Liberal Democrats have no fiscal responsibility

First off, please leave Clinton's personal life out of this debate. It has nothing to do with it, and you know it. So stop with the mudslinging already, it's very unbecoming. Second, I'm bringing in the Iraq war due to the fact that it cost a tremendous amount of money that we didn't need to spend. And you make my point yourself with the argument that the banks were lending out too much money. It was because of course, George Bush deregulated them and allowed them to do what they wanted. They were under near limitless ability to do what they wanted, creating the housing bubble, a stock bubble, another housing bubble, and the list goes on. Now I think I'll bring up the point that liberal increase in taxes is going to be half of a two part solution to the government's budget, the other half being cuts in spending. I agree, just relying on the government and giving them too much power is bad, however, the reality is that we are 16-17 trillion dollars in debt right now. You do not solve a debt problem in the government by lowering taxes. That is the most backward logic, that most conservatives would have you believe. I think we need temporary tax hikes, and tremendous cuts in military spending and other areas where possible (Which by the way, Paul Ryan tried to do but failed, due to his cuts being in places like highway systems and education, which would be repulsive if you really want to help the economy.) I know, I know. You hear raise taxes and you go ballistic over it and think Marxist socialist. However, the reality is that our government is so far in debt that they literally cannot get themselves out unless we do temporary 5-10 percent tax hikes and cut spending enormously. Then, after the debt is subsided, the country will have it's currency taken seriously again by other nations. Then the economy could start boosting itself without any government interference. And please, trying to say that a republican congress was the reason that Bill Clinton's policies worked. By that logic, all good things that happen in government only happen because of the senate and the presidents have nothing to do with it. Then why are you complaining about spending under Obama? It doesn't add up. I agree I disagree with a lot of the spending that happened under Obama. Not completely, there is some smart spending that he did. But under Bush? No. I wasn't happy one bit. His giant tax returns that he gave out did NOTHING for the economy and put the government into higher deficit. And by the way, unemployment dropped below 8 percent under Obama in 2012. Most economists agree that even getting it under 10 percent is an extremely high achievement. So don't try and say that unemployment went up, because it went down. I'm not saying that it 9/11 was Bush's fault, all I'm saying is his horrible foreign policy led to horrible spending that did not need to happen. Oh, and if this is completely an "economic debate" like you claim it to be, then why bring up that the cold war ended under Reagan? And the reason that the economy was tanking under Truman was because of the Korean war being over when Eisenhower took office. A war being ended will do wonders for the economy, but Eisenhower did that, not Clinton. I'll tell you something. Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were all GREAT and responsible presidents. They handled what was happening with the economy well, and they were ALL liberal, progressive Democrats. Great republican presidents who handled the economy well: Reagan, Eisenhower (not for the reasons you say though) Harding, Coolidge, you can even make the argument for H.W. Bush. George Bush RUINED this economy. It's like Republicans were so happy when he won in 2000, that they all decided to get drunk for 8 years and woke up saying "WOAH, THERE'S A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE? HE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THIS." After he was only in office for around 100 days. I'm not saying that liberals are super responsible and I'm not saying that Republicans aren't responsible. I'm just stating that every party has it's bad leaders. The Republican one would be Bush. However, I don't even believe that Obama is a bad leader economically. One reason the economy hasn't seen such a rapid improvement like the country wants, is that he is laying the foundation for a much longer lasting fix for the economy that actually WORKS. Unlike George bush who basically thought " I have an idea, I'll just give everyone some money back." Which did nothing. Nothing. I mind you. Argument over.