did republicans deliberatly crash the economy

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Financial stimulus (TARP) came as the market was imploding, down hundreds daily.

What is the difference between TARP and the stimulus package?www.bingaman.senate.gov/policy/20090202-02.cfmCached
You +1'd this publicly. Undo
Monday, February 2, 2009. What is the difference between TARP and the stimulus package? The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 differs from ...


See why we are positive a liberal will be very slow?

 

[Rshermr]

OMG!!!! Too stupid!!! Republicans believe in capitalism not legislation to create make-work jobs. Explaining things to a liberal is exactly like talking to a child who has flunked 1st grade 3 times.


as a liberal you lack the IQ to understand capitalism so like a child you believe in magical legislation

So, Ed, you are now in the minority. Two recent polls have shown that the american populace now believe that repubs have consorted to crash the Obama economy. You will never believe it, but the evidence is very obvious to rational folks. According to the polls, Dems and independents, and the population overall believe it to be true. Only repubs disagree.

A new book out, by two authors - called Its Even Worse Than It Looks, documents the efforts of repubs to crash the economy. Authors are Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, both well respected and impartial political analysts. Both have been at their trade for over 40 years. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

So, here is the issue. People overwhelmingly see the efforts of repubs as anti american, and most as treasonous. This whole issue is likely to get really interesting over the months ahead. And believe me, if you look at the charges this book makes, this is serious stuff. Maybe not illegal, but ruining the lives of american in order to defeat political opponents is not well thought of. And, according to the authors, this is overwhelmingly a REPUBLICAN problem, not a Democratic one.

So, Ed, you are now in the minority. Two recent polls have shown that the american populace now believe that repubs have consorted to crash the Obama economy.

Repeating a lie over and over does not make that lie true when you tell it the next time, it's still a lie.

Yes. I guess that your point is that you should not lie. I think that is true. You should not lie.

 

[Immanuel]

Pretty much but I said it was to get more support for obamacare.

No, in early 2008 they started screaming, "the sky is falling! the sky is falling! OMG the sky is falling!". They wanted to bring down the economy in order to collapse Republican chances of winning the election. What they did became a self fulfilling prophecy. They scared the shit out of everyone directly causing the crisis in the housing, auto and financial markets. People simply took their word for it and quit buying. Then in February of 2009, they realized that people really took them seriously and the sky had fallen. That was when President Obama made his, "it was worse than we thought" speech. Of course it was worse than they thought. They didn't really believe people listened to them.

The economy collapsed and we are suffering for it today.

In this election, the Republicans had a damned good chance to beat them with the economy and what did they do? They nominated another liberal to take Obama's place. Someone who thinks and acts like George Bush and Barack Obama.

We were bound to have a retraction in the economy. It was coming and it would likely have been right around the time it hit. It would have been a mild retraction rather than the bottom falling out thanks to Dems.

Immie

You don't think Senator obama talked with his colleagues about his agenda and what had to be done for it to be acceptable by a majority of people?

No, I think Obama was, or more correctly is, just a pawn.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

obama crashed the economy. And, he did it deliberately.

Democrats crashed the economy so that Obama would win and it worked. Then they blamed Republicans and that has been pretty successful as well.

Immie

Maybe some evidence to support your assertions may be useful, you think. Without said evidence, your statement is meaningless drivel.

And the evidence that Republicans crashed the economy?

Oh, yeah, you libs don't need to produce evidence. You and your gods are always right.

The evidence was given in my second post if you bothered to read it.

In 2008, your gods came out with, "the sky is falling". Do you have the audacity to deny that?

Their ploy to sink the Republican party worked better than expected. Do you have the audacity to deny that?

Less than a month after taking office, President Obama came out and said, "OMG, things were worse than we thought". Do you have the audacity to deny that.

From that point on, the Dems have been screaming, "its Bush's fault!!!" Do you have the audacity to deny that fact?

Fact, is, the Dems played a damned big part in the sinking of our economy at the end of the Bush era. But, just like most libs, I'm sure you will deny that.

Immie

 

[Rshermr]

Freudian slip?

Any proof, or just more blather?

Actually, there is plenty of proof that the GOP at least tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie... unfortunately, the Dems didn't want to... according to Franks 'there was no problem' with Fannie and Freddie... of course, he was fucking an exec at Fanny Mae at the time.

