You really need to look at total per capita debt to see the real picture. At the end of Bush II 3rd year, the total debt per person was $24,115. At the end of Obama's 3rd year its $48,358. That's double. Also of note: During Bush II the highest per capita income was $26,964 (his last yr). Today, under Obama, per capita income is $26,487. You can look at the data, and you will not find another period where per capita income DECREASED. Going back to Ford, per capita income increased during every administration, except Obama's. Under Obama, per capita debt stands at 183% of per capita income. The highest its ever been. The other thing, and I find this laughable, if you believe Krugman, Obama has presided over a Republican economy. Maybe he can run on that. Because he sure as hell isn't going to run on his record.
My suggestion is that the very last generation of Americans, the one that has to pay the principal, should just default and let their kids live with the consequences.
Manipulating the debt and spending figures to "prove" that Obama has been fiscally responsible is the new liberal tactic. of course, like most of what they do, it is based on dubious assumptions and outright falsehoods. Given the facts, it smacks of desperation, but they know their allies in the media will push it. The NY Times article has been debunked elsewhere, but in brief, they assign virtually all of Obama's first year spending to bush on the assumption that it was Bush's budget. of course, that isn't entirely or even partially true. Bush agreed to some bailout spending at the democrats' and specifically obama's request. Bush was a lame duck and didn't want to be blamed for pulling the rug out from under the new president, but of course he got blamed anyway. Obama also revived some stimulus or TARP spending that Bush had rejected. The bottom line is that Obama has been an irresponsible spender, squandering huge amounts on pork-laden stimulus bills and bailouts.
New, only in that it follows the conservative tactic of... manipulating the debt and spending figures to "prove" that Obama has been fiscally irresponsible.
------------- No! My prophecies foretell a gay hispanic male president in 2024 {a take it up the ass power bottom real gay--believe me, he will make it known that a new 'golden-gay' age has officially begun}; gay will be the way to enlightenment. Peace & Blessings! Cardinal Hedvig Von Dikkeman V
Gays are not fit to lead, not even their own organizations. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012...cramentos-gay-and-lesbian-center-is-straight/
Of COURSE 2009 was a Bush-Obama-Democratic congress budget, but even ignoring- that IT IS STUPID to say that just because obama has held enormous deficits constant means he is a fiscal conservative. Think about the mind numbing political logic here. FY 2009 was bad, bad, bad, and it was Bush, Bush, Bush. Instead of reversing it however, hey we can get credit if we simply don't change it.... It is amazing how some of you guys are trying to spin reality. I swear that politics just another religion.
The only thing that has prevented soaring interest rates has been precisely that the europeans are in far worse on the spending binge chickens coming home to roost scenario than we are hence all the safe money has been attracted to our treasuries. That game won't last forever and the Austrians are right about that too. I'm not predicting armegeddon but it's going to take a long time to work out of this mess caused by govt intervention bailouts of banks, attempts at propping up home prices, govt printing etc etc.
Obama still spends trillions more then we take in... yet a leftist can find a way to call it a drop in govt spending.
Of course, that's how government works. I could have spent a trillion, but I only spent 900 billion, so I saved you 100 billion dollars. Call me Mr. thrifty! My wife should run for office.