Fun Facts Republicans Don’t Want You to Know About Obama’s Record on Jobs

obamajobsI wrote an article a few weeks back debunking a lot of myths Republicans use to try and attack President Obama.  Now I wanted to expand a bit on one of the biggest myths Republicans perpetuate about the President, his “terrible jobs record.”

Anyone who follows politics even a little knows Republicans frequently harp on Obama’s jobs record, mainly because they don’t know the truth about it.  They mostly watch Fox News, so knowing the truth about much of anything is rare.

But even if you watch Fox News, when the jobs report is issued every month, they always put some kind of negative spin on it.  If the numbers hit higher than they were estimated it’s, “Economy adds jobs, but mostly low paying.”  If jobs fail to reach the estimates it’s, “Bad sign for jobs recovery, economy slowing.”  It happens the first Friday of every month.

I really feel like if Obama saved 30 orphans from a burning building the Fox News headline would read, “Looking to Eliminate the Need for First Responders, Obama Personally Saves Orphans.”  Anything he does, they’ll put some kind of negative spin on it.  But what should anyone expect, these are the people who took the killing of Osama Bin Ladin and turned it into an attack on President Obama and how he didn’t deserve any credit.

But let’s take a quick look at the truth about jobs and President Obama.

In the 12 months prior to President Obama taking office, we had lost 4.5 million jobs.

Over half of the 4.35 million jobs we lost while President Obama has been in office came within the first 3 months of his first term.

Let’s look at a 9 month span of job losses covering the 3 months prior to President Obama taking office and the 6 months after:

  • Nov: 800,000
  • Dec: 650,000
  • Jan: 840,000 (Didn’t take office till end of Jan, these go to Bush)
  • Feb: 725,000 (Stimulus signed)
  • Mar: 787,000 (Announced assistance to the auto industry, aka the auto bailout)
  • Apr: 802,000
  • May: 312,000
  • Jun: 426,000
  • Jul: 296,000

So let me put these numbers into perspective, something I know is difficult for many Republicans.

In the 2 months following the signing of the 2009 stimulus, job losses went from monthly losses of 700-800K to 300-400K.  For the mathematically challenged, that’s over a 50% decrease in job losses just 2 months after the stimulus was signed.

But I thought the stimulus didn’t work?

In other words, over half of President Obama’s 4.5 million job losses happened his first 3 months in office—when none of his economic policies had enough time to make any kind of impact.

Now let’s fast forward to present day…

We’ve had private sector job growth, continuously, since March 2010.  That’s 37 consecutive months of private sector job growth—totaling over 6.5 million jobs.

Oh, and for the record, Obama has only been in office for 51 months.  That means about 73% of his time in the White House we’ve experienced job growth.

Now I know what Republicans will say, “These numbers are manipulated by the Obama administration.”  Which is simply ridiculous.

First, those same 4.5 million jobs Republicans like to saddle President Obama with come from the exact same source which reports the 6.5 million jobs we’ve gained in the last 37 months–the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Second, the White House has zero influence over the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  It’s set up this way so that a President couldn’t possibly have influence over the jobs reports.

Keep in mind this is with absolutely zero help from Republicans.  In fact, not only have conservatives not tried to create jobs, their push for austerity has actually eliminated thousands of public jobs.  The GOP has essentially done everything they possibly could since 2008 to sabotage our economy.  Despite all of that, we’ve still managed to overcome their obstruction.


When Republicans say Obama has made our economy worse, they’re obviously delusional—that or they’re 4 years old and weren’t around for the Bush administration.

When Republicans say the stimulus didn’t work, they obviously think cutting our job losses by more than 50% (during the worst recession in 80 years) in just a couple of months is “nothing.”

When Republicans say Obama has been bad for business, I guess they ignore the record profits many corporations have experienced since he took office and our stock market reaching new highs.

When Republicans say Obama is the worst President in history, when they voted for George W. Bush twice, they obviously don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

It’s as simple as that.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • BigTBone

    Unfortunately, we’re only talking to ourselves. People on the right do not care about reality. Hell, even the budget darling Paul Ryan couldn’t get his math to add up on fox. And as it turns out, austerity promoting hacks with a jacked up spreadsheet have skewed the dialogue even further.

    I’ll take 1 Paul Krugman over every repub in Congress.

    • Nasty

      It isn’t unfortunate. I was on his site for a few months. He got tired of me posting the reality of Obama’s failure. Even YOU cannot keep yourself on topic. You jump for wishing someone like me would read this, to Paul Ryan’s Math. You have no idea of what your talking about. Austerity promoting hacks? You talking about Obama again, right? You better be or you aren’t even worth this much of my time. Now…do what Liberals do best…come back with some lame assed insults. You really don’t have any option because I will look up the facts and beat you with them.

      • Thoreau Disciple

        Contrary to your last line, I notice that your response was completely devoid of facts but full of “lame-assed insults.” We do agree on one thing-I don’t know why we “liberals” keep wishing for someone like you to read this. We are only wasting our breath and your time (and that’s no great loss either).

      • Nasty

        Give me an example of one of my “insults” in that comment. All you did was parrot what I said. My opinions of Liberal “logic” are my Opinions. Not a list of facts. Try to understand English will you. You are correct, it is a waste of my time. I will look up the facts behind your Liberal ignorance and you will refuse to accept the facts. Time and time again. The reason is because you don’t “think”. You “feel”. Now I will admit that there are many MANY right wingers that are just as stupid and just as emotionally driven as most Liberals. I know some personally and I give them a hard time as well. But the bottom line is this; if you think Obama has the best interest of this nation at heart, you haven’t been paying attention. If you want to call me a racist, you go right ahead. Liberals love to do that. Obama failed there also, because it is where Liberals go when they can’t accept the facts. Obama has lied to you all along and for some reason you don’t see that. He is even exempting himself and family from his own healthcare program. You don’t know? Look it up. Unemployment is going up because of Obamacare, as well as your taxes. Look it up. How is that for facts? More of a waste of my time. You “might” look it up, but even if you do, you will not accept the facts of it. You will “blame” someone or something. Because that is what Obama does and that is what he taught you to do. I do thank you for responding. If you hadn’t, I would not have gotten the opportunity to put out these facts. Even when you dismiss them, I will be able to say that I gave it my best shot and therefore it will be your fault that you remain uninformed.

      • Ehrgeiz

        “Unemployment is going up because of Obamacare”… Did you read the article?

      • Nasty

        You will need to tell me “which” article, before I can answer that. Perhaps you could post it here.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Try providing us with some facts instead of drivel.

      • Nasty

        Why? You only ignore what I post.

      • That’s because all you post is drivel.

      • nasty

        Drivel that is too complicated for you to understand, apparently.

      • aaronwatkins

        You asked someone to give you an example of your insults in that comment. I figured someone should reply.

        “You have no idea of what your talking about.” (Insult) “Austerity promoting hacks? You talking about Obama again, right?” (Insult in the form of Sarcasm) ” You better be or you aren’t even worth this much of my time.” (a continuation of the sarcasm insult) “Now…do what Liberals do best…come back with some lame assed insults.” (Ad hominiem insult) “You really don’t have any option because I will look up the facts and beat you with them.” (Character attack insult)

      • Nasty

        I do look up the facts.
        Since you’re only point is to show that I also insult, my only comment is that it is in response to being insulted.

      • jason

        the real insults will come when you are trying to save face being wrong about almost everything.

      • Nasty

        You must be very lonely to join in this after so long ago. Ok, I’ll play. What do you have to add other than a very general statement?

      • Spencer Knight

        Yep, you are wasting your time. You’d be better off finding a nice piece of wood, taking it to lunch, and having a conversation with it. I bet that would be more fun than talking to a conservative republican. These people (conservatives) do not care what Obama does. They don’t care. He could cure cancer and they’d accuse him of destroying jobs.

      • you repugs sound all the same, you hate him cus he’s black it’s as simple as that, everybody knows its, has nothing to do with the job hes doing it’s the color of his skin u guys see hate spreading, fear mongering so typical of the repugs…..

      • Nasty

        Hate, hate and hate. Emotion is all you know isn’t it. Richard, you poor idiot. It is because of the “policies”. I know you WISH it was because of race. Then you could use your only weapon, which is “emotions” or “feelings”. Because you have no facts. You don’t want to know any facts. I love empty heads like you Richard. You make me feel so educated by comparison. Please do rant some more about your feelings.

      • You keep shouting about these “facts” but I’ve yet to see you post one of these facts, besides your own claims of course. Contrary to what you and the rest of your party may feel just because you state something doesn’t make it a “fact.” There are facts in this article if you’re going to insult people at least comeback with something to support your claims.

      • nasty

        You don’t know what my party is, other than I’m not an uneducated Liberal.

        I have posted entire ARTICLES from CBS. You can do this by using the “copy” and “paste” functions. I’m sure you are unaware of this simple ability. After all you showed that you unable to research what I have posted. You looked at one comment and like most Liberals, your emotions got the better of you and you responded stupidly.

        I do not post “claims”.

        Now do YOU have anything of factual value to add?

