Dan Froomkin, writing for WashingtonPost.com, makes the point that—at least as far as the economy is concerned—President Bush only seems to make things worse: The sad thing is that the crisis only accentuates the shrewd pick of Cheney as VP. In 1988, the joke was that nobody would assassinate Poppy Bush because that would put Quayle in charge. Indeed, on those occasions that Quayle had to temporarily take up the reins in Washington, the country kept a nervous eye on the news. Thankfully, we were not yet submerged in the 24/7 news cycle, so panic was avoided. Flash forward to Bush Mk. II. If the president did what would ordinarily, under nearly any other circumstance, be the right thing for the nation and resigned early, we would still have to endure the final months of this lame-duck administration under Dick Cheney. How awful can things get? This is insanity. Bush took to the podium today to play politics. His "Hope Now" initiative has already helped two million people avoid losing their homes? It's been in operation since December of last year, and apparently did somewhere between little and nothing to ease fears about the mortgages that are at the root of the current crisis. $700 billion is a significant amount of money? Apparently not significant enough to stabilize the stock market, which has seen trillions of dollars evaporate since the bailout package was passed. There's a lesson here, of course, and that lesson should have been clear after his Iraqi debacle. Staggering numbers, shock and awe, are insufficient without a workable plan. President Bush is a national disaster. Froomkin notes, "Bush still seems to be operating in a fantasy world where people look to him for direction". The sad thing is that if the president could be moved to do his job competently, he might find that the stature of the Oval Office itself, no matter how much he has denigrated it, still has some influence. It's as if every incoherent, useless statement he makes only cuts a new wound; he's given six public statements over the last ten days, and the Dow has crashed nearly 21%. One market strategist said that "it's hard to see anything from him making much of a difference". An investment strategist said that he believes Bush's attempt to sell the bailout plan "may have sown the seeds of the current confidence crisis". Far from the Midas touch, Bush seems to be the Hand of Death. A big part of the problem at present appears to be Bush himself. One analyst suggests that between the president's unpopularity, the concomitant absence of credibility, and his lack of fluency with these issues makes it "difficult to be a credible part of the solution" because so many people view him as part of the problem. If this is the case, then perhaps President Bush should resign. Famous last words, of course: "How much damage could Cheney really do between now and January?" There is no guarantee that we would not find out. Strikingly, the vice-presidents we could not count on to step up and meet such challenges in recent memory are both Republicans; people are afraid of Cheney, and nobody took Quayle seriously. Poppy Bush might have been able to figure out something. Then again, wasn't it his plan to sink Social Security into the general treasury, thus leading to all the murmur and turmoil about that institution a couple years ago? And look who they've slated for the next term: Governor Sarah Palin. Maybe Jesus would build her an economy. And yet, we must remember that this is what the people wanted. It goes beyond Democrat and Republican. When Bill Clinton won the Oval Office, he did it by stealing Republican thunder. This is the economy he conceded in order to win the presidency. These are the institutions even Congressional Democrats have pandered to. These are the principles Americans demanded with their votes. And now we find ourselves tempest-toss'd, vomiting brackish water upon our own shores as our ship of state heaves to and threatens to break apart. And the captain? Go and tell the Captain, Waves are growing high. Anyone washed overboard, Leave them here to die. Go now tell his mistress, Who lies in sheets of wine. The candles and the invocations, Will not bring down the tide. He's abandoned any hope of life now. The endless storms that rage upon us, Grow from ripples in his mind. He has chosen darkness over light now. Mistress and crew have lied and left him to be cold. To be cold. Lied and left him to be cold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .—Floater, "Tell the Captain" If he are to salvage anything of his legacy, President Bush should resign. Immediately. Cheney might sail us all to Hell on the next gelid northern wind, but he may actually keep the ship afloat as he does. We are the United States of America. We can and will endure, but only if the captain steps aside and lets us fight to save the ship. _____________________ Notes: Froomkin, Dan. "Bush Just Makes It Worse". White House Watch. October 10, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/10/10/BL2008101001785.html See Also: Cho, David et al. "Treasury Weighs Investing In Banks". Washington Post. October 10, 2008; page D01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/09/AR2008100901520.html Congressional Quarterly. "Bush Remarks on the Global Economy". WashingtonPost.com. October 10, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101001393.html Froomkin, Dan. "Bush Fatigue Hits Bush". White House Watch. September 22, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/22/BL2008092201223.html —————. "The Bush Who Cried Wolf". White House Watch. September 24, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/24/BL2008092401517.html —————. "What Bush Left Out". White House Watch. September 25, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/09/25/BL2008092501776.html —————. "Bush's New Highs and Lows". White House Watch. October 1, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/10/01/BL2008100101184.html —————. "Bush the Gambler". White House Watch. October 6, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2008/10/06/BL2008100601139.html Floater. "Tell the Captain". Live at Hell's Kitchen. FloaterLive.com. Originally performed August 31, 2008. http://www.floaterlive.com/tellthecaptain.htm
