial crisis. Yes, it was made worse by big finance of all categories, and I blame the rating agencies second after the federal government that created the mess to begin with. Otherwise, Wall Street did what it was designed to do, which is to exploit the financial opportunities put before it. And boy did it ever.

Bill Perkins

Bush's efforts in gun trafficking in Mexico was done with the knowledge of and coordination with the Mexican government. The fast & furious scandal as we know it began in 2009 under President Obama unbeknownst to the President and his good Atty General and the Mexican government. Damn those rogue underlings--they screw up every time! So either they are lousy administrators or they are fools who helped kill their own agent.

Bill Perkins

"Sorry, but I simply do not believe that Mr. Romney has enough strength of character to not be swayed by internal political pressures, nor do I believe that he's really a follow-up type of guy. I could be wrong on both but the question is whether we want to find out if Mitt Romney is another George W. Bush or not. We'll be able to delve into that problem after Romney's Foreign Policy speech at VMI today."

Roger, I don't think you'd know strength of character if it bit you on the ass. The complement or at least implication of that is that you believe President Obama DOES have strength of character? Maybe the question is what is the character of this nation and who best personifies that? Would that be leading from behind? Shirking our allies in Israel, Poland, the Brits while bowing and apologizing to the world and appeasing our competitors (if not outright enemies).

Would that be encouraging and fostering an entitlement society, discouraging business to flourish, and cowtowing to green and union anything, no matter the cost, for cynical retention of power? Is it pitting one group of Americans against another for political purposes as opposed to principle?

You vastly underestimate Mitt Romney. Last week it became clear that President Obama had started believing his own caricature of Romney, and only demonstrated his inability to speak without the teleprompter. Even Joe Biden will come off better.

President Obama seems to have three naive and clueless ideologies that guide him to err:
1. If only he can reduce our power and influence in the world, the world will be a better place and we will finally be respected. Problem is, we will be replaced by some other power--Russia, China, the U.N.?--I don't see anyone I would want to rule over us. And if history proves anything, it's that someone will indeed endeavor to replace us morally, economically and militarily. Teddy R had it right about the big stick--but we often get it wrong in where we choose to use it.

2. He believes the American people want and need government to take care of us. The progressive policies of FDR and LBJ have destroyed the family and all but eliminated the personal responsibility we all should have for the elderly, disabled, widowed, orphaned--abandoning the responsibilities of church, family and community to the nanny state.

3. He believes government is the answer to everything and truly despises business--big or small. Yet, our personal happiness and contentment aside, business or free enterprise is actually the source of everything we have unless we retreat to a totally agrarian, self-supporting existence. Business is the ultimate source of all wealth and sustenance in modern society. It is the source of all revenue for government. A government which eschews business and entrepreneurial spirit will not last.

The comments to this entry are closed.