Let's say just as a set of hypothetical figures the previous administration had $200 and the current one started with $20. The problem is that when you only have $20 and you turn around and spend $200 that you don't have, things start happening that wouldn't have to happen if you had stayed within your budget of the $20 you actually had. If you or I ran our personal or business finances in such a manner we'd be faced with a whole different set of issues, some of which could even be criminal proceedings.

However, when the government does it they just borrow to cover the short falls from fiduciaries or other governments at interest or raise taxes, or do both. None of this is beneficial to the economy and even less so when the economy is already in trouble 'cause the hole just gets deeper.

What happens when we write hot checks and then write more hot checks to try and cover the ones we already have out? Eventually it all catches up to us because we can't raise taxes to cover our shortfalls and increased borrowing really only makes the whole situation worse, which of course is where the economy is today.

Here's another point that's been buried/glossed over or whatever type spin you want to put on it, but here goes. If you really do the research and a bit of due diligence in what led to the financial crisis/crash that then led to the bailout crap you'll find the roots of the problem extend as far back as the Carter administration when a position of that "failed" presidency was to "encourage" fiduciaries to make home loans to people with lower credit ratings than they would typically have been considered acceptable credit risks. This led to a certain increased percentage of defaulted mortgages as is typical with higher risk loans.

At the time the fallout was minimal and things rocked along this way for a while but, when Clinton took office the program was extended ("Every American deserves a home!", uh yeah, so long as they can actually afford to own one)) and legal action even took place to FORCE more lenders to accept a higher percentage of these high risk loans, though now housing rates had risen at a rate higher than the rate of salaries or typical soft and hard goods sales which led to even more high risk loans being made as the borrowers were now in an even less positive position to repay these loans than they had been previously. However, the government was still FORCING lenders to make these questionable (at best) home loans, and it was all cool since the fed was agreeing to back them.

Ok, so then along comes the last administration and these same high risk loans are still being made, which has to at some point become a problem, and it did indeed.

9-11 hit, the federal budgets "surplus" (which was never an actual surplus in reality anyway, but that's another issue altogether) took a major hit with all the 9-11 aftermath, then the wars in Afganistan and Iraq were undertaken, consumer prices, including home values continued to rise and all of a sudden a lot of the homes sold on these high risk loans began to go into default which really wreaked havoc on the banking industry.

However, a bit more research will also reveal that during the past administration there were concerns voiced by leading economists. the president and members of congress. As a matter of fact John McCain even submitted a bill to attempt to curtail some of the high risk loans as a fear of an economic collapse was predicted, but guess what .... the liberals in congress rose up to defeat the measure and claimed that cruel ol John McCain was just tryin to deny Americans the American Dream by attempting to cut funding for these loans.

One other very interesting fact you'll find if you dig deeply enough was that Barack Hussein Obama even served as an attorney who filed suit against some of the lenders who were trying to be realistic about these government backed high risk home loan programs to force them to comply and make more high risk loans than they honestly wanted to agree to. This of course eventually led to even more defaulted mortgages, and deepening the overall collapse in the long run.

There's tons more to this story if one really wants to do the homework but the common theme you'll find is that conservatives were predicting what eventually happened and measures were undertaken to try and at least minimize the effect but these efforts were decried, minimized and eventually defeated, and certainly not by the conservatives.

The same folks that were in the background making all this happen (and the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also played huge parts in all this) were doing so for profit and were at the same time talking out the other side of their heads as they claimed it was all for the public good (which it obviously wasn't). And ... those same players have done a marvelous job of downplaying their role in the eventual economic collapse and now just use "the previous administration" as their convenient scape goat.

So, best to do some research before just parroting what the liberals are tellin ya, or .... be just like them and keep tryin to lay blame where it dudn really belong, it's up to you. Just know if you choose to continue to deride the previous administration that A. It's of no real benefit in solving the problem, which leaves me askin "So what really was your point again?", and B. The real truth is much more involved and complicated than what's being bandied about and called "the truth" by the current administration