  • It’s about time

    If Obama jumped into the river to save a kid from going under the water for the third time Fox would report it as “President tries to drown child.”

    • Nasty

      You should watch a few times. As you obviously do not. Many good things where said about Obama when he attended the Bush event this week. But obviously you don’t know that.

  • betsy44

    Their hate of this President is so great, they can’t, won’t, or don’t want to see the truth. It is amazing any normal hard working person would vote for these clowns.

    • Nasty

      And what truth would that be? Here I am. Tell me all about it. Here is your opportunity betsy44. What is it that I don’t know. Educate me on what Obama has done for you that all the rest of the country has missed. I am looking forward to this!

      • signed stimulus package, bill to help child s health care program, the ledbetter law for equal pay,of course health care bill, allowed more stem cell research, relax laws on marry jane use,

      • Nasty

        The Stimulus bill increased the debt. Look it up. Women in Obama’s administration STILL make less then the Men. Look it up. I am happy about the Stem cell Research! I did not agree with Bush on that one. I am also happy about the relaxed laws on Mary Jane use. Even though I no longer smoke the weed.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        SO WHAT? It kept us from a second Great Depression. All reputable economists agreed on that and said it should have been bigger. We’ve had debt before. WWII for example. The EIsenhower years, when Ike borrowed a lot of money and built schools, highways, and hospitals.

      • nick

        Hahaha…”all REPUTABLE” economist? You need to do a Google Search. You just lied.
        Ignorant Liberal says “so what”. Dude, your not educated enough to talk to about this subject.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And what would I find on that Google search? You aren’t educated enough to talk about the recession. You’re not even educated enough to be on this forum. So please enlighten us. I’m not going to do your work for you. Conservatives like to spit out crap as gospel without ever backing it up.

      • nasty

        Typical Liberal. Doesn’t know how to use Google.

      • It’s your claim, Skippy, you support it.

      • nasty

        All you have to do is look at the debt in 2008 and compare to now. You really need me to spell it out for you? But of course you do. You’re a low-information Liberal that can’t ask google a question. You just proved that Baker. I feel sad for you.

      • Did bush or obama have a better economy coming into office.

      • nasty

        That answer is obvious, it was Bush. Bush will also have a better economy coming in than whoever takes over for Obama. Didn’t see that coming did you.

      • Please be sure to grammar check your posts if you plan on denigrating everyone else’s intelligence. Your use of the English language is pitiful

      • I hate grammar Nazi’s generally, but have to give you this one ~ snicker

      • nasty

        That is all you have Jerry?

      • joe roberts

        hmmmm… hey nick, find me two “reputable” economists that say otherwise about the danger to the economy and how Obama’s policies have kept us from the brink, or slowed down the runaway train fired up from his predecessor. for you to be so sure that suburb lied- you must be thinking of at least one that had an argument counter to what suburb posited, right??). preferably an economist that isn’t from a koch brothers sponsored ‘think-tank’ (as if there is any real thinking going on at those). then try and explain why since the republicans took back control of house in 2010 they’ve majored in nothing but “filibusters” to the point where their usage has almost doubled since Obama took office. it is kind to label the GOP-led house obstructionist and clearly partisan. oh wait, did i say they only majored in “filibusters”? i lied. it seems that they’ve somehow found the time to take a keen interest in laws that adversely affect women’s health. pretty sure the newly sworn in congress had introduced 5 in their first two days (2 attacking planned parenthood, one to block access to birth control, and two attempting to repeal Romney-care or the ACA). 2 and a half years in and the GOP-led house has yet to introduce anything close to a job growth initiative that impacts more than 5,000-10,000 people though.

      • nasty

        Do you have a question that you want me to answer Joe?

    • just a matter of time before it all catches up with them

  • alanpUK

    Some of my Republican friends actually believe that companies began laying off employees during the Bush years because they were afraid of Obama and therefore Obama is responsible and Bush had nothing to do with it….No amount of logic, reasoning or facts will convince them otherwise

    • When the economy started crashing in the summer of 2008, Obama was not even a front runner and there was no certainty that the Dems would win in November.

      • Nasty

        Wrong Molly. It was a very sure thing that Obama was going to win in 2008. It was also a very sure thing that he would win Reelection. Also I must point out that the President (whichever side) is not solely in charge. Now which group took over the House AND Senate in 2006 elections? That is correct, the Democrats! The Democrats were in charge of the House AND the Senate from 2006 thru the elections of 2010. Now who hurt Housing in America? Look up the Dodd/Frank bill.

      • if we dems are so off with our facts please explain why congress approval rating is right up there with peoples love of spider mites

      • nasty

        Approval ratings come from the population. As we can see, the population isn’t very bright or educated. If I think that about the population, just imagine what Congress and the President think of the population. Not pretty is it!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, the population elected Bush TWICE.

        Give me one good reason why I should have voted for McCain/MILF or Mitt/Junior

      • nasty

        Both McCain and Mitt were/are Repubs in name only. I’m glad Obama won. He is going to be the best endorsement for “change” the Repubs could have asked for. If you were paying attention, you would know that!

      • nasty

        And the population elected Obama twice. So the evidence is clear. The population of America is stupid and uneducated on both sides of the political spectrum.

        As for why you should have voted for one or both of the Repub candidates, well the evidence is clear…there was zero reason to vote for either of them.

        Not much difference between them and Obama.

        I’m just happy that the troubles of today are happening under Obama. I’m happy Obama was reelected also! Now you will not be able to say that Obama wasn’t given a chance to “fix” everything.

        At the close of 2016, Obama will own everything. That makes me happy!

        If you still are stupid enough to point to Bush in 2016, it will make no difference. Obama owns it now and will only own it more completely at the end of his second term.

      • So bush was a better president than obama

      • nasty

        I don’t think of it as who was/is “better”. Both men have a different situation to deal with. I look at intent, and how they deal with their different situations. Both have done things I disagree with.

      • What should Obama had done different in your opinion?

      • nasty

        Listen, you are approaching this as perhaps I think Obama has made “mistakes”. I don’t believe Obama has made mistakes, at least not until the Benghazi murders before his reelection. The problem with Obama is that he wants America to be “equal” to all other countries. The only way to accomplish this is to reduce the strength and power of America. Obama is for a “collative” America. In every country where a “collective” has been tried, it has failed. Obama believes it could work in the richest country, America.

        Besides that, I consider Obama to be the Domestic Enemy of our time. If you read his books, you will see that he is a Muslim. Nothing wrong with that, except that Islam wants to dominate the world and has a good start in Europe. They are getting a good start in America.

        Actually, I always thought Obama was very intelligent. That is until the Benghazi murders. That was when I realized that Obama had made a serious mistake. Even if it doesn’t bring Obama down, it will kill Clinton’s chance to be President and that is a good thing.

        I want Obama to have his FULL 8 years. I don’t want Liberals saying for the next 30 years that Obama never had a full chance like the hated Bush did.

      • Joe Laszar

        well i guess the 81 people that died in other embassies when bush was in office means little or nothing to you.

      • Nasty

        It does indeed mean a lot to me! BUT, Bush is not CURRENTLY the President. Is he? It also means something to me about the late warning when Pearl Harbor was attacked and people died needlessly.
        Also, Bush never issued “Stand down” orders for a Rescue attempt.

        This is THE issue for me. The only one who can issue Stand Down orders is the President. CURRENTLY that is Obama. Correct?

      • Are you sure you’ve stopped smoking “the weed”? From the sounds of it you’ve most likely moved on to something more potent considering the fantasy world you live in.

      • nasty

        Do you have anything to add to the conversation, other than this weak attempt at humor Jess? No? Of course not. You would have to be educated on the subject matter. Liberals are clearly not educated. I almost feel guilty just lowering myself to respond to the uneducated. Almost. You Liberals are a lot of fun to respond too. Kind of like showing a dog a stick and “pretending” to throw it. Then watch the confusion on the Liberal (dog’s) face. 🙂

      • This isn’t a conversation, my friend. This is just you feeding your own ego and repeating the same irrelevant bullshit over and over again.

        And the last time I checked, spelling and grammar are part of education. Maybe you can learn to proofread instead of putting all your words into “quotations” in an “attempt” to sound “educated”.


      • nastynick

        Only “irrelevant” if you are too stupid to understand it Jess, and it seems you can’t.

      • Thankfully there isn’t much for my so-called “uneducated” brain to understand.

        You’re another typical douchebag conservative, what else is new.

        Thank god THAT stereotype hasn’t been perpetuated today.. Not.

      • nasty

        Still no actual ‘subject” to talk about Jess? Are you really THAT empty headed? It seems that you are.

      • I generally don’t waste my time discussing important subject matter with someone who won’t bother to listen, nevermind an individual I have zero respect for.

        The only “subject” you seem interested in discussing is the supposed lack of education among the Liberal party. An unfounded claim, of course. As is the way of a typical conservative with his head lodged firmly up his own ass.

        If I truly felt you were capable of civilized and coherent discussion, I might feel inclined to have a conversation on a subject of worth.

        Sadly, you are not the best candidate for that particular endeavour.

      • nasty

        Yet you still respond to me! Are you lying to yourself. Sadly you have nothing intelligent to say.

