Confucian said:

2001 rolled along and the economy passed from Clinton to Bush was so rosy that here is the CBOs forecast in January 2001:
"In the absence of significant legislative changes
and assuming that the economy follows the path
described in this report, the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) projects that the total surplus will
reach $281 billion in 2001. Such surpluses are pro-
jected to rise in the future, approaching $889 billion
in 2011 and accumulating to $5.6 trillion over the
2002-2011 period."
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/12958
That's right, they predicted that we would accumulate $5.6 trillion in total surpluses by the end of 2011.

---

Quote:

Unfortunately the Republicans believe in trickle down economics and that tax cuts for the wealthy are a main priority despite the damage they do to our budget and no proof that it creates jobs (see Bush's pitiful record on job creation).

Finally, if you give fy 2009 to Bush and start the clock for Obama on October 1, 2009 (the start of the 2010 fy) then you see that Obama did not add so much to the debt. This is a little outdated but here are some numbers:
George W. Bush is sworn in on January 20th, but his first budget does not take effect until October 1, 2001:

10/1/2001: Bush starting deficit – $5.8 trillion

9/30/2009: Bush ending deficit – $11.9 trillion

Bush debt contribution: $6.1 trillion

Barack H. Obama is sworn in on January 20th, but his first budget does not take effect until October 1, 2009:

10/1/2009: Obama starting deficit – $11.9 trillion

9/30/2011: Obama ending deficit – $14.8 trillion

Obama debt contribution: $2.9 trillion

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/understanding-federal-debt-presidential-budgets-fiscal-year-edition/

---

Quote:

The stimulus package was a huge victory for Obama less than one month into his presidency.

---

Quote:

Look at this article from 2001 where Bush quotes the CBO projections as a reason we can do the expensive fiscally reckless tax cuts.
Projected Surplus Supports Tax Cut, Bush Says
Bush reiterated his call for a $1.6-trillion tax cut over 10 years, and said his budget for the coming fiscal year will increase spending by 4%, slightly more than the expected rate of inflation.

Democrats also are proposing a tax cut, although about half as large as the Bush plan and targeted to the less affluent.
"The federal budget is a document about the size of a big-city phone book and about as hard to read from cover to cover," Bush said.

"The blueprint I submit this week contains many numbers. But there is one that probably counts more than any other: $5.6 trillion. That is the surplus the federal government expects to collect over the next 10 years, money left over after we have met our obligations to Social Security, Medicare, health care, education, defense and other priorities," the president said.
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/25/news/mn-30111

To conclude. Why should anyone be upset with Obama and his spending considering he was handed the worst economy in 100 years and all of these deficits were predicted by the CBO well in advance of his inauguration. It's not like the CBO came in and said "we are predicting $5.6 trillion in surpluses over your term" as they did with Bush. Bush screwed up royally...

---

Prisoner#1 said:

Patlal said:

Prisoner#1 said:

Confucian said:

Clinton created almost 23 million jobs
"From January 1993 to January 2001, the nation gained 22.7 million total jobs."

---

a president cant create jobs that are outside of the public sector

---

So what your saying is that all the shit you talked about Obama not creating employment is false cause he technically cant do anything in the private sector. So he can't be blamed for all the job loss either. So when you take that out of the equation, the guy actually lools like a good president

---

a president has the capacity to sign bills that would encourage and reward
expansion of companies, under reagan there was the JTPA, it allowed
employers to receive tax breaks for increasing their payroll. in the
instance of obama banks stopped lending, the stimulus bill was supposed to
encourage lending but the government sat on the bulk of cash, the bail outs
were supposed to do the same, GM and Chrysler both took the money to mexico
and opened new plants there, his green energy cash resulted in the nearly a
billion going to companies that bankrupted shortly after receiving the cash

---

Patlal said:

The goal back then was to prevent GM and Chrysler from going bankrupt. So if that meant opening new plants in Mexico, so be it. Mexico has cheaper labor than the US, so it makes sense for the company. Plus it actually worked, they didn't go bankrupt

---

Quote:

As for all the companies that went bankrupt, you gotta understand that the government isn't an private investment firm looking for profits. The government is there to help those in need. Sadly those in need are companies that dont make prfoit anymore, which means they won' pay taxes...

---

Quote:

Helping out the manufacturing sector in an advanced economy is a dumb move cause we can't compete with China, but the government has no choice, that where help is needed... A smart stimulus would have been to found high tech companies and let the manufactures die... But would of meant to many babyboomers with a high school diploma out of work and nowhere to hire them...

---

Quote:

The stimulus was just a way for the government to take the hit instead of Wall Street anyway. The money would of disappeared either way

---