Now this is explained in detail, so try and keep up. Economical:
To start things off, you can not blame Obama for the debt. That being said, let me explain why the debt skyrocketed these past few years:
To decrease debt you can really only do two things in government:
1. You decrease/increase taxes.
2. You balance the budget, cutting out unnecessary programs and items.
Bush started a war, while at the same time cut taxes. You see while the war takes up lots and lots of money, you are supposed to raise taxes to keep up with the debt %. Bush cut taxes which only means less money would be coming in towards the government.
+But why you ask? Isn't it that if you cut taxes it gives more to spend which will in turn give more money to the government?(Reaganomics) While this is true in some regards, you can't just lower taxes to 0% and call it a day. That being said you can't lower taxes and spend lots at the same time. While it gets you public approval rating, and re-elections, it vastly increases debt and hurts the economy in the near future as well as the far.
Lets get back to Obama.
Ok Obama at the start comes into the horrible debt and economic recession that Bush had created. What he did: 1. Spent money. Lots of it. The stimulus, the bailing out of banks, and more money to the war. A) The stimulus bill in and of itself is stupid. That money was spent very poorly and should not have been spent at all. You could relate this to FDR's "new deal", which furthered the great depression thanks to wasteful spending.(which caused inflation) B) Bailing out people, well. Lets just say "too big to fail" is a great term for this.(and also a very interesting book). Not only does bailing them out, increase the spending, it also just fucks over any new competitors. C) More money on the war is not neccesarily bad. But seeing as how waging war is reaally expensive, continuing it is bad for the economy, not to mention having troops returning home ADDS to the economy by a substantial amount, and having them deployed increases the debt by the amount also.
2. Started programs that will cost more money for the citizen, and not stopping the welfare ones that need to eventually end.(SS & welfare). A) These programs are a "good idea", but...... shouldn't be done during a recession.
- Imagine if during the great depression this happened. The country would literally have inflation out its ass like Germany did after WWI. B) That being said, "spreading the wealth" welfare programs really aren't good for the majority of the citizens.
-As a nation becomes wealthy as a whole, the poorer also become more wealthy. Sure there are always the poor in every society, but the more wealthy everyone becomes, the better the poor have it as well. The problem with welfare is it takes money from the "non-poor" and gives it to the poor. +Ethically this should happen right? No, this is stealing.(not even exaggerating here). ++When you take money from the people, and spread it around, the advancement of society slows. The more you take from Jimmy, to give to Timmy, the less Jimmy has to pay back the debt. Reliance on welfare keeps Timmy from advancing too, in the end Timmy and Jimmy combined pay 1/2 of what just Jimmy would have payed. Timmy didn't pay any back, actually.
Welfare programs are needed, but they are handled poorly. The more you make of them, be it healthcare or just welfare in general, the more you have reliance on them. The government will pay a citizen the money it took from another to help them. Thats great if you wanted to give to charity, but it is unlawful otherwise. That being said, since the systems are handled so poorly they have numerous flaws which have been exploited costing the tax payer even more money for freeloaders.
Economically, Obama has hurt more than helped the American people.