Well I've already mentioned a bunch of Bush failures here; but I'll recap a few and add a few.

Continuation of CRA; bailouts; record spending; comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty); faith based initiatives; lots of new regulations and tariff on Canadian steel.

I don't know enough about the CRA to say whether it should've gone or been kept but I do agree that bush's deregulation of it very much directly caused the nation financial problems. As far as his record spending I don't know if that can be considered an entirely domestic issue, certainly all the money his administration allocated to no bid contracts (we need transparency to stop this), military spending, and paying private companies to do what the military should be doing (blackwater) is a big portion of the government spending he's responsible for but at the same time I think the deficit is more of a function of cutting revenue through is tax cuts. The government used to charge 70% for the high marginal tax brackets when Reagan took office, I don't think corporations were suffering the evils of communism back then and I don't think they will be if they get a 3-4% hike in their tax rates -- especially when they're setting records for profit on a yearly basis.

I pretty much agree with your list I just wanted to give you a different perspective on it.

What domestic shortcomings do you think Obama has had? I absolutely don't think he has a perfect record but I am curious to know what someone who is ideologically libertarian puts emphasis on.

BO: "I don't know enough about the CRA to say whether it should've gone or been kept but I do agree that bush's deregulation of it very much directly caused the nation financial problems."

Well to be fair; CRA IS a regulation; so it wasn't deregulation that was the issue; it was the regulation itself. Bush merely let it go on. The momentum of CRA started in 1998 with Clinton (not sure if it was his doing or someone in his administration). Remember the housing bubble started in 1998-1999.

As for the spending; I think we just look at things from completely different angles. Government to me is a necessary evil; but should be chained down with little power.

The framers of the constitution understood this. In fact; Jefferson believed it was impossible to keep the beast under chains. Inevitably, he thought, generations would forget the evils of government and allow it to gain power once again. Thus his quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson.

Btw, this is the reason for the 2nd Amendment; not to protect people's right to hunt or sport shoot; but to make sure that a future generation always had the means to rebel once again; when and if; a tyrant took hold of the country.

So with this being said; I both agreed with the Bush tax cuts; but was disappointed when he increased spending. He should have reduced spending and cut taxes. He should have reduced the size of government; attempt to re-chain the beast. He did not.

As far as Obama's domestic failures; bailouts; quantitative easing; more spending; devaluation of the currency; ObamaCare; card check; killed DC school voucher system; DREAM act; to name a few.

Btw; why would you put Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in charge of anything after what happened with the housing market.

It was those two chumps that covered for Fannie and Freddie when the Bush Administration wanted to investigate them. Probably the only smart thing Bush did domestically in the context of the meltdown.

Barney Frank has a ton of quotes where he says that Fannie Mae is a sound investment and that the Bush administration is attempting to vilify them.

Check out the quotes: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html.

Maxine Waters is in there also defending the two GSE's Fannie and Freddie.

Here is Chuck Schumer complaining that Fannie and Freddie was being scrutinized too much. (from the same source as above)

"Senate Banking Committee, Oct. 16, 2003:

Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.): And my worry is that we're using the recent safety and soundness concerns, particularly with Freddie, and with a poor regulator, as a straw man to curtail Fannie and Freddie's mission. And I don't think there is any doubt that there are some in the administration who don't believe in Fannie and Freddie altogether, say let the private sector do it. That would be sort of an ideological position.

Mr. Raines: But more importantly, banks are in a far more risky business than we are."

All in all; I think it is pretty clear that both democrats and republicans are both complicit in the causes of this recession.

They basically made the banks the scapegoat; then bailed them out to keep them happy and silent.

But really; it was the government using force to coerce the banks into decreasing lending standards. All in the name of "affordable housing" (as the democrats call it) and "ownership society" (as the republicans called it).

Read up on the CRA. Banks were told by the government; that if they didn't lend to enough low income potential home owners that it would be used against them when they asked for permission to merge / acquire other businesses. A function that is basically essential to a bank (or any buinesses) well being over time.

Here's the deregulation I am referring to: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080923063356AAlFFBp

I don't think you're reading that jefferson quote right, jefferson believed that institutions become corrupt overtime. not that governments are inherently evil or necessarily evil. that's more akin to what noam chomsky thinks

as far as the second amendment is concerned and the right to revolution I think George Washington and the subsequent Shay's Rebellion would disagree that this was the founding father's intent. Indeed, when states tried to secede the president took the nation to war to keep the union in tact. So I'd say history disagrees with that interpretation.

"bailouts; quantitative easing; more spending; devaluation of the currency; ObamaCare; card check; killed DC school voucher system; DREAM act; to name a few."

I'd like the point out the difference that Obama's bailouts are deficit neutral (we get all our money back), whereas the bush bailouts we cannot recoup.

I looked into the effectiveness of quantitative easing and from everything I've skimmed it appears that it's actually been very effective everywhere it's been applied. Do you just have a fundamental problem with it or do you think it hasn't served its purpose (to stabilize the economy) very well?

As far as the devaluation of the currency, I'd blame Nixon more for that than Obama, as far as recent devaluation is concerned I think Obama has actually strengthened confidence in our currency abroad since the fiasco we had with Bush/the great recession.

