The U.S. Govenment is Conducting a Ponzi Scheme

[emapples]

Who says you cant trust the government?

 

[securitysix]

Six,

Even if we split the 2009'deficit between the administrations, Obama has doubled Bush's defecit through 2013, and he has 2014 / 2015 left to add to his total. I have provided the numbers in previous posts to this thread, it's no irrefutable regardless of how we involve 2009.

So I see. I just had not read the entire thread to the point where my post appeared. In fact, I just finished reading the post above where you said:

I think its important to note that I am not focusing on 2009 alone, although 700 billion of the deficit can certainly be attributed to the bipartisan bail out of the auto makers, big banks, and insurers. My point is pretty simple if you take Bush administration numbers from 2002 through 2008, you have an aggregate deficit spend of 1,852 trillion. Compared to the Obama administrations numbers You have a aggregate deficit spend of 5.992 trillion. As you are eagerly point out 2009 may not be all Obamas fault, I agree half of that number was a bipartisan bailout. So in fairness I will split 2009 between the administrations and what you end up with after that is a Bush deficit of 2.609 trillion and an Obama Deficit at 5.234 trillion,

Now, I'm no math expert, but it looks like even if you dumped the entire 2009 deficit spending in Bush's lap, Obama would still be "ahead" in the deficit spending game.

I'm no fan of Bush or Obama. Sometime after I voted for Bush the second time because I figured he was the "lesser of two evils" (same "reasoning" I used to vote for him the first time), I figured out that A) voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil and 2) that the Republocrats and Demicans are two sides of the same coin and voting for either will change nothing.

But my point was that regardless of who was President when the 2009 budget was put into place, Obama was part of the government that was involved in passing it, and unless he voted against every part of it, which we know he didn't, he can't wash his hands entirely of the increase in deficit spending for that fiscal year.

 

[emapples]

So I see. I just had not read the entire thread to the point where my post appeared. In fact, I just finished reading the post above where you said:



Now, I'm no math expert, but it looks like even if you dumped the entire 2009 deficit spending in Bush's lap, Obama would still be "ahead" in the deficit spending game.

I'm no fan of Bush or Obama. Sometime after I voted for Bush the second time because I figured he was the "lesser of two evils" (same "reasoning" I used to vote for him the first time), I figured out that A) voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil and 2) that the Republocrats and Demicans are two sides of the same coin and voting for either will change nothing.

But my point was that regardless of who was President when the 2009 budget was put into place, Obama was part of the government that was involved in passing it, and unless he voted against every part of it, which we know he didn't, he can't wash his hands entirely of the increase in deficit spending for that fiscal year.

I agree with everything you said, I split it between them for shits and giggles..... But mostly to prove a point.

Even if you put 2009 into bush's blame entirely, Obama is still the winner and he has two more years to add to his total.

 

[WTJ]

Economically destructive POTUS list:

#1 is LBJ and FDR (tie)
#2 is Carter
#3 is Nixon
#4 is BHO
#5 is GWB
#6 would have been JFK tied with DDE if the Central Bank hadn't smoked him