Obama lowered the Deficit by $361 Billion.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

Interest rates on government debt continue on in the negatives.Nibroc420

Uhh what?

"Borrow money, dont pay interest, get paid interest!"

What sort of BS troll logic are you going on about?
Negative interest on debt?

.mingmao3046

Yeah nobody claimed Bush was better. This is still unacceptable.DaBrainz

This.

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Hmmm, but how has he handled the overall debt? He added to that by a considerable amount.

Blue-Sky

If there's a deficit, of course the debt will increase.

Regardless of who is in the white house, the debt would have increased by 1 trillion every year.

The national debt will increase by another 3 trillion by 2016 whether Romney or Obama is in the white house. There is nothing anyone can do about the national debt right now other than try to balance the annual budget.

Good.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Hmmm, but how has he handled the overall debt? He added to that by a considerable amount.

ristactionjakso

If there's a deficit, of course the debt will increase.

Regardless of who is in the white house, the debt would have increased by 1 trillion every year.

The national debt will increase by another 3 trillion by 2016 whether Romney or Obama is in the white house. There is nothing anyone can do about the national debt right now other than try to balance the annual budget.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

Hmmm, but how has he handled the overall debt? He added to that by a considerable amount.

ristactionjakso

If there's a deficit, of course the debt will increase.

Regardless of who is in the white house, the debt would have increased by 1 trillion every year.

The national debt will increase by another 3 trillion by 2016 whether Romney or Obama is in the white house. There is nothing anyone can do about the national debt right now other than try to balance the annual budget.

Wow you really are out of touch.

Both TARP and ACA contributed to the reduction in spending. That's why repealing Obamacare "adds" to the debt.

This is a very interesting report considering I was just reading thiswhich says the deficit has increased by 5.5 trillion since 2009. Wasdie

Debt, not deficit. Debt always increases as long as a deficit exists, and counting from the start of 2009, there have been effectively four years of deficits leading to an average deficit of 1.375 trillion USD, which is consistent with the information in the OP.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

This is a very interesting report considering I was just reading thiswhich says the deficit has increased by 5.5 trillion since 2009. Barbariser

Debt, not deficit. Debt always increases as long as a deficit exists, and counting from the start of 2009, there have been effectively four years of deficits leading to an average deficit of 1.375 trillion USD, which is consistent with the information in the OP.

Stop that, only Mitt Romney talking points matter:P

-Obama has lowered the deficit to $1.1 Trillion

-he did a pretty damn good job handling the deficit

:lol:

Yes, thank you Obama for only running a $1.1 trillion deficit. Lets reelect you.

limpbizkit818

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

If there's a deficit, of course the debt will increase.

Regardless of who is in the white house, the debt would have increased by 1 trillion every year.

The national debt will increase by another 3 trillion by 2016 whether Romney or Obama is in the white house. There is nothing anyone can do about the national debt right now other than try to balance the annual budget.

-Sun_Tzu-

Also it's possible that some of the taxes in Obamacare may be repealed (for instance, Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren wants to repeal a tax on medical devices), which would lower Obamacare's revenues.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"].Jebus213

Part of the reason for the the low levels was that the U.S. strategy relied on using Afghan allies (first the Northern Alliance, and then the Afghan army) to do much of the ground fighting (with U.S. special forces and air support to back them up) in order to keep U.S. casualties low. Also I think violence/fighting in Afghanistan after the initial invasion was pretty low and didn't start to pick up until about 2007 or 2008 (I think at this time the Taliban was hunkering down in Pakistan and regrouping, and then around 2007 or so they began to try to make a come-back).

Part of the reason for the increase in casualties (and probably most of the reason for the increase in cost) under Obama is that Obama sent more troops to Afghanistan, though some of the casualties may be due to a change in the Rules of Engagement designed to reduce civilian casualties that make it harder for troops to get artillery and air support. Also in the last few years there has been a big increase in incidents where Afghan troops and police (the guys the U.S. is training to be our allies) fire on U.S. and NATO troops (this is thought to be due to an increase in members of the Taliban, particularly the Haqqani network, infiltrating the Afghan police and military).

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] Exactly, which is why focusing on jobs just makes more sense. But for some reason, people think that we'll turn into Greece if we don't immediately implement drastic austerity measures.Abbeten

You're kidding me right? People turning to bonds means they're much more risk averse.