you seem informed, but with an axe to grind. on one hand you say presidents don't control spending, but on the other hand you are trying very hard to show that obama isn't as good as the article points out. perhaps that's just skeptical fervor, but it seems not.

my perspective is this, obama can hardly be judged for ANY spending he did to help the recession, and it's a joke that conservatives use those crazy numbers to justify anything. it's like judging him because the amount of interest we pay on the debt goes up. so harping on the technicalities of one article's political hacketry just seems worthless and petty.

why don't we see a chart in which each congress/president pair is judged by the real and projected future costs of the policies they championed? that means bush is charged with all war costs, even after obama takes office. and obama shows a huge cut by closing down that war. why don't we get those numbers and talk about them. maybe obama's higher than i think.