Why? Because he had been an office for 8 months? Surely you're not going to tell me you also believe the economy is a light switch. You have to look at trends, and the trend is that the longer Obama is in office, the better things are getting.
That's what I said. We went from 14.2% and rising (all the way up to 17.1%) to 13.9% and dropping. That's a positive trend.
Your claim was:
It seemed you definitely suggested all the added debt was due to money spent to better the economy/unemployment.
I don't care what percentage is inaccurate, merely that your statement is inaccurate.
No, this is false. First of all, the increase in federal spending has been minimal. Most of the debt incurred is from the lost tax revenue. Second of all, most of that spending WASN'T towards stimulating the economy, it was towards the things we were already committed to spending.
And, once again, I don't think it's bad we're making sure people get food. This isn't really that difficult to understand.
To address what I'm sure your larger point is, I do not like how the income inequality gap has increased over the last several decades, including under Obama. But from where I sit, I've seen many things Obama has proposed to combat this, so it's hard for me to blame him when Republicans actively work against him.
Too late.