news flash
UE is lower than when Obama took office
7.6, when he took office; 7.9 now. 8% or higher for most of his first term, except (of course) the month before the election.
Try that again.
Energy prices are not controlled by the POTUS and never have been
Tell that to the folks that blamed Bush for high gas prices, which basically occurred the last year of his presidency but was back down to $1.85, when Obama took office.
Deficit has gone down every year since Obama took office starting in 2010 (the projected deficit for 2009 was 1.2 billion before he ever stepped into office and at a time of the worse economic condition in this country since the Great Depression)
Is that right?
Obama’s response leaves the false impression that President George W. Bush and the 2008 recession are responsible for a whopping 90 percent of the deficits in the last four years.
It’s true that Obama “inherited the biggest deficit in our history,” as he said on CBS. By the time Obama took office in January 2009, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had already estimated that increased spending and decreased revenues would result in a $1.2 trillion deficit for fiscal year 2009, which began Oct. 1, 2008. In a detailed analysis of fiscal year 2009, we found that Obama was responsible for adding at most $203 billion to the deficit, which in the end topped $1.4 trillion that year.
But that was just the first of four years of trillion-plus deficits. The last three budgets fall squarely under Obama. And, during that time, the federal government ran up deficits of $1.3 trillion in 2010, $1.3 trillion in 2011, and about $1.2 trillion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 — for a total of nearly $5.2 trillion in deficit spending.
Now, affixing responsibility (i.e., blame) for mega-deficits and the ballooning federal debt is filled with ideological landmines. Obama doesn’t take responsibility for war spending, for example, even though he continued the spending and, in fact, increased U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan. He also doesn’t want to take the blame for the expense of creating the Medicare prescription drug program — although his federal health care law increased funding for it. (The law will gradually close the notorious doughnut hole that caused some seniors to pay nearly $2,000 in prescription drug costs because of a gap in coverage.)
Regardless of how you assess blame, this much we can say with certainty: Obama’s policies are responsible for more than 10 percent of the deficits accumulated over the last four years.
Consider that just two pieces of legislation he signed account for nearly a third of the $5.2 trillion in deficits since 2009:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the stimulus act, will cost $831 billion through 2019, according to the CBO. The administration estimates the stimulus at $800 billion through 2011.
The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 extended the Bush tax cuts and cut the Social Security payroll tax for two years, as well as provided relief to some taxpayers who otherwise would have had to pay the alternative minimum tax. The 2010 tax act cost nearly $800 billion in 2011 and 2012.
The administration does not take responsibility for all of the spending in the 2010 tax act (which we will detail later). But Treasury accepts that the administration is responsible for another $410 billion in additional tax cuts and spending through 2011.
That means at a minimum the Obama administration is responsible for $2 trillion, or 39 percent of the $5.17 trillion in deficits since fiscal year 2009.http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-deficit-dodge/So, if the deficit was 1.2 trillion before he took office (FY 2009) and it's 1.2 trillion NOW, he didn't reduce JACK in his first term. He was supposed to cut it in HALF. He raised the deficit to 1.3 trillion for FY 2010 and FY 2011.
You might not be the best at math; but, half of 1.2 trillion ain't......1.2 TRILLION.
You've lied or deluded yourself on each category
Why am I not suprised
Defending Obama's utter failure, even though the numbers clearly show that he didn't do what he said he would do, regarding unemployment, jobs, and the deficit.
Why am I not surprised?