I didn't realize that the president was to blame for financial crises? While the president has a role to play, I'm not silly enough to think that every market correction revolved around the president. At the end of the day, it's a free system, and free systems inevitably go into recession, with or without presidential help. ~String
Tiassa you are quick to lay blame with someone but sometimes that person isn't the real one to blame. The only people who are in control are those in Congress and in private businesses. Why not look at them a little closer instead of seeing only what you want to see instead of the truth. :shrug:
So narrow you couldn't fart through it String & Cosmic You're both being too narrowly political. A tremendous portion of any economic crisis is purely psychological. This is even more true in the current fiscal crisis. Frankly, I think you're both smart enough to recognize it, so don't give me that doe-eyed "I didn't realize that the president was to blame for financial crises" political diversion. It's ridiculous. And we know damn well that Bush isn't exclusively to blame. But even for those to whom the fact that the policies he advocated helped make this mess doesn't matter, the reality is that there is more than just a numerical debacle taking place in the ledgers. Congress flinches over the executive's plan, the market falls. Congress comes galloping in with the executive's plan, the market falls. Every time Bush opens his mouth he makes things worse. Investors around the world have lost their faith in the system. He is the face of what people lack confidence in. So— —why don't you both try looking at the situation from a bit broader perspective? If you still disagree, you still disagree. But come on: those responses are so narrow you couldn't fart through them. I recognize that it's easier to focus on me, but I would urge you to take a broader perspective. Those links I provided will lead you to dozens of news stories; at least try reading one of them. Start with the one I quoted directly, for instance.
His presidency is already dead, asking him to resign is just pissing on its grave and absolutely worthless. The better course of action would be to have him stop giving his god-awful speeches. The mainstream isn't comforted by them and those more knowledgeable on the economy only cringe with every word. Him resigning would just add to the uncertainty.
How is it being narrowly political when I firmly believe that with, or without the current president, this economic recession was inevitable and must be allowed to cycle its course. Were Gore or Kerry in office, we'd still have a recession. Recessions are inevitable. This isn't "narrow" contrary to your POV, it's accepted fact that markets correct themselves every seven to ten years. Agreed. The consumer confidence index, for example, is merely a measure of people's willingness to spend money they don't have. Inevitably, people's ability to spend what they don't have always comes to bust. I remember three such recessions distinctly in my lifetime (others occurred before I was mature enough to notice or care). Blame Woodrow Wilson for allowing creditors to take over the economy almost a century ago. How is it doe-eyed to disagree with your assessment with a succinct statement that I don't think it's all, or even mostly, the president's fault. Okay. So, besides resigning, what should he have done recently to propeciate the current situation? If he acted like a true free market capitalist, he would have allowed the banks to collapse. But he didn't, his Treasury Secretary came up with a small (by wording) but powerful (by dollar amount) plan to bail out the industry, which plan was submitted to the Congress, totally rewritten, and was overwhelmingly approved by the controlling party. So, it's still his fault? I don't get it. When a Republican does what the left wants, he's still some evil monster. A better question would be, what sort of plan/bailout should he have submitted to the Congress. Just as importantly, what sort of cojones do congressional Democrats lack that they couldn't have rewritten the plan to their own liking. Oh. Wait. They did. And Bush signed it. From my perspective you're judging our perspective because it doesn't acknowledge your perspective as right (say that three times fast). You may be right, and I'm willing to admit that macro-economics isn't my forté, but I'm also willing to admit that I know enough to know that the POTUS isn't some mastermind at the center of economic affairs. The real truth is: there isn't one. And if there were one, it would be the American public who's idiotic buying habits and financial temperaments