Bush policies were not the main cause of the financial crisis

As a matter of debate, I am obliged to initially set off with the contention that moreover than specific policies which led to the crisis, the lack of policies should be equally allowed to be presented as a case for the opposition. The initial debate point sets off the supposition that by saying "Bush policies were the cause of the financial crisis" that he enacted specific measures which led to the current issues we face today. More specifically, the argument made from the point is specific to "rules and law" policy, which misinterprets the original claim that Bush's policies (principles) to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes had been flawed and responsible for the ensuing crisis. While I reconsider your argument, I realize that you do partially realize that this is a portion of the issue. It would, however, be naive to assume that anyone supposes that neither Clinton, Democrats, the Federal Reserve, or external factors had additional involvement. For the sake of this argument, however, I will attempt to be as congruent to your initial topic as possible and follow the notion that can be debatable - that Bush was at least largely a circumstance that allowed the emergence of the financial crisis. Secondly, while I loathe not debating you point by point, I have to strike down the presumption that the sub-prime mortgage crisis was the primary factor and point of the financial crisis. The sub-prime crisis in itself was merely a tertiary problem to a much larger financial issue. The core of the issue was not just the evictions, foreclosures, and vacancies - it was the destruction and failure of several, often huge, businesses, trillions of dollars in wealth lost by the entire country, a large slump in economic progression, and a far greater commitment by the government into the world of finance and debt. Before stating my full position, I would also like to engage you on the few points you made. Initially you make the claim that there was a widespread belief that housing prices could not drop substantially - this is simply an unsupported claim with even less merit to the argument. Financial bubbles, which "pop" with substantial drops to price, were present plenty of times in similar, albeit with less disastrous, situations including the 2000 dot-com bubble, the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, the 1980 Japanese Asset Price bubble, the 1970 Poseidon bubble, and the Roaring Twenties bubble in the twenties - there are even more examples, dating back to the 1600s, which due to their lack of knowledge, I shall exclude. Any commodity, in situations where there is a higher demand that the availability of a commodity, will begin a 'bubble', where the price is increased beyond the value. In the 1970s when the U.S. ended the gold standard through currency, there began a comparable bubble. This bubble, as virtually all bubbles, ended when the value was decreased (in this situation, as well as the current financial crisis, the value was decreased by the Federal Reserve, who by raising interest rates, removed the ability of overvaluation through a lower level of available funds). These large devaluations do happen, and as a continued act of ignorance, they were ignored by key people in all aspects, including President Bush, who should at least be as smart as his appointments and advisers. As President of the United States, not only was President Bush responsible for appointing regulatory agents that should have safe guarded the nation from such a disaster, it is well informed opinion that the leader of a country is a large and main factor in the direction of his party's legislative agenda and domestic policy. Another of your points are equally as biased as the points you argue against. In your second point you claim that "some republicans supported the repeal, but it was a Clinton policy", and yet you go on in point five to claim that "democrats blocked attempts to reform Freddie and Fannie". Certainly not all democrats blocked it, and certainly not all republicans were for it. A majority or minority viewpoint on an issue does not imply it's responsibility for the decision, and in fact, having a system of checks and balances ensures that decisions often are not made on wholly Democrat vs. Republican arguments, but rather dissenting and agreeing positions. The fact of the matter is that as leader of the nation, Bush was a major player responsible for the collapse simply through his negligence to protect the nation against it, which is his duty. The argument could, and probably will and should, be made that this same negligence is on the shoulders of every president since the creation of the Federal Reserve and the creation of a system which inherently creates a system of bubbles which grow, burst and reemerge as markets evolve, because this is the case. The argument that Bush was responsible, much as you claim, is simply overstated, as you understand it: the argument, truly, is not that Bush was the sole cause, but much rather, through complacency and neglect of duty, allowed a crisis that was not only inevitable, but clearly happening even without the gift of foresight. Sources: Economic Bubbles http://en.wikipedia.org... When Bubbles Burst (PDF), World Economic Outlook, International Monetary Fund, April 2003 - http://www.imf.org... Presidential Responsibility The Constitution Declining Home Prices - http://www2.standardandpoors.com...