Someone who voted for continued spending explain this?

So, your argument is "we shouldn't do it, because it would only help a LITTLE"??

Bozo is genuine, besides the shown fact which you have further some exciting element of your existence reports, the important deductions you're making are all in step with fake premises. a million) no person is calling you racist. no person that i comprehend criticizes people who criticize the President a racist until they deserve the term. inspite of repeating this value prevalent, no pub has each proved it. 2) as quickly as returned, Bozo is genuine, the government did no longer positioned any insurance corporation out of corporation. in certainty, via requiring 30 million new purchasers, the call for for insurance will skyrocket. 3) Blaming your unemployment on Obama is ridiculous on the grounds that Bush began the recession with the terrific financial panic because of the fact the Republican large melancholy. 4) Obama bigger, via an fairly super quantity, the quantity of components going into Afghanistan the place we now comprehend it is so desperately mandatory. He has additionally voted, mutually as senator, of Bush's tries to improve medical and different expenses unfairly born on militia workers, and different tries to easily cut back their pay. there is purely no information that he has endangered the troops via spending under is mandatory. If and while he does cut back the militia funds, i'm useful he will cut back the fat, no longer the muscle.

None of those 4 sources seem to support what you're saying. Most of them appear to be rather irrelvant.

According to the non-partisan Pew Charitable Trusts, letting the cuts on the rich expire as Obama intends would save $1.1T over 10 years compared to making them permanent.

We cannot cut our way to a balanced budget. It would require across the board (including Medicare, Social Security, and Defense) cuts of ~35%.