make and break the global economy. Who's focusing on you? I never even mentioned you. I stated my thought on the matter and left it at that. If I wanted to make it about you I would have tried a little harder. Maybe you should stop making it about you. Re-reading the Dan Froomkin ones was unnecessary since the WP online is a favorite haunt of mine. The CQ one I read out of curiosity. Am I required to agree with this assessment because you've provided a number of links? Dan Froomkin has been a frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Bush mouthpiece for his tenure at WPNI for a while. I've read his columns for quite some time and some of the things I agree with, others I don't. I don't agree with his assessment of the current situation. When Bush leaves and [most likely] Obama takes the oath I don't think anything will change, even if the Dems get a supermajority. And when another recession occurs, on the Dems watch, it won't be their fault either (unless we nationalize every industry). No resignation required. ~String
Well, no mastermind in the sense that no one deliberately set out to destroy the US economy. But mastermind at the center in the sense that this is what fell the first domino? You don't have to look any further than the Federal Reserve with maestro Greenspan and helicopter Bernanke. Inflation via money supply expansion created the foundation for this whole mess. Had the Fed stuck to it's original reason for forming and contracted the money supply when the economy faced a downturn in the 90s, things wouldn't be as bad as they are today.
By mandate, the Fed does not answer directly to the president of the USA. The president cannot "order" the fed to do anything. He can only call for the resignation of the chairman, and even that has to be approved by the Congress. And, you're going to have to do better than say that "if Greenspan/Bernanke did this.." to prove a point. Economics is ethereal at best, and little goes beyond mere speculation. We have no clue what would have really happened if the Fed had contracted money supply in the face of a recession. ~String
I don't recall ever saying that the President was responsible for Greenspan and Bernanke's policies. I lay the blame entirely on the Chairmen's feet. The original intent of the Fed's creation was to have an elastic money supply. That means that when the economy is good, the Fed would expand money supply, and when the economy is bad, the Fed would contract it. This wasn't to change the status of the economy per se but more to ride with it and make the transition between booms and busts smoother. What Fed chairmen have done for the most part, aside from Volcker who correctly tightened the money supply in face of inflation, is the exact opposite. In times of government caused inflation, they expanded the money supply creating more inflation. This distorts the market by making it seem like there is more capital and savings when there really isn't. An example is when a large circus comes into a small town and a restaurant owner sees more customers then usual. Incorrectly assuming that this is a permanent increases in population and not just a temporary burst, he adds a new wing and more staff to the restaurant. But of course, the circus eventually leaves town and the restaurant loses a large number of it's customers. The new wing and staff are now a burden and only make the restaurant lose money. The circus is the boom brought on by the Fed's expansion of the money supply, the restaurant represents the many businesses and individuals in the market who are falsely led to believe that there is more capital then there really is, and the new wing and staff are the malinvestment. The correct course going forward would be a recession (supported by the Fed contracting the money supply), or the closing of the wing and the firing of the staff (the cutting of losses and dumping of bad investments). Otherwise, if the new wing and staff are kept on under the false assumption that the customer base is larger than it really is (the assumption that there are more capital and savings then there really is, an assumption caused by the Fed's expansion of the money supply) the restaurant will only continue to lose money and go bankrupt (what's happening now). Economics only seems ethereal and mysterious because common sense has been largely ignored by modern Keynesian and neo-Keynesian economists. Everything that's happened thus far has been predicted by followers of classical economics and the Austrian school. I highly suggest checking out Peter Schiff's Crash Proof and/or Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson if you want more info.
"with the world talking about the end of American capitalism," - only loonies talk about that. Normal people know that pure capitalism doesn't exist anywhere, and neither does pure socialism. We are not going to suddenly turn into a socialist economy, though some government regulation is necessary and it will eventually come. "with ordinary citizens watching in despair as their savings vanish," - Try backing that. Banks guarantee up to 100,000 on each account. If you have money in the stock market, that's not savings, that's investment. Many people are watching their invested money vanish - that's fine, investment is always a risk. Yea, let's catch that Obama train, blame Bush for everything, then smoothly refer to the popular Bush policies as we try to appeal to people's fears and win them over.
