Is Obama responsible for a $5 trillion increase in the debt? - The Washington Post
Turd, I really can't disagree with you in regards to the spending issues under Republican presidents, it is why I have trouble identifying myself as a Republican. I have argued with many friends that George Dubya Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in history for many reasons but Obama will be right there next to him on the list. I mainly took exception with your first chart depicting Obama as a frugal president, the guy is going to amass more debt then all other presidents combined. So if you want to compare him to Dubya, one of our worst presidents and say Obama is better you can do that but you're setting your standards very low IMO. Reagan doesn't go without fault for the debt incurred under his presidency but you have to consider he was dealing with a Democratic congress and he needed to get budgets passed with tremendous but necessary for the time defense spending. One metric you must consider because I feel it is more important then % change in spending is debt as a % of GDP and under Reagan I believe in was never more then 70% and now we are over 100%.
Look at the graph. The divergence between revenue and expense coincides with the super recession. Expenses went up mostly because so many people suddenly were out of work - they went on unemployment, etc. Obama can't suddenly say we're just not going to pay anyone unemployment, as if he has the political power to do that, not to the mention the coldhearted gall. So he's barely to blame for the rise in expenses. Then look at revenue. That is the greater cause of the rising debt. Again, the super recession caused that - and neither Obama nor Bush caused that. The way government can correct a failing economy is to do two things: They've lowered interest rates as low as possible and they passed stimulus spending. They've done other things too but those are the main ones.
The ballooning debt is a widespread issue that is not, nor has been, centered in the White House - except for past issues revolving around deregulated financials and, to a small degree, loans to poor people.
And we should never forget the bond rating agencies. In case anyone isn't aware, Moody's and S&P were paying their employees a commission on the number of ratings they wrote for their mortgage-backed securities clientele (something they didn't do until recently before the bubble). So they were incentivised to give good ratings to securities that didn't deserve them. That is one of the main ingredients to the bubble. Without that corrupt system it is likely the bubble would have been much smaller, maybe even nonexistent. It's funny how many times the White House, or the CRA, or Barney Frank, etc., etc., is blamed while the rating agencies aren't even mentioned. When you hear that line of bull you know you're talking to someone who doesn't understand the bubble.
Speaking of bubbles...where's nero, fiddling his dicksy?