American Pinocchios

By Alan R. Bialeck LLC

It is commonly alleged that politicians misrepresent events for their own gain, but very few (if any) critics can produce facts to support their allegations. Have Democrats knowingly misrepresented George W. Bush’s involvement in stealing an election, getting us into the Iraq War, and causing the 2008 financial crisis? An analyst separates fact from fiction.
For example, the Financial Crisis Commission Report, which purports to explain the cause of the 2008 financial crisis with detailed facts, fails to support its own conclusions.

The author therefore challenges readers to carefully parse through the facts within to reach their own conclusions. To rely on any third party to interpret events is a surrender of political independence and intellectual freedoms.

The author intends to donate 50 percent of the net profits from the sale of this book to the Wounded Warrior Project.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Lulu Publishing Services
• Release date: Jun 1, 2015
• ISBN: 9781483422763

Book preview

LLC

Copyright © 2015 Alan R. Bialeck LLC.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted by any means—whether auditory, graphic, mechanical, or electronic—without written permission of both publisher and author, except in the case of brief excerpts used in critical articles and reviews. Unauthorized reproduction of any part of this work is illegal and is punishable by law.

ISBN: 978-1-4834-2277-0 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4834-2276-3 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014921648

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Lulu Publishing Services rev. date: 03/17/2015

Contents

PART ONE

THE ELECTION

SUBPART A: The Historic Election

1.   The Historic Feature of the Election

2.   The Historic Nature of the Experience Factor

3.   Comparisons

4.   Eggads the Emperor Has No Clothes

SUBPART B: The Mandate

PART TWO

BUSH BASHING

SUBPART A: Nazi Propaganda

SUBPART B: The 2000 Election was Stolen?

1.   The Role of the Media

2.   Bush V. Gore for Dummmies (Bush Light)

3.   Bush V. Gore (Bush Heavy)

4.   Misconceptions

5.   Goebbels and Nazi Propoganda are Alive and Well

6.   Postscript - - The New York Times Kicks In

SUBPART C: The Wicked Witch of the West (Alias the Queen of Mean)

1.   The Wicked Witch and the Presidential Library

2.   The Wicked Witch and the Economy

3.   The Wicked Witch and Torture

SUBPART D: The 9/11 Collusion Between Bush and the Saudis

SUBPART E: Bush and Iraq

SUBPART F: Bush the Felon

PART THREE

LIES INCLUDING ALLEGATIONS OF FAILED POLICIES

SUBPART A: Introduction

SUBPART B: The Failed Negotiation Policy of W

SUBPART C: Improving Our International Image

SUBPART D: Iraq

1.   Qualifications of Obama

2.   Responsibility for Iraq

3.   Iraq war Justification

4.   The Clinton Connection

5.   WMDs

6.   Iraq Policy and Israel

7.   American Casualties

8.   Implementation of the 2003 Iraq Action Cease Fire

9.   Logical Solution of Iraq Opponents

10.   Name Calling

11.   Conclusion

PART FOUR

THE ECONOMY

SUBPART A: Introduction

SUBPART B: Change in Investment Environment

1.   Relaxation of Investment Standards

2.   Demise of the Pension System and Expansion of the Investor Base

3.   Leverage and Expansion of the Investment Base

4.   Derivatives

5.   Loose Monetary Environment

6.   W Responsibility

SUBPART C: New Products and Product Expansion

1.   Subprime Lending

2.   Commerial Mortgage Backed Securities (CMBS)

3.   The Expansion of Mutual Funds

4.   Exchange Traded Funds

5.   Hedge Funds

6.   Private Equity

7.   Proprietary Trading

8.   Variable Annuities

9.   Share Buybacks

10.   Auction Rate Debt

11.   Variable Rate Debt

12.   Credit Default Swaps (CDS)

13.   Securities Lending (Repo Transactions)

14.   Summary and Conlusion

SUBPART D: Revision of the Legal Structure

1.   Introduction (Or Good Old Fashion Babbling)

2.   The Repeal of Glass-Steagall

3.   The CRA of 1977 and its Progeny

4.   The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA)

5.   Change in Investment Bank Capital Requirements

SUBPART E: Good Old Fashion Greed

1.   Introduction (More Babbling)

2.   Government Responsibility

3.   The Financiers

4.   The Borrowers/Consumers

SUBPART F: The Finiancial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report