(Insert title here) We're going to go just a bit out of order here, String. I would like you to pause for a moment and think about something. I have proposed that Dick Cheney be put in charge of the country for the next 101 days. That is not something I take lightly. Yet— —you treat the question as if it is purely political. To take Whitewolf's point as an example: This is beyond electoral politics. There is something more important going on that deserves better consideration than merely reinforcing what, daily, seems more and more inevitable. Reducing this to electoral politics is at best a thoughtless dismissal. Yet you, String— —insist on taking the narrow view. Maybe you should get past the fact that I am the one making the proposal and give it some legitimate consideration instead of playing the two-bit political hack. If your reduction of the issue to utter simplicity did not reflect your usual habit of response to what I post, perhaps I wouldn't wonder at the, uh, "coincidence". It's entirely possible, I suppose, that it is merely coincidental; you do, generally, prefer the simplistic, sound-bite oriented take on politics that misses the more important points. Leaving aside the questions the point raises about our chosen system, the point does not have to do with the conspiracy theory-grade notion that the president is "some mastermind at the center of economic affairs". Think about a large, private company in trouble under normal circumstances. If the CEO resigns, it doesn't do a damn thing to actually change the numbers in the ledger. But what does happen is that investors get a sign, one that it is rather hard to miss, that the company intends to change, deal with the problem, and recover. This move helps restore investor confidence. Think about the possibility that, in pitching the bailout plan, Bush presented such a bleak picture that investor confidence crumbled even more than it would have by simple observation of the numbers. Even if the $700b is somehow enough to cover the liquidity problem by propping up the institutions devastated by risky investments in bad mortgages that ultimately went bust—even if the dollar amount was sufficient—what has it done for investor confidence? Bush has, throughout his term, so damaged his credibility that he brings the market absolutely no comfort in his attempts to address the crisis. Every time he opens his mouth, he just makes things worse. Putting Cheney in charge will do nothing to change the numbers on the record. But it will offer investors around the world an acknowledgment that the United States recognizes the gravity of the situation. Putting a different face on the nation for a hundred and one days is a risky maneuver, especially considering the fact that it's Cheney, but maybe when Darth Dick opens his mouth, the market would respond more affirmatively. For instance— —while I don't think propitiate is the word you're actually looking for (although I take your meaning well enough, I believe), Bush's resignation might actually have a positive effect on the situation. While you might believe Froomkin a—what did you say?—"frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Bush mouthpiece", what of the chief marketing strategist trying to protect $25 billion dollars who says "it's hard to see anything from him making much of a difference"? Must be a flaming liberal, eh? Or the chief investment strategist who called the situation "all-out panic" and noted that it has "gone from economic problems creating fear to fear creating economic problems"? You know, those frothing, anti-Bush liberal investment strategists, they just won't give the president a break, will they? Or maybe these people have a point. They're talking about the psychology of the crisis: What a difference a year makes. Does a 39.4% decrease in the Dow Jones represent a cyclical correction, as you've implied? Was the market really that puffed up? It's possible, I suppose, but that would only demand even further questions about the system we've chosen. Two weeks ago, the Dow sat above 11,000. It closed Friday at 8,579.19. You would call this a "correction"? The argument that we would still have a recession if Kerry or Gore was in office only goes so far. Neither of those men, as president, would have sown the seeds of disaster the way the Bush administration has. Our national debt most likely would not have doubled because neither of those presidents would have made a point of driving the nation so deeply into red ink by slashing revenue while jacking spending the way Bush has. Neither would have fueled the rocket ride of petroleum prices the way Bush has. We most likely would have seen an economic downturn, yes. And that likely would have been a better example of a market correction. But your point about Kerry or Gore necessarily presumes that they would have acted the way Bush has all the way through, and that's insupportable; before Bush, it was unthinkable that any president would act this way. And now, facing a troubled economy, two important questions are apparent. Would the economic downturn have gone so far? And would Kerry or Gore, at this point in their office, find themselves so