- "We're only just beginning to undo the Bush-era damage. Have a look at the 90's (very prosperous times under President Clinton)."
You are right. We did have a prosperous time under President Clinton. However, if you read your history, you'll notice that when Clinton entered office, he made very sure that Wall Street liked him and knew he was on their side. (Historically, Democrats are not "pro-Wall Street.") As a result, Clinton (as well as many others in his administration) failed to enact regulations surrounding derivatives (even though regulations were enacted across almost all other major assets). Because of this, the trading of derivatives skyrocketed (because, it made sense to...they weren't being regulated, so better deals could be made). And, where was one of the major areas that derivatives were traded in - mortgage derivatives.
For many years, times were prosperous (particularly on Wall Street). Money was flowing freely, investments were up, etc, etc.
Fast-forward to 2008, and derivatives were out of control. They had been oversold, the risk had been understated, and the market collapsed in on itself. (Note: None of this was planned corruption. It all made sense for banks to take on more risk to appease shareholders. However, when all
those banks took on risk, it hurt the overall economic system due to something that economists know as externalities.)
Did Clinton cause that to happen? Well...with such a big problem as the Great Recession in 2008, it's no one, single factor. However, he most definitely did not help. You can't blame our current economic state on one particular president or one particular Congress. Big issues are caused by a myriad of events leading up to those problems. So, to just blame Bush, is being very simplistic. He's just one problem in this whole mess. Clinton played his part as well.