Originally posted by TTAA2012
Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by TTAA2012
Only about 4 trillion of that is under Obama... remember, the budget runs from 2010-2012 at this point.
"Only" 4 Trillion added to the deficit? What happened to cutting it?
So you need to go back and add another 2 trillion to Bush's total...
And hey guess what, under George W, from 2008-2010 (his last three budgets) the debt went from 10 to 13.5 trillion.
3.5 trillion in three years.
So, in the same amount of time the deficit has only increased by about half a trillion more under Obama, and the budgets have been on total smaller.
edit on 2-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-11-2012 by longlostbrother because: (no reason
I wish I was left-brained with a head for numbers. If I was, I could probably figure out a decent response. What I do know, is that a 16 Trillion
dollar deficit is a staggering amount of money and I don't know how we can ever hope to repay it.
I also know that Obama said if the economy wasn't fixed by the end of his first term, he would be a "One-term President." Well the economy is far
from fixed, it's worse. The price of gas has doubled since Obama took office (but I suppose that is Bush's fault too) increasing my transportation
costs to almost $300 a month, and my heating bill to $250 a month on the winter - when under Bush I paid just over $100.
I don't have any "change" left.
Maybe a businessman will be able to put the country back into the black. I kinda doubt it, but I know that if Obama gets another 4 years this country
will be like a third world nation when he's done with it. I think that's kind of the point.
edit on 11/2/2012 by TTAA2012 because: (no reason given)
It's good that you admit that you don't have a head for numbers.
The debt is different than the budget. The debt is brought on in many ways that are not all controlled, or controllable, per se. for instance, look at
Sandy, it's hard to know if there was billions budgeted for that (probably not) or the drought. If it's not in the budget than sometimes money has
to be borrowed to cover it. The same goes for wars... we budget for them, but then they cost more than we budget for. Obama, in fact any President,
has a LOT less control over the debt than the budget.
On the budget side of things, Obama has spent LESS than his predecessor, in the same length of time. That seems to be a positive step... no?
What economists now admit as well, is that tax cuts for the rich don't ACTUALLY create growth... in fact one of the biggest single chunks of the debt
is the Bush Tax Cuts (1 Trillion - www.huffingtonpost.com...
), but Romney is clamouring
for even more tax cuts for the wealth on TOP of the Bush tax cuts. Alternatively, everyone from Obama to Ben Stein is saying a better solution is
actually to INCREASE taxes on the wealthy, but again Romney won't do that.
As for the claim that Obama said he'd fix the economy in three years or quit:
I think, as you yourself has said, you don't have a head for numbers. You have now posted debunked propaganda, and on top of that, have posted
nonsense like Obama was somehow responsible for two years of budget that were actually submitted by Bush.
Seeing how little you actually grasp the facts, how gullible you are, and how you aren't exactly able to defend you positions, you are not in any way
convincing, at least to me.
You may think you have good reasons for voting against Obama (though who knows how many of them are ACTUALLY true), but based on this little
interaction I'd suggest being a bit more thorough in your quest for information.
Research before you believe something negative something is saying about someone else; they could be lying to you - and often are. Learn the ACTUAL
numbers, don't just trust pundits and oped pieces. And don't vote with your gut... it's easily confused -- and we need people using their brains,
not their bias and misguided angst, to choose a President.
Good luck. Go get informed.