devoid of credibility, so unable to ease the growing fears that have the markets collapsing so gravely? It's doubtful in either case. Should we pretend that rising energy costs made no difference in the number of homeowners who couldn't pay back their loans? Should we pretend that early warnings about the potential damage of the subprime meltdown would have gone unheeded? How conveniently you pretend that the stunningly uncharacteristic behavior of this presidential administration would have been undertaken by any president. It is incredibly politically convenient to pretend that Gore would have announced Iran on an "axis of evil", or that Kerry would keep hinting after war while refusing to even talk to the Iranians. While Bush is not some evil "mastermind" at the center of this disaster, he is one who threw gasoline on the fire, and he is the public face of the nation and the policies that have brought us to this point. Putting Cheney at the helm is a dangerous move, but if the symbolic gesture of a troubled CEO overseeing a systemic collapse stepping aside actually helps the markets breathe easy long enough to stand on solid ground and start climbing out of this desperate chasm, it's a justifiable risk. It's only one hundred and one days. Sure, he could try to start a war with Iran, but we ought not pretend Congress will, at this point, go along with such stupidity. And, besides, if it doesn't work, and the markets respond to Cheney just as they have to Bush, the fact that Cheney's in charge won't matter much anyway. Since you apparently missed it the first time, I'll simply reiterate: ... why don't you both try looking at the situation from a bit broader perspective? If you still disagree, you still disagree. And yet, this is how our economy thrives. That's the strange thing; when I was a kid, my dad taught me all about the responsibility of saving money. As the Reagan economy pushed through the 90s under Clinton, saving money became a threat to "growth", which made it in turn a threat to the economy. It was under Clinton that I first adopted the saying that it is your patriotic duty to be in debt. Doesn't that seem, I don't know, at least a little strange? However, I suppose that point can wait for another day. The question of what will change depends on what happens over the next hundred days. Or even the next three and a half weeks. I won't make any promises because, like you, I'm not a macroeconomist. But I am curious to see how confidence indices respond to an Obama election and inauguration. Even though a new face won't change the numbers on the record, it may well change how people feel. And when there is a confidence crisis afoot, how people feel means everything in the world. _____________________ Notes: McLean, Demian. "Bush Plans Statement Today to 'Assure' Nation (Update 2)". Bloomberg.com. October 10, 2008. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ae2iB6Dqxx_M Oneal, Michael, and Greg Burns. "All signs pointing to panic". Chicago Tribune. October 10, 2008. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-crisis-calm-fearoct10,0,7305861.story Klare, Michael T. "The oil price villain? Bush". Toronto Star. July 29, 2008. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/450919
Presidential policies are very slow to take effect. Each president has to deal with the results of what his predecessors did. Not even his immediate predecessor. Look at an illustrative example from today's world politics: Jimmy Carter is responsible for creating the Taliban, and Bush had to deal with it. Carter had to figure out a way to deal with the volatility of the Middle East, because of the way Truman chose to respond to "the menace of communism." Truman had to deal with the USSR as a prominent military power because of WWII, and WWII happened because of the way the leaders of the victorious nations, including Woodrow Wilson, humiliated Germany after defeating it in WWI. I can't go back much further than that because I admit that like many contemporary Americans I can't figure why the hell WWI happened. I don't know that I'd be able to lay any of the blame on a 19th Century American president, since America wasn't as important a nation in those days and might not have been able to have a major influence on world politics. Point is, much as I lambaste the backward baby boy in the White House at every opportunity, I'm not sure we can blame him for today's economic crisis. We can probably trace that to something his poppa or Reagan did. He's done enough damage in the Middle East, and you can be sure we'll be paying the price for that in about twenty years, when some hapless person who is 25 or 30 today becomes president. He destroyed the only secular, pro-Western nation in the Middle East and pissed off the 1.5 billion people on this planet who are Muslims. There's no way your children are not going to spend many decades regretting that. Besides, think about what you're saying: If Bush leaves office before his term expires, who exactly do you think will immediately become President? Dick Cheney! Does that give you nightmares? Or maybe you want to get rid of him too, and give the job to... Nancy Pelosi!
