Some guy who looks a lot like him said this in 2/2009. "I promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term." [video=youtube;SaQUU2ZL6D8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8[/video] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQUU2ZL6D8 Can anyone believe a word from this guy's mouth at this point?
Shame on those who believed any words from his mouth beforehand. Not saying McCain was the man. Just saying I don't believe how people were so passionate and so believing of Obama. I understand when people tell me, "Well, I hate Obama, and I don't trust him, but I hate him less and I trust that he'll suck less than McCain, so I voted for Obama." I can totally get that attitude of indifference. It's the people who put all of their faith and trust in him, and genuinely believed in him that absolutely shocks and horrifies me the same way it did when Bush was re-elected. We have a lot more blind, uneducated folks in this country than I realized. And the problem is, we can't just segregate them and send them away to quarantine from the rest of us. Unforuntately, there are a lot of idiots on each side of the fence. So basically.... we're fucked!
So Papag thinks Obama should have declared martial law and overruled congress and just done everything he promised despite not getting any support from the Repubs and very little from the Dems? Or maybe the blame truly lies with the obstructionists who held this country for ransom, not the President who trusted them to act like Americans and reach agreement.
Clinton got his stuff passed with a republican house and senate. It's clearly a lame excuse to blame republicans for Obama's failure to lead.
Obama had 60 Senators (filibuster-proof) and a majority in congress when he took office. The GOP couldn't obstruct, even if they had wanted to do so. Instead of halving the deficit, he's now quadrupled it for three straight years. That's on him and nobody else.
I only ask because they're not the numbers I've seen, so I only wanted to see if perhaps mine are wrong. With that said, I'll go ahead and post mine and we can perhaps go from there. On January 20, 2009, the day Obama took office, the national debt was over $10T. As of today, February 13, 2012, the national debt is under $16T. Now, being accused of being good at math has never applied to me, but I fail to see how the national debt has quadrupled every year under Obama. Whatcha got?
Debt != deficit. The deficits have been > $1.3T each of Obama's 4 years (he just proposed his budget for year 4). That was Obama's projections a couple of years ago. This graph is how it turned out:
He was talking about the annual deficit in this YouTube clip, not debt. They're not the same thing. EDIT - Denny illustrated this by providing a graph based on sourced numbers. Whatcha got? It's also true that Obama has increased the national debt by $6 trillion, but that wasn't the point of this thread.
I didn't read closely enough, so that is my bad. As far the number you listed above at $6T, that number has been debated. Last I saw the exact number was $4.7T. As far as the deficit now that I realized I goofed http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/romney-wrong-on-deficits-auto-bailout/ What do you say of these numbers? Note that I'm not trying to call anyone out. I just like the discussion.
Factcheck is technically wrong, since $800 billion TARP bailout (most of which has been repaid, but not put back into the deficit) was considered a loan, and should not have been counted as a deficit unless it wasn't repaid. Not sure what your point is, though. We haven't had TARP for 3 years now, and still deficits are running over $1 trillion. Did you watch the video?
Depends on "factcheck.org", or Obama talking about the known deficit in 2/2009. I'll stick with what Obama said on halving the deficit, be it $1.2 trillion or $330 billion. You can continue, though. It does bring up interesting points about how deficits are incurred, and how few people know the difference between "debt" and "deficit".
And that's why, despite the recession and all of the economical turmoil, for the most part, accountants (and other similar-minded financial people) have had relatively good chances of finding jobs. And the good ones haven't had to worry about being on the chopping block.
You can look at it however you want Still doesn't change the fact I was talking about the quadruple comment, and if you were correct in making that assessment. There sure seems to be a whole lot of gray area there, and I wonder why one person would use one number, while another person would use different number. Thoughts?
