Why does everyone blame the President for the economy when the Federal Reserve creates credit bubbles?

I say give the blame or credit where it is due.

Certainly the Fed bears some culpability for the currect crisis but that doesn't excuse the President and congress from their failures as well.

For instance, in the recent congressional hearings on the AIG failure, the conclusion was that it was the responsibility of the Treasury's department "Office of Thrift supervision" to be monitoring and regulating that segment. However, the operating philisophy under the administation at the time was more hands-off and let the market decide. This approach is also the reason that Madoff was able to run a successful Ponzi scheme for so long because of the laissez-faire nature of regulation that the SEC took under that administration.

Congress's contribution? In 2001, they passed financial deregulation that loosen restrictions on what services banks and other financial institutions could offer. This was inspired by the incredible success of Enron at the time (and we know where that led things).

So, yes, hold the Federal Reserve accountable for all they do and don't do. But don't let our elected officials in the white house and congress off the hook for their parts.

And forget the liberal/conservative label crap. Those are just manipulative terms to divide americans into opposing camps. it is used to persuade people to support 'their side' unconditionally, as well as condemn the other side 'unconditionally'. We are all Americans first which means we need to hold *all* politicians accountable for their actions, ESPECIALLY if we happened to vote for them.

The Fed is the main culprit. It's not a free market when the Fed can manipulate everything.

Government must get its spending under control and downsize, not increase taxes to sustain the huge growth in the last 9 years.

Government must stay out the private sector unless there is a reason for it to get involved, such as monopolization, price gouging, and any other consumer based concern. Bailing out mismanaged corporations does not fall under that category.

And yes, bad policy does hurt the economy. Whether it's Obama, Bush or any other president you can think of, bad policy hurts.

The problem is one of yes, the Fed, but bad legislation has added to the problem of this economy. Behind these laws, where presidents trying to push their agenda. for Clinton it was the Community Reinvestment act, with Republican sponsorship, then there was Reagan's sponsored deal with Sen. Chuck Schumer, with Reagan it was a democrat controlled congress and with Clinton it was the opposite. Bush may have run up the debt, after 9/11 and the wars of the middle east, but Obama has spent or been authorised to spend more debt than the past 30 presidents combined including Bush. Obama and the Democrats are of the same party which is why the huge spending. Yes, Obama has staked his claim on this, If it does not work he knows he will be out of a job, Welcome back Carter.

The burden of leadership, I suppose.

I try every chance I get to explain how little direct impact the President can have on the economy. Monetary policy is in the hands of the Federal Reserve, which is more than just nominally independent. Fiscal policy is ultimately in the hands of Congress - not always (as it is now) under the control of his party.

The president can provide leadership, to consumers, to his party in Congress (maybe even to the extent of inspiring some bi-partisanship), in his apointments and executive orders and, for that matter, speaches. That's about it, but it's very high-visibility stuff, so he often takes the credit or the blame.

"READ MY LIPS... NO NEW TAXES" (but we can quadruple the existing ones!!!) GHWB. "Uncle Ben" Bernanke is coming "on deck" shortly. If Greenspan thinks his retirement will protect him he's dumber than he looks. If Paul Volcker can serve as chair for the ERAB in the Obama administration, then the old bastage ain't too old to be water boarded along with his successors.

I read an article a while back that GWB grew government 17% by the end of his 2nd term. I do not know if this is true but it would not surprise me one bit. I say fire the whole worthless lot save Ron Paul. That's ONE good egg versus 534 rotten eggs. Is it any wonder WHY our 'house' has turned into a WHOREhouse of debauchery? Imagine what we as Americans have to leave our children for their future. Good Christ, life without honor.

Phase out the fed, end most of the problems. If we didn't have them there would be no money for financially draining overseas occupations or welfare programs. The money supply would be in proportion to market demand, and the government would be forced to spend within its means.

Obama hasn't created any real jobs unless they're government jobs.

He's saved jobs but the real question is what is the cost of that? Not just in value but also in terms of jobs lost.

It was actually clinton fault for starting the whole get a loan that you can't afford while GWB mentioned something must be done he could not have because it would have been political suicide for him.

THE DOT-COM BUBBLE WAS CAUSED BY IDIOTS INVESTING IN SOMETHING THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT

AND THEN THE MARKET CORRECTED

THE HOUSING BUBBLE WAS CAUSED BY MAKING BAD LOANS, INSURING BAD LOANS AND GAMBLING THAT THE HOUSING MARKET WOULD NEVER GO DOWN

AND THEN THE MARKET CORRECTED

OOPS!