First go back to that treasury link i posted earlier and type the information in manually. The total budget deficit has increased slightly more in Obama's current time in office than in Bush's 8 years.
I don't think you understand the difference between "debt" and "deficit." The debt has continued to increase because we have a deficit. However, the deficit has actually gone down marginally under Obama. The deficit hasn't gone down much, however, because the major sources of our deficit (Bush policies) are still in effect. Obama wants to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, for example; Republicans want to both make them permanent and make them bigger. If the debt and deficit are what are important to you, then it appears that you should vote for Obama.
Providing a link that says the stimulus worked means nothing to me because I can find plenty that say they don't work. You can't tell if a stimulus plan worked because you cannot compare it to what would have happened (especially in a case like this).
Actually, it's pretty easy to see the causal relationship between the Stimulus and the economic recovery, so according to the numbers and most reputable economists, the Stimulus worked. Go back and look at those charts I posted. We can talk about what the role of government should be in the economy, the effect of economic recovery measures on the deficit, and many other things, but to say "the Stimulus didn't work" or "it's impossible to know if the Stimulus worked" are just a bold-faced lies.
Are we not in worse economic condition now than when bush was in office.
The economy is unarguably better off now than when Obama first took office, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. It should also be noted that the economy got to where it was before Obama took office in part because of Republican views on deregulation.
My analogy was meant to show that Obama is as nearly guilty as bush for allowing his policies to continue. He can't just stop them all immediately but he willingly continued some of them.
When it comes to the deficit and the debt, Obama has actually proposed bipartisan deficit-reduction policies that didn't happen thanks to Republican obstruction. Likewise, Obama would have repealed the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 if it hadn't been for Republican obstruction. You can't argue that Obama wants those Bush policies to continue and is just as guilty as Bush if Obama is the one who wants to end these Bush policies and the Republicans want to make them permanent. As for the economy, your analogy does not apply if Obama signed into law various economic recovery policies that worked. They didn't go far enough, but they worked.
It is definitely not a good idea to expect a projected unemployment rate. Obama predicted while running for office that the economic crisis would be fixed or else he would be a one term president. The current unemployment rate is not a good description of actual unemployment.
http://money.cnn.com...labor.cnnmoney/ I'm not sure if the numbers on that video are completely accurate but the current unemployment rate certainly is not.
Based on the evidence, that "projected unemployment rate" is what appears to be the most likely. It's relevant because Romney claims that he will bring unemployment down to the level that it's expected to get to on its own thanks in part to Obama policies. It should also be noted that many previous projections on unemployment were made at a time when we didn't know that the economy was as bad as it was, which is why everyone now says that the Stimulus should have been bigger.
It appears that Romney's plan for the debt and deficit is to give more tax breaks to the rich that counter any of the spending cuts he has proposed, and Romney's plan for the economy is to give more tax breaks to the rich and take credit for the projected unemployment rate that we're expected to get anyway. From my point of view, it sounds like Romney isn't offering any viable solutions.
It is also not fair to say that economists agree that bush tax cuts will not impact the economy. I'm sure that some say that but it is a huge generalization to say "economists agree."
When most economists agree that tax breaks for the wealthy have very little economic benefit for each dollar "spent" (lost revenue), then it's a fair generalization. Tax breaks for the wealthy have very little effect on the economy because tax breaks for the rich don't tend to change their spending habits, nor does it incentivize job-creation. Even if a wealthy "job-creator" is given a tax break, if spending hasn't increased and the economy hasn't improved, the wealthy "job-creator" actually loses money if he or she creates jobs using that extra money. Oppositely, tax breaks and whatnot for the poor tend to increase spending and stimulate the economy, incentivizing "job-creators" to actually create jobs because there's a demand and it's profitable.
Edit:
If Obama is in favor of extending the "Bush tax cuts," then isn't a bit disingenuous on your part to post a link to a chart purporting to show how damaging those tax cuts are to the national debt and economy? Not to mention continuing to attribute that purported damage to Bush in a prior post as a bad thing, and then touting the tax cuts as a good thing ("for the time being") in the post above and crediting Obama for it.
Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000, which is still a a significant reduction of the deficit. As I've already mentioned, tax cuts for the lower and middle classes actually have a positive effect on the economy, so Obama favors keeping them in place for the time being, just as Obama was in favor of economic recovery measures that included major tax cuts for the lower and middle classes. I also never said that the tax cuts were "damaging to the economy." I also never said that Obama's view to extend the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 is good for the deficit, because it's not. None of what you said changes the facts that a.) The Bush policies are the source of our current deficit and debt problems because they were unpaid for, and b.) Obama is the candidate who actually offers solutions for the debt, deficit, and economy.
On last night's convention speeches, here's a link to the AP, "SOME OBAMA PROGRAMS EMBELLISHED BY DEMOCRATS." Embellished. During the Republican convention they called that lying.
http://hosted.ap.org...-09-04-23-35-49
Actually, there's a major difference between embellishing and lying. The difference is that when they say things like (for example), "So instead of the Medicare guarantee, Republicans would give seniors a voucher that limits what's covered," they're telling the truth. Sure, that only applies to future beneficiaries, but it doesn't change the fact that the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it. Just because it would be more accurate to say, "Republicans would give future seniors a voucher that limits what's covered," doesn't make it a lie. In fact, considering it's common knowledge how the Republicans would end Medicare as we know it, it's not even embellishment (unless you've changed how words work and I don't know about it).
