There is no way that that is true, and I'll tell you why. The statement relies on adding up the bailouts + making a ton of assumptions about the health care law that go exactly the opposite of what the CBO projects. The bailouts were almost all paid back, so nix those numbers. The health care bill will end up -- if it is not mucked with by a Congress that hates the thought of everyone being healthier -- it will end up being at worst revenue neutral, and I fall on the side of the line that thinks it will save a lot more than is currently projected: a healthier populace has very many and positive ripple effects for the economy, IMO.
Moreover, though Obama's numbers aren't in yet, you may be interested to find this out: our national debt as a % of GDP has
only increased under Republicans. W was by far the worst, GHWB was second, and Reagan was the first great budget-busting spender. Reagan had 2 great causes that really started the trend of Republicans running amok spending: the Mil-Indust. Complex arms race, and the now-30 yr. old theme of giving money to the wealthy, so it can "trickle" down.
Interesting charts and graphs and stuff can be found
HERE.
As a side note, I will say that I did not expect deficit reduction during a recession. The last person who tried that was Herbert Hoover, and it's seen as one of the biggest economic mistakes of the last century. When unemployment is high it's hard to solve the problem by firing raftloads of federal workers. In fact, I wanted to see *more* stimulus, and *pure* stimulus -- like fixing the 1000's of roads and bridges across the country that are in need of repair. Flat out hiring for shovels and hammers. What we got was too little stimulus and stimulus that was packaged in crazy ways that were hard to access or utilize.
Oh, and regarding my credibility and the word "retarded right" -- I am not above characterizing things. It's an objection I get all the time in hearings. I'm over it. And this is the interwebbs, where credibility is worth about 3 pennies.