      • So speaks the tea kettle.

        I bid you good day, and I hope love finds you one day and breathes some compassion into your empty shell of a soul. Or some other hippy bullshit <3

      • On the contrary, dimbulb. Statistically, liberals are generally both more intelligent and better educated than conservatives. A fact you prove every time you post.

      • nasty

        Statistically perhaps Baker. But YOU are not one of them. You have proven that. You don’t know how to do a google search. That…is kind a stupid.

    • straight from fox news LOL

  • onewhoknows

    I give Obama all the props in the world.. He knew what he was up against before he took office and took it anyway (x2) Takes a lot of guts to walk in as the underdog and go for it head on (despite the efforts of the right)

    • Wendy

      Absolutely love this post!!! The man is amazing!!

      • Nasty

        Amazing at what? Is that an “emotional zero fact” statement? Why yes it is. Please go on with some facts that support this clam of “amazing”. Perhaps his amazingly stupid cover up of the Benghazi mistakes that Clinton made. That was pretty amazing! Amazingly stupid.

      • I remember that Republicans in Congress slashed spending for embassy security, and that Obama and Clinton warned them of the consequences of such cuts.

      • nasty

        Embassy attack = 9/11/2012

        Sequestration = 3/1/2013

        Sequestration was a plan suggested to Obama by Harry Reid. Obama approved it. (after all, Obama IS the President)

        Clinton wasn’t involved. She was The State Department.

        Clinton was responsible for ordering the embassy security to be reduced.

        Obama is the only person that could have sent the “Stand Down” order. (he is the Commander and Chief of the Military as President)

        Oh and perhaps you noticed that the Embassy attack happened BEFORE spending was slashed.

        Now I’m not going to call you an idiot Andrew. You didn’t insult me, so I’m not going to insult you.

        What I will say is that you did not bother to actually research your subject.

        I understand that you what to defend your side, but your side should be the side of truth.

      • Hey nasty you need to get your facts straight the cuts were made before the attack and They were warned about the problem before. The sequestration just subtracted more funding … Meaning? RepougniTARds like yourself don’t understand stats or chronology…Ooooh sorry ‘timing’ you know the clock and calendar thingy’s… I swear all you REpugniTARD trolls have no idea wtf is in your own head yet you keep screaming you know everything! Typical of the ignorant retarded freaks you are…You should try getting all your facts straight then try to make a comment, because so far You’re just stupid and retarded. Everyone except you knows the facts. Where you been? Must have had your head up Rush limpdicks ass…

      • nasty

        They didn’t even happen in the same YEAR. The attack was sept 11 2012. The “cuts” happened in 2013.
        It isn’t my fault you never learned to read. Your name calling is evidence of your frustration at being WRONG. Your ignorance would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

      • Actually they cut the embassy defense budget twice before the bengazi incident. And this has come out during the hearings. Obama may have ordered a stand down order but I probably would have done the same. Bush’s head of the state dept I forget his name also agreed that it was the right thing to do as to not put any one else at harm. The nearest possible hope was an hour away and that was leaving immediately without preparing for what they may face and they didn’t even know what exactly they faced at the time. So with that beeing said, even if theheade to help immediately they still would not have arrived in time and if any of the insurgents were still present when help arrived our marines may have fallen into an ambush and added to the casualties. All this came out during the recent hearings and by a republican who served under Bush doing the same job as Hillary did. I can go get the link to the YouTube video of the interview on face the nation if you like. And I must apologize for the name calling made by my fellow dems here. I want you to know that not all of us resort to such childish behavior. Which is what I seem to get from republicans and who support them allot.

      • Nasty

        The nearest help may have been an hour away, but the firefight lasted SEVEN HOURS!
        So you are telling me that you are ok with leaving Americans to die without sending help? That is just sad.
        However I commend you for the apology offered on behalf of your fellow Dems here. I am encouraged to know that some of you are actual adults here.
        I also agree that many on the repub side are equally childish. I don’t like it, but there it is.
        It is those of us that can get past the blind stupidity of those in our parties that can have hope for America.

      • Tara Cotta

        Nasty – I’ve seen someone do less circles in a NASCAR race… only SEEM smart, until someone shows you the dead end street you’re driving on, then what do you do? A u turn

      • Jan Civil

        the sequester has nothing to do with the embassy funding. ‘Clinton ordered’? That’s impossible, that isn’t how the gov’t is structured. I guess this is another lie you like from your feed enough to vomit it back up here.
        This is pathetic now.

      • Nasty

        I agree with you. Clinton had nothing to do with the sequester. That was Obama and Harry Reid.

    • Amen. I will never understand why people don’t see the situation he signed up for,he didn’t create that mess, but dedicated himself to help fix it.

      • Nasty

        He made the mess six Trillion dollars worse. Another “low information” voter. Why do you FAIL to see that? Not that it matters now.

      • got his facts from fox news that tells me everything oh yeah here it comes mitt the twit will win in a landslide

      • Nasty

        At least I *have* some facts Richard. Unlike yourself.

      • A Republican wouldn’t know a fact if it was rammed up his arse with a cattle prod.

      • nasty

        Often that is true! The same can be said for Democrats.

      • Guest

        Amen LOL

      • I haven’t yet read a single fact in all of the words you have posted—and why is it you won’t post under your own name? Could it be that you have no real interest in participating in a meaningful discussion? Last I heard (and this was just a few short days ago) unemployment is down. My taxes have gone up–back to the level they were at before the previous occupant of the office gave us all a tax cut that had no appreciable effect on the economy other than to increase the deficit that so many of your ilk squawk about. If you want to discuss this like an adult, then come out from behind your “Nasty-ness” and give us some real facts to support your assertions.

      • nasty

        You would be the FIRST person here that wanted to discuss something as an adult Jerry.

        As for my name, those who are friends of mine call me Nasty Nick. If you need more, you will have to buy me a drink. I like Jim & Coke.

        Let me explain something. I respond to people in the same manner that they use with me.

        With the exception of the guy that called me a “Cracker”. I do not involve myself with Racist, nor do I give a damn what race you are. My friends are in all colors but I do not care for white women. Just personal preference.
        If you want to call me an idiot, I will return the favor. If you engage in name calling of any kind, I will return the favor.
        If you attempt to impress me by stating how educated you are, but follow that with insults, I will know you didn’t learn much.
        Now, I will not make statements that have an opinion without first checking to see if I have a very good reason to feel that way.
        If you disagree with me, I will post the article that backs up my thought. That source will NEVER be Fox.
        I get a real kick out of brain dead post from those that know nothing but believe they do.
        If you think we need to deeper in debt, you are an idiot.
        If you can’t understand that Obama has spent in four years the same amount that the hated Bush spent in eight years, then you are an idiot that cannot add and subtract.
        If it is beyond your understanding that Obama and Clinton engaged in an most obvious cover-up when they blamed the deaths of four Americans on a YouTube video, then you are an idiot.
        Now reading you comment, I am quite sure that you have nothing of a factual or intellectual nature to say.
        However, if you wish to ask a question, I will find the answer for you. Most Liberals seem to be unable to look up the information for themselves and really do need someone to do it for them.

      • I suppose you have links to those charges you made, as only about 4 trillion of that supposed 7 trillion is Obama’s, and only because of Bush debt that was not put in the budgets. The lowest spending budget wise outside the Defense budget since IKE have been the norm for the Obama team. Let us see you figures?

      • nasty

        Bush got credit for everything that happened after he was elected.
        I am only applying the same rules to Obama.
        You don’t want “links”. You want excuses.

      • jason

        ”bush got credit for everything after he was elected” that includes the massive job losses under his administration and lets say 6 months after obama took office. because you have to give a new president time to fix things. which means 90 percent of job loss came from the bush administration. bush new this bubble was about/did burst and did nothing because his 2 wars and perscription drug plan and a trillion dollar tax cut to the wealthy stole about 2 trillion from the middle class. and he wanted to be safe in crawford before everyone figured it out. now thats the damn truth.

      • nasty

        Since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, more than $6 trillion dollars has been added to the national debt.

        “Without fanfare, the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department quietly posted its daily debt report showing the total public debt of the U.S. government topped $16.687 trillion. (To be exact: $16,687,289,180,215.37),” reports Mark Knoller of CBS.

        “On January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting reflects an increase of over $6 trillion.”

        And debt is expected to increase by nearly another trillion this year. “Nevertheless, the Office of Management and Budget projects the national debt will continue to increase by over $800 billion this year and by amounts in the range of $500 billion to $800 billion in the out years – all of which will add to the national debt.”

        It’s an historic achievement for Obama, CBS notes.

        “It’s the largest increase to date under any U.S. president. During the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, the debt soared by $4.9 trillion.”

      • nasty

        Barack Obama

        Congressional Democrats
        Glenn Reynolds: Debt Problem Belongs to Obama Now.

