Can someone explain to me?

Can someone more educated, wise, and knowledgeable than me please explain, beside the partisan rhetoric (aka superficial, one dimmensional propaganda and hot air)---is it REALLY true that the Bush administration's economic policies have truly hurt the ecomony...or is he just the man in office at the time when the economy collapsed?

Asking the same question a different way, IF Bill Clinton was president right now with the exact same world circumstances, would the economy be thriving right now???

I'm just finding it too hard to believe that George Bush is responsible for the state of all affairs in our economy right now.

For my democratic friends, can you explain to me exactly HOW Bill Clinton "made" the economy explode in the 90's...as well as HOW George Bush "made" it collapse in the 2000's??

It all just seems too simplistic to blame it all on Bush---popular as that sport may be. It just strikes me that the economy was doomed to fail no matter what---and in fact it may be that it was the hyper-excess of the 90's that fueled the collapse in the 2000's. That's what they tell us fueled the Great Depression of the 30's---all the excesses of the 20's.

So maybe, just maybe, my Democratic friends need to put the blame on Bill instead of W. I know that will never happen, but it's just a thought nonetheless.

No, really---it's neither Bill nor W's fault...WE are at fault: the American people. Me as much as anyone. We've spent too much, saved to little, and put ourselves deeply in debt. The log in my eye is very large, so I don't dare try to pick specks out of anyone else's eye.

Like I say, it's just a question on which I welcome and expect some rousing debate.