you are equally misinformed.  Bush took 8 years to increase the national debt by 5 trillion, obama did it in 3.  Now, the Bush tax cuts are just a tiny portion of that debt, with the majority of it being increased spending (see solyndra).  Of course, the Bush tax actually help stimulate the economy too but increasing the amount of money being used for investment and what not, but evidently that isn't important.  I agree the wars need to go, and if you look at Obama's 2008 promises of ending the wars... oh yeah, he didn't do that.  Another interesting thing to look at with the debt is the times in which the debt spikes, which also coincides with the time the dems took control of the house and senate.

Now, that being said, I personally think each side has its baggage and each side just sits and finger points at the other as the source of the problem.  Guess what, they are both right, as both sides are the source of the problem.  Ignoring the problems on one side and blaming the other isn't going help the debt at all.  I don't think Romney or Obama are really prepared to do that, the only candidate that I think could have done that was Huntsman, but that didn't happen.  

Wow, first of all the Bush tax cuts have added trillions to the debt, solyndra added 500 million. Factually, the top 4 causes of the debt have been the Bush tax cuts, the wars, the economic downturn, and the recovery measures to get us out of that downturn.

Ok, this whole bush tax cuts cost us money ignores the relationship that taxes have on the economy and thus revenue.  Letting the tax cuts expire doesnt automatically give you 2 trillion dollars like you are suggesting.  If you raise taxes you are just shifting money out of the private sector.  Since the economy is primarily based on private business, it means a weaker economy and less revenue as a result.  Now, im sure that it would still bring in more revenue then now (at least at first), but not 2 trillion worth, more like 250 to 500 billion.  The whole argument that the bush tax cuts cost 2 trillion is just a democratic talking point that removes one aspect of the tax code from its economic context, and that is a fact.

Europe has done nothing of the sort. A lot of the "austerity" has come from raising taxes, not cutting spending. The reverse of what I'm recommended.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but no European country has actually cut spending, but only cut projected spending, correct?

Additionally, stimulus spending has done little to spur on any of the economies of Europe or America. Spain invested heavily in green energy - they have an unemployment level higher than that of the Great Depression right now.

Show me a country that has significantly cut its budget and had no growth. Please. Prove it to me. Because our 10% deficit spending of GDP has done virtually nothing for us.

I suspect that Austerity in Europe means the same thing it does to Democrats AND Republicans in the US.

That is.... cut future projected spending INCREASES.

Outside of the few countries already on deaths door anyway.

That was my thought. Every article I've read about European austerity is simply about reducing the revenue-expense chasm by cutting future funds, rather than shuttering/firing/reducing actual spending today.

I was talking with a member of the Government the other day, and he seriously believed that the only country "cutting" more than Britain, was the USA.

Oh, he's a leading member of the Conservative party, too.

But we forget that Hoover attempted a response similar to Harding's, and things dragged through to 1932, bottoming out only until FDR was elected.

http://mises.org/daily/4197 

http://mises.org/daily/4350