Every source you site is a liberal-biased one, with the exception of ycharts.
Another liberal (and Soros funded) source.
Any liberal bias you perceive doesn't change the numbers, haha. Also, if you check the sources of the numbers in most (if not all) of my sources, you'll see that they're from nonpartisan sources.
The "good times", if you want to call it that, which preceded the last month may be attributable to the stimulus. But if it's petering out, we're in for some dire shit to come. Anyone can borrow on the credit card to get by a little longer, but only up to a point.
Let me get this straight; your argument has shifted from "things have gotten worse under Obama" to "things have gotten better under Obama but it's only temporary"? Haha. Also, most economists agree that the Stimulus
wasn't big enough, due in part to the fact that we weren't aware of just how bad the economy was at the time. You're right, however, that the recovery is starting to hit a standstill. You should also realize that many things were stripped from the Stimulus due to Republican filibuster (what else is new?).
edit: and notice, as an example of the bias, how that paragraph attributes the debt that will accrue through 2019 in-part to the "Bush tax cuts" and the war in Afghanistan. But Democrats had the opportunity to kill those tax cuts and didn't, Obama has supported their continuation "in the short term", and Afghanistan - thanks to the troop surge - is Obama's (failed) baby. Bush hasn't been president for four years and the Democrats control the Senate (i.e. the budget, which they haven't even written/changed for over 3 years), and yet it's still all Bush's fault. yep.
You are correct about what Obama had the opportunity to do regarding the Bush tax cuts and Afghanistan; however, this is not evidence of a "liberal bias."
Regarding the Bush tax cuts, Obama wanted to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 a year; this did not happen because the Republicans in Congress were willing to let them expire for everyone (among other things like refusing to extend unemployment benefits) rather than let them expire for just those making more than $250,000 a year; in essence, they held the poor and middle class hostage in order to continue the tax cuts for the rich, so it is fair to rest the blame on the Republicans for the Bush tax cuts and their contribution to the debt and deficit. Second, it should be noted that Obama still plans to let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire while Romney wants to make them worse. It should also be noted that the temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 is a form of economic stimulus. My sources are correct in showing that the debt and deficit problem is caused by Bush policies that decreased revenue and increased spending when none of it was paid for.
As for Afghanistan, it's unfair to call it Obama's "failed baby" when it has been going on for nearly 11 years. Likewise, Obama's plan to end the war in Afghanistan is not only good foreign policy, but also deficit-reducing.
Bush hasn't been president for four years and the Democrats control the Senate (i.e. the budget, which they haven't even written/changed for over 3 years), and yet it's still all Bush's fault. yep.
Budgets were passed when Democrats were in control. After Republicans took over the House, a budget was still passed in 2011 in the form of The Budget Control Act that specifically dealt with partisan differences. And again, the Bush tax cuts were extended only because of Republican obstruction.
