Maybe people would listen if Obama said “I inherited this Democratic Senate”

Barack Obama keeps saying he inherited problems. And, the statistics show that, just maybe, he did.

Look at this graph from the Bureau of Labor.


[Source: Bureau of Labor]

Notice that unemployment was on its way up before he took office. It looks like Obama did inherit rising unemployment.

But then, take the statistics from this source — the Unites States Senate — showing which party controlled the Senate, and apply it to that graphic.

What do you get? This:


[Source: American Thinker]

So, when you go to criticize Barack Obama for his dismal performance, keep in mind that it’s not just his fault. It’s the Democrats’ fault.

And the fault of those that keep electing Democrats.

14 Comments

  1. What if their was some sort of TV news channel who could do this sort of research put it into a graph then put it on television for other people to see. But then we wouldn’t be a serious medal contender with North Korea, China, and Russia for worlds most unbelievable media.

    I like to tell British people imagine if you only had 1 “Daily Mail” and 10 “Guardians” as your only news options? Even that is a bit of an insult as even the openly socialist “Guardian” is reporting on parts of the collapsing “global scamming” agenda.

  2. It had already started, but Bush really left me when he stepped aside as Democrats (including good old Paulson) and Bernanke ran roughshod over the Constitution.

    But, of course, that doesn’t make it Bush’s fault that the Democratic party created this mess and profited from this mess.

  3. Pingback: PapaTodd.com

  4. Oh man…I’m leaving a comment. i best spell everything correctly or people who have politically different philosophy then mine will pounce all over my inability to grasp something as simple as spelling.
    So here goes…Capitalism is inherently flawed because in order for someone to succeed someone has to fail. Failure in a capitalist system results in poverty. Poverty is antithetical to liberty and freedom because the impoverished lack the means to escape the structures created by those who have achieved success within a capitalist system. If you don’t believe me you’ve probably never been poor.
    This country is founded on the ideals of liberty and freedom, so in some sense capitalism is contrary to the American ideals so clearly espoused in the Constitution. I know these liberties and freedoms should also apply to commerce and industry, but what if these institutions repress the freedoms of others? Are they living up to American ideology?
    Finally, a personal gripe that may have nothing to do with the general ideals of the posters on this board. The reason for the existence of a national defense to is protect American citizens from harm, and ultimately death. So, what would be the reason fro national healthcare? Also to protect American citizens from harm and ultimately death. So why is one so widely accepted by the right and the other thoroughly vilified? Are they not means to a same end? Personally I’d rather have free health care than a national defense. I can should a terrorist on my own, but I can’t cure cancer in myself.

  5. Boogerton, capitalism is not a one winner equals one loser deal. Because of capitalism, the the impoverished have an escape. If your competitor makes a better widget, and you end up going out of business, go to work for him or come up with a different widget. He might have a bigger house, but yours will still be comfortable. No other system works as well for as many.
    The reason for a national defense is national defense. Not to protect citizens from harm or death.

  6. Even if you could “should” a terrorist on your own, he would have to be close to you to “should” him. Far better to pay volunteers to go to the terrorists back yard to “should” him before he can get to you to “should” you. Also, we don’t need 30 million volunteers to “should” terrorists. That’s why national defense does not cost as much as National Health Care. It’s the numbers, stupid.

  7. The aptly name boogerton has just dropped a ton of boogers all over this thread. Obviously clueless about the history of socio-economic/political systems, booger-boy (or girl?) completely overlooks the abject failure of socialist/communist systems throughout history; simply buying into the Democrat meme of economies having a zero-sum gain. Sorry Nosepicker, but economies of the size and scale of a State are NOT static, they are dynamic and grow/shrink under economic laws which cycle back and forth, but under a free market system, steadily upwards. Therefore zero-sum gain is an impossibility. NO system is perfect including Free Market Capitalism, but clearly the Utopia you seek via a Marxist or Maoist system is indeed fatally flawed for it disincentivizes the individual to rationally act in his/her own self-interest. Having said this, for you it will go in one nostril and out the other as more spew. It is simply too difficult for your public school trained head to comprehend. Which is a shame.

  8. You cannot know darkness without light. As it is in capitalism…you cannot know success without failure. My point is simply that capitalism cannot succeed without there being failure, and that is its inherent flaw. And I knew you guys would go for any typo I made instead of putting forth a counter-argument.
    Also, USGC, I am confused, if national defense isn’t to protect citizens from harm and death, then what is its purpose? To protect American interests? I would think the well being of its citizens are an interest, but since I am a liberal, I am obviously stupid. Not all impoverished have an escape in a capitalist system. Capitalism is not egalitarian economic structure and therefore there will always be poor, otherwise, what is the basis of comparison by which measure success? I don’t aim for socialism or communism. I understand the failings of those systems….you pretend to pay us, we’ll pretend to work, etc. I think my issue is my perception (and I may be wrong) that conservatives belief that capitalism, with little or no checks and balances, is the only way the U.S. can recover economically.
    Please consider my ideas before you tear me apart.

    [The mere fact that you see failure as a bad thing tells lots about you. Failure is not bad. Failure is an opportunity to learn. How one handles the failure is what’s bad. Liberals handle it by crying foul.

    As for considering your ideas, you need to know something. Many of us, when we were less mature and less understanding of how life really is, may have had similar ideas. But we grew up. That’s why we’re conservative. Perhaps one day, you’ll grow up. Many liberals do. But not those who have their enablers telling them how unfair conservatives and capitalism is.

    Liberal leaders don’t want the hardship that comes from liberalism. They want the perks. Conservatives and capitalists are forthright and upfront. We ant the good stuff. And we want you to have it too — if you’re willing to work for it. A hand-out? Get bent. – B.]

  9. It started for me when 15 years ago when I coached kids soccer for the first time. At the end of the season, I was amazed at the hundreds of trophies that were being handed out. I asked the head of the Rec league why there were so many trophies. He said, “everyone gets one”. I said “why”? The answer, “so they feel good about themselves”. What was the leason learned by all these children? That there is a reward for mediocrity? That showing up is as important than hard work or ability? This is not a life lesson. There are rewards for being the best, and if sports aren’t our kids best, then we need to help our kids find it elsewhere. When we find our kids true abilities, and praise them for their rightfull effort, then they will understand the value of hard work. Society is better for it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.