1.   General Obsevations

2.   Conclusions of the Majority

3.   Conclusions of the Minority

4.   Dissenting Statement

PART FIVE

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

SUBPART A: General Observations

SUBPART B: The 2000 Election was Stolen

SUBPART C: Iraq was a Failed W Policy

SUBPART D: The Economic Crisis is a Failed W Policy

PREFACE

I was at a cocktail party in early 2008 and got into a political discussion with an Obama supporter who proceeded to bash Bush and espouse the virtues of Obama. In the course of the discussion I made what I considered to be a light hearted comment. At that point, the Obama supporter said he took this stuff seriously and I better watch it or he’d kick my ass. At this point, I was obviously angry, but came to the conclusion that maybe I ought to do a little research into whether any of this Bush bashing was correct and on who Obama is.

I started out getting the views of others. To my chagrin there were numerous Bush bashers and lots of support for Obama. When I asked for facts, I got few if any but I acquired quite a few nicknames. At a dinner party in September of 2008 I was coaxed into revealing who I would support in the upcoming election. At first I tried to avoid the subject but the person insisted he wanted to have an intelligent reasoned discussion. When I told him I was supporting McCain, the person went on a profane tirade regarding McCain and when he was finished with McCain he went on a profane tirade regarding me. Well, so much for intellectualism.

My encounters with Obama supporters made me more determined than ever to find out what happened during the Bush Administration, whether any of the bashing had merit and who Obama is. My search gradually shifted to the economy which was a wreck and which Obama blamed on the failed policies of Bush. What I found astounded me. And the more I dug into the matter the more astounded I became.

Perhaps to give you some perspective, there was a joke which started off with the question: Do you know what the three biggest lies are? The answer was as follow:

1. I’ll call you for lunch next week.

2. Some of my best friends are black (or white).

3. Deficits are good for the economy.

I’m sure there are variations on this theme. In any event, my search revealed that there are three bigger lies than those just mentioned. They are as follows:

1. H.W. and his cronies on the Supreme Court helped W steal the 2000 election.

2. Our Iraq policy was a failed W policy implemented by W because of his Oedipus complex or some other deviant sexual hangup.

3. Our economic situation was a result of failed W economic policies.

These lies were perpetrated by Bush bashers and various Democrats who desired to regain the seat of power. But they did not stop with these lies. For eight long years they engaged in vicious attacks on W. These attacks were not confined to policy matters. The attacks were very personal and contained distortions, half-truths and outright lies. In fact, these attacks were extended to anyone who supported or was associated with Bush. They took in a whole class of people employing tactics reminiscent of the Nazi defamation of the Jews. It was outright horrible.

I often wondered why the everyday citizen who was not a politician would engage in this type of behavior. Politicians have a lot at stake as evidenced by the huge sums these guys make when they leave office. But the everyday citizen, the only interest he or she should have is the functioning of the democracy. But somehow the Democratic constituency got brain washed into thinking their stake was far different. Just think of it. Many Democrats over the last eight years carried the banner of their party as if it was a symbol of a righteous cause. Meanwhile the party hacks and their cronies recognized the lucrative nature of politics. Tons of taxpayer dollars were there for the taking. Nowhere was this more evident than in the recent economic crisis. Ex politicians and their cronies made billions at the expense of the everyday citizen.

When we look at the disaster that befell the economy we should want to make sure we got it right before we butcher people who we think are responsible if for no other reason than to make sure we get, and I mean get, the right people. The lesson learned from prior economic disasters is that the end result is a product of years of behavior. As an example, the Harding/Coolidge administrations were in power from 1921 until the beginning of 1929 when Hoover took over. The general public believes that the depression, which began in 1929 with the great stock market crash, was Hoover’s responsibility; in other words, he owned it. But most economists agree that the depression started because of the poor economic policies of the Harding/Coolidge Administrations. As you will see, W just so happened to catch the end results of poor economic policies fostered by the Clinton Administration.