Dubya's Last Hurrah? Actually, I thought I addressed the Cheney point a couple of times already: Indeed, sir, the idea of President Cheney is unsettling. But those famous last words are important. How much damage can Cheney do in one hundred one days? It is extremely doubtful that a Congress either sensing victory in November or looking forward to both a cloture majority and an Obama presidency would authorize an open war against Iran. Could Cheney engineer a war? Probably, but would the brass go for it? Highly doubtful. The thing is that these sorts of nefarious theories are within the People's power to fight. We have yet to fill the streets against these wars. We still have the judiciary on our side. We are not helpless. We have the tools to withstand a hundred days of Dick. What we cannot do, though, is endure another hundred days of economic freefall. Thirty-nine percent decline in a year on the Dow? That's bad enough, but twenty-five hundred points in two weeks is harrowing. The economic prognosis is both bleak and confused. Another ten percent off the Dow will put it around 7720, approximately 54.5% of what it was a year ago. To the other, the index is dropping huge chunks in terms of hundreds of points in a day (7.3% on Friday), and while the optimistic outlook is that "we may be nearing a bottom", and that it might only cost the Dow another eight hundred or so points, what will several more weeks of volatility bring? As analysts consider the importance of a period of relative quietude for the markets, I assert specifically that Bush's greatest possible contribution to stabilizing the markets and posturing the nation for recovery would be to resign. Whether or not people like Dick Cheney, the mere spectacle of President Bush acknowledging that his credibility is shot, the crisis facing the nation is larger than his pride and legacy, and that the best example of leadership he has left to show is to get out of the way could not fail to have a profound effect on the markets. The only question, really, is whether that effect would be positive or negative, and I must confess it's rather difficult to see the negatives. I mean, I can imagine a few—"Oh my god, the president's abandoning ship! We're all gonna die!"—but they seem rather far-fetched. Parents might recognize a simple idea: When your child is crying over a scraped knee, or a bump on the head, or a broken toy, one of the easiest things you can do to calm and quiet her is simple distraction. Turn the attention elsewhere. Make a joke. Get her laughing. It doesn't mean the leg isn't still bleeding, or the lump on the head is going to disappear, or that the shattered pieces are going to miraculously come together. But it can stop the crying, bring out a smile, and settle the moment to silence, so that you can more easily do what needs to be done. This is, of course, bigger than a simple bandage, ice pack, or tube of super glue will fix. But, in resigning, Bush would bring the world's attention to the immediate transition, the question of the next hundred days, and even if for only a day, provide the troubled markets with a bit of the calm and quiet they need. It would be his last sleight of hand as president, and for once it would do the nation and the world alike some good. This isn't about denigrating Bush for everything else we might complain about. This is about taking a chance to save the nation from itself. I'm not asking Dubya to drop dead. I'm simply asking him to step down. In the end, it's nothing more or less than the ultimate political stunt. One for the ages. A legendary sacrifice. I really do think it would work. All it has to do is interrupt the freefall. Give the markets something to stand on—even the rubble of their own former selves—and the alchemists of capitalism can once again work their magic. And, like I said, if it doesn't, then the fact of a hundred days of Dick won't matter. We watched the tragedy unfold; We did as we were told, We bought and sold. It was the greatest show on Earth! But then it was over. We oohed and ahhed, We drove our racing cars, We ate our last few jars of caviar. And somewhere out there in the stars, A keen-eyed look-out Spied a flickering light: Our last hurrah! Our last hurrah! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . —Roger Waters, "Amused to Death"____________________ Notes: Oneal, Michael, and Greg Burns. "All signs pointing to panic". Chicago Tribune. October 10, 2008. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-fri-crisis-calm-fearoct10,0,7305861.story
Market players caused this disaster (arrogant corporate types together with bleeding heart liberals, more precisely), and Bush gets the blame... Funny world we live in.
Next, please I admit, I'm fascinated at how absolutely stuck in superficial politics people are. How many people are coming back to a point— "... and Bush gets the blame ..." —that is beside the point?
When a chimp blows holes in the ceiling, most people blame whoever gave it the shotgun. Set a fox to guard the henhouse, and the dead hens are not blamed on the fox.
While I'm not going to disagree that Bush should resign, given that it's about 3 weeks until the election, it would seem moot at this point in time.
You're just not getting it, and neither are the people you quoted. Psychology can only go so far before physical reality hits, and the reality is that people are starting to realize the dollar's worthlessness. There is no "capitalist alchemy" when you've got a government that's going to inject $700b out of thin air into the money supply. What you're suggesting isn't even worth trying.
