02-09-2018, 09:20 PM
|
#12
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 682
Thanks: 122
Thanked 85 Times in 49 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkxingu
Ummm...no, that $10 trillion isn't accurate. Or, more precisely, it takes into account issues Obama had no control over. For example, Bush's tax cuts and the recession led to less income, which people disingenuously add to Obama's "deficit." Add increasing costs--social security, war on terror (started by Bush), etc.--and the number gets even lower.
It's awesome how much numbers can be manipulative. Such as how Trump slammed Obama's use of 5% unemployment a year ago--claiming it was probably more in the 20's--but then a year later uses the same metrics he slammed.
Of course, people clearly suck up the data--vive la confirmation bias!--so they keep spinning and spinning and...
Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
|
Thanks for the laugh....good spin. The irony is rich with this.
|
|
|