In 2008, Bush backed and signed into a law a bill that pumped 300 billion into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which only made the crash worse.

Jesus, flopper, you should not try to interject rational into this spitting contest. Repubs are trying anything to place the blame for the recession on dems. Which is a really hard sell to rational folks, but then that is the issue, is it not. Can repubs be rational.

Yes, indeed, you can blame whoever you want, and probably have some truth to your statement. But placing all the blame on freddy and fanny is stupid. Follow the information and you will see that it was a wide spread problem that included the largest banks, insurance companies, and brokerages. And, aha, therein lies the problem. Deregulation of our financial industry has the rest of the world incredulous. And in that respect, there are both dems and repubs being paid well, EXTREMELY WELL, by the financial industry. So, get a grip. Look at who the financial industry is sending big bucks to. Who is financing them.
And wonder, perhaps, why the entire repub congress is working to eliminate what rules have been placed on them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Freudian slip?

Any proof, or just more blather?

Actually, there is plenty of proof that the GOP at least tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie... unfortunately, the Dems didn't want to... according to Franks 'there was no problem' with Fannie and Freddie... of course, he was fucking an exec at Fanny Mae at the time.

In 2008, Bush backed and signed into a law a bill that pumped 300 billion into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which only made the crash worse.

In 2008 a bill bush signed that caused Freddy and Fanny to get worse?
Who was in control of the congress that the bill was started from? Who sponsored the bill? who voted for the bills passage?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In 2008, Bush backed and signed into a law a bill that pumped 300 billion into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which only made the crash worse.

Democrats don't blame Freddy and and fanny for the crash now they are? WTF?

Fannie and Freddie weren't responsible for the crash, but they contributed to it. In the 2000's, Wall Street, not the GSE's were the primary purchasers of subprimes. Up until the recession started, the Bush administration fought to diminish the roll of GSE's in the mortgage market. In 2007, the administration reversed course. 300 billion was pumped into Fannie and Freddie allowing them to purchase 80% of the mortgages in 2008. This only convinced the private sector to stay out of the market, making a bad situation worse.

All the double talk bush pumped money into Freddy and Fanny that made the crash worse but Freddy and fanny did not cause the crash of the economy?
OH my GOD bush did this on his own holy fucking shit batman beam me up Scottie there is not intelligent life here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, Ed, you are now in the minority. Two recent polls have shown that the american populace now believe that repubs have consorted to crash the Obama economy. You will never believe it, but the evidence is very obvious to rational folks. According to the polls, Dems and independents, and the population overall believe it to be true. Only repubs disagree.

A new book out, by two authors - called Its Even Worse Than It Looks, documents the efforts of repubs to crash the economy. Authors are Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, both well respected and impartial political analysts. Both have been at their trade for over 40 years. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

So, here is the issue. People overwhelmingly see the efforts of repubs as anti american, and most as treasonous. This whole issue is likely to get really interesting over the months ahead. And believe me, if you look at the charges this book makes, this is serious stuff. Maybe not illegal, but ruining the lives of american in order to defeat political opponents is not well thought of. And, according to the authors, this is overwhelmingly a REPUBLICAN problem, not a Democratic one.

So, Ed, you are now in the minority. Two recent polls have shown that the american populace now believe that repubs have consorted to crash the Obama economy.

Repeating a lie over and over does not make that lie true when you tell it the next time, it's still a lie.

Yes. I guess that your point is that you should not lie. I think that is true. You should not lie.

Stupid cock sucking son of bitch you don't know a god damn thing. You are a fucking lying sack of shit no matter how many times you repeat the lie it's still a lie.

 

[Flopper]

Yes that's right obama and the obamacare supporters had the motive to destroy the economy more than anyone else.
Who controlled congress when the crash happened?

So Obama pushed the destroy the economy button so he and his party would lose the next election? It seems much more likely that Republicans would do everything possible to slowdown the recovery. What incentive was there for them to do otherwise?

of course if Republicans did crash the economy on purpose someone would be able to say exactly what they did to accomplish that.

Republicans didn't crash the economy. Their policies simply facilitated it. After the crash, they worked against the president to block all legislation to stimulate the economy.

The fundamental basis for the crash dates back to banking deregulation that made possible the huge consolidations of banks and their entry into all financial services. Conservative bankers became speculators placing ever higher bets on subprime mortgages.

