As for what would have happened with or without Bush...I submit two offerings:

1> I bought my house in 1994, and ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) were very much alive and well back then. Sure, they were a little toughter to qualify for back then, but the ARM is not a Bush term fiasco. All of those whacky loans were in their prototype stages long before the housing bubble began to inflate. As my recollection goes, Bush's Dem-majority Congress pushed for a lot of that (as did the prior administration), with the premise to make it easier for "anyone to own a home". Every dollar that the union I belong to raised for political campaigns was supported by that pitch, and has been for the past 14½ years I have been a member. And we all know which party unions support. But something tells me the point won't be raised on the next trail...suffice it to say the writing was on the wall long ago, and I doubt things would have been any different under Gore or Kerry.

2> The Iraq War - Had Gore won the election, he would have had no choice but to convince Congress to declare war on Iraq. There were 25 UN Peace Treaty clauses resulting from Desert Storm, Hussein was in violation of 19 of them by the time the issue was presented to Congress via Bush. Sure, Al Gore might have stressed other reasons beyond WMDs, but he would have had to make the same decision in the end (which, BTW...folks really need to look that up if they think "Bush lied"...a WMD is NOT a nuke, although a nuke is a WMD; and as such there was well over 800 caches of WMDs uncovered by US armed forces during the whole skirmish). Which brings me right back to a point I made earlier: Why was the Iraq War such a stink while Bush was in office but since January 20th 2009 nary a word has been said against it?

I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. 

My SF website

I was content to just peruse this thread, but I have nothing better to do at the moment so I’ll waste some breath…or...whatever.

First I’d like to point out that like the El Niño’s, the economy is cyclical. It is constantly moving up and down. It grows and over extends and then it (or we) suffers a correction.

The President does not have the power or ability to make laws or pass laws. Congress does that. The President’s role is to enforce or ‘execute’ the laws.

A president has no ability to fix or improve an economy, but he/she certainly can hinder or harm one.

After 9 years of teaching government, it is clear (in my mind) that our nation is in its current condition because people are ignorant and lazy. They don’t understand the role or process of government and they don’t want to. Just so long as somebody takes care of them, they are happy. And they only ‘know’ what they are told. If the news or their family say’s President ****** sucks, then they know beyond the shadow of a doubt that President ****** sucks.

When queried at the end of the Constitutional Convention by a lady wanting to know what sort of government was crafted, Benjamin Franklin is said to have responded, “A Republic, ma’am; If you can keep it.” I say with confidence, we cannot.   

In other words, it ISN'T Bush's fault?!?  

I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. 

My SF website

1. Term limits for everybody, house, senate, and the supreme court. 12 years max in any federal office named in the Constitution. Time in service crosses branch boundaries, i.e. 4 years as Pres leaves 8 years to serve in the senate and/or house and/or supreme court, and still only one more term as Pres. (I'm not solid on a set year limit on the supremes, but a system needs to be enacted to promote a centrist view point).
2. Pay limits. Reps and Senators will be paid the mean of the citizens in the district or state they represent (as determined by the latest census). All of their personal assets will be placed in a trust to service their existing debt, they cannot draw on it or use it to service new debt incurred after their election. Its about time those we elect to represent us learn to live like most of us do.
3. Lobbyist controls. For every penny spent on a lobbyist, the hiring party must pay a matching amount into a fund to be used by an organization that represents the opposing point of view. Lobbyists can only lobby the representative (singular!) and senators from the hiring party's district/state. In the case of national organizations, the district will be that in which the organization's national headquarters is located. For corporate subsidiaries, it is the parent company's corporate headquarters. If the corporate headquarters are offshore, they cannot hire a lobbyist.
4. Define two categories of prisoner, those of the legal system and those of war. Legal system prisoners will get the rights and protections laid out in the Bill of Rights regardless of nationality. POWs get the rights and protections of the Geneva Conventions. No more diplomatically damaging and counter productive torture.

The Constitution is a plan of government. A rule book. It is very much like the 10 Commandments. It is full of Thou Shall Nots directed at the federal government. Its purpose is not to insure that everybody has ‘adequate’ health care, a nice home, a working vehicle or even 3 meals a day. It purpose is to protect its citizens (not the citizens of other nations) rights and liberties. The Constitution has been crafted so that it can be amended in two separate ways. One by the people through specially called state conventions. The other way is for Congress to amend it through a super majority vote in both houses. The need for amendments was seen because the country was young, experimental, and in a largely unsettled land. It is a living document in this regard. However, it was made to be a difficult process to keep it from being a mutating, living thing. Take prohibition for example.

I get nervous when people want to amend the Constitution. Our government is powered by popular sovereignty; power willingly given by the people. Meaning, we willingly allow ourselves to be subjected by our government. When our government gets out of hand, then we no longer give our government authority over us. This is handled in two ways. First, it is our civic duty to elect the best leaders for the job. If there are no good choices, go find one and support him. Government is not a spectator sport. The second way is the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, personal protection or sporting. Its sole purpose is to give the people the ability to violently overthrow their government (just as they did with the American Revolution) if the people cannot correct the problem through the political process.

As a caveat, I would fully support amending the Constitution in regards to the Supreme Court. It has way too much power and life appointments by the president via congress. The founding fathers ( Sorry. Framers) never intended the SC to have the power of judicial review. It gave that power to itself by Chief Justice John Marshall. Thus the constitution did not create adequate checks and balances on the Supreme Court before it was ratified.

So, to make a short answer long…No, it is not the presidents’ fault. And even if Congress was the one to draft and pass the bill and the president does not veto it, it is still our own fault. We as a nation have become lazy and apathetic. And then when we perceive we have been wronged, all we do is cast blame and cry about it.

By the way, President Washington gave his friends Adams and Jefferson just two pieces of advice when he stepped down. 1. Stay out of European fights. 2. Stay away from political parties (which he called ‘factions’).

My post was not meant to single anybody or any comment in particular out. It was merely my views and beliefs (along with a little civics lesson) and not a rebuke of anyone else’s opinions. The two political parties are the titanic forces playing tug of war with our lives. Political parities are only interested in changing America to suit their own tastes and staying in power. And politicians are either married to their parties our use them to gain power and influence. What it all boils down to is which America do you want? The one envisioned by the DNC or the RNC? Or you could strike out and support a bare bones constitutionalist view. Or you could take the path of the multitudes and just not give a flip until you feel disenfranchised about something.

btw, you are right in the fact that both houses of congress collaborate to write bills which are proposed laws. When they pass both houses, they are sent to the president to be either signed into law, vetoed (which sends them back to congress for a re-write) or s/he can simply ignore them (pocket veto). However, congress can push a bill past a presidents veto with a 3/4th majority vote. The Supreme Court has no constitutional role in writing or passing laws. This is where Judicial Review becomes unconstitutional. Some rulings have created back door laws.

* all uses of the pronoun 'you' in this post was in the plural form, non-specific to any individuals real or imagined.