Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
I never said that at all. I said talking about certain rates (in this case percentage increases year over year or percentage changes to increases) doesn't make sense considering the huge numbers Obama has borrowed.
For example, if I increase 1 dollar 100% it's two dollars. If I increase that 100% again, its four dollars.
A 2% increase of a million is 20,000.
Arguing that the 2% growth is twice that of the first one on a percentage basis makes little sense.
Do you understand now?
|
I understand perfectly well, and your choice of example shows that you don't understand at all. A more pertinent example would be to compare Union Ed, who makes $40 000 a year, and Corporate Ted, who makes $200 000. Union Ed buys a house for $400 000, or 1000% of his income, and Corporate Ted buys a house for $500 000, which is 250% of his income, yet in crazy_eoj's world, Corporate Ted owes more in real dollars so he is in worse debt than Union Ed. In other words, technically correct but completely irrelevant, because percentages are important as well as real dollars when you are comparing amounts of money owed, no matter how large.
Obama's deficit includes large amounts of debt servicing on the debt left him by Bush, Clinton and the rest. Further, the recession severely limited revenue, so the squeeze was on from both ends. And even further, he represents the Executive and not the Legislative, so he has limited control over the budget. In that context, the percentage of increased debt due to structural deficits is far more important than the dollar amount, because it shows a trend towards more fiscal responsibility, albeit not a sufficiency of it. In conclusion, you are wrong and fixated on simple math which shows you haven't even a superficial knowledge of what you are talking about.