Now here's a thing

Funny but you forgot something in your analysis. The Congressional part of our trilogy of Government. Clinton actually had a Republican Congress to work with. Bush his last two years had a Democratic Congress. Obama his first two years had a Super Majority Democratic Congress and STILL doesn't have a Federal Budget. He hasn't had one since he took office. Make sure you look at everything, not just the President when looking at spending. Congress is responsible for a large share.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/ When a nation borrows .40 cents of every dollar spent, when the Federal Reserve prints money and the currency is further devalued, when those who receive money and benefits from the government are MORE than those who pay into the government in taxes, and when the executive of said govenment spends upwards toward a million dollars on his family's travels and then tells the tax payers (those 53% who pay taxes)that 'everyone must do their fair share', when economic growth is dropping to frightening levels and yet the president suggests that we are in recovery, you will have those who say Obama is destroying, not fixing the economy. It matters little to me how others did at this tipping point. Obama said he'd fix it, and he's pushed us further down the road to ruin and collapse. HE called it hope and change. He hasn't delivered. THAT is what matters in this election.

With all due respect your article is misleading. Bush raised the debt by 5 trillion dollars from 5 trillion to 10,699 trillion in 8 years. At the same time the GDP increased from 9,817 billion to 14,077 billion. It was a time of terrific American business expansion. And lots of jobs so lots of revenue. Let's look at what Obama has done, he raised the deficit in 3 1/2 years by 5 trillion dollars from 10,699 trillion to 15,850 trillion. Yet the GDP barely moved from 14,441 billion to 15,595 billion. In 3 1/2 years Obama increased the national debt by the same amount as Bush did in 8 years while the GDP increased by a fraction. - Besides, Reagan had two terms as opposed to Carter's. And President Clinton was able to work with a republican congress..

I was only a child during the Carter and Reagan years, but a young adult during the elder Bush's (or Senior Bush as I like to call him) term. I KNEW we were in for some serious problems back in 2004 (I believe), Bush Junior (W) pledged $500 million to the Iraq war, then $500 million to the tsunami relief, and as a follow up, ANOTHER $500 million to Katrina relief. And if I recall, there were budgetary issues back then.... Where in the heck where we going to get this money? I've never been thrilled with our being in the middle east when there is probably a fair amount of animosity and resentment going back 20 years to the war between Afghanistan and Russia. I believe we need to help US first, before committing hundreds of millions of dollars to other countries, even if it happens to be a political offering. I guess that unless someone in Washington starts demonstrating fiscal responsibility, we aren't going to get out of this recession any time soon.

If you're trying to say the Republicans spend more and tax more than the Democrats, you're wrong, generally speaking. The Democrat party typically wants to increase the size and scope of government, have government control more and do more, which results in higher taxes or higher deficits. I don't know where you got your numbers but statistics can be skewed to make them show just about anything depending on how they are presented. You also can't hold the president alone responsible for the spending as congress is the branch of government that controls the budgets and spending. Take a look at the charts on this website, http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html and you'll see that both parties can spend money, but you'll see that it shows all branches of government in power when spending increases or decreases. You'll also see that the present Democrat controlled administration has increased spending and the deficit more than any administration in history. Statistics can also be misleading since if you are only talking about the deficit, it really doesn't speak to the size of the budget itself or the real amount of spending. One website showed that actual spending increased the least with a Democrat in the white house but Republican control of both houses of congress. When it was the opposite situation, a Republican president and Democrats controlling both houses, the rate of spending grew at double the rate. Interestingly enough, when there was a Republican president and a split congress, spending increased even more. In short, there's no denying the fact that we need to get the government spending under control in this country. The Obama administration and the Democrats have demonstrated they will not do it, so we need to look elsewhere. It may end up that both of the major parties will not do it, so maybe the answer will be found outside of our two parties, but we need to find the answer and soon.

the gdp is in the decline,i must say its a good analysis ,keep it up and you rock,i think we need a change in term for sure

Wars are expensive..and some seem to be in rush to wage wars.