And the rest of the issues from Politifact:

• Time ranges: Bush served a full eight-year term, while Obama had served just 27 months by the time the chart was compiled. If the Obama figure were to be scaled out to a full eight-year period, he’d have a debt increase of 121 percent rather than 34 percent, making his increase greater than Bush’s. To be fair, that would be a simplistic exercise — but no less misleading than the chart.

• Public debt vs. gross debt: Not only did the chart say it was using one statistic and then use another, it also cherry-picked the one that showed the comparison in a more favorable light. According to OMB statistics, public debt rose by 70 percent under Bush, 16 percentage points more slowly than gross federal debt did. And according to the Treasury, the public debt rose by 53 percent under Obama, compared with the 34 percent rise in gross federal debt.

Those numbers would have shown the two presidents much closer in their debt creation records — and that’s without even adjusting for the vastly different lengths of time in office.

• Debt vs. debt as a percentage of GDP: Some economists will tell you that it’s not the size of the debt per se, but rather the size of the debt relative to the nation’s gross domestic product. This helps minimize the complicating effect of economic cycles and inflation. So how do those numbers stack up? Using OMB statistics, here’s what we came up with, using public debt figures not adjusted for the president’s time in office:

Reagan: Up 14.9 percentage points
George H.W. Bush: Up 7.1 percentage points
Clinton: Down 13.4 percentage points
George W. Bush: Up 5.6 percentage points
Obama: Up 21.9 percentage points (through December 2010 only)

You need a spanking….a very progressive spanking…awoka woka…;)

Maybe I just like my graphs better than yours. They don’t require the materialization of Socialist conspiracies to make them plausible. Plain old corporate greed will do the job just fine.

“There is no relation between Bush’s tax cuts and the mortgage collapse that caused the recession.”

Then what is the relation, Tom? Obama? The crash came after 8 years of Bush, during his watch, and after 8 years of you telling us what a wonderful job he and his mafia were doing.

The Bush employment boom was artificially pumped up by deficit spending in his administration, he printed money, although he didn’t actually use a printing press to create new currency, it was all done with fake wealth stored in phony equities, bundled mortgage “instruments”, and impenetrable investment derivatives. He just misjudged it. It wasn’t supposed to collapse until after he left office.

Don’t make me bring out the duck.

Anyone still interested in the facts can go look at Obama’s historical budget numbers, in this PDF document.

Go to Table 1.3, which is page 30 of the PDF document, but labeled as page 26 on the page itself. Work with the constant dollar columns, so different times can be properly compared. Look at the revenue numbers for different administrations. Look at the trends, and compare different points and different years. Draw your own conclusions as to whether or not or problem is “insufficient revenue” or just too damn much government growth. It’s easier if you print out the two pages and mark things out. Careful not to print the whole document.

By the way, anyone trying to blame tax cuts for the current job situation is pulling the wool over your eyes. There is no relation between Bush’s tax cuts and the mortgage collapse that caused the recession.

Nancy Pelosi lies about this too, and how tax cuts don’t create jobs because Obama’s “created” more jobs than Bush. In the process, the concept of “net jobs” is invented, same as the concept of “saved jobs” was invented.

Here’s the actual graph:

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Pelosi picks two endpoints off this chart and pretends there’s nothing in the middle. And takes it for granted her target audience will swallow it whole. It’s like having someone build a thousand houses on the coast, and having them blown away by a hurricane. Someone else comes in after the storm and builds fifty houses, and then claims he’s obviously better at building houses than the other guy, since he doesn’t see any of the other guy’s houses around.

Would it be bad form to also point out that Obama’s jobs were “created” under the exact same tax laws as Bush’s?

Oh, that 132,530 in February of 2001, at the very far left of that graph? That was the peak employment number of the 90s.

Start with Politifact, a source Buck has used himself more than once.

We can also bring in that noted right-wing rag, the Washington Post.

There’s more, but it shouldn’t be necessary.

Deficits go up when the Republicans are in power because they don’t like to pay taxes. It really IS that simple. Oh sure, both sides are fiscally irresponsible, but it is the Right that has found a way to profit from it. Look at how since Reagan and the supply siders took over they have created deficits, for the last 30 years (except for when Clinton was in power).

Obama has created big deficits because he is trying to dig his way out of the Bush stock market crash and recession. Maybe that’s not the right thing to do, and maybe he’s going about it the wrong way, you can certainly debate that. But at least he isn’t doing it to give his rich pals a tax break.

Here’s the same data, from Wiki. Again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

Who won the 1980 election?

The “supply siders” believed cutting taxes for the rich would “trickle down” as jobs for the poor. They weren’t just wrong, they lied. Remember, the first President Bush himself called it Voodoo Economics. But they got rich while the American working class lost real income (after correcting for inflation), ever since the Reaganites took power. They are trying the same lies now, with this “we are the job creators” crap. Bush II already gave them their tax cut. Where are the jobs?

Hell, I knew perfectly well what was happening, I worked for a living. It wasn’t the blacks or the Mexicans or the Democrats that have nickled and dimed me during a time when my career should have been booming. All I had to do was look around and see who had benefitted while the middle class dwindled away.

Unfortunately, the “job creators” never got around to creating one for me, so I had to retire to feed my family. My survival depends on the welfare state lasting longer than I do.

Well, I know I’m in a tight spot, but I’m still in better shape than you working stiffs. Those jobs are never coming back, no matter who wins the next election, and you’d better get used to it.