"The most honest and accurate assessment of blame for our problems can be placed on the heads of the members of both political parties."

If that's how you feel, Tony, why did you say "Obama destroyed the economy"?

Please provide your sources for 17 trillion debt. And still, Obama's debt is less than the previous term. Additionally, those items that were unpaid for actually went towards the people (jobs) and an inherited set of wars from the Bush administration. The housing crisis was inherited from the Bush administration. The Wall Street disaster was inherited from the Bush administration. I think you need to quantify where the debt actually went. Even if you are Republican, you really should be honest with where the money went.

At this point, you are trying to fill a hole that is multiple trillions deep with only a fraction of that as a stimulus. Of course we are not going to get a full economic recovery in that circumstance. That's going to take time, and it's going to take a balanced budget.

I have heard people blame folks from buying houses they can't afford. That's true. However, the collapse is because of derivatives which were disguised mortgages. Those investments never get made if they are not hidden inside of financial vehicles meant for short-term gain by the 1%. That's why there was a crash; only a small percentage were aware of what they were investing in! Those loans never get made, never get invested in, without the disguise by the 1%.

@ForThePeople: The August debt ceiling increase agreement was to borrow up to $17.2 trillion. Since the federal government has never in modern times reduced its debt it will probably get that high. As you can see from the chart in the link I provided, Bush left with a $10.4T debt. Clinton left him with a $5.8T debt meaning Bush's debt - the difference - was $4.4T. Obama has surpassed that last month when the debt went over $15T - or $4.6T since he came into office. So, no, Obama's debt is not less than the previous term - it's more - in less than half the time.
But, as you correctly note, placing the blame on Obama isn't really fair for a myriad of reasons. It's the same reasons that people who blamed Bush for the bad economy during the first years of his term were incorrect too. The dot-con recession started at the end of Clinton's term, continued through Bush's term, and was made worse by the Sept. 11, terrorist attacks.
As far as the mortgages go, had people paid their bills, none of it would have come crashing down. Had none of those people received the loans in the first place, none of it would have crashed. There would have been no toxic mortgages.
In other words, like I said, both sides are to blame.

"The August debt ceiling increase agreement was to borrow up to $17.2 trillion. Since the federal government has never in modern times reduced its debt it will probably get that high."

With that logic, you can say that we will be in infinite debt, with a never-ending process of raising the limit and exceeding it. I think this is freewheeling with the facts, blaming for something that hasn't even happened. Considering the attention to the debt ceiling, I doubt this will continue, and the president has made it clear he wants a balanced budget. It was the Republicans who rejected a $4 trillion balanced-budget deal, offering equal parts tax raises on the rich(Or, making them pay taxes on capital gains that they should have been paying all along) and spending cuts.

As far as your chart, here are the numbers:
2005–2009 63.5% 84.2% +4,521 +20.7% 109th R, 110th
2009–2011 84.2% 99.6% +4,334

Obama has not exceeded the previous term yet, and like I said, two unfunded wars and multiple crises are a huge part of that.

The crisis comes from derivatives. They were misrepresented loans being chopped up into tiny pieces and poisoning the market by disguising what they were. Some people caught on, most people didn't. Ignoring the behavior of the 1% which created this game in the first place doesn't help anybody. People should pay their mortgages, but they shouldn't be eligible for them in the first place, and it should not be exploited by the 1%'s casino, Wall Street.

@ForThePeople: Scroll down to "Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP," to see the exact dollar amounts. During the Bush's last term, $2.5 trillion was added to the national debt ($7.9T at the end of FY05, FY06 starts, and the debt goes to $10.4T at the end of FY09, or $2.5T). Obama has added $4.6 trillion in the first three fiscal years of his term (the end of FY09, Bush's last fiscal year, the debt was $10.4T. It is now $15T, or $4.6T). Obama's first three years exceeded the previous term, like I said.
As far as this debt being from the wars and the tax breaks, the total cost of the wars is about $1 trillion, according to Obama in speeches he made just last month. According to the Citizen for Tax Justice, a progressive tax group, the Bush tax cuts for the Top 5% - $159K+ - comes in at $1.03 trillion total, since 2002. The accumulated Bush-Obama debt is $9.8 trillion. So only 20% of that is from the wars and the tax cuts. The wars and the tax cuts blame game only goes so far ...
Lastly, according to the IRS, in order to balance the budget this year, every penny of those making $70K+ would need to be taken. That's how massive the problem is and no one party brought us here.

