I do so wish we could put this "to bed".Eight years of Bush neocon policies and the largest disaster since the Great Depression, eight months of Obama, and everyone wants to blame HIM!?
There are very few that would refute the economic situation we face now was not created by Obama. But it was also not created by Bush, alone. It started even before him. The perceived solutions to the financial meltdown appear to have been the same between Bush and Obama.
As I recall, if I have the timeline right, and I could be in error, the prior administration saw the handwriting on the wall about 2 years before the election; just about the time the Congress gained D majority. On this board, there are those who do not see govt $ being the preferred solution, even though it was chosen by both leaders.
Personally, I think they were all pretty ignorant not to anticipate the end of the housing boom. The pattern of boom, then bust had occurred before in California. This time the boom spanned many more geographical areas. How could they believe such inordinate increases in housing prices could last forever? It never did before.
We do not know how a Republican administration would have acted when it comes to the AIG or GM bailout. We do know that O chose those solutions, so he becomes responsible for those actions. We cannot lay responsibility for the problem at O's door, but we can hold him responsible for whether his preferred solutions turn out to be correct or not.
So why should we hold O responsible for "fixing" the problems? Because he insisted that he could do so. We cannot relieve O of his responsibility because Bush did something "x" years ago that was just as bad or worse. It's reasonable to expect someone as intelligent as O should learn from past errors; and having a literal army of advisors to help analyze what did and didn't work ... as long as pragmatism takes precedence over ideology and special interest groups.
So, if we don't like what B did in the past, then we should advocate with our representatives to take whatever action we believe should be supported to improve the status quo. Whatever B or other predecessors did, is no longer of any consequence except insofar as it points us to more effecttive solutions. And, in fact, what worked before may not work as well if the conditions (economic or diplomatic) have changed in the interim. No amount of anger for past errors will help fix anything. If it distracts from finding the better solutions, it is very counter-productive.
When O's tenure is over, we will be able to analyze which of his actions were useful, and which were not. During his tenure, we should also be assessing results of policies on an ongoing basis.