        Ed Krayewski|Jan. 15, 2013 1:32 pm

        Reason.comOver at USA Today, Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds uses a chart put together here at Reason to explain why four years into Obama’s presidency, he owns the debt problem. A portion:

        In 2003, when we invaded Iraq (one of those “two wars on the credit card” that Obama likes to blame for the debt), and when we passed the Bush tax cuts (the other thing Obama likes to blame for the debt) revenue actually started to climb. The revenue and spending lines start to converge, and, as they head up to 2006 it actually looks as if the two might cross, with revenue outpacing spending.

        Even the New York Times noticed, spotting unexpected increases in revenue in 2005, and in 2006 noting that a “surprising” increase in tax revenues was closing the budget gap. The heady possibility of surpluses was in the air. But — look at the graph again — everything changes in 2007.

        What happened in 2007? The financial crisis hadn’t struck yet. But we did elect a new Democratic Congress, with Democrats controlling both houses for the first time in over a decade. The trend immediately reversed, and became much worse with President Obama’s election in 2008 and inauguration in 2009. (In fact, despite talk of “wars on the credit card,” we could save a lot of money by cutting defense spending back to where it was in 2007.)

        So does that mean that the ballooning debt is all Obama’s fault? No. Most of those spending bills got Republican votes, too. But it does mean that, as Politico notes, Obama now owns the 60% increase in the debt that has occurred on his watch, and can no longer credibly blame Bush (under whom plenty of Democrats voted for spending bills).

        Reynolds also wishes the 2006 version of Barack Obama, who understood the problem with raising the debt ceiling, were president today.

      • Jan Civil

        so you can haz an opinion that agrees with yours? Amazing.

      • Nasty

        Actually, if you could read, you would see that I posted an “article”. Too bad you didn’t read enough to know that.

      • aaronwatkins

        So, I have to ask… why is this increase in debt a bad thing if it pulls our economy out of the toilet?

      • Jan Civil

        that’s convenient, as convenient as W Bush not considering the Iraq War in his budget.

      • Since you appear keen on facts and infatuated with this imaginary monster, the nation’s debt, consider Lord Reagan who took our debt from $800 Billion (imagine, only billions back then) to $2.4 TRILLION – in other words, he TRIPLED the national debt, yet as a staunch political observer and one who was young and dumb enough to vote Reagan twice, I NEVER heard the national debt being discussed as an issue. As for Bush II, he took the national debt from $6 Trillion to just under $11 TRILLION, nearly 200%. Obama’s contribution to it caused a rise from just under $11 Trillion to $16 Trillion, an increase of roughly 65%. Hmmm, never even heard the national debt discussed under Bush II, yet he nearly DOUBLED it. Somehow only the “evil Obama” has caused all this nation’s debt. Absurd. As for Benghazi, try examining the recent reports showing how the e-mails the “idiot magnet network”, Faux Noise harps on about daily for 7 months were DOCTORED. THAT is the true scandal of Benghazi, not to mention the nearly $90 MILLION their sequester has recently cut from Embassy security, nor their REFUSAL to vote to increase security spending two years BEFORE Benghazi. The GOP holds the SOLE blame for that. Seeing as how protests were occurring in Cairo and a dozen other Middle East cities and country simultaneously as Benghazi over the video on youtube, it would be utter STUPIDITY to immediately label the attack anything OTHER than a similar thing, until FACTS were received. Damn those pesky facts. Now then, WHY aren’t they focused on PREVENTING future such events instead of creating falsehoods and propaganda for political purposes? Good question.

      • Eva Cutler

        Good for YOU!

      • Jan Civil

        Where are they? You have a talking point you’re vomiting back up from right wing media so far.

      • Nasty

        Do you have a point? At least I can do research. While you have nothing to offer. Try again if you think you can come up with something intelligent to say or a point to make.
        I do have a question for you. When was CBS a “right wing media?
        Lets face it. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

      • Guest

        you have zero facts.

      • Nasty

        How would you know? You can’t even put two sentences together.

      • cheri

        “facts” should be quoted because one doesn’t actually get facts from Fox.

      • mac

        Sooooo, the day he started the decline was just suppose to stop that day????? use your head…if a car is going 100 miles an hour can it stop on a line? No, so what makes you think a new President can stop an entire economy, two wars, and everything else the Republicans screwed up????

      • nasty

        Yes the Repubs “screwed up”. Sadly, Obama is screwing up at twice the rate.
        That is before Obama issued “stand down” orders and four Americans died.
        That is before the WH (Obama) started taping the phone lines of the AP. (Nixon did that and resigned before he could be impeached.)
        Now to use your little car example, Obama has his foot firmly on the gas peddle!!!!!

      • LOLMan

        Wow, dude you are wrong. There is no way around it. Bush didn’t pay for anything while in office. We can all agree on that. So the first thing Obama did when he took over was to get the bill from everything Bush did. Ok, now from there, we where in a recession so the government had to spend to cover many different things. Once the bailout hit, once the stimulus hit, the numbers started to stabilize Once they stabilized they started to go back up. At this point, if you don’t get this, then you choose to feel the way you do, and it doesn’t even matter talking to you about this. As far as the Benghazi thing, if you GOP people want to know why we aren’t going crazy like you, it is because there has been Zero things brought to the table to suggest Obama or the State Department caused this to happen. The response could have been better, but that doesn’t make for a month long discussion. From there, this IRS thing, trying to pen that on Obama requires some kind stupidity I will never understand, so we move on from that. But all in all, the GOP has gone from getting their *** handed to them in the last election, to now trying to destroy the president. Instead if the GOP wants any chance in winning a election again, they need to fix their ideas and engage minorities, woman, and young people.

      • Nasty

        The recession started in 2007. The Democrats took over the House and the Senate in 2006. If you blame Congress for holding Obama down now, then you have to blame Congress for holding Bush down then.
        As for the “Benghazi thing” where four Americans were murdered. You lack information. Google who has been relieved for disobeying the “Stand Down” orders. Who can issue Stand Down orders? Well the Commander and Chief of course. (That’s the President for those of you uninformed Liberals.)

      • Greg Weaver

        “Commander and Chief”, huh? It’s “Commander *in* Chief”, nitwit. And to shoot more holes in the one you’re talking out of, check out the deficit. The deficit has been steadily *shrinking* under Obama, not growing.

        Try getting your news from sources other than Fox; you’re not doing yourself any favors living in a fantasy work. I understand how hard it is, because I had to peel myself out of it a few years back. Although I’m still a registered Republican, I want nothing to do with that party. It’s like a cult; once you get out your realize just how blatant and silly the lies they spin are. Which is why everyone is laughing at you; what you spout as gospel, we see through.

      • Nasty

        Thanks for the correction Greg.
        I get my news from many sources. The fact that you automatically think I use Fox, says more about your Liberal thinking than about me. Most of the articles that I quote or paste are from CBS. Simple because they show up first on the search.
        Oh and I voted for Jimmy Carter before I ever voted for a right winger. We know how that worked out. I did NOT vote for him a second time!
        I do not follow any “gospel”, religious or political. I follow facts.

      • Jan Civil

        We’re going to be paying for the W Bush adminstration indefinitely. you want to rely on numbers with no context, as if Obama inherited the kind of robust economy W Bush did. Essentially as if ‘Obama’ functions in a pure vacuum or as though he created the universe. No, he inherited a catastrophe.
        All of the GOP that are refusing to raise the ceiling and make a big rhetorical stink on this voted for the shit we’re paying for now.

      • Nasty

        Indefinitely? That’s a really long time. How old are you? I think 12. Now I know you will not take the time to read this article, but I like to spoon feed you uninformed Liberals, just so you can’t say you didn’t know.

        Check it out:

        A new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research released this week has confirmed beyond question that the left’s race-baiting attacks on the housing market (the Community Reinvestment Act–enacted under Carter, made shockingly more aggressive under Clinton) is directly responsible for imploding the housing market and destroying the economy.

        The study painstakingly sorted through failed home loans that caused the housing market collapse and identified an overwhelming connection between them and CRA mortgages.

        Again, let’s review:

        -President Bush went to Congress repeatedly for years warning them that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the economy (17 times in 2008 alone). Democrats continuously ignored him, shut down his proposals along party lines and continued raiding the institutions for campaign contributions on their way down.

        Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdownTimeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

        -John McCain also co-sponsored urgently critical reforms that would have prevented the housing market collapse, but Democrats shut that down as well, along party lines, and even openly ridiculed anyone who suggested reforms were necessary…to protect their taxpayer-funded campaign contributions as the economy raced uncontrollably toward the cliff.

        -No one was making bad loans to unqualified people until Democrats came along and threatened to drag banks into court and have them fined and branded as racists if they didn’t go along with the left’s Affirmative Action lending policies…all while federally insuring their losses. Even the New York Times warned in the late 1990s that Democrats continuing to force banks into lowering their standards would lead to this exact catastrophe.

        -Obama himself is even on the record personally helping sue one lender (Citibank) into lowering its lending standards to include people from extremely poor and unstable areas, which even one of the left’s favorite blatantly partisan “fact-checkers,” Snopes, admits (while pretending to ‘set the record straight’).

        -Even The New York Times admitted that there is “little evidence” of any connection between the “Republican” deregulation measures Obama blames, like the Gramm-Bleach-Liley Act (signed into law by a Democrat), and the collapse of the housing market.