You're ignoring the gross federal debt chart, Bush tax cuts(that were extended by Republican congress), and you are adding in 2 wars created by the Republican president. The attempt made this year of lowering the federal debt was denied by the Republican congress. Blaming the president rings hollow when you have an obstructionist congress. Did Obama spend that money? Those are three big-ticket items inherited from a Republican presidency. I could go on.

Lastly, I think you should measure both the Bush presidency and Obama's presidency across equal terms. Obama's first term is cleaning up the Bush presidency's mess.

As per the IRS comment, are you just saying that anyone below 70,000 salary wouldn't pay anything? That statement sounds more like talk radio than actual burden calculation.

The nation would be a much better and smarter place if people removed their ideologies from math problem solving and simply looked at the numbers. The numbers speak for themselves.

Totally agreed, except where it pertains to assigning responsibility during an election. If the insinuation is that Obama is a big spender, we should look at what the money was spent on. If the Republican Party prevents his presidency from balancing the budget, I think that's appropriate to discuss.

@Jan: Very good point. Let me ask you something. The budget for FY12 is $3.6 trillion. The budget deficit is $1.1 trillion. Ending the Bush tax cuts for people earning $250K+ brings in $56 billion. Reducing the troops overseas brings in $86 billion or more. These figures are found here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html How do you raise the rest of the $800 billion more to balance the budget?

The business tax overhaul would clear the budget and decrease the deficit.
Making it more expensive for companies to hire outside the country would increase the employment rate and therefore increase the income form those taxes.

Win-win...

A business tax overhaul would bring in $800 billion-plus? What would the percentage be?

The real percentage would be reduced to a more fair level - I think its 35% now - but there are so many companies --- well some actually GET money instead of GIVE. Huge corporations that use the existing laws to pay little or nothing - you can't blame them for taking advantage of them- I would...

Loopholes and corporate welfare would be removed - and we'd actually see actual capitalism return - wouldn't that be wonderful?

And of course, one more aspect of this is the "Military" budget. Cost overruns and pork barrel projects like Boehner's jet engine that no one wanted but made him and the company he did this for millions - gone.

Keep Grandma from freezing this winter and let the corporations and the super-rich pay their share. All part of the Social Compact we have with our government.

Your plan is similar to what Jon Huntsman is proposing. But even if you raise that rate, clear the loopholes, and chop the defense department in half, for example, you are still not at $800 billion (or more, if you want to spend more). You'll have to cut more spending or raise more taxes.

I believe you would - I believe that fixing the corporate tax code, chopping out waste from military, and increasing employment would turn this ship around and send it back in the directions we all intend.

I completely agree. Colbert is a national treasure. He's funny in everything project he's ever done - at least everything I've seen - and who can forget that White House correspondents dinner back during the Bush admin. That was hard core.

Regina, Redeye has more of an audience than Colbert? Can you verify that?

"The Daily Show and The Colbert Report have bested their late-night broadcast competition and rank Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, among viewers 18-24 and 18-34 in late-night. "
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/michele-ganeless-268576

this week's Monday Cable Feed - "Daily Show 1.480 million viewers
Colbert Report 1.260 million viewers"

____________________
It appears that Regina could care less about the facts than he/she does about putting others down.

So, Regina, you were wrong about Redeye. Wrong.

And there is no more pathetic figure than Dennis Miller. He's never been funny, even when he goofed on the right wing. His cynical, calculated switch from a liberal to a GOP shill ruined his career. Now he has nobody.

Dennis Miller has always been hilarious.

@Tony

I guess to each their own. The way he laughs at his own material always put me off - it's as though he's trying to convince us that he's funny.

You know, that's a good point. He does laugh at his own material. But I think that is more of a nervous tick than a, "Hey, I'm so hilarious, I make myself laugh" thing.

How horrible. That poor woman.

Seems that too many devoutly religious people think it would be a good idea to weaken the wall between church & state, without realizing that mixing them ruins both.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." 
--  Susan B. Anthony 1896

I thought this was funny, too. I guess the guy he spoke to didn't "fit the profile" of a gay man, so Mitt never saw it coming. Why does Mitt believe in special rights for one group of people? That's un-American.