 

[Flopper]

Democrats don't blame Freddy and and fanny for the crash now they are? WTF?

Fannie and Freddie weren't responsible for the crash, but they contributed to it. In the 2000's, Wall Street, not the GSE's were the primary purchasers of subprimes. Up until the recession started, the Bush administration fought to diminish the roll of GSE's in the mortgage market. In 2007, the administration reversed course. 300 billion was pumped into Fannie and Freddie allowing them to purchase 80% of the mortgages in 2008. This only convinced the private sector to stay out of the market, making a bad situation worse.

All the double talk bush pumped money into Freddy and Fanny that made the crash worse but Freddy and fanny did not cause the crash of the economy?
OH my GOD bush did this on his own holy fucking shit batman beam me up Scottie there is not intelligent life here.

The GSE's did not cause the recession. Wall Street created the subprime crap that was peddled all over the world between 2000 and 2006. Fannie and Freddy didn't write the loans. They didn't force any bank to write a loan. They didn't force securitization. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Bush signed into law in 2008, 300 billion dollars for Fannie and Freddy that both Democrats and Republicans supported. It allowed the GSE's to step in and buy the the subprime mortgages that Wall Street was dumping. Any confidence left in the private sector was destroyed once the GSE's were buying 80% of all mortgages.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fannie and Freddie weren't responsible for the crash, but they contributed to it. In the 2000's, Wall Street, not the GSE's were the primary purchasers of subprimes. Up until the recession started, the Bush administration fought to diminish the roll of GSE's in the mortgage market. In 2007, the administration reversed course. 300 billion was pumped into Fannie and Freddie allowing them to purchase 80% of the mortgages in 2008. This only convinced the private sector to stay out of the market, making a bad situation worse.

All the double talk bush pumped money into Freddy and Fanny that made the crash worse but Freddy and fanny did not cause the crash of the economy?
OH my GOD bush did this on his own holy fucking shit batman beam me up Scottie there is not intelligent life here.

The GSE's did not cause the recession. Wall Street created the subprime crap that was peddled all over the world between 2000 and 2006. Fannie and Freddy didn't write the loans. They didn't force any bank to write a loan. They didn't force securitization. More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

Bush signed into law in 2008, 300 billion dollars for Fannie and Freddy that both Democrats and Republicans supported. It allowed the GSE's to step in and buy the the subprime mortgages that Wall Street was dumping. Any confidence left in the private sector was destroyed once the GSE's were buying 80% of all mortgages.

The same wall street that worked hand in hand with the democrats that allowed the CEO's to keep their bonuses?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The GSE's did not cause the recession.

Read about GSE causing it in over 400 pages in "Reckless Endangerment"

see why we are positive a liberal will be slow, very slow??


For instance, as George Mason University economist Russ Roberts explains in his paper “Gambling with Other People’s Money”:

Fannie and Freddie bought 25.2% of the record $272.81 billion in subprime MBS [mortgage-backed securities] sold in the first half of 2006, according to Inside Mortgage Finance Publications, a Bethesda, MD-based publisher that covers the home loan industry.

In 2005, Fannie and Freddie purchased 35.3% of all subprime MBS, the publication estimated. The year before, the two purchased almost 44% of all subprime MBS sold.

In addition, lawmakers in both parties enacted policies directed at increasing home ownership rates, resulting in lower mortgage underwriting standards for Fannie and Freddie. Roberts notes that from 2000 on, Fannie and Freddie bought loans with low FICO scores, loans with very low down payments, and loans with little or no documentation





Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . .

Pelican Parts:
Mr. Mozilo and Fannie essentially were business partners in the subprime business. Countrywide found the customers, while Fannie provided the taxpayer-backed capital. And the rest of the industry followed.


Bloomberg 12/21/11 on SEC action:

The truth is that Fannie and Freddie engaged in far greater financial-reporting abuses, which couldn’t have happened without the government’s knowledge and cooperation.
Fannie and Freddie continued to maintain they were adequately capitalized, as did their regulator, until they were placed into conservatorship in September 2008. This farce wouldn’t have been sustainable had the two companies been forthright about their earnings and asset values.