With respect to the current economic crisis, for years our financial institutions irresponsibly handed out credit pursuant to government mandates; these institutions were subject to severe penalties for noncompliance. To implement these mandates, bank capital requirements were relaxed and rules were put into effect to make it easier for nontraditional lenders to participate in the party. And securities were designed to pass on the risks to the public. Realizing the lucrative nature of this strategy more and more securities were pumped into the system which meant more and more credit had to be extended resulting in a further relaxation of already loose credit standards. This lead to extensive misrepresentations as to the nature of the credit extended and the securities sold. Piecing it all together, one can conclude that what occurred was the biggest securities fraud this country has encountered to date. Either that or those who reengineered our economic system pursuant to government mandates were involved in a massive failure that even impaired the institutions of higher learning which nurtured their careers; while these masters of the universe got A’s in school they flunked the biggest test of their lives. However, I consider this latter explanation hard to accept because of the fact that these dudes walked off with hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.

What galls me is the deflection of responsibility by the perpetrators of our economic ills. They took a duel headed approach. First, they started off by saying it does us no good to look at what happened; they say it is a waste of time and all our efforts should be concentrated in solving the problem. But how do you solve a problem if you don’t know what caused it? In my view, you can’t.

Faced with possible rejection of the first option, the perpetrators took an alternative approach: W caused our economic ills. This is the road Obama travelled on his way to the White House. You want to know something. Not only did the public buy this line but the Republicans also bought it. Hook, Line and Sinker. It was hilarious to watch Republicans try and respond to this charge during the 2008 election. In fact, even after the election, they apparently conceded, and still concede, the issue. One can conclude that for their own convenience they threw W under the bus. But the facts don’t support W’s complicity. What the facts reveal is that the responsible people are now behind the wheel of the bus. Indeed, the facts reveal the elements of a good movie, i.e., lies, sex, politics and greed.

My overriding concern with this whole mess is the complacency of the American public. They read their favorite newspaper, The New York Times, which is today’s Daily Worker, or some other newspaper with similar leanings, and believe everything they read including the editorials. They do little work of their own. I believe what happened requires a little more attention and research considering the magnitude of the loss in wealth. I’ll repeat again what I’ve implied previously and what I will say later on in the text: We, the middle class, have suffered greatly in this crisis and many of our hopes and dreams have been dashed. In the words of Howard Beale, I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!. And Dam It, you should feel the same way. Open your windows like Howard would want you to and let these bastards know exactly how you feel. And while you are at it, throw them out of office. All of them.

Putting rants aside, I hope the following pages encourage you to do your homework and make your own determination. Don’t rely on the editorials of your favorite newspaper; delve deeper. There is plenty of information on the internet. To help you I have footnoted sources for my findings; these footnotes mostly refer to internet sites. This is a great country but it will only remain great if we take the time to be informed and participate in the political process. To let others through editorials do your thinking is a recipe for disaster.

In conclusion, I would like to apologize to those who did not engage in Bush bashing but find some of my commentary offensive. I did not intend to offend these good people. I hope they understand that a certain amount of bitterness emerges when you have been constantly lied to, lost money in what I consider the biggest scam ever, and been called profane names for your political beliefs.

PART ONE

THE ELECTION

SUBPART A

THE HISTORIC ELECTION

1.   THE HISTORIC FEATURE OF THE ELECTION

Well, the historic election is over. We now look forward to the historic presidency. What is historic about it? Most would say it is historic because we have elected our first black president. Obama, however, is not our first black president. When confronted with this fact, people get this quizzical expression. They then smile and say they realize Clinton thinks he was the first black president. What these people do not realize is that blacks would not consider the man embroiled in Zippergate to have enough integrity to be the first black president (more of this later). And I agree.

Then who was our first black president? Morgan Freeman, of course. He stared as the first black president in the 1998 movie, Deep Impact. In that movie a comet is about to destroy earth and Morgan Freeman uses nuclear weapons to destroy it. He was absolutely wonderful. And I might add, a very good president. His demeanor was perfect; he was calm, cool and collected.

