So you're effectively blaming Bill Clinton for this mess? Ahh shock, he's a Democrat. Didn't see that coming. The Republicans had control of the White House and Congress for four years. The Democrats were no where in sight. If Bush was as much of a prophet as you claim, why didn't he change the system? He had ample opportunity to do so. I don't personally blame any specific person or group of people for this. I blame the thinking over the past 20 years that free market privatisation is always the best option, and if you want anyone to blame for that, blame Thatcher. I also point to the number of Republicans in the bail-out vote who felt ideologically uncomfortable with the state getting involved in the banking sector. Do you wish to blame their reluctance on the Democrats as well? The US has gone about this all wrong. Gordon Brown seems to have chosen the right option, and the rest of Europe seems to be following suit. Part-nationalise the banks. If they're such a vital part of the economic structure of capitalism, and they're at the verge of collapse, then the state should take over. With the state's weight behind the banks, confidence improves, and shares rise. When things are better, you sell the shares off. Maybe for a loss, maybe for a profit, but no where near the $700B mark. I was never a fan of trickle-down economics. You'll seldom meet many people in Europe who are. They are grossly inadequate for the poorer classes, which constitute the majority of a population in any truly capitalist state. I love Clinton but from what I understand it was his set up which set the course for this. But Bush had his hand at the wheel when the course should have been altered and he didn't...despite the warnings. So it was Bush's failure in the end.