I am so glad you pointed that out, because Ronald Reagan increased the debt by abour $2.4 trilllion himself.

I suppose you call President Obama Barack Hussain Obama so you arent confusing him with the previous President Obama like with the 2 George Bush's?

I also notice the only 1 you actually said the middle name was Franklin Deleno Roosevelt.  I am sure the vast vast majority of people wouldnt know what the middle initial for all of those presidents.

the sooner people find out politics doesn't fix everything the better, because all they can do is make laws, change laws, and declare war. literally speaking.

I suggest next time not to fall for marketing gimmick based slogans like hope and change. Though the aternative was John McCain who probably would've have invaded Iran by now (joke).

So, we get someone who has Osama and Obama in their name.  So, you do it out of respect for both individuals, or the fact you dislike Obama?

Of the names above, only ONE you gave has the middle name spelled out.  Answer me this, who refers to Obama as Barack Hussein Obama?  Do you see most people going around with it normally?  Or is it, could it be this, he has a foreign name, that is the same as the former leader of Iraq who America was opposed with.  Go ahead, and show that saying Obama's full name is a sign of respect and not a shot at him like he is some sort of Manchurian candidate, you, who happen to stick the name of the former leader of al Qaeda.  You know what, even money says you can't.  But go on and do it, and stop beating around the bush about it.  Own up to the fact it is done out of fear and anger, and as a slur.  

That is an interesting trend.  You have it said, "the President of the United States has run up more debt than all presidents combined before him!"  post Carter (heck, I think the same was said aboutr Carter to) outside of Clinton.  It is like clockwork.  I would say it is more of a sign of a bigger picture than a particular president.

Meh, I wouldn't be too worried, when this debt ceiling passes I think it will even out again. Besides, his approval rating is still way higher than Congress, which I don't think has improved since Republicans took office. And public disapproval as already stated in this topic has been with Republicans over this "negotiations", so in the unlikely case we do default, they'll receive the majority of the blame.

I'd say its been like clockwork since Nixon that our spending has been out of control. It really all started with LBJ's massive increase in welfare/entitlement spending via the "Great Society". The issue is that Obama and Clinton have been the outliers since then - Clinton in the obviously good way, and Obama in the obviously bad way. The house/senate/president have accelerated the insanity since 2007-8. Obama has increased the spending faster and maintained it longer than anyone else since FDR.... You can't deny that he's done that given all the data out there.

It shouldn't absolve the guild from anyone else involved - Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George HW Bush, and George W Bush - but he has brought it to a pinnacle of absurdity as of late.

As for the blame - I think it'll hurt everyone. Obama is pretty much screwed for re-election now. Remember that our government is controlled 2/3rds by the Dems, so even if the blame is equal, they will pay a greater cost.

Wrong. Notice that the debt decreased under LBJ and that continued until Reagan came into office and introduced trickle down economics. Continued rising until Clinton policys came into effect. Then took off again under Bush. Yes year and a 1/2 of Obama (Obama 1st budget was 2010, not 2009) presidency accelerated, that is do to continuing nearly all new Bush policies because of Senate fillibusters and the 1 time stimulus.

Go look at the policies LBJ put in place.

Under Johnson, Medicare and Medicaid were passed. These were two landmark programs that did not exist prior to LBJ, and have grown in size considerably since he pushed them through via his Great Society initiatives. Additionally, his Great Society acts included federal funding of education, and started most welfare programs we know today, and expanded the role of Social Security in our society by increasing its benefits.

All of these acts' costs were not fulfilled under Johnsons presidency, much like all of FDR's acts costs were brought to bear during his presidency.

So lets look at Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs and see how these acts play into our current budgetary issues:

As of 2011, costs are now approximately $460 billion USD. Adding Medicaid, the costs are approximately $773 billion USD/yr or 23% of all federal outlays. Add Social Security in as well, and you have approximately $1.494 trillion in spending between our social insurances program. Taxes among these programs were $965 billion in 2010, so our government lost $529 billion USD on social programs last year, most of which were initated or expanded by LBJ.

Throw in the other programs championed by LBJ such as food stamps and federal education spending, and you add another $150 billion USD/yr on programs started by LBJ for a grand total of $600 billion USD in annual spending on programs that LBJ created.

As for the Obama argument - you can play that game of passing the buck on Bush & his Democratic legislature as much as you like, but everything we see today points to the fact that Obama has not attempted to reduce the massive size of government in the post-Bush era by one iota. Since he has done this, he and his government is implicit in the screw-up that was Bush's presidency.