I'm guessing as a Ron Paul supporter you're an advocate of the gold standard. But if what you're saying is true, that printing money itself is a credit then that would mean the the entire history of the US would've been marked for high inflation for all of its history since 1916. Yet that hasn't been the case.
High inflation historically has been more the cause of either wages, oil costs, or deficits. Even now, inflation is middling because of falling wages and the collapse of oil prices.
You say that the President doesn't control monetary affairs, while legally this is true it is hard to believe that the economy which all Presidents are judged from merely selects the Treasury Board then goes twiddle his thumbs and hopes for the best is simply naive. Especially from a President known for abusing Executive Powers. At the very least, the President can not only lobby to control the Treasury's actions but put in place laws to legally bound their actions, something Bush never would've done given his ideological leanings.
When it came for economic leadership, all he did was plow more money at the problem, raise more debt, and did nothing for accountability.
All of this is Bush's fault, he chose to do nothing. He surrounded himself with the very investment bankers that caused this crisis and he idly let Greenspan tout his "government is evil, so hands off!" and "more credit yay!" policies. And when the crisis hit full swing, what did he propose? TARP, the largest government bail out in world history. Almost a trillion dollars for nothing but to pad the quarterly earnings report of corrupt bankers.
If the banks are solely responsible then why didn't Bush do what was historically correct and buy up the toxic shares of the debt, buy up up stakes at the bank, and force them to lend and lower interest rates? Because of the same ideological bull that gave us two wars without end, a world economic credit crunch caused by greedy American bankers, and a legacy of making government as useless as they wanted it to be.
America
