The deficit since Obama has been in office has been more than when GW Bush's 8 year term.
First of all, that's just not true. Obama has actually lowered the deficit. Second, even if the deficit were higher, Obama inherited much of that deficit from Bush's policies. Out of curiosity, what part of that don't you understand? Here's a quote from one of the links I already posted:
It's 2009. Even though the president entered office in 2009, the fiscal year 2009 spending for October 2008 to September 2009 was requested by President Bush and worsened by his policies (see previous deficit chart). The Congressional Budget Office noted that President Obama inherited $1.2 trillion of the total $1.4 trillion deficit for 2009.
And even though it's staring him in the face, Beauprez failed to note that the president has reduced the deficit nearly every year. Again, by Beauprez's own numbers, the president has cut the deficit every year except for one. Between 2009 and 2012, the president will have reduced the deficit by $312 billion. Put another way, the president has cut the deficit by nearly 25 percent -- so far.
Also, here's a chart from that same source:
The deficit has not been significantly reduced, but that's because the underlying problems (Bush's policies) are still in effect. Obama wants to end those policies; Romney not only wants to make those policies permanent, but he wants to make them worse. Mitt Romney would slash revenues and likely
explode the deficit.
Obama said that he would only last one term if he didn't get the financial crisis solved. He specifically ran for president on the platform that he will get the economy back together.
The last time I checked,
the Stimulus worked. Unemployment is still bad, but the economy has improved under Obama. Keep in mind, however, that the economy was worse than anyone thought, and most economists agree that the Stimulus should have been bigger.
Bush policies are a main reason for the current economic crisis but obama's policies are worse than Bush's.
It is unfair to blame bush's policies for Obama's failure. If you see someone push a kid who can't swim in a pool and you don't save him, you are as guilty as the pusher.
Again, the economy has improved under Obama, so I'm unsure how "Obama's policies are worse" or how your analogy applies.
My bottom line is that Obama is going to spend like crazy and the economy will not get better anytime soon. Romney is going to spend slightly less and the economy will still not get better anytime soon.
Obama has viable deficit-reduction plans, regardless of anymore potential recovery spending. Also, unemployment is expected to
average around 6.3% in 2016, thanks in part to Obama's economic recovery policies. Oppositely, as I've already said, Romney's tax policy would likely increase the deficit.
Bush's tax cuts can also be seen as an economic stimulant so you shouldn't look at that in the short term either and shouldn't be on that chart.
Just because you think something is economic stimulus, which is a fair conversation to have about the Bush tax cuts, does not mean it is deficit-neutral; of course it should still be on the chart. You can't just pretend something isn't contributing to the deficit because you like it, haha. The vast majority of Obama's added spending has been economic recovery, so I fail to see the point of that. As for whether or not the Bush tax cuts should stay because they allegedly stimulate the economy, they actually don't stimulate the economy that much, particularly the tax cuts for those making more than $250,000.
The best kinds of economic stimulus give money to the poor, who have to immediately spend that money rather than sit on it like the rich do. This is why Obama is in favor or extending the Bush tax cuts, for the time being, for those making less than $250,000. Economists agree that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 would have no real effect on the economy.
