(I considered using a direct link, but I just can't see how any good would come of that...)

As someone with an education and career far afield from economics, I see it as my solemn duty to select the most low-hanging, bruised, half-chewed, worm-ridden, fungus-infected fruit which the internet has to offer – /r/The_Donald.

OP's submission is a graph of historical US deficits adjusted for inflation. Even though this graph shoots upward fast enough to send Trump voters running to their fallout shelters, OP will no doubt be relieved to hear that our GDP has also been exploding upwards. What that means is that recent deficit/GDP ratios and debt/GDP ratios are not really noteworthy when compared with those found in US history and in the present and historical experiences of other countries which have debt denominated in their own currency (such as the UK and Japan).

When confronted with a similar argument, OP responds as follows:

Our GDP has only increased from about $14.7 trillion in 2008 to $17.9 trillion today.

An increase of just over $3 trillion in GDP over that time does not in any way justify an increase of $9 trillion in the national debt. If anything, including this as part of the data would make Obama look even worse.

When Obama took office in Q1 of 2009, US real GDP was decreasing at a rate of 5.4%. According to really smart terrific people who are fantastic and Hillary's gonna get advice from them and you're gonna love 'em Nobel-winning economists, such dire circumstances necessitated an increase in the deficit, and some would argue that the deficit should've been even larger than it ultimately was. Sorting out which policies had what effects and which policies Obama deserves credit or blame for is complicated, but unless OP has some tight fiscal policy counterfactual up his sleeve which passes the laugh test (and is longer than two paragraphs), this comment should be rejected out of hand.

Now for the fun stuff: the comments. There are a bunch like these first two and I could respond to these individually, but I think it would be more entertaining to just respond to each with a Donald Trump quote and kek @ the cognitive dissonance...

Trump supporter:

But the national debt doesn't matter and has nothing to do with government spending, socialist policies, or the economy! You can pretty much ignore the national debt.

-Ever liberal every [sic]

Donald Trump:

Now we're in a different situation with the country. But I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal. And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can't lose. It's like, you know, you make a deal before you go into a poker game, and your odds are so much better."

Trump supporter:

National debt is fine.

Until the government starts printing money to cover the debt (It always does. Any real measure would piss off voters in the very short term), which devalues the money which culminates in the government no longer accepting it's own money (inevitable), and the army wanders off for lack of getting paid. Then barbarians invade and it's over.

National debt is not fine.

Welcome to the cycle of civilization.

Donald Trump:

People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt, and I mean, these people are crazy. This is the United States government... First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, OK?

We have fed conspiracy theories accompanied by confused, veiled threats and a ron paul circlejerk. Here's the most interesting one I saw in this vein:

There's a double loan-taking of sorts they're doing behind our backs. Look at the inflation caused by them printing money to spend. That's caused at least as much damage as the debt, yet nobody knows about it because it's hidden behind a shroud. They've pillaged so much wealth using fiat currencies, inflation, and The Fed.

Every time they inflate the dollar and spend that money, it's basically taking a small slice off the capital value of everyone else's property in the entire country.

At least most Ron Paul folks have the good sense to say that it's dollar-denominated savings which lose value after inflation. This person has taken the inflation-is-a-stealth-tax meme to the point of complete incoherence.

And of course someone provides a mises.org video. This would itself be a worthwhile RI if no one's done it already, but the long and short of it is pretty much the same as the Time article that I RId a while back (he even references it), only with some added Austrian boilerplate about time preference and the importance of capital accumulation. Since this is /r/The_Donald, I won't go there...

Odds and ends include typical Greece innuendo (do I have to say anything?), a bad MMT pitch (I reeeeeeeeally wanted OP to take that bait), and maybe my favorite comment:

we should do like the nazis did and tell the banks to go fuck themselves and start printing our own money

Props to /r/The_Donald for keeping that one at 0, but...wow...

TL;DR- /r/The_Donald contains a mishmash of confused and contradictory viewpoints. These are people willing to latch onto anything - from nazism to extreme libertarianism to MMT - which can be ideologically massaged into compliance with whatever Trumpism is at its core. Some of it (like the OP) is just intellectual laziness, some of it is nefarious, and most of it is really funny and therefore worth a post. It should come as no surprise that nowhere in the thread did anyone propose or discuss a solution, let alone one which could possibly be comprehended, proposed, or implemented by Donald Trump.