At this point, you may throw down this book and say it is not worth reading. But before you do, ask yourself the following question: Who was Moses? Why, it was Charlton Heston. Again, do not throw this book out just yet. The point being made is that Morgan Freeman’s presidency and Charlton Heston’s Moses were media created. And so was Barrack Obama. When I offered to discuss factual issues with two Obama supporters (for convenience hereinafter referred to as Obamanites) their replies were virtually identical: ‘It’s perception that counts, not facts’. And who drives perception? The media. Guess what. They were right.

If the election and presidency of Obama are not historic because he is black, then what is historic about both? The historic feature is that a man with virtually no national experience was nominated by a national party and elected president. I listened to Tom Dashle discuss his advice to Obama on this matter. Dashle advised Obama that his lack of experience was a plus because no one could attack him on positions he had taken; if he chooses to run at another time, Dashle advised, he, Obama, would have taken positions which would be subject to attack. This advice proved prophetic. It was fun to see how the Republicans got tangled up in their own petards trying to attack Obama on the experience issue; Republican efforts were projected by the Democrats and the media as personal attacks and negative campaigning. Of course, as will be pointed out later, the Democrats and the media engaged in 8 years of personal attacks and negative campaigning with barely a whimper from the Republicans.

2.   THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THE EXPERIENCE FACTOR

I must point out that Obama is not the first person lacking experience with respect to whom many Americans attributed a great deal of wisdom. In 1979 a man called Chance, a simple minded gardener, was befriended by an influential man and became a political insider. Of course I am talking about Peter Sellers in Being There. Now this may be deemed a foolish comparison as Chance was a fictional movie character and Obama is real. Ahem, need I say more. Comparisons aside, there is a lesson to be learned even from a movie: Beware of the unknown even if supported by the media as you do not know who you will end with.

Obamanites, though, apparently relish the unknown as they do not hold experience in high esteem. However, experience is the cornerstone of our society. To be a partner at a major law firm a young lawyer must get the experience which is usually an 8+ year period. And to manage the firm requires additional years of experience as a partner with the firm. The same is true with accountants. And doctors, also. It would be foolish to go to a doctor fresh out of Harvard medical for open heart surgery. More to the point, you would not hire a recent Harvard business school graduate to run GE; nor would you hire one who has been out of school for several years unless that person was in the business community during the period from when he left Harvard to the present.

Obamanites, in supporting Obama for president, were not deterred by the experience argument. They said that it does not take much experience to be president, only judgment and intelligence. But judgment is obtained through experience. Obamanites responded by pointing out that some presidents have not done a good job even though they were experienced. No doubt experienced people have failed. But, based on my observations, the probability of failure increases inversely with the amount of experience, i.e., the less experience the more likely it is for failure to occur.

3.   COMPARISONS

To counter the experience argument during their campaigning, Obamanites made comparisons to prior presidents. One of the interesting observations that came from Obamanites was the comparison to Abraham Lincoln. It was pointed out that both Lincoln and Obama were state legislators and had minimal experience in Congress with Lincoln serving only two years. But there are differences. Lincoln first burst onto the political scene in 1832 and the public had 28 years to observe him. And, oh yah, there is that small thing called the Lincoln-Douglas debates which many thought were classic and boosted Lincoln into the national limelight two years before his bid for the presidency. But let us extend this irrational comparison: In 1860 Lincoln got less than 41% of the vote and during the Lincoln administration over 500,000 Americans lost their lives in the most mismanaged war in our history. So, to extend the comparison, under a Barack Obama presidency, there is the risk that a similar catastrophic war will occur. Ridiculous. Of course! Just as ridiculous as the comparison of the two. Besides I think the nature of the presidency has changed in 148 years so any comparison is not appropriate; today we are a nuclear power and the most powerful nation on earth, economically and militarily, while in 1860 this was far from being the case.

