The post compares the first 4 years of Bush to the first four years of Obama. If you want to take the first 3 years, the results are pretty much the same that Obama is adding to the deficit in multiples of Bush.

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts while President. Note that Bush’s tax cuts were for everyone and that the deficits were decreasing after the tax cuts.

Bush’s problem is that he didn’t cut spending while cuting taxes.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/romney-wrong-on-deficits-auto-bailout/

“As we have written twice before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected the fiscal year 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion two weeks before Obama took office. That fiscal year started Oct. 1, 2008. The fiscal year was already nearly one-third over when Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009. After Obama took office, the deficit increased to $1.4 trillion for fiscal year 2009. At the end of the fiscal year, the CBO largely blamed the 2009 deficit on the recession, specifically a sharp decline in tax revenues and an increase in spending in response to the economic crisis — first by Bush and later by Obama.

Under Obama’s watch, federal spending has remained at or near that level. In an April 2011 report, the CBO said (table 1-1) the actual deficit for fiscal year 2010 was nearly $1.3 trillion and the estimated deficit for the current budget is $1.4 trillion.

Republicans frequently make the argument that deficit spending should have returned to pre-recession levels by now, and that’s an opinion that we leave for you to judge. But even if you go back to fiscal year 2008 — the last full year of the Bush administration — Romney’s claim that Obama increased deficits “by a factor of four or five” would be way off base.

The federal government ended fiscal year 2008 with a deficit of $458 billion, as the CBO reported in table F-1 of a January 2010 report. Four times that would be about $1.8 trillion and five times would be roughly $2.3 trillion — both far higher than the deficit spending under Obama. Of course, as we already explained, it would be wrong to go back to 2008 and ignore the projected deficit as it stood when Obama took office.”

Here is a look at new spending under Obama, as opposed to adding all of the spending that Bush brought over, like the 2 wars that were not paid for, Bush tax cuts, and Medicare part D that was not paid for:

“Based on the figures from the chart, Bush spent $5.07 trillion on new expenditures from fiscal years 2002-2009. Obama will have spent only $1.44 trillion through 2017, including saving $126 billion through spending cuts.

According to the chart of costs based on new policies:

Bush’s tax cuts amounted to $1.812 trillion, compared to Obama’s stimulus tax cuts amounting to a projected $425 billion.
Bush spent $1.469 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other defense costs. Based on estimates published on the chart, Obama will have saved $126 in defense spending.
The Medicare drug benefits supported by Bush cost $180 billion. Obama’s health reform plan will have cost $152 billion, and will benefit more Americans.
Bush’s stimulus plan and other changes resulted in a $773 billion price tag. Obama’s stimulus spending was about $62 billion less at $711 billion”.

Take a look at the chart:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html

You think a 6% profit is huge and obscene? Last year, Apple Inc. earned a 23.95%, Google 26.78%. There are many other companies that earn more than that.

Health Insurance companies sell insurance to reduce the risk of people incurring medical costs. They don’t sell healthcare. Politicians who crave more and more power demonize health insurance companies in the hope that one day, the government can run healthcare. Would you rather the companies be losing money? How would you get health insurance if companies couldn’t earn a profit providing it?

When is enough profit enough? Never. The more profit a company earns, the more money it uses to invest, grow, hire people, and reward shareholders. If you own stocks or a 401k, you want companies to be profitable.

in 1980, the Top 1% earned 9% of total income and there were 12 U.S. Billionaires. In 30 years, the Top 1% now earns 23% of total U.S. income and there are 520 U.S. Billionaires.

Our taxation policy has helped to create more Billionaires every year since 1980 than were created from 1900 – 1980! Meanwhile, off-shoring, deregulation and deunionization have resulted in Middle Class wages going down during that same period and household income stagnating, even though there are twice as many two income households as there were 30 years ago.

I count approximately 3,000 Fortune 500 Execs who earn over $500K a year. Can you point out which of these people actually use their income to hire? Approximately 5,000 Hedge Fund/Wall Street employees received $1M or more in Bonus this year, how many employees do each have? How many jobs do they create?

My current effective tax rate is 22.1% and I pay Payroll tax on all but a couple dollars of my salary. If I made $1M my effective tax rate would be 16% based on historical numbers.

Look back historically, of the Top 20 growth periods in our Economy over the past 100 years, the Top 18 ALL occurred when the top end individual tax rate was over 50% and corporate tax rate was over 40%.

The longest peacetime economic expansion in our history occurred during the Clinton Administration AFTER he raised the tax rates, including moving the Top end rate to 39%. Not only did we get Balanced Budgets and some pay down on the debt, over 300 Billionaires were made during the Decade!! 3 times more than created under Reagan and nearly twice as many as under W.

Back when the Dems were blocking court nominees, the Republicans threatened using the “nuclear option” in the Senate. Dems screamed it would end our Republic and destroy constituion.

Seems odd that Reid would use this “end of democracy” tatic to save the President from the embarasment of having his jobs bill fail in the Senate because there weren’t enough Dems to vote for it.