You are completely delusional. I don't want to speak for everyone on this thread who has called you a half-wit (which you most certainly are...), but the critics of this administration were equally as dismayed by the previous one. Most of us are "apoplectic" because we see the downward spiral things have taken over many years, not just in the past three. Now go back and find that dildo of yours and plug it, asswipe.
Isnt it amazing what you can do when you put every man woman & child in debt another $20,000 in 4 years? ($6 Trillion spent so far)
According to this article Obama's policies will cost 1 trillion while Bush's has cost 5 trillion "Since President Obama became chief executive, the national debt has risen almost $5 trillion. But how much of that was because of policies passed by Obama, and how much was caused by the financial crisis, the continuation of past policies and other effects? For this analysis, we worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to attach a price tag to the legislation passed by Obama and his predecessor. George W. Bushâs major policies increased the debt by more than $5 trillion during his presidency. Obama has increased the debt by less than $1 trillion. Read related article." http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...h-vs-obama/2012/01/31/gIQAQ0kFgQ_graphic.html
Lest also not forget what Obama has been dealing with...... "The 2007â2012 global financial crisis, also known as the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), late-2000s financial crisis or the second "Great Recession", is considered by many economists to be the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[1] It resulted in the collapse of large financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments and downturns in stock markets around the world. In many areas, the housing market also suffered, resulting in numerous evictions, foreclosures and prolonged unemployment. It contributed to the failure of key businesses, declines in consumer wealth estimated in trillions of U.S. dollars, and a significant decline in economic activity, leading to a severe global economic recession in 2008.[2]" but there is no doubt the debt is cranking up, and it started before Obama A combination of un-paid wars, tax breaks, drunkin govt spending during the Bush years and the financial crisis may have something to with it. The Iraq war cost alone is close to a quarter to a third of the entire debt. But as bad as this debt is it does not look much worse than other main economies.
The idiot that started this thread refuses to acknowledge this. Extend and pretend is all we've got going. It's been going on for a long, long time. It didn't just start 12 years ago or 3 years ago. The real problem is that we have large groups of imbeciles around here who are card carrying members of one of the two parties. Divide and conquer continues unabated.
I was talking to some leftist AmeriBitch today.. I asked her how the Public Sector was going to scare up the money to pay off their $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. She told me to shut up and changed the subject!! I'm going to start a campaign for public monies to fund some psychological help for babies born today. At some point they will discover that they owe a half million that previous generations blew through and accomplished nothing and the shock might be a bit much for them. I've been studying psychopaths for some time now, last few months at least... I've found a half dozen so far that I can observe and interact with, two of them are the staunchest most outspoken, most insulting leftists! Not making this up. Psychopaths don't give a flying f%^k who has to clean up the mess they make, they just want what they want, and now. I guess that they get some Narcissistic Supply by being on the left.. Actually Obama didn't start the bailouts, he carried on where Bush left off but with a real flair for rewarding Black voters and Israel's enemies.. even with his Middle East ass kissing tours he's been on we still have high oil prices. Obama isn't squat really, his security clearance is only half way up the scale and Bernanke is the one engineering all the bailout stuff.. they blew so much money shoring up banks in Europe that they don't have any to get the economy going, not to mention that the upcoming tax hikes are going to be the death of the economy anyhow. With Public Sector budgets at 55% of the GNP there is no economy on earth that can succeed. That's beyond the breaking point.. they have to inflate their way out of their debt load but that will lead to rate hikes which will really kill the real estate market. There has to be a recovery in Real Estate to put Americans back to work but that is so far down the POTUS's priority list behind all the Leftist social programs and expansion of government that it will be generations before there is a real recovery, if ever... I became a trader so I wouldn't have to really give a rat's ass how screwed up the US finally gets after it's many decades of marching towards atheism and hell..
People stupid enough to believe that still think fdr performed the same miracle. All obama has done is kick the can down the road (increasing the debt by 50%) while incredibly blaming bush. With deficits over a trillion dollars /yr (for the next 10 yrs) already baked into the budget, what could go wrong?
You should have mentioned most of it is from Bush http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/92569/bush-obama-deficit-tax-cut-stimulus-health The Bush Deficit Critics of President Obama never tire of blaming him for today's high deficits. But if blame belongs with one president, it belongs with Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. The chart above, which the New York Times created based upon figures from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, illustrates this point very clearly. But it's worth reviewing the history here, because while it's familiar to most of us who follow politics it doesn't seem to get a lot of attention in the political debate. By the end of the 1990s, the federal budget was in surplus for the first time in decades. Partly that was a product of unusually strong economic growth, during the internet boom, which had swelled tax revenues. But partly that was a product of responsible budgeting, presided over by the most recent two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In order to reduce deficits, lawmakers and those two presidents had agreed both to raise taxes and to reduce spending. In the 2000 campaign, Clinton's would-be successor, Al Gore, campaigned on a promise to, in effect, put those surpluses aside for a rainy day. Bush would have none of it. The government had too much money, he said; the responsible thing was to give it all back to the taxpayers. In office, he did just that, presiding over massive tax cuts that gave, by far, the largest benefits to the very wealthy. Bush promised that the tax cuts would act like a "fiscal straightjacket," preventing government from growing. But then he, and his allies, launched two major wars and enacted a drug benefit for Medicare, all without paying for them. Today's fiscal gap is largely a product of those decisions, as the graph above shows. It has very little to do with anything Obama did while in office. In fact, the contrast between the two administrations could not be more striking. Obama's primary undertaking has been comprehensive health care reform. But he insisted that it pay for itself, through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html Whatâs also important, but not evident, on this chart is that Obamaâs major expenses were temporary â the stimulus is over now â while Bushâs were, effectively, recurring. The Bush tax cuts didnât just lower revenue for 10 years. Itâs clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.