Then there was the comparison to JFK. But JFK had over 12 years of congressional experience when he ran for president. And having been 18 at the time, I don’t remember the excitement about him that Obamanites claim existed but only the distress which his nomination caused over the objections of the old guard led by Eleanor Roosevelt who supported Adlai Stevenson. And to demonstrate this point, JFK narrowly beat Nixon and only because of the questionable Texas vote (hello Lyndon) and the fact that dead people voted in Chicago (Hmmm). That aside, JFK tried unsuccessfully to implement many worthwhile social programs. However, one of his nonsocial efforts succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest imagination – the Vietnam War. He got us into it (increasing our involvement from 900 advisors to over 16,000 troops) and his advisors, after his death, buried us with it. I remember this vividly as I opposed our entrance into Vietnam but opposed our exit because of the effect the withdrawal would have upon those left behind and any future effort. Again, this is not to say that Barack Obama would lead us into another Vietnam or that there would be a failure to implement any of his social programs, which at the time of the election I had no knowledge of, but it is to suggest that any comparison is foolish and if there is one to be made with JFK, it should be projected out so that the circle can be completed.

Comparisons hardly ever amaze me but this one does. Barack Obama is like Ronald Reagan because he has the ability to communicate complicated issues in simple terms and thus rally a majority of the people around him. What? I have listened to Barack Obama and I am having trouble understanding him. On what cause has he rallied a majority of the people using his communication skills? Health care? He won the election because of the economic crisis; no candidate from the party in power during an economic crisis has won the presidency. In fact, since 1904, 13 candidates for president won with a greater percentage of the popular vote and a greater number of electoral votes (more on this later); one can hardly conclude that Obama won a sweeping mandate. Besides, Obama has not been around long enough to have rallied a majority of the people using his communication skills on any issue. This is not to say he does not have this ability. But for pete’s sake, you cannot say this ability exists based on his short history. Folks, I think Ronald Reagan would turn over in his grave if he knew this comparison was being made.

Forget about Ronald Reagan. Obamanites gave a new more grandiose comparison. Recent periodicals compare Obama to FDR¹. FDR had been around for a far longer period, was governor of New York and was assistant secretary of the navy. To this comparison, I say horse manure; Obamanites who made the comparison were grasping at straws.

Ignoring, and apparently conceding, the experience factor, some Obamanites pointed to the hope factor, i.e., Obama brings a fresh face and excitement with his oratory skills and his calls for change. Again this is ridiculous without more. To be just as foolish, didn’t Adolf Hitler bring a fresh face and excitement with his oratory skills and his calls for change? I don’t mean to disparage Barack Obama by comparing him to Adolf Hitler; I mean only to show how foolish the ‘fresh face’ observation is without more

Stopping at this point, two questions have to be asked: Why were all these comparisons being made and why am I bringing this up now? As to why the comparisons were being made, the answer is simple: Comparisons had to be made because Barack Obama had no history from which an independent view could be formed. Apparently recognizing this infirmity in the candidate he supported, Senator Kerry came to the defense of Barack Obama. He stated on national television that Barack had more legislative experience than Hillary and more foreign policy experience than Bill Clinton had before he was elected president. He then chided Hillary by noting that Barrack, during the Democratic primaries, carried 42% of the vote in her home state of New York.

Without getting into the silly smirk on his face while he was making this defense, his statements and observations border on the ridiculous. First of all, to compare Barack’s 8+ years of experience in the Illinois Legislature and his short tenure in the U.S. Senate where he spent most of his time campaigning for the presidency to Hillary’s 8+ years in the Senate is nuts. And not to recognize her 8 years in the office of the presidency where she was a close advisor is ludicrous. Then, again, so is the comparison of Barack to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton served as governor of Arkansas for 8 years. It is political experience and exposure that counts for the presidency; I submit that being a legislator in the Illinois state legislature does not measure up. And by the way, Hillary, during the Democratic primaries, carried Massachusetts, the home state of Kerry and Kennedy both of whom supported, at the time of the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

But Senator Kerry did not stop at these silly comparisons. He noted that Obama’s experience in law school and on the Harvard Law Review as well as his legal experience afterwards gave him a rich history which he (Kerry) could draw on to support Obama’s candidacy. Really! If his legal experience is so rich would he, Obama, have qualified as a Justice on the Supreme Court? The answer is no because he does not have sufficient legal experience. So let me see if I got this right. His legal experience qualified him for the presidency but not the Supreme Court. Give me a break.

