Congress does indeed spend the money, but is the job of the POTUS to provide a budget proposal. His last one was rejected by the Senate, receiving not a single vote.

Most of the Bush's and GOP policies are still in place. Also tarp was signed in 2008 and was counted under obama. Bush worked on that. This is all GOP policies that got us here. I like how the right always loves to forget this. However It doesn't mean I agree with obama either. I would have never extended the bush tax cuts but the gop was Filabustering, so he had to do something to extend unemployment benefits.

Yes I agree that he can propose but so does the house and senate. However obama is to far to the right for me, so not sticking up for the guy as much as Im trying to teach.

Obama even saying he would be a moderate  republican in the 80's. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/272957-obama-says-his-economic-policies-so-mainstream-hed-be-seen-as-moderate-republican-in-1980s

If you think Obama is a moderate republican, you are completel clueless. 

Furthermore:

" The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks) for 5 minutes.

   Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, the Bush tax cuts' history illuminates why American families face huge tax increases on January 1. The Bush tax cuts had two purposes. First, stimulate the economy, create jobs, cut unemployment, and cut the deficit. Second, cut taxes to help American families take care of their own needs.

   In just 3 years, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, unemployment dropped from a high of 6.3 percent in 2003 to a low of 4.4 percent in 2006; 7 million American jobs were created between 2003 and 2006.

   Most importantly and paradoxically to those who do not understand economics, this robust economic growth cut America's deficit 60 percent--from $413 billion in FY 2003-2004 to $161 billion in FY 2006-2007. By every economic measure, the Bush tax cuts were a spectacular success.

   The Bush tax cuts, part 1, became law in 2001. Republican Congressmen and Senators voted 258-2--99 percent--to cut taxes and protect family incomes. In contrast, Democrat Congressmen and Senators who now say they are for protecting family incomes voted 184-40--a whopping 81 percent--against American families and for higher taxes.

   The Bush tax cuts, part 2, became law in 2003. Republican Congressmen and Senators voted 272-3--that's 99 percent--to cut taxes and protect family incomes. In contrast, Democrat Congressmen and Senators who now say they are for protecting family incomes voted 245-9--an eye-popping 96 percent--against American families and for higher taxes. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats had enough votes to prevent the Bush tax cuts from being permanent. But for these Senate Democrats, America would not be facing a fiscal cliff today.

   President Obama and a radically different Congress, controlled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, revisited the Bush tax cuts. In two separate votes in February 2009 and December 2010, Democrats could have increased taxes on the wealthy if they'd really believed what they now say."

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H31DE2-0009:/

Tax breaks for the rich have never worked. I can show you fact after fact but I'm not going to waste my time with people who can't understand this.

Didn't even read my post. As you stated "Congress spends the money":

So. In a thread about how Congress spends the money, not the president, you are going to blame TARP on Bush instead of on the Democratic Congress?

Congress spends the money.

I agree .