:
WSJ/12/21/11 on SEC action against Fanny Freddie

Fanny degraded its underwriting standards to increase its market share in the sub prime loans... Fanny led private lenders into the sub prime market loans... by the mid 2000's other mortgages lenders developed other similar reduced documentation loans.....Fanny hid the risk of sub prime loans to investors... Fannie said its Alt. A exposure was 11% of its portfolio, when it was closer to 23% - a 341 billion difference...Dallavecchia told investors that Fanny's sub prime exposure was
"immaterial".... we see part of our mission to make mortgages available to people who don't have perfect credit...the Freddie record was similarly incriminating...private lenders could never have done as much harm if Fan and Fred weren't providing tens of billions in tax payer subsidized liquidity to lend on easy terms to borrowers who couldn't[t pay it back...Congress created the 2 mortgage giants as well as their affordable housing mandates.

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.): I, just briefly will say, Mr. Chairman, obviously, like most of us here, this [Fanny Freddie] is one of the great success stories of all time. And we don't want to lose sight of that and [what] has been pointed out by all of our witnesses here, obviously, the 70% of Americans who own their own homes today, in no small measure, due because of the work that's been done here. And that shouldn't be lost in this debate and discussion. . . .
Rep. Waters: However, I have sat through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke. Housing is the economic engine of our economy, and in no community does this engine need to work more than in mine. With last week's hurricane and the drain on the economy from the war in Iraq, we should do no harm to these GSEs.[Fanny Freddie] We should be enhancing regulation, not making fundamental change.

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. . . .

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

Rep. Frank: I believe there has been more alarm raised about potential unsafety and unsoundness than, in fact, exists.

* * *
Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

The Washington Post reported Frank, who is openly gay, had a relationship with Herb Moses, an executive for the now-government controlled Fannie Mae. The column revealed the two had split up at the time but also said Frank was referring to Moses as his “spouse.” Another Washington Post report said Frank called Moses his “lover” and that the two were “still friends” after the breakup.

Frank was and remains a stalwart defender of Fannie Mae, which is now under FBI investigation along with its sister organization Freddie Mac, American International Group Inc. (NYSE:AIG) and Lehman Brothers (NYSE:LEH) – all recently participants in government bailouts. But Frank has derailed efforts to regulate the institution, as well as denying it posed any financial risk. Frank’s office has been unresponsive to efforts by the Business & Media Institute to comment on these potential conflicts of interest.



While the relationship reportedly ended 10 years ago, Frank was serving on the House Banking Committee the entire 10 years they were together. The committee is the primary House body which along with the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) has jurisdiction over the government-sponsored enterprises.



Just a month before, Frank had aggressively thwarted reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated,” a gross miscalculation some five years later with costs estimated to be in the hundreds of billions.


“These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” Frank said to the Times. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

. J. Bridges says:

Beginning in 1992, Congress pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages going to low and moderate income borrowers. For 1996, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie an explicit target -- 42% of their mortgage financing had to go to borrowers with income below the median in their area. The target increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.

For 1996, HUD required that 12% of all mortgage purchases by Fannie and Freddie be "special affordable" loans, typically to borrowers with income less than 60% of their area's median income. That number was increased to 20% in 2000 and 22% in 2005. The 2008 goal was to be 28%. Between 2000 and 2005, Fannie and Freddie met those goals every year, funding hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loans, many of them subprime and adjustable-rate loans, and made to borrowers who bought houses with less than 10% down.
Warren Buffett: "There are significant limits to what regulation can accomplish. As a dramatic illustration, take two of the biggest accounting disasters in the past ten years: Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We're talking billions and billions of dollars of misstatements at both places".

Now, these are two incredibly important institutions. I mean, they accounted for over 40% of the mortgage flow a few years back. Right now I think they're up to 70%. They're quasi-governmental in nature. So the government set up an organization called OFHEO. I'm not sure what all the letters stand for. [Note to Warren: They stand for Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.] But if you go to OFHEO's website, you'll find that its purpose was to just watch over these two companies. OFHEO had 200 employees. Their job was simply to look at two companies and say, "Are these guys behaving like they're supposed to?" And of course what happened were two of the greatest accounting misstatements in history while these 200 people had their jobs. It's incredible. I mean, two for two!

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES NYTIMES
Published: September 30, 1999
Sign In to E-Mail
Print
Single-Page
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

 

[MikeK]

of course if Republicans did crash the economy on purpose someone would be able to say exactly what they did to accomplish that.

See Message #91.

