dont know where to begin with your string of mis informed facts.

obama has not doubled the debt- he took the war costs that bush chose to not include in the budget and obama included them.

obama has presented a budget each year- due to republican blocking(see ny times article re mcconnell getting agreement of all republican senators to vote as a block which under senate rules enables them to block passage of anything) reid decided to not present to save time.

dont know if you know who the head of bond investments for pimco is, but they are the largest bond investor in the world and changes in interest rate, etc would have a disasterous impact on bond values and he has publically stated the U.S. does NOT have a short term deficit problem, we have a jobs problem.

rationalone- we are not the equivalent of greece. we have a revenue problem caused by the recession.

i am sorry, but trying to have a dialogue with someone of your belief is difficult as you seem to have your own fact base. Please go to fact check.org or media matters or abc, nbc,cbs news and you will find that the majority of your information is mis information.

@paxil - First, I'm not a republican and didn't like Bush, so you can stop trying to pass the blame. Second, Bush had an average spending of $4 Trillion over 8 years. Add another $100 Billion/year for the wars and it's not significant. The wars are only a FRACTION (roughly 1/60) of the $6 Trillion in spending that Obama is squandering. This also disproves that we have a revenue problem. SPENDING is up 50% from Bush.

The only reason we are not Greece is because of the worldwide use of our dollar. At 103% debt to GDP we are in the same category as they are. Once people stop buying our dollars, we are toast.

I don't get my facts from the MSM but from the source...

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/recent_spending

RationalOne-674831 -- Romney is anything but inspiring, especially his singing, but everyone knows he'll say anything to win. Independents like myself WILL NOT be voting for him.

As for the rest of your statistics, I realize you've provided links in the past to back up your drivel, but your are wrong nonetheless. It's obvious your are quoting Romney when you say President Obama "destroyed" the economy (no hyperbole there). The economy has gotten better, not worse, and there's a lot of data to support that.

It's obvious you are quoting Rush Limbaugh with claims that the Obama administration is "cooking the books" in some way different from the past to make unemployment look like it's improving.

Likewise, there were more food stamps during Bush than now. Spending is greater now mostly because of Bush-era policies, such as wars, Medicare D, and TARP and auto industry bail-outs passed right at the end of the administration. Not to mention the economic collapse requiring the Fed to help states, etc. but also a larger population and all kinds of variables factor in.

Greece did spend too much, but "too much" in relation to revenue. The bigger problem in Greece was no one was paying their damn taxes (In Italy it is Ferrari owners, sound familiar?). It isn't "European-style socialism" that's a problem, but rather austerity programs that are a dismal failure. Tax breaks, especially for the rich (along with corporate welfare) and "starve the beast" austerity--the very things going wrong in Europe--is what the Teapublicans advocate.

The GOP/TP are incapable of learning from history. They are one-trick ponies who can only do the same things over and over again -- somehow expecting different results. Obama/Biden - 2012!

@TruePatriot - That is the funniest thing I've heard in a while. I back up my "drivel" with links, but I'm wrong nonetheless. Bwhahahaha. Thanks for the joke. While you make claims that have no supporting links or data.

I get my data from the source, government links like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Congressional Budget Office, IRS.gov, etc. BEFORE the MSM puts their bias into it.

The BLS numbers show there are just under 13 Million "officially" unemployed and 23.1 Million "unofficially" unemployed (those who have stopped looking or are underemployed). I don't care if the "rate" is going down, the rate is wrong. You can't just leave out 10 MILLION people who are not fully employed.

As I've stated elsewhere, it's NOT a revenue problem. Obama is averaging $6 Trillion/year. That's 50% MORE SPENDING than Bush (at $4 Trillion). We DID NOT LOSE $2 TRILLION IN REVENUE, BUT ADDED $2T in SPENDING.

rationalone- I looked at your site and I am not a budget expert but the numbers do not jive with other sources. I then go on to read who is the web site and finally find it is wriiten by an conservative which he proudly mentions within like 4 words of introduction.

There are sources and there are sources- that is what I was saying to you. Its like an ECHO CHAMBER on your side. Yes spending is up but look at what he walked into- not blaming but facts are facts and month one of his administration was 750,000 net job loss. Revenue shrinks, budget deficit grows because the safety net is being fully loaded.

Use your head and not your heart. Your facts are wrong-ps cost for the war was one billion per year- how long have we been at war, so add up 6 years minimum when Obama first added it to the budget and each year since- about 1 TRILLION dollars

rationalone- I looked at your site and I am not a budget expert but the numbers do not jive with other sources. I then go on to read who is the web site and finally find it is wriiten by an conservative which he proudly mentions within like 4 words of introduction.

There are sources and there are sources- that is what I was saying to you. Its like an ECHO CHAMBER on your side. Yes spending is up but look at what he walked into- not blaming but facts are facts and month one of his administration was 750,000 net job loss. Revenue shrinks, budget deficit grows because the safety net is being fully loaded.

RationalOne -- Assuming a person's source is a credible one (per the post just above), folks take things out of context and cherry pick all the time. And with more research one can find even more data to the contrary.

Like Sean Hannity using one comment made by Panetta about interrogations as "proof" that bin Laden would still be alive if President Obama had his way. Of course once one drills down they learn interrogation related to bin Laden came from another country (not US water-boarding), but still how does this prove that President Obama didn't want to get bin Laden? It ludicrous, and I'd advise Sean Insanity to listen to the president's speech in which he said if anyone thinks he's an appeaser, ask who ever is still alive in bin Laden's ranks. In other words, some critical thinking is required too.

It is a FACT that the economy has not become worse since President Obama's election. It is a FACT that unemployment is improving, and a lie that the "books have been cooked." The recovery is slow, but the economy has NOT been "destroyed" by President Obama.

Personally I believe you are in this forum merely as an antagonist looking for a fight. I don't feed trolls. Thanks for playing.

Hold on there Rational. I am the Independent. I don't swallow the horse sh!t pumped out by either party. Don't regurgitate the FOX/Rush crap and try to pretend you are independent.

While I disagree and disapprove of the wars to begin with, they are in actuality only a FRACTION (roughly 1/60th) of the $6 Trillion spending by the Obama Administration. Obama's average spending is $2 Trillion/year MORE than Bush's average.

the cost of the wars since 2001 total 1.5f TRILLION dollars, none of which were put on the budget until OBama.He didnt create it, he just figures you gotta show it as an expense, not off budget as Bush did without a wimper from the Republican controlled house and senate