Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
you might not want to rate how you have annihilated someone. You might be a bit biased.
By the way, I never said Obama raised the debt by 2%  . You may think you are good at math, but your reading comprehension was a bit off. |
OK, so what was your point? That his debt increase was 2% more than Bush's debt increase?
If that's what your point was, it has very little validity. First, we don't repay "percentages", we repay absolute dollars. Second, during the Bush years, we were dragged into a war, you may have heard something about that. Debt typically shoots up when you enter a war. Bush, as I said, also saved 1.2 million lives in Africa (for which, in a fair world, he would have received the Nobel Peace Prize, instead he gets called a racist), and THAT'S worth going into debt for. Giving teachers insane pensions is not worth breaking the bank for, in my humble opinion.
By the end of 2012, the debt will be around $15 trillion. That's a 50% increase over what he inherited. And what do we have to show for it? Bush built an anti-terror infrastructure from scratch, saved 1.2 million Africans from AIDS (for which he gets almost zero credit), and liberated millions of Muslims worldwide, from other, monstrous, Muslims.
Obama has kept killing terrorists, I give him big-time kudos for that. But he doesn't understand high-school level economics. Obama, like most liberals, believes that poverty is caused by other people's wealth. That can only be true if wealth is finite, like a pizza. That is demonstrably false, since GDP changes over time. You help poor people by giving them the tools they need to get wealthier, not by giving them someone else's money. Obama also doesn't seem to understand that there are limits to what you can reasonably borrow.