Re: By the numbers
Ok, so I finally watched it, and I see the difference between the two articles.
Of course, the dates are different, as nearly a year has gone by. But that's not the issue that Binder is bringing up.
The article by CBS News states "The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms", and that "the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office".
Ok, I bolded, italicized, and underlined key words. We'll get to those later.
The ABC video states that the debt raised by "$6.1 trillion, the amount added under Bush". I also states "$2.4 trillion of that is the amount of debt added under Barak Obama".
Yet again I highlighted key words. So... why did I do that?
Here's the deal, there is a difference between stating numbers by the year, and stating numbers by the administration. You see, when Obama took office in January 2009, the budget (and the resulting deficit and increased debt) was "under" the spending policies of Bush. The government budget did not end until September 30, 2009. So from January to the end of September, the amount of debt added is technically "under" Bush, but is "during" Obama's administration.
That is the reason behind the different numbers. The CBS article is stating numbers by the year. The ABC video is stating numbers by the administration. Pretty simple. I don't see the big deal here, Binder. Technically, both articles are correct. People who understand how the government budget/spending works can clearly understand the difference. The only fault I see is that neither the article nor the video goes into lengthy detail explaining if their numbers are by the year or by the administration, or why they chose which set of numbers they used.
2002 F-250 PSD
Gambling with 250/200's on PMR's.
478hp/851tq on Haller's dyno - 7/28/12
Your connection to the
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.