Obama won

[Snakespeare]

I see the misrepresentations are going to continue even though the election is over. The war in Iraq put us in debt to China. Reagan was the first to borrow from China. Clinton expanded China to most-favored-nation status because he borrowed more. But the largest amount borrowed from China was by GW Bush to finance the war in Iraq.

I do not like war. I am a veteran, and like most veterans I consider it an evil thing. I realize that people who have never served, who only play war on video games, think it is some sort of romantic thing, but it's just not. It's ugly, and it is definitely evil. I didn't see the value in attacking Iraq. Everyone said they had nukes, or were developing chemical weapons. But the fact is, they never found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And they definitely did not go there because of 9/11. 9/11 was an attack by Saudi dissidents. Bin Laden's ultimate goal was to oust America from Saudi Arabia and spark a religious revolution there putting himself in charge. In particular, he had repeatedly said that our air base in Saudi Arabia was on land sacred to his religion. So it had nothing to do with 9/11. I was never convinced that we needed to fight that war.

But we did, and there is no changing the past. That means we have debts.

Furthermore, there is real information, not "spin", that indicates the actual change in our indebtedness, and it was never as exagerated as the President's opponents said. The % change of the debt under GW Bush was 89%, under Obama it is 41.4%.

Finally, the Bush Tax Cuts caused the staggering increase of deficit. He cut 1.8 trillion a year from collections without decreasing spending. In fact, Bush increased spending. So when you see the debt going up 1.8 trillion a year, think about that $200 we all got in our paychecks ten years ago, because that's what the working man got from Bush. The rich got to be tax-free. Well, obviously, that did NOT result in a boon for the economy... this trickled-down theory:

Lower taxes on the rich.

THEN, they can use the money they saved to expand their businesses.

THEN, with the expansion of business, more people can get more jobs.

THEN, those people can be taxed because they have those jobs.

THEN, the government makes money to spend for public, national, debt, etc. use.

... has been tried and it is a fail. When rich people make more money, the simply do not "expand their businesses". They invest in bonds. The income from bonds is not taxable, you see. Why should they "expand their businesses" when they can get guaranteed income that is tax-free? Or they buy stocks, which are taxed at a lower rate. Furthermore, those who are that rich, if they DO have businesses (and most do not), are smart enough to know that you can get cheaper workers in other countries. In short, the whole trickle-down theory is voodoo economics.

In fact, it is experimental economics. A real economics takes the care of the workers into consideration. A real economics considers the existence of children and stay-at-home moms, which are essential to the furtherance of the species. A pie-in-the-sky economics is based on purely business models, and they only work on paper. In reality, there is much more to an economy than business. Every society (based on anthropology studies of primitive peoples) has some form of taxation. And every society has some mechanism to inspire lazy people (like me) to work. But one thing has never worked, ever: you can't take out more than you put in. Sadly, that was all Romney said he had to offer. He would cut taxes and that would cause this trickle-down. But GW Bush tried that and it came "this close" to causing another depression.