You are not really attributing the job loses the past year to Obama are you? Sure you can scoff at the notion that the stimulus package would have some kind of immediate, measurable benefits yet alone reverse the effects of the recession, but do you really think that Obama has done anything that has significantly impacted the economy - yet? It is still my belief that while negative economic reactions can happen pretty quick as the stock and bond markets can immediately signal a lack of confidence, but positive improvements take much longer to be noticeable. While I might offer a position from time to time that seems contradictory (like the auto bailouts) as other factors weigh in, but in general this liberal is not supporting Obama's fiscal policies as I generally don't believe in using fiscal policy for any role other than paying for government. That being said, I find it silly to believe that Obama's budgets so far have been significantly different from Bush's. That is while I am discouraged by Obama's lack of belief that priority one should be deficit reduction and elimination, it just isn't accurate to look at Bush's typical deficits and those projected out for Obama and say that Obama changed something significant to create the larger deficits.As far as unemployment, I'm not sure that we aren't at the threshold where optimal employment levels for our economy is less than full employment. That has been predicted over and over in the past and has never actually happened so there is lots of hope that I am wrong, but what do we do if this time is different? What if some of the guys are correct and the best we can get to "full employment" is now 8% unemployed rather than 4 or 5%? I hear the analysts suggesting that kind of job gains required to undo the loses is typical in a recovery from this type of recession, so again there is lots of hope that the guys predicting this are wrong also. But the fact that this type of recovery has been typical is also why I wish we were looking long term rather than short term. I opposed W's various tax cuts and rebates in the name of economic stimulus, so I'm not going to be hypocritical now and support Obama's. However, I don't think the point of this thread is serious analysis of Obama's stimulus package or unemployment, the point is that if employment numbers start to improve now it would be good news for democrats and the midterm elections. I don't think that is really debatable.No, I am not blaming this on Obama. The effect Presidents have on stimulating the economy are minimal. Governments are far more effective at ruining economic growth. I wouldn't put too much blame on Obama unless interest rates spike up significantly.Yes, Obama's budgets are worse. Bush took a huge charge against his budget by making his bailout of the banks. That money is much closer to an investment as most will be paid back with interest. I have my doubts about the money poured into AIG, but for the most parts banks are getting more stable and paying back the bailout money. I think about 30% has already been returned. Obama's money is real spending that will never get paid back. Not only that, Obama is taking the bailout money that is getting repaid and spending that too. That money was suppose to pay down the deficit. Also, I think most people know that Obama's health care bill is going to be another huge long term hit to the budget. Bush's budgets were a disaster, Obama's budgets are mind-boogling which blows away what even Bush would have done.