Better check your numbers there. Not even remotely true or even defensible. You must have misquoted something here. Even your article you cite from Rueters doesn't even go that far. "Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt." - Barak Obama 2006 Blaming Bush for his troubles is now a knee-jerk reaction from Obama. He does it automatically without thinking about it. So do the Obamabots in the media. It's to the point that I'm sure he will still be doing it on his way out the door in 2016. The media will still be giving him a free pass on it too. And what of the six trillion Obama "invested" in the economy to single handedly bail it out? Would this be the GM bailout in which we the people lost somewhere between 43 billion and 100 billion, depending on who you believe. How about the Banking crisis which nobody knows how much was spent and did the exact opposite of its stated purpose. Perhaps the Housing bubble crash that is/was Fannie May and Freddie Mac which still hasn't changed the rules and is still handing out sub prime loans. The ACA with all its new taxes which is causing everyone such angst at the moment? Of course that will be fixed right after election time so maybe I shouldn't include it in this list. The "Cash for Clunkers" which wiped out the used car market for a bit. That doesn't seem like much of a help to the economy. Record tax revenues or to say it another way, higher taxes on everybody doesn't seem like it was much of a help either. Having NASA promote Muslim values, not much help there either. Using the EPA to shut down entire industries such as the coal fired electricity generation industry. Shutting down the only lead smelter in the USA. Not seeing the value there either. Arming middle eastern rebels with ties to Al Qida and siding with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt didn't seem to help even if he did sell a few guns to them not much of an economic win there. Immigration, adding somewhere between eleven and fifty million new citizens to our economic woes doesn't seem like that great of an idea either. Giving away the USS Forrestal for a penny when in fact it is worth millions at scrap metal prices doesn't seem like a wise move either. The economy still sucks even after he did whatever it is that he did. Obama may go down in history as a lot of things but economic savior isn't one of them. I can't see where Obama has single handedly done anything to cause you to make the claim that he spent six trillion to help rebuild our entire economy with his 6 trillion... But you obviously had something in mind when you said this so what did he borrow six trillion for that helped rebuild our entire economy? Ah, they are including military benefits as well in their total of 4 trillion, fair enough. Still a little shy of six trillion as you stated. Is it fair to call it Bush's war when Obama has kept it going for the last five years? A quibble I admit but it does seem a little misleading I'm thinking that if you asked them they would claim to be "Tea Partiers" not RINO's. Pretty sure no one will admit to such a label. McCain for one sure fits the bill. What of Democrats who are really Marxist Socialist such as Hillary? Wonder what we should call them? Demolists? DTARMS? Transformerists, Socialist in disguise! Interesting, the term RINO was coined by Republicans that felt they were being sold out by their misnamed fellow legislators. I wonder if you can be too much of a socialist for the Democrat party? An interesting question.