How did Barack Obama "inherit" an economy that he as a U.S.Senator helped CREATE?

One out of many and don't forget the previous Presidents.

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

Q - And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

A - 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 Congresssince 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.

THE FACTS DON'T LIE

Middle class wages dropping faster under Obama than Bush ... to be honest about the declining American middle class and stop blaming. Yet real median household income in March was down $4300 since Obama took office. It should be pointed out that raising taxes on the 1% will not close the income gap nor will such a tax increase affect middle class wages. Any revenue from a tax increase will simply go into government coffers, to be used as government uses the rest of its tax revenue.

Perhaps Mitt Romney should remind voters of Obama's words back in 2008 about how a president's policies affect the decline in middle class wages.

I think it's informative to look back at Bush's first year. You might remember that Bush inherited a recession as well. You might have a hard time remembering it because Bush turned it around pretty quickly (6 months.) What is so amazing about that is that he did it after we experienced the biggest attack in the history of our country AND the fact that hurricane Katrina packed an unusually big punch to the United States economy. So keep that in mind in the comparison.

In the last week of November 2001, "House Democratic leaders pronounced that the country was in the Bush recession. That brought howls from Republicans. After a11 they argued correctly this recession began when former President Clinton was in office."

Gee, that sounds kind of familiar. So, can we call this the "OBAMA RECESSION" now? Following the lead of the Democrats, I think we should.

And beyond that, we need to look closely at what Bush did to pull us out of that recession and then look closely at what Obama has done to do the same.

This is practically a test case on what works. Clearly what Bush did worked (a $1.35-trillion tax cut). By July of 2005 the unemployment rate held steady at 5 percent. and The U.S. had generated about 200,000 new jobs a month in the last part of 2005. Look at what Obama did (which is the opposite of what Bush did.) So far we have a unbelievable 10.2 unemployment rate.

I'm not holding out much "hope." How about you? So far, it's clear the boondoogle of the stimulus ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," what a joke) didn't work.

But it is amusing to go back and look at the news when Bush was running for re-election in 2004. The economy was in recovery, but the Democrats were moaning about the 2.3 million jobs lost under Bush in his first term, calling it the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover. 2.3 million is the number of jobs lost under Obama in his first year.

In December of 2004 the U.S. added 157,000 new jobs, which the Democrats lamented as an "underwhelming performance." Oh, what we wouldn't give for an underwhelming performance now.

Then there is the deficit. Oh, how we hated Bush's spending. But Obama has made Bush look like a Texas housewife in spending compared to Obama's Paris Hilton ways. The White House 2009 budget deficit projection is a staggering $1.8 trillion. For context, it took President Bush more than seven years to accumulate $1.8 trillion in debt. Right now obama has added... debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $15,786,635,144,867.18 trillion

"When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England. "

-- King of Swamp Castle

That would assume he actually spent any time in Congress. He started campaigning right away. He didn't even have a term under his belt.

Do you really need someone to explain to you how little power a single senator has with regard to shaping monetary policy?

Didnt think so. Nice try.

stop making the questions so hard.. there are democrats around