Talk about projection.

Well, let's see.

You guys cheerlead Republicans in Congress as "doing their job" when they block legislation proposed by Obama or Democrats at large. They've made a habit of such obstructionism and it's a point of pride for GOP leadership. Mitch McConnell proudly (and stupidly) admitted it.

Now you want to complain that the "man's policies" haven't done any good. Yet, with the exception of direct spending provided for in the stimulus bill (could have been more but Republicans wanted tax cuts), the "man's policies" regarding job creation have been forestalled by Republicans in Congress at every turn.

You're complaining about the effect of policies that have never been implemented. Maybe you have to be part of the Conservative brain trust to maintain this sort of cognitive dissonance.

Whole lotta wrong here. Let's recap some history.
democrats had the White House and the Congress for 2 years. The GOP couldn't stop diddly. So your complaints about obstructionism don't fly.

Next, you say the stimulus should have been more. LOL @ that. Want quotes from Biden saying it was about right? Want quotes from Larry Summers saying that only $250 billion would do anything positive?

Then you're missing more info. Obama's been on an EPA regulatory tear. As in, tearing up drilling and exploration leases. And blocking job-creating projects like the Keystone pipeline. So there's more to a bad Presidency than crappy legislation.

So far you're not doing too well. Let's keep going:

It took Bush eight years to turn a surplus into a $1.5 trillion deficit. Now you guys want to hang Obama with the entire national debt while expecting him to turn this around in four years in a recession while Republicans thwart economic progress at every turn.

Again, see above. And spare those of us who were conscious and following the economy the Clinton myth. Slick Willy had an dot com bubble and record cap gains revenues to play with, plus he was ignoring the military during his time. Also, it's pretty easy to be a budget hawk when Newt and the conservative Congress were going to tell him to eff off and sign budgets that he didn't like anyway.

But maybe you should have told Obama all of what you said. After all, he was the one who called running up debt "unpatriotic". If Bush was "unpatriotic", then what Obama has done can best be described as "Satanic".

From the day Obama took office the jobs situation began to improve. It was under that Democratic Senate, House and President that we turned from losing 800,000 jobs a month into gaining 200,000 jobs a month. In terms of "acceleration" that's exactly what this leadership did to change the rate of employment growth from negative to positive. This "acceleration" notably stopped once the Republicans took back the House, and we've stayed at maintenance levels of employment growth ever since.

Yeah, you go with this, LOL. Obama has presided over the shallowest and weakest recovery. Ever. Under him and the democrats ~1% GDP growth is considered "good". Under a real President, that amount would be considered "pathetic".

And 200k jobs a month? ROFL. Reagan did 5x that in just one month. That's called a real recovery.

The rest of your post is Games With Numbers. The kind of games that ignore our entitlement picture, growth prospects, and policies in place. In other words, useless.

If Obama was growing the economy at 10% a year nobody would complain about his spending. Because it would actually be accomplishing something.

But guess what? Look around the country and tell me if you see $6 trillion in improvements over the last 4 years. I'm dying for Romney to use that in the next debate. I'd follow it up with, "Do you see significant improvements in China? Good. You paid for it".