There is no reasonable explanation for what Bush did other than deliberate economic sabotage. I am an economics dummy but I was able to predict the outcome of Bush's actions, which is precisely what we are seeing today. Bush's "base" of rich and super-rich corporatists are doing just fine but middle America is virtually bankrupt, politically impotent and increasingly unemployed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is no reasonable explanation for what Bush did other than deliberate economic sabotage.

for the 3rd time can you even say what Bus did??? If not what are you doing here , liberal.

I am an economics dummy

true; very true!!!

Bush's "base" of rich and super-rich corporatists .

actually dear most of the rich gave more to BO than McCain and most people voted for BO which is why he's president.

 

[Rshermr]

There is no reasonable explanation for what Bush did other than deliberate economic sabotage.

for the 3rd time can you even say what Bus did??? If not what are you doing here , liberal.

I am an economics dummy

true; very true!!!

Bush's "base" of rich and super-rich corporatists .

actually dear most of the rich gave more to BO than McCain and most people voted for BO which is why he's president.

Really, ed. Any documentation on that statement???

 

[MikeK]

Did Republicans deliberately crash the US economy? | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk


Beyond McConnell's words, though, there is circumstantial evidence to make the case. Republicans have opposed a lion's share of stimulus measures that once they supported, such as a payroll tax break, which they grudgingly embraced earlier this year. Even unemployment insurance, a relatively uncontroversial tool for helping those in an economic downturn, has been consistently held up by Republicans or used as a bargaining chip for more tax cuts. Ten years ago, prominent conservatives were loudly making the case for fiscal stimulus to get the economy going; today, they treat such ideas like they're the plague.

Traditionally, during economic recessions, Republicans have been supportive of loose monetary policy. Not this time. Rather, Republicans have upbraided Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve, for even considering policies that focus on growing the economy and creating jobs.

And then, there is the fact that since the original stimulus bill passed in February of 2009, Republicans have made practically no effort to draft comprehensive job creation legislation. Instead, they continue to pursue austerity policies, which reams of historical data suggest harms economic recovery and does little to create jobs. In fact, since taking control of the House of Representatives in 2011, Republicans have proposed hardly a single major jobs bill that didn't revolve, in some way, around their one-stop solution for all the nation's economic problems: more tax cuts.

It's not Republicans vs Democrats, as both parties have politicians that willingly get their bums slammed by powerful Wall-Street bosses. This upcoming 2012 Presidential campaign is set to topple $1.3 billion in campaign funds - you don't think there's strings attached to those dollars?

If you want to discover the #1 reason why the economy sucks today, you need to look beyond just the past three or four years; a good starting point is 1993 and the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (which was championed by members of both parties).

Derivatives are what crashed the economy. They made a few people rich, and a heck of a lot more people much, much, much worse off.

The political party name-blame thing just gets tiresome after awhile.............

I agree with all you've said here except for the Glass-Steagall axing being the opening shot in the emerging corporatocracy's campaign against the middle class. I believe Reagan's deregulations that led to the Savings & Loan scandal was the opening bell.

Am I mistaken?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is no reasonable explanation for what Bush did other than deliberate economic sabotage.

for the 3rd time can you even say what Bus did??? If not what are you doing here , liberal.




true; very true!!!

Bush's "base" of rich and super-rich corporatists .

actually dear most of the rich gave more to BO than McCain and most people voted for BO which is why he's president.

Really, ed. Any documentation on that statement???

Sunlight Foundation | Barack Obama | Wall Street Money | The Daily Caller

 

[MikeK]

for the 3rd time can you even say what Bus did??? If not what are you doing here , liberal.

(A brief excerpt from the Examiner via The Washington Post


In 2008, after eight years of George W. Bush, the federal budget deficit soared to $454.8 billion almost triple the $161.5 billion recorded in fiscal year 2007.

How did Bush squander the huge budget surplus, when he had a Republican controlled House and a Republican controlled Senate?

There were many factors involved in creating the Bush Deficits, including the normal ebb and flow of the economy, but presidential mismanagement was by far the biggest factor.

Bush Republicans abandoned three key conservative principles: a balanced budget, a strong military, and service to country. Instead Republicans implemented several other conservative ideas, including lower taxes for the rich and deregulation of the financial industry. The result was a fiscal disaster.

Report shows how Bush destroyed the American economy - Rochester Independent | Examiner.com

Now go there and educate yourself.