        But non-Fox media have spent years deliberately and relentlessly inoculating people against the facts, training them to mindlessly blame Bush for being in charge when Democrat policies destroyed the economy. So here we sit, to this day, still watching Obama excuse and shrug off endless economic failures, illegal government takeovers and utter national bankruptcy with zero accountability.

      • Dino Desensi

        You think that had something to do with the 2 wars Bush started and Obama was saddled with the cost !!!!!!

      • Nasty

        I think Obama has ADDED 6 trillion to what Bush left him.
        Do some RESEARCH before you allow yourself to leave such an uninformed comment Dino.
        It really isn’t difficult to ask Google a question. If you need instructions on how to do that, then you are not bright enough to post a comment.
        It’s been 5 YEARS. It took Bush two terms to add what Obama has done with 1 term.
        Again, educate yourself before you leave a comment.

      • guest

        you are stupid, period. That means you’re the typical misinformed repuke asshole.

      • Nasty

        Only an Idiot Liberal would add a comment 6 months later. Then state that a quote from National Bureau of Economic Research is evidence of being misinformed. Dude…you are such a Fool. I feel so much better today thanks to your comment concerning a post from SIX months ago. Compared to YOU, I’m a genius.

    • Nasty

      Underdog? Are you drunk or reading a script? When was Obama an “underdog”. George Soros is backing him! Underdog is a stupid word to connect with Obama. Obama couldn’t lose! He – could – not – Lose. Oh and “The Right” was in on it. You still believe in that “left right” thing? You must be one of those “low information” voters.

      • right a black man running for office has the advantage, of course why didn’t i see that, of course he had the advantage, what was i thinking, should have bet the farm.. fox news{ lol} ran around for months saying obama was going to win thats right i must have missed that one

      • Nasty

        Richard, Fox News does what Fox News does. I know they were wrong.

      • Its just that Republican’s like you never say anything about it. When you don’t have a factual rebuttal you either say “both parties do it” or “I never said I supported everything he did.” You Johnny come lately want to come after the Bush years to say what he has done was wrong but where was your doomsday political philosophy when we were losing 700 thousand jobs, a GOVERNMENT Medical Drug prescription plan, a GOVERNMENT No Child Left Behind, and 10 TRILLION Dollars of new debt!

      • nasty

        I don’t say anything about what MSNBC, NBC, or CNN does either.
        I do not NEED to care about what the “TV” news has to say.
        I ….read. Every source I can find on whatever subject I care about at the time.
        You call me a “Republican”. I don’t think of myself as one. If the Repubs can’t come up with someone better than the Rino McCain or the Rino Mit, next time around, I will be voting some other party.
        I will NOT be voting for a Liberal. I see how you people treat those that don’t agree with you.
        But “Bush”, but “Bush, but Bush. I got a news flash for you. Bush hasn’t been in power for almost FIVE YEARS!
        You can keep beating that dead horse if you wish. I’m concerned with the here and now. Yet another reason I could never be one of you. You don’t know the past from the present. Something that is very basic to being an intelligent person!
        Jobs? The Federal Government does not “create” jobs! We started losing jobs after the Liberals took over BOTH the House and the Senate in 2006. They sucked and lost the House in 2010. They will likely lose the Senate in 2014. The President, whoever he or she may be, is only a “part” of the Government. When are you Liberals going to understand that?
        New Debt? I wish you people would learn to do your research. I get bored educating you OVER and OVER and OVER again.
        (Obama has spent and INCREASED the debt just as much as your hated Bush did. HOWEVER, Obama did it in HALF THE TIME…one term.)
        In simple math; Obama has spent TWO dollars for every ONE dollar that Bush spent.
        I have posted entire articles from CBS and you people STILL just don’t understand!
        I don’t care how educated you think you are, if you can’t figure this out by now you are dumber than dirt.
        Oh and Bush never attempted to cover up the murder of four Americans. Obama attempted it in such a stupid manner that even Democrats are asking question.
        It isn’t that Clinton failed and has blood on her hands. It is that Obama refused to send help and issued “stand down” orders. He is the only one with the power to do that. Clinton and Rice lied. Obama repeated the lie even to the meeting at the UN on Sept 25 of the same year 2012.
        Just to make you feel better: I didn’t like the GOVERNMENT drug plan. I didn’t like the GOVERNMENT no child left behind. (Some should be left behind)
        But Bush is NOT PRESIDENT THIS YEAR AND HAS NOT BEEN PRESIDENT IN ALMOST 5 YEARS. So I don’t waste my time bitching about Bush like you do.

      • but you have no problem lumping the cost of Bush’s no budget war on Obama and you seem smart enough to know the tax breaks only worked for the 1% and that Grover will not let them go away ,how does a man not in Congress control so much.Also who has made more money than anyone from a made up war NEWS FLASH we will be paying for years

      • Nasty

        The new 7 TRILLION in government spending that Obama spent has nothing to do with the Bush spending. Yeah! Bush spent too much! About 8 TRILLION in 8 years.
        Obama has spent 7 TRILLION in 4 years. Which means he will double the Bush spending in 8 years.
        Kerry, the fact that you are unable to see this is amazing to me.

      • Can you link us to your comments and complaints about Bush and his acceleration of the debt? Or do we just have to take your word that you were just as vigorously protesting Bush and the Repubs “borrow and spend” policies in the early to mid 2000’s?

      • Nasty

        You “could” look it up yourself. It isn’t difficult. You don’t know how to “google”?
        As for taking my word, I don’t take anyone’s word. I look it up myself. I would advise you to do the same.

      • I’m just going to comment on one misconception that you have brought up a few times: The housing bubble burst in summer 2006. Jobs in construction peaked in summer 2006 and had started to decline by the 2006 elections. The U.S. Senate was holding hearings on the bubble and the implications of risk in various financial products in 2006. One of the reasons that the Repubs lost both houses of Congress in 2006 was because the housing mess was starting to percolate. I remember hearing and reading about housing problems for months BEFORE the election. There was hope that just a few states would suffer from the housing downturn, but that proved not to be the case.

        But the die in terms of the housing meltdown was cast at least several months before the Dems took over Congress. The Dems in the banking committees continued to investigate loan practices and began to propose possible interventions in early 2007, right after the Dems took over Congress.

        It is a very close-minded person who is going to “blame” the housing mess on the Dems taking over Congress in 2007. You need to read a bit of recent history.

      • Nasty

        So, how do you feel about the 7 TRILLION that Obama has added in new debt?
        Bush isn’t President anymore is he? How do you know what I was doing in the Bush years? You don’t.

  • Wendy

    I thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for posting this. Not sure how many people will stop to actually check that you are stating facts before refuting them. But, you’ve done your part. For the record, I stopped watching FOX years ago. Their bias’ is absurd.

    • Nasty

      You never watched Fox. But good try on that Lie 🙂

      • i treat fox news as satire, not really real stuff,, stuff is kinda made up, ,you know… they call it fiction in the real world

      • nasty

        You watch Bill Maher I assume.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Bill Maher doesn’t pretend to be a news organization.

      • nasty

        My point proven.

      • Bobby

        I would highly recommend everyone watch Bill Maher—at least he gives his honest opinion about the truth! And he and the teams he brings on—have some great back and forth discussions! I like his portrayals of the idiots Nasty calls Repugs. And another you could learn a lot from is MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        MOST of FOX is made up crap.

      • Is hannity fair on obama.

      • nasty

        In one word: No. But it is TV news. He does speak to “issues” of interest to me. But he goes over the top very often. Dems have their Nut cases. So do Repubs. It is a business after all. Ratings are what all tv shows, to include Fox News, are all about

        I would say that I would and do prefer Fox over MSNBC or NBC. But then again, sometimes I prefer to watch Wipeout instead of Fox.

        I disagree with Oreilly on most issues, but he has Dennis Miller, and I enjoy Miller (who was a Democrat) before he turned.

        The person I really enjoy is Charles Krauthammer! I agree with him on most, if not all issues.
        Hannity is 100% opposed to Obama. Usually he makes a good case.
        But all TV news is about the ratings.
        Obama is a Trojan horse. I have no doubt about this. I understand that no one here will agree with me. That’s fine.
        His lack of action on Benghazi is a crime. Not his alone. Clinton is also responsible and they both have blood on their hands. It was an election year. I understand but that doesn’t change the fact that four men were allowed to die unnecessarily. His attempt to cover it up is impeachable. But I don’t want that! I would rather have Obama than Biden. Biden is an idiot! At least Obama is intelligent and I can predict his next move. Biden…all bets are off.
        Sorry for the rambling answer. I’m sure it will enrage everyone here.

  • terry

    You can’t talk logic to the mentally incapable!

    • Nasty

      You wouldn’t know how to talk Logic. Liberals don’t do that. Liberals are all about the emotions. Liberals only understand “love and hate”. How many time do you read about the emotional feelings rather than any facts? “why do you hate Obama?” Never, “why do you disagree with Obama’s policy”. Most of you don’t even know what a “policy” IS.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yeah, and because we have emotions we care about our fellow humans unlike conservatives who only care about themselves. And I doubt you know what policy is, or you would have complained when Bush was dragging our country to ruin.

