Growth of debt isn't a 'success' for Obama

Facts are a funny thing. They can be presented selectively and in different ways to make them say just about whatever you want them to. Mr. Hanset did a good job of this in his letter (May 27).

First, let me note that although economics are greatly influenced by a president, he isn’t totally responsible for what happens financially, whether it be good or bad. In Mr. Hanset’s letter, he speaks of President Clinton’s economic “successes” and President Bush’s “failures.” Yet he fails to mention that President Clinton didn’t have to deal with a terrorist attack on U.S. soil or an overseas war as President Bush did. Whether it should or not, wars usually cause debt. And that’s a fact.

President Obama has dwarfed the $5 trillion added to our national debt by eight years of President Bush. In less than two years, Obama has added more than $3 trillion (some estimates put it at $4.9 trillion) to our national debt. Now let’s suppose that somehow, President Obama gets re-elected and ends up serving two terms. Do the math. By the end of eight years, we’d have more than $12 trillion added by President Obama. Somehow, Mr. Hanset must have missed that fact.

If President Obama and his cronies in Congress spending America’s tax money in ways I don’t approve of is the “revolution we needed,” I think I’ll start my own revolution.

BRADY SMITH

Sagle