Unbelievable! You vote? This is your argument? Bush didn't spend 862 billion to have unemployment go to this level nor did Bush claim that if you spend that money unemployment wouldn't exceeed 8%zip98053;1059066373]OMG, going to say that the Democrats were guilty of the meltdown because they had been in power for a whole year? And you claim that I'm an ideologue.
Now for your handy numbers.
Bush's first year: Jan 2001 - number of unemployed 6.023M
Bush's second year: Jan 2002 - number of unemployed 8.182M or a 36% increase in the number of unemployed
Obama's first year: Jan 2009 - number of unemployed 11.919M
Obama's second year: Jan 2010 - number of unemployed 14.837M or a 24.5% increase in the number of unemployed
Yep, the real damage was people not paying any attention to the fact that Democrats took Congress in January 2007 and the recession began in December 2007. It does appear that you have been brainwashed by an ideology that the majority in this country are rejecting. Obama approval ratings are tanking badly so apparently the people are waking up and don't see it your way. 4.5 trillion increase in GDP is an incredible number with an inherited recession in 2001-2002 and the current recession 2007-2008.The real damage was done in the last year of Bush's reign when the number of unemployed jumped by 56% (according to your numbers). And yes, relative numbers make sense (when a loaf of bread cost $1 and you are making $100, it is relatively more expensive than when bread cost $2 and you are making $500).
I asked you and you ignored what exactly was Congress's role and what did they do or propose that Bush rejected that would have prevented the recession but of course you ignored that. Seems that the three equal branches of govt. only exist when a Democrat is in the WH. Democrats were more interested in regaining the WH than they were in keeping the country out of a recession.
Please explain how the debt went up every year of the Clinton Administration if there was a surplus inherited? All surpluses have to go to paying down the debt and the debt went up. There was no surplus. Clinton along with a Republican Congress came close but did so by taking money from the SS trust fund to show a lower deficit but taking money from SS left a shortfall in the Intergovt. holdings thus moving money from one account to another doesn't equal a surplus.I suppose that since Bush inherited a surplus and, as you say, tax revenue went up, then it is just an affirmation of Bush's (and the Republican Congress') stewardship that the deficit started growing like crazy under Bush? Bush handed Obama a pile of crap and and Republicans are unwilling to accept that they are AT LEAST as culpable for this mess as the Democrats and much more responsible for this mess than is Obama.
That pile of crap that Obama "inherited" was created in part by Obama and Congress. Learn how the govt. works before buying rhetoric and spouting lies.
You really are one brainwashed individual. We don't have October's numbers yet to see if unemployment in October 2010 is higher or lower than October 2009. But every month of 2010 unemployment is higher than the same month in 2009. Of course you ignored that the recession ended in June 2009 so I am waiting for you to show me any other President in U.S. History that had higher unemployment "on a month to month basis" a year after the recession ended?BTW, things are bad enough without your exaggerations. Your own numbers show that the current Unemployed+Discouraged is coming down and today is not "over 16M". I'm also not able to see why the Sept 2010 number of 15.976M U+D is higher than, say, the Oct 2009 value of 16.42. Maybe you meant so say "on a month by month basis" and not "each month"
According to reality the Debt is increasing and will be 100% of GDP by the end of this year and that fact escapes you. Stop buying what you are told and think. The deficit as a percentage of GDP means nothing if you drive the debt about the total GDP. Everything wasn't in good fiscal shape, we were entering a recession. The dot.com and tech bubble had burst and then we had 9/11.Finally, why are you trying to compare Bush's 8 years against the 18 months of Obama? According to budget projections, the the deficit for the next fiscal year will be less of a percentage of GDP than it was during the typical Bush year. Bush started off with everything in good fiscal shape, Obama didn't. If you just look at the start of his administration and at the end, Bush totally screwed it up. And claiming it was all because Democrats were in control of Congress (but not the Senate) for the last two years of Bush's administration is just total bull**** (the fact that Lieberman caucused with the Democrats didn't make him a Democrat as his support of McCain in 2008 proved).
But of course this really isn't about Bush, this is about "your" President who is performing up to his resume. Doesn't really matter what I say or what facts I post because you are going to divert back to Bush. The American people are waking up to the mistake they made. Eventually I have faith that you will to. Problem is with you it will be too late. Not sure where you get your information but unfortunately there are still a lot of people like you.
Democrats had TOTAL Control of the Congress from January 2007 to the present unless of course Republicans made Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader so what is total bull**** is your argument.