      • Nasty

        I was a bit busy in Iraq in 2004>5. Korea in 2002>4. On alert at Fort Hood TX in 2001. Bosnia in 98>99.
        Bush has been out spent by Obama by DOUBLE. Look up some facts. You will not look it. Because the facts prove my point. Liberals HATE facts.
        Oh and I LOVE the way you fail to defend Obama, so you go after Bush. Do you even know how many lives Bush saved in Africa? I already know the answer. You don’t know. Liberals have to be told what to rant about and you haven’t been told about Africa because it isn’t negative.
        I really do enjoy this back and forth.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And if he has, SO WHAT? What did the money go for? It got us out of a recession, paid unemployment benefits and other things I find useful. Bush squandered a budget surplus, charged two wars on a credit card and dumped the bill on Obama. I don’t care how many lives bush saved in Africa. He’s responsible for 4000 dead in Iraq and 3000 dead in NYC in 2001.

        Bottom line, what the hell is your beef with Obama, other than he’s a Democrat, he’s liberal and, most important, he’s black. He ain’t perfect but he’s a hell of a lot better than the jackass who wrecked our economy (which you conservatives will NEVER admit).

      • Nasty

        “Bush squandered”, but Obama has spent more in 4 years than Bush did in 8 years.

        Perfect example of Liberal blinders and stupidity
        Oh and the Democrats took over the House AND the Senate in 2006 till 2010.
        Look up the Dodd/Frank bill and you will see what crashed the economy.
        Assuming Liberals can take off their blinders long enough to actually READ something other than their own talking points.
        ( good effort attempting to bring race into the conversation again. You just can’t except that I don’t care.)

  • mike

    yeah what about the 7 TRILLION in new debt? Guess our children and grandchildren have to worry about that won’t they?

    • Adrianna

      Mike, I love this argument because as soon as Obama was elected, we went into a 7 Trillion debt hole. Where were your children and grandchildren and the amazing concern for what you were saddling them with from a debt perspective when Bush took us into a pointless war, spent billions and was deregulating the finance industry that put us in a greater hole. Your kids and grandkids, my ass.

      • mike

        as soon as he was elected? my ass!!! What did the stimulus do for the USA beside give money to corps or people who rather sit on their fat ass and ask for handouts!!! BO is a socialist hands down
        and will go down as the worst Pres right after Carter!!! You call a pointless war? The Boston Bombing would be just a prelude to what we could expect if we didn’t take it to them in the “pointless wars.”

      • Jeff

        I’m just curious, what do they spike your tea with?

      • mike

        would you like the blue or red pill?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Which one did you take mike? How it is you clowns ignore the fact that Bush DOUBLED the debt?

        2001: Debt $5.807 Trillion
        2009: Debt $11.910 Trillion

      • Nasty

        How do you not get that Obama added 7 TRILLON to the debt in four years. It took bush two terms and a war to do that. Obama is going at double that rate.

      • Nasty

        Debt $17.000 Trillion and change now, under Obama. How do YOU miss that?

      • we didn’t watch fox news

      • nasty

        If you did watch Fox News instead of Bill Maher, you would have know that.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I didn’t. You were trying to tell me Obama has spent more than bush. Do the math. $16.835 trillion (debt clock as of this minute) minus 11.910 Trillion is $4.925 Trillion. $11.910 Trillion minus $5.807 trillion is $6.103 Trillion. Last time I looked 4.925 is less than 6.103. But you must have gone to private school because I learned that in public school.

        But so what? Dick Cheney said, “Deficits don’t matter.” And economists will tell you unemployment, not the debt, is the problem. We need to go further in to debt, short term, hire a lot of people, and bring down unemployment. Our infrastructure is crumbling.

      • Nasty

        Damn dude! This is SIMPLE math. Not Algebra ! Perhaps you will believe CBS News: (CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

        The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

        Please tell me what you see. Because I see Obama spent in ONE term, more than Bush spent in Two terms. Oh and you gave Obama ANOTHER term. So take Obama’s number and double it, at least for a second term.
        As for “dick cheney”, why do you care what he said? Do you really want me to start reminding you of what that idiot Joe Biden says?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I just gave you simple math. Go to any government website to get the numbers. Bush got into office in 2001 and out in 2009. So my numbers are correct.

        And what do I see? I see Bush wasting a budget surplus, fighting two wars on a credit card after cutting taxes, pushing an unfunded Medicare drug benefit and wrecking the economy. I see Obama getting us out of this mess. Sorry if you don’t, but things are much better than they were 4 years ago.

        And I like government spending. It gets me benefits like highways, schools, cops, firefighters, a military and people who make sure my plane doesn’t run into another. It will also provide me with medical care when I’m at an age that makes insurance underwriters shudder.

        Frankly I think we need MORE spending, since the problem is unemployment, not debt. Tell me how the debt affects you and leave out the part about how you don’t like to pay taxes.

        The problem with you crackers is you like government spending when it goes to white people but hate it when you think it goes to blacks and hispanics. Those redneck states in the South always get more back from the feds than they pay in, yet they still complain. How about you just secede and go it on your own. The rest of us would be very happy.

        And what stupid things has Biden said?

      • Nasty

        Crackers? You are going to go RACIST on me? You just aren’t intelligent enough to comprehend simple math. I would tell you to look up what the debt was when Bush left office, but you clearly would not understand the meaning. Carry on with your racist life style and have a wonderful day.

      • Nasty

        The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt

        by Jeffrey H. Anderson

        January 25, 201112:41 PM

        Partner content from:

        Enlarge imagei

        President Barack Obama listens as former President George W. Bush speaks during a press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House last January. Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

        President Barack Obama listens as former President George W. Bush speaks during a press conference in the Rose Garden of the White House last January.Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

        See NPR Double Take’s Cartoons On The State Of The Union

        Jeffrey H. Anderson is a former professor of American government and political philosophy at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the director of the Benjamin Rush Society.

        In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for “responsible” efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President’s expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it’s worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

        To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush’s record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama’s presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

        In fairness, however, Obama can’t rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn’t sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush’s column). Rather, Obama’s record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic “stimulus” package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush’s should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).

        How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in “stimulus” money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

        Obama, of course, has said the economy made him do it. But the average inflation-adjusted deficits through Obama’s first two fiscal years will be more than ten times higher than the average inflation-adjusted deficit during the Great Depression. Even as a percentage of the gross domestic product, the average deficits in Obama’s first two fiscal years will more than three times higher the average deficit during the Great Depression. The fact that Obama’s deficits have, by any standard, more than tripled those of the Great Depression, cannot convincingly be blamed on the current recession.

        And none of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under very rosy projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.

        It’s not often that one gets to hear a call for “responsible” fiscal stewardship from someone whose deficit spending is outpacing President Bush’s by more than $1 trillion a year.

        I know this is FAR beyond your ability to understand dude. Perhaps you can get someone to explain it to you. But I doubt you know any educated individuals either.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I looked it up. You obviously can’t read. $11.910 Trillion.

      • Nasty

        (CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

        The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

        The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush’s last day in office, which coincided with President Obama’s first day.

        The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

        Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

        The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

        Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today’s standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.

        Mr. Obama doesn’t mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it’s topped a trillion dollars for four years now.

        As part of his “Win the Future” program, Mr. Obama called for “taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it.”

        His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.

        If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

        © 2012 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

      • Nasty

        I know it is DIFFICULT for you to understand, but there was debt BEFORE Bush. It didn’t start with him, it increased with him and now MORE SO under Obama. Let me guess, you think Bush was the FIRST President don’t you…

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I get my numbers from the government. And, again, who cares? Where were you when Bush was charging two wars on a credit card and leaving the bill for the next guy? You really think an $11 trillion dollar debt magically appeared on January 20, 2009?

      • Nasty

        Where was I? I was fighting those wars. You get your #s from the same Gov, that is building up the debt, and the same one that all News agencies get theirs.
        I gave you the figures in the article. Not my fault you don’t take the time to read it.
        Like most Liberals, you ignore the facts. Even when they are laid out in front of you. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Neither can you conservatives. Prove my numbers are wrong. Find me a government website with figures.

      • nick

        I have already proven my numbers as much as is possible in this format. I spooned it to you. You just don’t read so good.
        Not my fault you don’t want to face the facts.

      • Nasty

        No facts so this is the type of emotion filled and fact empty response you get from Jeff. So predictable!

      • Anne

        Seriously? Your posts are hate filled and fear based themselves. Why do you point the finger at everyone else’s posts when yours are no different? Talk about emotional. Typical Repub. They tend to see in others their own negative traits.

      • Nasty

        Seriously. You have no facts to answer me with? Just more emotional dribble from a Liberal. Typical indeed. The “mirror effect” will not work on me sister. Try some facts next time.

      • Nasty

        What do you have to say about the Benghazi cover up? Who should go to Jail? Clinton for not answering the “03:00 call for help” that she assured us she would do, or Obama for helping to cover up her failure and thereby become a Traitor to this country. I think bout of them should stand trial. They both actively attempted to deceive the American people and cover up the deaths of those they supposed to protect.

