I Watch Documentaries

Just to add, Obama did spend more. http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/sep/05/kelly-ayotte/did-barack-obama-accrue-more-debt-half-time-george/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/28/ron-johnson/sen-ron-johnson-says-deficits-under-obama-total-53/
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

Every media source contains bias some way or another. D'Souza is conservative biased. So what? Bias doesn't matter. You don't have to be liberal or conservative to tell the truth. Fact is fact- What matters is you NOT give people false information. The facts stated in the Huffpost article are still true. See for yourself and research the whole thing. If you find anything untrue, feel free to point them out.

9/11 wasn't really the cause of the '08 recession btw. Waging war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, as the target was in another country. But yes you're right- the spending brought on by the war made matters worse for an already crippling economy. The national debt results from a combo of high spending + low revenue.

And yes, I suppose all presidents are sympathetic to Muslims. You missed that they were referring to Muslim "jihadists". So no, Reagan was not sympathetic to Muslim jihadists, nor Obama, or Clinton or Bush, or anyone else for that matter. Who openly endorses jihadism? If you have proof somewhere I'd like to see please.

Aaand of course, Obama spends. Which president didn't spend? Name one that didn't. Even Reagan. It is true spending rose under Obama. Not many people know, that the rate of federal spending rose three times FASTER under the Bush era than obama (Obama 11.2% vs Bush 33%). Starting at Obama's first term. Spending by Fiscal 2009 was estimated at 3.7 trillion- only 5.8% of that is directly attributed to Obama. The rest, were from appropriations and policies already in place when he took office. In other words, the mountain of debt was already sky high by the time he was inaugurated, and CBO estimated it would increase over the years, which it did. Predictably.

Those 3 links you provided, are useless and just further supports my argument. Because it explains exactly what I mention above. Politifact clearly says, the root cause of who is to blame is not all on Obama. Instead, responsibility is on both parties, Bush, and previous Congresses plus Obama combined. Read thoroughly. The only truth about those articles, were the numbers (how much total debt). Simply stating a number doesn't explain what that number entails, and who's responsible for it. Ergo, it is misleading and you are not seeing the FULL PICTURE.

Analysis:
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-numbers-quarterly-update/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

By the way, FactCheck.org is a non-partisan, non-profit. No bias.

My point is sometimes government-regardless of who is president- has to make hard monetary sacrifices to fund the services us taxpayers need and would benefit from. So I don't mind if bush spent money on the No Child Left Behind program, or Medicare Part B, or the bank bailout (ok, not a fan of the bank bailout but, still necessary). I don't mind that Obama spent money on the CHIP program, the ACA or the Auto bailout, etc. Each president has a job to do and a country to sustain. Question is, if it helps the country, then why are you so opposed to it? If you oppose spending, then you can explain what specific bill you're opposed to, and what you propose we'd do differently.

All this hooplah about spending this and spending that. Why do you care? How does government over spending negatively affect you, personally? Did you lose a job because of Obama's spending? Were you hurt in any way? Did your house burn down? Got arrested? If you can't come up with a good reason why you're so upset over it, then all this fake anger is pointless.

Without spending, you wouldn't be able to drive down the street. Government pays for traffic lights, they pay for ambulances, schools, public parks. It's our taxpayer dollars going to work. If you enjoy the liberty of driving down the street everyday, then you enjoy government spending. We can't live without it, sorry to burst your bubble.

Obviously, the Huffpost article won't mention your claim of NASA and military cuts. The article was analysis of the film. You're now arguing about cuts, not spending. That's a whole nuther ballgame my friend.

The purpose of that Huffpost article was to prove that D'Souza did not present all the facts to you, as you previously said. Hope that helps you better understand the what is happening in gubment. Learn all the facts. it's why it's safest to be a skeptic.

It cut me off so as I was saying lol sorry...Question is, if it helps the country, then why are you so opposed to it? If you oppose spending, then you can explain what specific bill you're opposed to, and what you propose we'd do differently.

All this hooplah about spending this and spending that. Why do you care? How does government spending affect you, personally? Did you lose a job because of Obama's spending? Were you hurt in any way? Did your house burn down? Got arrested? If you can't come up with a good reason why you're so upset over it, then all this fake anger is pointless.

Obviously, the Huffpost article won't mention your claim of NASA and military cuts. The article was analysis of the film. You're now arguing about cuts, not spending. That's a whole nuther ballgame my friend.

The purpose of that Huffpost article was to prove that D'Souza did not present all the facts to you, as you previously said. Hope that helps you better in understanding what is happening in gubment. Learn all the facts- it's why it's safest being a skeptic to EVERYONE.

And now I see how things are today and almost dead on !!!

Yep, you are funny!