The article makes a good point. However, it falls

The article makes a good point. However, it falls short on method #2. No one in finance would ever take that method seriously because it's primarily constructed of "what-ifs". The majority of analysts on Wallstreet construct their valuations based on what ifs. Seldom are they correct. As a whole, analysts are never right. If you took the value investors approach, method #3 makes the most sense. But, it would take a lot more digging than the simple calculation the author proposes. Accounting for items such as the increase in STAMPS participants really isn't fair either since the reason the increase took place is due the policies and choices made that created the housing bubble and crashed our economy which took place long before Obama was in office. I'm afraid you won't see the real effects of Obama's policies until several years into the future.

What is fair to say, in my opinion, is that the national debt is more of a reflection of the citizens of this country. It was no presidents fault for an ordinary citizen to walk into a bank, sign his name to a stated income loan, agree to an adjustable rate mortgage, and not be able to pay for it because 1. He over leveraged himself and 2. Lied on the income statement about his annual income. That was no presidents fault yet the results of those mistakes were reflected.

It's difficult to determine who was at fault, unless it's blatant, but one thing we know as fact; we're the ones that suffer for it.

"The more numerous any assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendancy of passion over reason." - Federalist no. 58