      • Bobby

        I will reply to this—–All Republicans—led by John McCain are all hyped up—–but they don’t seem to pull up the previous history—-11 times US Embassy’s were hit while GWB was in office—11 times and where was your outcry then Nasty?? Who covered up those 11 attacks? And now we are just starting to hear about the truth on 911 aren’t we? That maybe GWB had a hand in this aweful day—-oh more will come out eventually that he and his cronies all had warnings—-and probably more! The two who should be in jail today are Bush and Cheney—-why not tell all of us here about how Cheney’s company made almost a trillion—not quite but almost a trillion dollars—having been hired to build and repair in Iraq. Shall we talk about the Bush’s oil and oil friends in Saudi? You wanna get nasty Nasty? There are some intelligent people here. And yes, I know all about the Dodd/Frank bill—-what would you like to talk about on it? Cause you better do a bit more research from an open mind before you keep tossing it around like its the DEMS horrendous bill…..

      • nasty

        Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are both DEMS.
        It was a DEMS bill.
        How about you answer my question about Benghazi?
        As for your assertion that there are some “intelligent people here” you, yourself have failed to prove that statement is true.
        You can’t even keep on topic without your mind wondering.
        Care to try again on the subject of Benghazi?

      • I have two family members both of whom work in small businesses. Both of these businesses, each employing 50 to 150 people, were able to stay afloat due to stimulus programs. They were involved with repairs and improvements to bridges, roads, school buildings, and other public buildings. To say that we didn’t need these programs is bogus… Some of the roads that were fixed under ARRA were in such bad repair that you could barely drive down them.

        If you don’t know anyone whose business stayed afloat or expanded due to stimulus work, I would suggest that you need to get out more and expand your circle of friends and acquaintances.

      • Nasty

        What are they doing now that they will have to cover medical care for employees if they hire more than 50? That is Obama care. Not that I expect you to know that. I don’t.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Why shouldn’t they have to cover medical care for employees like everyone else? And you realize that if we had a single payor system, they wouldn’t have to worry about it.

      • Nasty

        They do already. The company I worked for in the early 80’s covered my hernia. Obamacare will cause companies to not hire “full-time” workers. Too expensive to cover with Obamacare. But every company I ever worked for covered healthcare in the 80’s forward. Oh and why are Congress and Obama exempt from it? Hummm…

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Companies have been hiring part-timers to avoid paying benefits long before Obamacare. It’s now a more convenient excuse. Only 60% of companies provide benefits anymore. The 80s are ancient history. And what makes you think Congress and Obama are exempt? First, exempt from what? Ever hear of FEHB?

      • Nasty

        Exempt from Obamacare. I read! You really should try it.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Who are the people sitting on their asses getting handouts? From what I hear, it’s mostly Southern states who suck up more federal money than they pay in. Too bad they just don’t secede and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

      • nasty

        I agree! They should secede. So I can assume that you now agree Obama is spending double what the hated Bush spent. About time!

    • You do know why we have this debt, don’t you? Think two unfunded wars, tax cuts for the rich, Medicare Part D, and the biggest financial crisis in 80 years which required buckets of assistance and costly stimuli to get out of?

      Have you really forgotten all of that?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Yes, they have.

      • Nasty

        You believe the Military was just created for the wars. Get a clue. The wars are funded. That is one of the lies that the uneducated fall for every time.

    • Greg S

      It ain’t so new… GW Bush was racking it up as he went along, then handed it over to President Obama along with the office.

      • Nasty

        Where Obama added 7 trillion in four years. Doing TWICE as good a job of wasting money as bush did. Let me guess; you are proud of that right?

      • Greg S

        Mostly due to policies that GW Bush put into place… do your research before spouting off your mouth.

      • Nasty

        It has been FOUR YEARS! Are you really trying to say that Obama is SO damned WORTHLESS that he couldn’t PICK UP HIS PEN and DO SOMETHING about that. Well, I guess you voted for one worthless individual then, since he can’t seem to fix ANYTHING. So basically you are saying that George Bush is still President! You are really funny…in a sad sort of way. Thanks for the laughter this Saturday morning dude.

      • Greg S

        Talk to your bronzed John Boehner and the GOP led U.S. House of Representatives, aka “The House of NO”… there’s why a lot more hasn’t been done. The President can’t do much without their cooperation. Yeah, thanks for the laughs today. We’re laughing AT you, not with you.

      • nasty

        Laugh all you wish Greg. The House went over to the Repubs in 2010. The left wasn’t doing a good job and got voted out. The Senate will likely fall to the Repubs in 2014.
        Laugh it up. You are correct. The President can’t do much without cooperation from the Congress. Ask Bush about that. He had a democrat led House AND Senate in 2006 till the end.
        So you are going to use that as an excuse? The Senate, *Democrat led Senate* would not approve Obama’s budget!
        Explain that to me.

      • Bobby


      • nasty

        Take your “caps lock” off. You look like an idiot.
        But then again, you are unable to see that Obama has spent twice as much as Bush in half the time. So I really don’t expect to see intelligence from someone that can’t do addition and subtraction.

    • Avice

      You need to try the nonfiction section.

  • John Gavel

    Allen clifton is a clown, stop bashing republican bush had a 90% approval rating at one time

    • Paige

      at ONE time.

      • Ruth

        for 5 minutes after 9/11

      • Nasty

        ” It reached 90% September 22 ” Learn to READ Ruth. Your stupid is showing!



      • Talked about getting eduacted, the repugs also got us into vietnam, look it up nasty, started that war over another lie, lost over 60,000 of my generation, thank god mitt the twit didn’t get in office we would be at war already, nothing like a good old war to make some good old fashion money, just like weapons of mass distuction lie, keep drinking the kool ade

      • John Gavel

        Yes, you are correct richard thank you for replying w paragraphs- republicans are to blame for everything bad in america- its science

      • nasty

        President Eisenhower. Now what is your point? I grew up with that war Richard. What lie? The one about stopping Communism? Well we failed to stop it didn’t we. We failed Richard. Vietnam fell. It worked in Korea. Too bad it didn’t in Vietnam. Then the cleansing began and those who worked with and for us were murdered.
        Jane Fonda didn’t help us either. I believe she is one of your friends Richard. Liberal.
        I suppose you didn’t hear that we had people in Libya under Obama.
        I’m sure that you don’t know where the Syrian weapons of mass destruction came from. I would be shocked if you knew what “yellow cake” is.
        Your lack of information is just sad.

      • Nasty

        Hi Richard. Take your finger and tap the “caps lock” will you. You look less than educated when you use all caps. I thought we drank “tea”. You seem to be confused on a number of things, don’t you.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      And at what time was that? Before 9/11???

      • Nasty

        You don’t know when “9/11″ was ? Unbelievable! …. Hahahahahaahahaha… oh oh side hurts,” And at what time was that? Befoe 9/11???” Liberal Americans are so frigging stupid. It would be sad if it wasn’t so stupidly funny.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        When did I say I didn’t know when 9/11 was? Bush was popular with some when he was elected and after 9/11, until we found out he ignore that report: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the US”. Then he lied to get us into Iraq. SO tell me why Obama was legitimately elected TWICE if you conservatives have so much to offer.

      • Nasty

        Right here

        “And at what time was that? Before 9/11???”

        Let me help you…look above my comment and you will see YOUR comment.

        Did HE ignore that report or was it the CIA? I don’t know. Do you?

        Now, who refused to send help to our people under attack for 7 hours in Benghazi? Was it Obama? Or was it Clinton. BOTH lied about it after our people had been killed. BOTH tried to cover it up.

        You seem to be in the know so shouldn’t one or both of them be relieved of duty? Well if you can blame Bush for a report that he might not have seen, then it is clear that both Obama and Clinton should be fired AT LEAST. Jail would be Justified really for acts of treason committed against the American people.

        Obama was elected TWICE because George Soros wants America to be brought down to parity with the rest of the world. And also because 52% of the Voting public are ignorant and uninformed. Hell Obama didn’t even go to the NAACP rally and he still got 98% of the black vote. White Liberals are so in “love” with the idea of a black President that you don’t pay attention to what he is doing. Well he has four more years. Perhaps you will find joy in that. Remember he increased the debt by 7 trillion in four years. It took Bush two terms to do the same. Now go pull out your calculator and do the math. Perhaps you will stop “feeling” and start “thinking”. NOPE! NEVER MIND. DON’T DO THAT! It will ruin the victory for you. Just sit back and enjoy the next four years while you can.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Oh, puleeze. Get your information from some place other than FOX.

        Must I remind you that Obama DIDN’T refuse to send help as well as 60+ people died in embassy attacks under Bush? Bush saw the report and ignored it. Try reading. And if anyone deserves jail, it’s Bush and Cheney for lying about Iraq. But that 4000 Americans have died there doesn’t bother you.

