I'm going to add some information to this thread http://1x57.com/2011/12/15/bushs-de...-obamas-deficit-spending-1-4-trillion-so-far/ Quite the contrast. I guess the overall question is: Whose numbers should we look at? Who's closer to the truth? Thoughts?
Obama gets to propose the budgets. Before Bush left office, he proposed the first ever $3T budget. Obama scrapped it first thing and proposed a $3.6T budget. If he stuck with the $3T budget, he'd have added half what he has to the federal debt. The senate hasn't passed a budget in almost 3 years. The previous budget (2011) he proposed failed to pass the democratic party controlled senate by a 97-0 vote. Not even his own party, not one senator, thought he was making fiscal sense. http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget And your chart is bullshit. Obama spent lots of money, for example, on Iraq and escalating the war in Afghanistan. HIS choice. The buck stops where?
What gray area? If he had the ability to up the spending by $600B, he could have kept it the same or cut it. He chose to spend $5T of borrowed money. His choice. Where does the buck stop? The cost of Obama: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html BTW, who made that chart you linked to? A teeny bit of research will lead an intellectually honest person to the conclusion the data is deliberately twisted and misrepresented.
I'm just presenting the numbers from the other side. Like for instance you used heritage I used factcheck, a site that is looked at as more of a lefty site. And then your use of TWS from wiki Who do we trust?
Trust the govt. figures. Bush had a ~$400B deficit in 2008. Add in TARP for 2009 and you get $1.2T. Is that $1.2T structural? No. Because TARP was a one time emergency lump of spending. And Obama spent half of it. The deficit should have gone back to $400B the following year. In fact, if TARP money was repaid, that $400B would be less accordingly. With the $1.5T sized deficits each of Obama's years, you cannot possibly blame Bush for it. He left a $400B structural deficit to Obama. Now get this. The govt. actually spent a few $trillion more under Obama that's not on the books. The Fed printed money to pay down over $2T of the previous debt (not deficit!). So you might say bush added $3.4T in 8 years to the debt, net $1.4T after QE1 and QE2. Obama's contribution to the debt starts looking like the $9T it really is.
You seem like miserable person, Chris. You only show up on the Blazer board to jump on the Blazers when they are getting worked, and you post trollish shit like this in the OT section and try to act like you're a rational human being.
Do you think a person who promises to cut the deficit in half by the end of the first term, and instead increases it, is a liar? Or did we somehow end up in a new thread, and the video of Obama saying that isn't in the original post?
If you're going to make the argument that politicians lie then I don't think you'll find many people that disagree with you.
Then what's your purpose being in this thread, other than to offer numbers that have no basis in reality? Defending the liar you support, I guess?
Like I stated numerous times, offering numbers from the other side. Denny has offered his numbers from conservative websites So I went ahead and offered numbers from sites that are generally considered to be on the other side If it were the other way around I'd do the same thing. You seem to be a little defensive in what I'm doing, and I'm not sure why. Something not to your liking?
I offered you an Accounting of the numbers. Not from conservative WWW sites. I just did the math and accounting. The conservative WWW site does the accounting properly.
