I don't see how you can disagree with that. While you might consider that time-line to be coincidental, I don't. I also made a statement regarding the post in which I responding to pointing out that the first six years of Bush's Presidency were good for this country. There was about 5 years of continuous economic growth, growth in all sectors that were good for all of us and our country.

You wrote:

I believe it is a combination of:
1. Financial institutions taking high risks for profit over sound choices & no strong oversight of these financial institutions (thanks to both the Republicans & Democrats)

When those financial institutions' collective feet were being held over the fire with threatened denials of approval for expansions and mergers if Democrat pet projects like the CRA weren't being met to the satisfaction of Congress, what were they supposed to do? Not only were they encouraged to make risky loans by folks like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer, those risky loans were being sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which guaranteed them. The Bush administration tried to place tighter restrictions and regulations into effect on Freddie and Fanny, but Congressional Democrats fought that at every turn. I fault Congressional Republicans for not fighting harder to put those regulations into place, but at least they weren't fighting to prevent them. Apparently too few legislators failed to learned the lessons this country should have been learned during the Savings and Loan collapse under Jimmy Carter. That lesson was: If the Federal Government guarantees the activities of financial institutions without regulating those activities, what it in actuality is guaranteeing is the failure of those institutions.

2. US automakers relying on gas guzzling trucks/SUVs & being unable to produce small cars at a profit.

Until gas prices skyrocketed to over $4/gallon, they were supplying a market demand. I remember Obama actually saying he wanted gas to be priced that high, but just not that quickly. As to the inability of the big 3 to produce small cars at a profit, their over-paid over-benefit-packaged general workforce was/is the sole reason for that.

3. Bailing out #1 & #2 (supported by both Republicans & Democrats)

Sadly, the financial institutions bailout was absolutely necessary. Failure to do so would have caused an almost immediate global economic collapse. The auto makers are a different story. Bankruptcy reorganization should have been the first action taken. That would have allowed for renegotiation of union contracts that could have put the companies on a more level playing field with foreign branded American manufactured automobiles. Obama before the failed bailout: "Bankruptcy is not an option." Obama after the bailout: "Bankruptcy is the only option."

4. Fighting a war without the funding required & then cutting taxes."

The total cost for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars under Bush was less than the first (I predict there will be another one under this administration) stimulus package. Under-funding the effort, or threats to do so lie strictly in the laps of Congressional Democrats. Cutting taxes to increase income to the treasury is something that most Democrats never have and never will understand (or at least acknowledge), although JFK understood it. It is axiomatic. The more you tax an activity, the less it will occur.

5. An American public which consumes at a greater rate than most countries & doing it on credit.

Some folks advocate that our lifestyle should be lowered because lifestyles of other countries can't match it. I would suggest that a person living at the poverty level here is exponentially better off than a great number of the rest of this planet's inhabitants. If that wasn't such a good thing, we wouldn't have to worry about people trying to enter the country illegally. For the most part, I agree that the use of credit has been out-of-hand for quite some time for general purchases of stuff that folks really don't need, but at the same time, there are commodities that most folks would never be able to afford without the ability to borrow money to purchase like homes and cars.

6. The belief that every American deserves what ever he/she wants at the absolute lowest price possible.

Free Market Capitalism. I don't believe anyone should be pressured, coerced or forced by any means to pay more for a product or service than it is worth. Do you?

7. The belief that every American is entitled to the highest possible salary.

I completely disagree with the word "entitled". The only compensation we're "entitled to" is that which we earn, and by earn, I mean what we produce for the company that employs us that makes a profit for the company, or if one is self-employed (as I am), what the free market will bear for my goods and services.

8. Items 6 & 7 lead to an America that cannot produce everything it consumes & a China that can.

Like it or dislike it, we do live in a global economy. Consumer goods can often be produced overseas at a lower cost than they can here. Does that mean we should impose tariffs that would make everyday imported goods much more expensive to American consumers? I don't think so. ...and there is a major flaw in your statement. American farmers and ranchers are the most efficient providers of food on the planet.

9. The belief that every American that wants to be a home owner should own a house.

See Jimmy Carter, and later, Bill Clinton regarding the CRA. Not unlike the belief held by some that health care and health insurance is a right in this country.

10. Companies that overpay executives & treat their employees poorly.

Reference my reply to point #7.

11. Stockholders (that would be us) who want high returns on our investments and empower said companies & executives.

A combination of my reply to point #7 and open free market Capitalism. I happen to think making money is a good thing. Some on the far left see it as evil, as long as those making the money are folks other than themselves.

12. Management
13. Unions
14. Management vs. Unions

Another, reference my reply to point #7.

15. Companies & individuals who complain that it's too hard to change _________ (any number of things)

I'm not really sure what you meant by that statement. If it meant that more government intervention into the management of companies and individuals is the only means for "change", I fully disagree.

16. Living exclusively for today without any regard for tomorrow & those that will bare the financial burden.

I have been very disappointed in some of the lack of fiscal conservatism exhibited by Congressional Republicans in the last decade. Too many have been spending money like Democrats used to. Under full Democrat control, it is now absolutely, positively, unbearable.

17. A failure to learn from our past mistakes.

You aren't telling me anything new there. Obama, with Pelosi and Reid at his feet, are a combination of FDR and Carter. We have a President that is trying to expand the scope of governmental intervention into not only every individuals' lives, but he has already placed the government in some form of direct financial control of some segments of this nation's business community. He (they) don't give a damn what it will cost future generations. It truly is generational thievery in the name of legacy creation.