Republican Myth Debunked: U.S. Deficit Actually Falls Below $1 Trillion for First Time Since 2008

Barack ObamaWhile Republicans love to paint President Obama as someone who’s done nothing but spend, spend, spend—reality tells a different story.

Let’s get a few facts out of the way.  Yes, we’ve spent a lot of money since 2008.  Yes, we’re still currently running budget deficits.  Yes, we still need to get spending under control.  And yes, there’s still a lot of work to be done.

But this right-wing myth that President Obama has been some kind of “Spender in Chief” is completely absurd.

In 2008, our deficit was $458.6 billion.  For 2013, it will be $680.3 billion.  Is that still a lot of money?  Absolutely.  But it’s still down from 2012 when our deficit was $1.09 trillion, and it’s headed back towards the levels we had before the economic crash.

And let’s not forget that the 2009 budget, which President Obama gets saddled with, was actually passed by George W. Bush.  How large was that deficit?  $1.4 trillion.  So, what does that mean exactly?  That President Obama has cut deficits by more than half since he became president.

Oh, and for 2013, revenue was up 13.3 percent — which is attributed to an economy that continues to grow, more jobs being created and President Obama’s tax hikes on the richest Americans.   So much for “tax hikes killing job creation.”

So while Republicans continue to paint President Obama as some “socialist” who does nothing but advocate massive government spending, reality tells a very different tale.  Then again, it’s been decades since the Republican party actually cared about “facts” or “reality.”

They cling to the 2008 numbers that are still below what 2013 is at, but fail to embrace the fact that 2009’s numbers, while tagged to President Obama, were passed by George W. Bush.  So the fact is, spending is down under President Obama.

In fact, as many already know, deficits are shrinking at their fastest pace since World War II.

But these realities don’t stop Republicans from pushing this false pretense that President Obama has been this giant spender, hurling money at anything and everything because that’s all he knows how to do.

And let’s also not forget President Obama inherited a train wreck of an economy.  Not only did he inherit that mess, he came into office right in the middle of it.  We had to spend a massive amount of money to avoid letting our country slip into another Great Depression.

It still amuses me that Republicans seem to only be “fiscally conservative” once their party no longer controls the White House. For eight years under George W. Bush, Republicans had near full control over our government, and did nothing more than wreck a balanced budget, run up giant deficits and double our national debt.

But now they want to pretend to act appalled at spending?

I’ll just leave them to their rhetoric.  Because while they’ll continue to push the outright lie that Obama has been a president who simply throws money at everything, reality is on the side of those who know that he’s drastically reduced our deficits from the 2009 levels passed during George W. Bush’s last year in office.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • strayaway

    “the 2009 budget, which President Obama gets saddled with, was actually passed by George W. Bush. How large was that deficit? $1.4 trillion.”

    One detail was left out regarding the 2009 deficit was that, according to wikipedia, “A 2009 CBO report indicated that $245 billion, about half of the excess spending, was a result of the 2008 TARP bailouts. Spending increases and tax credits resulting from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 accounted for another 200 billion of the budget deficit.” In other words, President Obama’s additions to the 2009 Bush budget accounted for about 30% of the deficit attributed to Bush.

    According to the New Yorker, as of August 2013, the labor participation rate was 63%. If it was 68% as in 2008, unemployment would now be measured at 9.7%. The increase in the number of people qualifying for food stamps seems to correlate with higher, rather than lower, unemployment rates.

    • Mike Williams

      It would be nice if each president could work from a clean slate.
      Since that is never going to happen you can not expect a decrease in services when the economy of the 98% was bung-reamed by president bush, congress, and wall street.

      • regressive rightwing trash

        only 98? 🙂

      • Mike Williams

        Yes, 98%. The 1%’rs and the people formerly called corporations…the other 1%, they are doing just fantastic.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      And you can thank Republican obstruction for the lack of jobs. They had a vested interest in keeping the economy in sad shape until the 2012 election, which they lost.

  • ScudAg56

    You are adding the Stimulus Plan to the 2009 budget again, and claiming that Obama “inherited” it. Obama added 550 B all by himself. TARP was added by Bush, but has almost entirely been paid back (much during 2013 – which helped lower the 2013 deficit).

    • Mike Williams

      the 2009 budget was passed in 2008 …That would be the period of time President Obama had no control of the budget…

  • ScudAg56

    It’s not that Obama was increasing spending, but he was not adjusting the budget to account for the reduced revenue, thus leading to massive deficits that make 680 B look pretty good (even though that still is more than any other President’s deficit).

    • Mike Williams

      Bush passed all of the eight years of war debt onto the next president in 2008. It would not have mattered who was in office. That president was going to be getting a ream job right from the start.

    • strayaway

      Bush added $4T to the national debt in eight years, not four. Obama trumped Bush by adding $7T in 4.5 years.

      $1T= $8,333 of federal debt plus interest per average US tax payer.

