It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 10:35 PM
FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

WASHINGTON – "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was partly him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped the latest in a string of precipitously out-of-balance budgets.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.
His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: "We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs." — from news conference.

THE FACTS: This assertion is flawed on several levels. For starters, the U.S. has lost more than 1.2 million jobs since Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even if Obama's stimulus bill saved or created as many jobs as he says, that number is dwarfed by the number of recent job losses.

But Obama's number is murky, at best. The White House has not yet announced how it intends to count jobs created by the stimulus bill. Obama's number is based on a job-counting formula that his economists have developed but have not made public. Until that formula is announced — probably in the coming week or so — there's no way to assess its accuracy.

Whatever the formula, economists who study job creation say it will require some creative math. That's because Obama has lumped "jobs saved" in with "jobs created." Even economists for organizations that stand to benefit from the stimulus concede it probably is impossible to estimate saved jobs because that would require calculating a hypothetical: how many people would have lost their jobs without the stimulus.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by j2000]

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 10:40 PM
I guess I will let the story speak for itself.

I would not want to have to repeat the word "lies" to many times.

I would not want to have to add the phase, "typical politition", even though he is not typical as to the extent of damage, the taking of our freedoms and in general taking our country into the crapper.

Nope, I'll just let the story speak for itself................

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 10:51 PM
NEW YORK ( -- Employers slashed another 598,000 jobs off of U.S. payrolls in January, taking the unemployment rate up to 7.6%, according to the latest government reading on the nation's battered labor market

150,000 jobs created or saved, out of 598,000 jobs lost in one month, well thats nothing to be proud of Mr. O!

JOB LOSSES: 660,000 Jobs Lost in March, No Good News for Workers

Yep, chump change Mr. O, the only ones who are buying your BS, is Wall St, and their getting it in Economic Bulk!

[edit on 29-4-2009 by Republican08]

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by j2000
I would not want to have to add the phase, "typical politition", even though he is not typical as to the extent of damage, the taking of our freedoms and in general taking our country into the crapper.

How is he not typical? Have you been paying attention to the past thirty years? The past eight years?

If you are looking for Presidents to blame for the current economic situation, here's a few of names:

1) FDR
2) Ronald Reagan
3) Bill Clinton

The first two brought cultural shifts toward fiscal suicide, and the third delivered the fatal blow.

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:31 PM
This is the same shell game that the banks are using right now to post profits. How can Citigroup post a $1B+ profit for the first quarter when they took $20B from THE TAXPAYERS to survive? That, in my book, is still a LOSS of $19B. (This is not exact -- I'm using all round numbers to make it easy.)

Created 150,000 jobs? Great....unfortunately that still leaves us 500,000+ in the hole!

I want to create a new political party. Forget the Democrats, forget the Republicans....we need a fresh start. Both of those parties are way too tainted, way too intertwined.

Patriots for Pellucidity, anyone?

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:37 PM
The media myth that Democrats are for the average person. Sorry! The avg working Joe gets $14 a week on tax cuts. Wall St ultra rich get billions. When will people wake up and stop getting spoon fed from CNN.

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 05:10 PM
reply to post by lpowell0627

How about we just forget about political parties and have public servants to run the Govt. ?

new topics

top topics


log in