And this is Bush's fault

I'm confused.

On January, 2007 the national unemployment rate was 4.6%, the Ohio rate was 5.3%.

On September, 2008 the unemployment rate 6.1% nationally, 7.2% for Ohio.

And the current high unemployment is Bush's fault? Huh.

He was the same president for the previous six years when the unemployment rate floated between 4.5 - 5.5% . If he's responsible for the current rate, shouldn't he be given credit for the low rates the previous six years as well?

Let's face it, Bush has been president for nearly eight years. For the first six, things seem to be moving rather swimmingly in the economy; then we hit a speed bump that started around January, 2007.

What changed?

If you are inclined to blaming politicians, you can start with the democratic congress and senate who took over in January, 2007.

For Ohioans, democrats also took over all but one statewide office on January.

See a correlation here?

But let's look to Michigan where, in January of 2003, unemployment was 7.1% (John Engler, republican was governor). Today, their unemployment rate is 8.7%. Is it a coincidence that Jennifer Granholm, a democrat is the current governor? I don't think so.

Now it occurs to me that when you look at any area of this country dominated by democratic governance, you find higher than the national average unemployment (along with higher crime, crappy schools, more homeless, deteriorating real estate values, etc).

Yet somehow Obama supporters think he's going to change our current economic climate? What are you smoking? What will he do that won't be a duplication of what Governor Ted and Granholm have done?

How the people of Michigan and Ohio cannot connect that democratic policies are what's put a hurt on our respective economies is beyond me.

But, I have to give it to democrats; they are the one party who figured out a way to benefit from the very pain they inflict on its citizens.