Whatcha talking bout, Willis?
Remember back when Bush threw us a bone and gave everyone a free check? Well, that money isn't free for you and me.
That check you got? It was from the 248 billion dollar surplus that Clinton left us with. Yes, the US budget had a 248 billion dollar surplus when
he handed the reigns to Bush.
Bush saw that, and issued checks. Government surpluses are a good thing to see, it shows a strong economy, and plenty of jobs available.
That surplus went to -248 billion by the time Bush left office, heck with 9/11 and all happening during his term. That "Shock and Awe" was pretty,
but put a huge chunk in that budget surplus. Fireworks like that cost millions of dollars. This debate isn't about how Bush spent us into a 248
million dollar deficit, but he did. When Obama took office, the budget was negative 248 billion. (Give or take a few.)
Bush spent 496 billion dollars in his budget. Obama has 16 trillion in his now.
What happened? There's no precedent to refer to!
This is the worst deficit in human history for any government.
Look, here are the facts:
Obama took office with a 248 billion deficit. He may have added another 100 billion to it, or heck, even match it. Call it a 500 billion deficit, as
acceptable, for the sake of this debate, for a new president to present his direction. The deficit didn't decrease during Obama's stay in office.
It expanded. When you have a deficit in your budget, you don't spend more, you spend less. Obama didn't.
He poured out money everywhere. "Stimulus Money," got it. Spending money you don't have.
The deficit didn't double. Nope. Obama would be an awesome President if he got the 248 billion deficit turned around, and even had a few billion
surplus to his budget. He doesn't.
From an accounting aspect, the "Stimulus" enacted something only the Republicans know about (yes, sarcasm): Compounding Interest.
The government didn't have the money to spend, so they "borrowed" it. The USA has (currently) a AAA credit rating, as an entity, and can borrow
money on a whim, with the promise of paying it back, with interest.
Unfortunately, interest is compounded on a regular basis. Daily, weekly, or monthly.
Let's go minimums for the sake of this debate. Say a 7% interest rate compounded monthly. Fair? More than.
Let's take, for example, the 248 billion Obama in deficit he was saddled with when he took office. Multiply it by 7%. That's 17 billion in
interest alone. (Brain hurts!) 17 billion in interest? For one month? Unreal, and that's just a hypothetical situation of the deficit numbers.
We'll take that 17 billion per month, and multiply by 12. 34 billion per year in interest. That's the compounding interest factor that that the
current administration doesn't get.
And THAT, my friends, was at the BEGINNING of his administration! Unbelievable.
WE have new numbers to run.
The deficit is now 16 trillion. Multiply by 7%. That's 1.12 trillion in interest alone, compounded monthly. (Brain explodes!) Per month, so
multiply by 12. That's 13.44 trillion a year in interest alone.
And THAT, my friends, is where we are in this administration.
He deserves a second term simply because he kept us afloat
You can toss everyone on a sinking ship a life-preserver, but it does not save the ship. Sure, you can float and survive, until a rescue comes, but
you can't place reliability on that kind of thinking. It's not solid enough to be worthwhile of trust. He had a chance. The numbers don't lie.
We now have completely unpayable debt, no means left to pay it, and the system needs re-set somehow.
You can't say Obama knows how to fix that. Neither may Romney. I Honestly don't think anyone can, but, IMO, Romney has the most experience with
insolvent companies. Yeah, it's sad to admit, but with the debt and compounded interest, we are unable to pay our bills as a country. Something
radical is in order, or it all collapses around us.
I'll close my position with a possible solution, but I'll rest to allow my opponent a chance to counter.
Over to you, cenpuppie!