      • FactoryGuy

        And don’t forget, Bush was saddled with a trillion dollar deficit when he came into office……oh wait, OOHHHH Bush had a surplus handed to him, that’s right…..and he completely pissed it away in less than a year.

      • strayaway

        Credit should be given to Clinton and Gingrich for being able to reign in the deficit to the extent they did. But don’t forget, one of their tools was to loot money set aside for Social Security and replace it with IOUs. That cupboard has been bare ever since so neither Bush nor Obama could repeat that trick. Something like $5T of the $17T federal debt is now owed by the federal government to Social Security and other looted federal funds. Clinton/GIngrich also took away the earned Social Security benefits of many federal employees by “recalculating” their SS earnings. With friends like this in Washington, who needs enemies?

      • regressive rightwing trash

        more like 11.3 trillion,,,,, wanna bet me ( based upon CBO numbers and the US Treasury???)

      • strayaway

        Please speak in sentences. What is more like $11.3T? And what is your point?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Go to treasurydirect DOT gov for exact numbers:

        January 22,2001: $5,728,195,796,181.57
        January 20,2009: $10,626,877,048,913.08
        January 18, 2013: $ 16,432,619,424,703.06
        November 3,2013 $17,156,117,102,204.49

        Bush debt two terms: $4,898,681,252,731.51
        Obama debt one term: $5,805,742,375,789.98
        Total Obama: $6,529,240,053,291.41

        To make it visually easier:
        Bush added $4.89 trillion in 2 terms.
        Obama added $5.80 trillion in one term
        Total debt in Obama’s column: $6.59 trillion

      • AlCum

        Looks like you don’t know what causes the debt. Hint: Obama is paying yours and Bush’s bills because you didn’t think you had to pay for your stuff.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What makes you think I didn’t think we had to pay for all this stuff? Who the hell thinks you can pay for two wars and CUT taxes??? That’s not how it works.

      • AlCum

        Bush thought so. Obama’s paying Bush’s bills. The “total debt in Obama’s column” includes the borrowing he’s had to make to pay for Bush’s wars and his unfunded Medicare prescription program, while cutting taxes. Just because Bush left doesn’t mean we get to stop paying his bills.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I understand that perfectly but the people howling for Obama’s scalp over the debt don’t. They think we went from zero debt to $10 trillion on January 20. 2009. When you point out that Reagan/Bush tripled the debt and Bush Jr. doubled it, they start sputtering.

    • regressive rightwing trash

      yep-=— just like the rightwing scumbag regressive president we had PRIOR added over 11 trillion ( TRILLION) was NOT a MTYH either– factual destruction of our economy has led America to say BYE BYE to the atavistic and outdated lies shoved up our fannies by bthe party of fiscal responsibility. Further proof? Shutdown of GOVT to the tune of BILLIONS lost to our slowly recovering economy. VOTE REPUBLICAN ( if U like jeeesus in your government policies)

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The numbers don’t agree with you. Not sure where you’re getting your info. The two have added $11 trillion.

  • windwolf1974

    Neither Barack Obama nor George W Bush were 100% responsible for the budget deficit. There are three main factors that behind America’s soaring debt: greed, laziness, and political groupthink. Neither major party wants to even hear any ideas or concerns from other political parties and both major parties think they have all of the answers. In reality neither have all of the answers and the groupthink leads to a lack of news solutions to problems such as greed and laziness without the people that need services to fall through the cracks.

    • Marcia Ritenour

      Doesn’t anyone remember that the Democrats had control of the Senate the last 2 years of Bush’s 8-year presidency?? We should vote all the legislators OUT the next election. Everything they do is to gain votes.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Always like it when you try to blame everything on the Democrats. What about those two unfunded wars that were started LONG before the democrats controlled the senate?

      • surfjac

        What about the super-minority powers the right wing used to try and deny Obama a second term through filibuster obstruction? Or was mr. mcconnell only blowing smoke?
        McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

  • Charles Vincent

    This is untrue the fiscal year just started and the deficit will be more than 1 trillion by the end of the 2013 fiscal year. way to be a lying mouth piece puppet Mr. Clifton

    • regressive rightwing trash

      so sayeth the internet crybaby chuckie Vincent…………….he who avoideth answering inquiries he doesn’t like ( as his regressive cable FOX “news” has taught crybabies 2 doooooooooooooooo)

      • Charles Vincent

        I get my information from the cbo. Incase you’re unfamiliar with them its the congressional budget office and mr clifton is. Spewing blatant untruths as he is using numbers that do not represent the deficit properly. So keep on blathering on internet troll.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Not sure where you’re getting your info. This is from the CBO website:

        “If the current laws that govern federal taxes and spending do not change, the budget deficit will shrink this year to $642 billion, CBO estimates, the smallest shortfall since 2008. Relative to the size of the economy, the deficit this year—at 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)—will be less than half as large as the shortfall in 2009, which was 10.1 percent of GDP…

        …CBO’s estimate of the deficit for this year is about $200 billion below the estimate that it produced in February 2013, mostly as a result of higher-than-expected revenues and an increase in payments to the Treasury by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For the 2014–2023 period, CBO
        now projects a cumulative deficit that is $618 billion less than it projected in February. That reduction results mostly from lower projections of spending for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the public debt.”

