This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.



Don’t just skim over this, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.



The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009; it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.



The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:



The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77



The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%



The Unemployment rate was 4.6% George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH



Remember the day...January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.



The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!



Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!



Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.





And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA and who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?



OBAMA and the Democrat Congress so when someone tries to blame Bush... REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER! “Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.



In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.



For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.



And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.



If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.



If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.



There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

Be nice to him Bonz, he's your next President.

Sorry Darlene.

There you go again Cap, trying to confuse the issue with facts. Please don't try to tell him that Bush initiated TARP.

Those BS emails, I get them too from a right wing friend, I usually find the proof to show its nonsense and send it back.

Recent one was a modern prison (supposedly built in Cook County, Illinois) The place was built in Austria or such.

The intent is to get the BS out there few check it for accuracy, most are sucked in and believe it.

And I'm sorry but most of them are right wing.

Not Darlene, Dave. bonz, not bozo

Doesn't matter... I could live with it, as long as the Rs keep the house and get the Senate. Maybe then SOMETHING would get done.

Hell, if we could just get rid of that idiot, Reid, something could get done... Remember, well over 1000 days without a budget. Thank you Harry Reid.

What I find funny in the statement "don't confuse them with the fact"....

Your chart is completely ASSUMING what the deficit would be if Bush didn't have the tax breaks and if he didn't go into 2 wars.

But you complete neglect that Obama could have stopped the wars 3yrs ago, could have pushed the Democratic controlled congress to reverse the Bush tax cuts and could have completely limited spending due to the economic downturn...If I remember correctly, it was Obama that pushed to keep the tax cuts for SS.

YET,

they have forecasted out to 2019 and are still blaming Bush...

Remind me again....Who is getting confused with the facts? Seems the OP has more facts, as it what is stated has already happened, then your chart that is forecasting into the future and putting the blame on a past president???

I guess you are right...I would hate to confuse YOU with the facts

I have doubts about the claim that Bush had a "record 52 months of straight job growth". That was most of his term before 2007, was it really his policies that created the growth? And there is no proof that his policies were what created the growth, it may have even been policies from before he took office. Wasn't there also a recession during those 52 months, like around 2003-2004 where there were job losses?

In politics, as in every day life, it seems that everyone wants to point fingers at someone else to blame for anything negative that happens.

If you listen to both sides of the argument in regards to who is responsible for our current economy, you can only draw one conclusion; Both parties are to blame.

Blaming today's problems on one party or one person is a very narrow-minded way of looking at things.

AMEN.

Also the position that everything Obama does is wrong is also a very narrow minded way of looking at things. The GM bailout looks like it was a very good move, saved jobs and saved GM which is now the world's leading auto company again and the money will be repaid, a lot of it has been paid back.

And TARP is working out well. That money will come back with a profit.

It would be nice to see some degree of objectivity but that's a little too much to ask for I guess.