Oh no...heaven forbid...two presidents failed to act on an issue but you blame the democrat, despite the fact that he was presiding over an unprecedented economic expansion, he was one administration removed for the actual event, and the same fed chairman (a republican) worked for both the dem and republican presidents...
This is a totally specious and superficial argument. Instead of looking at the facts, you choose to look at the political parties. The FACTS are that Clinton failed to act. This, in no way, absolves Bush -- but the altercation wasn't between Born & Bush, it was between Born and Clinton.
Keep in mind that Clinton had to face the same problem on a smaller (Billion Dollar) scale, in which they essentially went to the banks and demanded they come up with the money to bail the hedge fund out within the course of HOURS. This cash flow crisis should have been a blaring signal as to the looming bigger problem. Yet, Clinton proceeded to ignore it.
I don't know whether Bush even knew of those events and how close we came to a financial meltdown during the Clinton administration. It wasn't something they publicized. But the CLinton admin clearly believed the crisis had passed. The fact that they FIRED Born over speaks volumes.
I have no more tolerance for the Republicans than I do the Democrats at this point. There are bright spots (like Ryan), but mostly, they are ALL about burdening the country down with more legislation, more debt, more regulation, and more sucking up of our freedoms. Yes, I still believe Bush was an excellent president. |
