The Republicans retained control of Congress for most of the 2000-2006 time period. If Bush, as the head of the Party, was unable or unwilling to restrain fellow Republicans in Congress from going on wild spending orgies, then his leadership is worth squat.
The bailout is a loan. It will be paid back.
Sure...taking equity stakes in publicly-traded firms against the wishes of shareholders is equivalent to giving them a loan.
Actually, the United States was hit by a terrorist attack in September of 2001 that knocked down the two largest buildings in the country.
What ensued was an effort to secure the country from a global threat unlike any we have seen before. That resulted in increased spending for homeland security and defense spending.
The one down side of that spending is that it allows fools to pontificate on the reckless spending of the Bush adminstration.
Had the nation more appropriately been pocked with craters for its various major cities, we probably would not have to listen to fools complainging that spending is far below GDP percentages of the Vietnam war or World War II.
In regard to the bailout, I am not aware of any shareholders opposed to the bailout of their banks.
Amen.
It seemed that after the Amnesty Bill was defeated by the GOP, Bush had no concern about keeping the GOP in power.