With regard to why this is being brought up now, you will see throughout this book that Obamanites and their allies for over more than 8 years engaged in half-truths and, in some cases, outright lies and in the process used ridiculous inferences to gain control of a political process rich in payoffs and graft to them and their constituents, all at the expense of the middle class. The comparisons you have just read are but one small example of this idiotic behavior.

4.   EGGADS THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES

I do not know how many of you know the story of the Emperor with no clothes. It starts off with a group of thieves (senators) who convince the Emperor (Barack Obama) that the clothes they made for him are beautiful, he just can’t see them. The Emperor decides to wear these clothes at a parade; the public (the U.S. electorate) is informed that the purpose of the parade is to show off the Emperor’s new clothes. Everyone cheers him and his new clothes. Suddenly, a young child (Larry Kudlow) screams out ‘Egads mommy, the Emperor has no clothes’. Everyone becomes aghast and the Emperor becomes humiliated. Egads, the president has no experience. But not to worry. He cannot be subject to criticism because it would be considered racial. I just can’t wait to see the Long Island Newsweek cartoon section on this administration – the new series will be named BO and Hair Plug.

Back to the Emperor and the nudity point. Recently, Shelby Steele, in a December 30th 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece², gave us some insight into analogizing the Emperor to Obama. He starts off with the following observations:

‘The lie of seeing clothes where there were none amounted to a sophistication—joining oneself to an obvious falsehood in order to achieve social acceptance. In such a sophistication there is an unspoken agreement not to see what one clearly sees—in this case the emperor’s flagrant nakedness.

America’s primary race problem today is our new sophistication around racial matters. Political correctness is a compendium of sophistications in which we join ourselves to obvious falsehoods (diversity) and refuse to see obvious realities (the irrelevance of diversity to minority development). I would argue further that Barack Obama’s election to the presidency of the United States was essentially an American sophistication, a national exercise in seeing what was not there and a refusal to see what was there—all to escape the stigma not of stupidity but of racism.

Barack Obama, elegant and professorially articulate, was an invitation to sophistication that America simply could not bring itself to turn down. If hope and change was an empty political slogan, it was also beautiful clothing that people could passionately describe without ever having seen.

Mr. Obama won the presidency by achieving a symbiotic bond with the American people: He would labor not to show himself, and Americans would labor not to see him. As providence would have it, this was a very effective symbiosis politically. And yet, without self-disclosure on the one hand or cross-examination on the other, Mr. Obama became arguably the least known man ever to step into the American presidency.’

Shelby then goes into policy decisions facing Obama for which he is ill equipped. Stated another way, policy decisions for which he does not have the clothes to handle. Like the economic crisis, like the decision on Afghanistan, etc. And contrary to Dashle’s believe, Shelby observes this lack of ‘leadership’ sophistication will bite the American electorate in the butt. He concludes with the following observations:

‘A greater problem for our nation today is that we have a president whose benign—and therefore desirable—blackness exempted him from the political individuation process that makes for strong, clear-headed leaders. He has not had to gamble his popularity on his principles, and it is impossible to know one’s true beliefs without this. In the future he may stumble now and then into a right action, but there is no hard-earned center to the man out of which he might truly lead.

And yes, white America conditioned Barack Obama to emptiness—valued him all along for his articulate and clean blackness, so flattering to American innocence. He is a president come to us out of our national insecurities.’

Amen!! Oh, by the way, for you neophyte guilt trippers, Shelby shares something with Obama—he is biracial³.

SUBPART B

THE MANDATE

Obamanites believe they have received a clear mandate from the American electorate. The first question that has to be asked is did Obama receive a mandate? Obama received 52.9% of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes. Bush, on the other hand, according to the press, squeaked out a victory in 2004 with 50.7% of the popular vote and 286 electoral votes. I guess 2.2% makes a mandate. Who are you kidding? But let’s not stop here. Below is a chart showing presidential results since 1904 for winners who, when compared to Obama, received a higher percentage of the popular vote and more electoral votes:

Note Harding is first on the list. One of the worse scandals occurred during his administration. It was called the Teapot Dome scandal. And he allegedly died with his pants off in a house of ill repute. Then there was Coolidge followed by Hoover. Both are credited with the great depression, although Hoover may have gotten a bum rap on this