      • Charles Vincent

        I get it from the dot gov CBO site perhaps this information is newer than the numbers I have seen when was this published?

        see also;

        http://www DOT bloomberg DOT

        com/news/2013-09-17/cbo-says-short-term-deficit-cut-won-t-avert-fiscal-crisis.html

        See the supplemental data link for detailed numbers
        http://cbo DOT gov/publication/43288

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The Bloomberg article said the CBO projections depended on a lot of “ifs.” And there’s this:

        “CBO left virtually unchanged its May projection that the
        government would end fiscal 2013 with a deficit of $642 billion.”

        The CBO publication didn’t mention anything about a $1trillion deficit and posited a decrease in the federal debt over 25 years to 53% of GDP, again with a lot of “ifs.” Another scenario based on other “ifs” predicts a much higher debt.

        So it depends on whether we zig or zag.

      • Charles Vincent

        True but they are projections. Also see this its a video like an hour long but it sort of summarizes the long term problems I see;

        http://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=bYkl3XlEneA&list=TLEPv9yFrEI3P6VnIf2fQu7oujz7VuvTaZ

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Projections are just projections. Remember, we had a budget surplus at the end of Clinton. Anything can change and that affects the projections.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes but considering the previous Obama budgets(and associated deficits)the likely-hood that it will be more its quite possible.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        But again, WHERE do you want to cut spending? You appear to say any government spending is bad.

      • Charles Vincent

        no spending more than the revenue the government take in is bad. and raising the debt ceiling so the government can borrow more money to pay on money the government has borrowed previously is flat out asinine. Here is a simple video that illustrates what the government is doing;

        https://www DOT youtube DOT com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE

        The above video is the problem with government spending period.IT is the exact reason we have a 17 trillion dollar debt of which china owns ~1.8 trillion and japan owns ~1.6 trillion;

        This link shows who owns what debt;

        http://useconomy DOT about DOT com/od/monetarypolicy/f/Who-Owns-US-National-Debt DOT htm

        We have to cut social programs(SS, Medicare, Medicaid,snap,etc) and we have to stop fighting F$*%&# wars on other countries and drugs. When we stop the wars we can cut back defense spending and not endanger the lives of our soldiers who are down range. will those cuts be easy hell [email protected]&%^$ no but they are absolutely necessary to prevent a much larger economic disaster. I do not advocate making big cuts. I advocate incremental cuts over time to lessen the economic hardship to the population as a whole. the problem is that these social programs have out paced revenue growth even during a good economic period. See this 2001 budget chart;

        http://www DOT cbo DOT gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/new/budgetinfographic DOT png

        The 2012 Numbers are very similar to the 2011 number s except the deficit was about 400 billion smaller. The fact is the government doesn’t owe money, we the citizens owe that money and we are to blame for allowing those we elected to spend money in such a frivolous manner. So unless we face the demon(debt) and swallow that big ass pill and force ourselves to step into reality and have a really hard and brutally honest dialog with ourselves this problem will only get worst and will crush us and the world economy will get pulled down with it.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        That is analogous to saying you shouldn’t buy a house because you can’t pay off the mortgage next month.

        We’ve amassed debt since the beginning of the Republic. Why did it not become an issue until Obama was elected? No conservatives every complained about Reagan/Bush tripling the debt or Bush II doubling the debt.

      • Charles Vincent

        You’re high…. a mortgage is not the same thing as the national debt it isn’t even close most mortgages fall inside a person or families budget and banks have an interest in keeping people from buying houses they cannot afford please quit being asinine. And on the off chance that a person is fiscally irresponsible and gets upside down on his mortgage the bank forecloses on the loan and cuts its loss by reselling the house it does not say well we will loan you more money so you can pay on the original loan. Perhaps you’re unaware that at one point our country carried no Debt (1835-36) under Andrew Jackson.

        “Why did it not become an issue until Obama was elected?”
        It didn’t start with Obama but his debt total according to your own posted numbers(“To make it visually easier: Bush added $4.89 trillion in 2 terms. Obama added $5.80 trillion in one term Total debt in Obama’s column: $6.59 trillion”)is most definitely not helping and the fact you think its ok and you have a bitch that people blame Obama for “$6.59 trillion” and even the modest CBO budget shows he will have added 10 Trillion in debt by 2016(http://www DOT cbo DOT gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2011-03-18-APB-FederalDebt_0 DOT pdf)
        and that we are some how picking on him is also asinine. Seriously have you looked at a graph of the national debt? Look at it and tell me when you think it became a “problem”;

        http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/File:