I looked into card checking and it appears to be more a pro-labor legislation than an obama legislation. (It was renewed in 2007, before Obama took office). So I guess that would have to fall under the blame of Bush/Democrat Congress. If you actually have a problem with it (I don't).

As far as the voucher system is concerned, since when are you interested in subsidizing education so it is free for those who cannot afford it? I am all for that, but it just seems like you're being inconsistent. Furthermore I don't think Obama would cut that because he say hates children or something, I think that has more to do with compromises.

As far as the DREAM act is concerned, let me put it this way. My dad and many of his friends from the old country defected to the United States. I am sure your ancestors faced a similar exodus from their nation of origin. I am completely for the DREAM act. Immigrants have made this country great, despite all the xenophobic movements.

I don't know enough about Barney Frank's relationship with Fannie and Freddie Mae to comment. I would say I genuinely think Barney has the American people's interests at heart and I haven't seen any policy decision he has made that would make me think otherwise.

I would say Obama's biggest domestic failures are probably not pushing for more gun control and not pushing for regulation of coastal drilling after the tragedies we had in the past year. It seems like BP didn't change anything and is already allowed to drill in the gulf again.

To clarify on the CRA deregulation, this is what I wanted you to see: "Over half of these subprime loans came from mortgages companies not covered by CRA."

Saying that the CRA is the problem (not saying it's perfect) because its deregulation causes the nation tremendous problems is akin to saying because we deregulated the FDA and now people are getting sick we should abolished the FDA. I don't think that's a good idea.

Not sure what your point is about Shays Rebellion and the Civil War is but you are completely wrong about Jefferson.

BO: "I'd like the point out the difference that Obama's bailouts are deficit neutral (we get all our money back), whereas the bush bailouts we cannot recoup."

Yay we get our money back!! When do I get my check???

BO: "I looked into the effectiveness of quantitative easing and from everything I've skimmed it appears that it's actually been very effective everywhere it's been applied. Do you just have a fundamental problem with it or do you think it hasn't served its purpose (to stabilize the economy) very well?"

I think I've made is completely clear that I think quantitative easy is completely worthless. Taking money from John and giving it to Tim has a net effect on the economy of zero.

BO: "As far as the devaluation of the currency, I'd blame Nixon more for that than Obama, as far as recent devaluation is concerned I think Obama has actually strengthened confidence in our currency abroad since the fiasco we had with Bush/the great recession. "

I'm sensing a pattern here. Obama is right and some republican is the real culprit. Check. Boy you are a loyal little soldier.

BO: "I looked into card checking and it appears to be more a pro-labor legislation than an obama legislation. (It was renewed in 2007, before Obama took office). So I guess that would have to fall under the blame of Bush/Democrat Congress. If you actually have a problem with it (I don't). "

So you are against a secret ballot for union representation. Basically if you vote no; and you lose; now you have a union; that knows you voted against it. Thus more people vote yes because of peer pressure. I'm sure you'd before taking away the secret ballot for the presidential election too then.

BO: "As far as the voucher system is concerned, since when are you interested in subsidizing education so it is free for those who cannot afford it? I am all for that, but it just seems like you're being inconsistent. Furthermore I don't think Obama would cut that because he say hates children or something, I think that has more to do with compromises."

I'm not inconsistent at all on this topic. Obama killed the voucher system because it worked and threatened union dominated public schools; because it allow students to pick private schools. Pick up a book and read it.

BO: "As far as the DREAM act is concerned, let me put it this way. My dad and many of his friends from the old country defected to the United States. I am sure your ancestors faced a similar exodus from their nation of origin. I am completely for the DREAM act. Immigrants have made this country great, despite all the xenophobic movements."

Thanks for calling me racist twice in one day. Actually I'm against the DREAM act because it allows people who violated the laws of this country to gain citizenship before the law abiding who are waiting on line (including my ancestors). I actually think that there should be no quotas for immigration; let everyone in that wants in; but secure the border first and know who is coming into the country; so that we can screen for infectious diseases and criminals etc.

So basically my immigration policy is way more open then yours; you racist.

BO: "I don't know enough about Barney Frank's relationship with Fannie and Freddie Mae to comment. I would say I genuinely think Barney has the American people's interests at heart and I haven't seen any policy decision he has made that would make me think otherwise."

Oh how sweet.

BO: "To clarify on the CRA deregulation, this is what I wanted you to see: "Over half of these subprime loans came from mortgages companies not covered by CRA."

CRA created the market. Once people started making money by packaging the sub-prime mortgages into ABS and selling them; everyone including the private sector started doing it; in fact they did it more then CRA at the end of the whole thing. But CRA created the market; before CRA there was no significant market for these things. Why was there no market for them? Because no one would buy the damn ABS that were backed by sub-prime crap.

So the government created Fannie Mae and told it that it was backed by the US government. Fannie then purchased the loans from the lenders; thus making it hugely profitable for both CRA and private lenders to do the bad deal and quickly hand it off to Fannie Mae thus relieving themselves of the risk.

Btw; this is all very much public knowledge and I'm shocked that you haven't researched this stuff yourself; being a finance major and everything.