        Obama was elected twice because your side has nothing to offer besides hot air. You tried buying the election and it didn’t work. The Kochs and Adelson are out millions. The debt when Bush entered office was $5.769 trillion. When he left in 2009, it was $11.9 trillion, more than double and a net increase of $6.1 trillion. Debt for 2013 is $17.249, a net of $5.34. My public school education tells me 6.2 is more than 5.34. And who cares how much the debt is? What’s more important is unemployment, and the Republicans have done NOTHING to put people back to work.

        So what is Obama doing that you don’t like?
        Got us out of Bush’s recession
        Save the auto industry as several hundred thousand jobs.
        Gave us Obamacare, which didn’t go far enough.
        Replaced all those jobs we lost because of Bush and then some.
        The rest of the world respects us again.
        Housing prices are on the way up.
        The stock market is hitting record highs.

        Try again, troll.

      • hey suburban; can’t fix stupid {nasty]

      • nasty

        CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood claims that requests for support were turned down by the White House.
        “We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi,” she said. “Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night-and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.”
        As for the rest of your comment; it was so devoid of actual facts as to not be worth the time to educate you. Likely designed to divert attention anyway.
        A shorter question to ask me would be; what has Obama done that I like.

      • nasty

        “So what is Obama doing that you don’t like?”
        Spent as much money in 4 years as Bush did in 8 years.

      • obama won twice because he ran against some real losers, come on mccain and what was that flakes name for the great north, and then last but not least mitt the twit nice going repugs whats next jeb please give us all a break and sit this one out.

      • nasty

        That is the TRUTH!

      • John Gavel

        No, it was above 60 percent well into 2004 actually- didnt drop until after his reelection- go figure

    • Bush’s approval rating went from 56% on September 10, 2001 to 86% on the next poll, September 14, 2001. It reached 90% September 22 and then started a relentless march down. It reached a low point of 25% in October 2008.

      • Nasty

        He and Obama are even now. I find that funny also. Both are sitting at 46%.

      • John Gavel

        Still had a 70% approval rating in 2003. So my point is people were approving of what he was doing- only now are they acting like they didnt. Why are we still talking about Bush exactly? New wars have been waged, gitmo is still open, executive orders have been passed, ndaa has been implemented along w cispa like laws. Government just does what it wants these days and the monsanto act is a prime example- they (obama) isnt what they said they were

      • hands down worse president ever, everybody knows it no matter what nasty states

  • fingernut

    Please, right wingers, take a deep breath.

    Obama isn’t a socialist.
    It’s not socialism to want everyone to have healthcare.
    The massive debt is a systemic problem, shouldered by both Democrats and Republicans.

    I understand how important hate is to the right wing: but please, it’s time to give your hatred a rest

    • mike

      so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit. you see that goods and services used for direct use and not for profit. The use for profit is called capitalism. What the hell is wrong with that? Instead BO would rather just give people deserving or not stuff they don’t deserve.

    • Nasty

      You are wrong. Everyone having free healthcare IS Socialism. Look it up and stop sounding so uneducated and stupid. Absolutely AMAZING!!

      • so if the repugs come up with a national health care system, that will cover everybody and take care of pre exsisting conditions, keep our children covered longer,and eventually lower the over all cost of health care for everyone it wouldn’t be socialism

      • nasty

        It would be. Socialism is Socialism, no matter which party sponsors it. But so is Social Security! The problem is how the program is used. If an employer has to fire some full time workers because he or she cannot afford to pay their health care, is that a good thing? I think not.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        It’s not free, idiot. SOMEONE pays for it. In the case of a socialized system, EVERYONE pays in and some get the benefit, JUST LIKE COMMERCIAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

      • Nasty

        It is free idiot, for some. Not everyone pays in. Scream all you want. You lack logic and education on this subject.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        We don’t have a socialized health care system except the military. In a socialized health care system, everyone pays in. And if someone can’t afford to pay, we let them die?

      • Nasty

        Have we been letting them die before? No. Obama care IS Socialized Medicine.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Soooo,that means you were sucking off the public teat when you were in the military and you now begrudge socialized health care???

      • nasty

        Only a civilian would call what Soldiers do “sucking off the public teat”.

        Oh and that military socialized health care…not so good.

        Long waits and over worked / undertrained “doctors”. Glad to be back in civilian care. Where the Doctors are well trained give a damn. Military Doctors don’t have the time to care. They have a “backlog” to run through. But you wouldn’t know that. You never wore the uniform.
        Basically, you don’t know what you’re talking about. I have experience with socialized medicine and I hated it.
        Yeah, it sounds good. But in practice, not so much.
        I almost lost my leg because of an easily treated infection in Bosnia. That “doctor” might have been relieved. Don’t know.
        Went to one in Korea for the flu. She told me it was a bad cold and to “fight through it”. On the forth visit, I threatened to go “off post” to see a Korean doctor. I was told that was against regulations. I told them that dying needlessly SHOULD be against regulations also and I would not be seen by the “doctor”. I was seen by her boss, given three days bed rest.
        Or the one at Campbell. Loved that guy. 80lbs had dropped on my foot and I could not get it into a boot. His first question? Who authorized me to wear a running shoe. Then he couldn’t read the x-ray. Even I could see that three toes were crushed. I got a crutch and no running for three days.
        Yeah, you go ahead and hope for THAT kind of care. You will deserve it.

      • Bobby

        Shall we make a HUGE list of social programs for you ‘nasty’? How about public education including colleges. Then of course the largest social program is Social Security—-there are social programs for housing, food assistance, medicare…. but yet, we are not a socialist society. Yup—democrats have feelings. There is one thing you wont see from a Republican—–how most Republican Congressmen are married is beyond me. How do they go home to their wives? Or their poor children—–

      • Nasty

        Socialism comes in steps Bobby. Some of these steps should not be taken.

        Now you have two options. You can go on an emotion filled rant or you can use logic and see that at some point we run out of other peoples money.

      • Nasty

        Yes, but not all who receive also pay

  • Dg

    Unfortunately as Bill Mahr has pointed out most of the conservatives live in a fact-free Bubble

    • Nasty

      You still haven’t figured out that Bill Mahr isn’t reporting the News have you. Talk about living in a fact free bubble…

  • Nasty

    There hasn’t been much good to say about jobs since your King became the President.

  • southside mike

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
    ~Aldous Huxley

  • Amanda Bensley

    i love that the only person commenting here against Obama (against everything/everyone for that matter) is named ‘Nasty.’ Poor fella is all brainwashed and angry.

    • they can relate to mitt the twits capitolism he shipped jobs to other countries capitols

      • John Gavel

        Get out of here w that garbage- you are spewing some ridiculous stuff- as you shop and eat at mitts stores on a daily basis. Look at the people Obama has brought onto his team n look at their records for moving jobs and investing overseas- his jobs czar jeffery immelt invested billions in china n moved over departments of Ge for crying out loud. Now please continue w your childish puns n remarks

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And you can name Republicans who’ve created jobs here???

      • John Gavel

        Mitt- look at what Bain did for companies like Burger king, amc, sports authority- made them global names- aka hired alot of people.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        How many did they hire here? Most of the Burger Kings in my area are closing. AMC just got sold to the Chinese. You need to provide US employment figures to get me to believe Bain has created jobs (and more than minimum wage jobs flipping burgers or taking movie tickets) and what, if anything, Romney had to do with that.

        The GOP has campaigned on jobs, jobs, jobs since 2008 but hasn’t produced any.

      • John Gavel

        Have republicans been in the majority since 2008? Or have democrats, ill get you the figures on what bain has created- bc i know you shop at a majority of the stores

      • John Gavel

        Look at mccrory of north carolina- brought in google n 600 million. Google what hes doing

      • John Gavel

        Ill look up the numbers on bain and how many they hired. Look up Mccrory, governor for north carolina. Brought in google n 600 million in investments plus other companies.

      • John Gavel

        Search mccrory- governor of north carolina- just brought in google and 600 mill of investments. Also other companies are coming in

    • dakid0813

      He doesn’t need any help. Nasty is destroying all your arguments

  • Deja Suthikant

    Republicans are actually Obama’s best friends. They highlight Obama’s beauty with their ugliness.

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    So how would we have been so much better off with McCain and Mitt?

  • You missed the other talking point when the job reports comes in better than expected “The real unemployment numbers are much higher” Whether the numbers meet, exceed or fall short, Fox News/GOP will have a negative statement.

  • Over the past five years we have seen the Republicans stand pat.. and do absolutely nothing.. no work. I am sorry I take that back as they did work really hard to make sure the Rich did not get taxed. They have not worked on issues for Working Families. they have not worked on issues for our Veterans..What they are doing is NOT WORKING WITH THIS PRESIDENT.. So all that has been accomplished has been WITH OUT THE HELP OF THOSE WHO SAY THEY WORK AND CALL THEM SELVES AMERICANS..

  • Nate Darrow

    I find it typical of Republicans that whenever I point out statistics to them that prove them wrong, they’ll simply write said statistics off as either fabricated or improperly obtained. Aren’t cop-outs just the best?

  • Paisley Blackburn

    Allen Clifton: I absolutely love reading your posts because you break it all down with facts. Sadly, trying to get a Republican to accept the facts presented to their face is like asking a person tripping on acid to describe the world as it really is. It isn’t gonna happen.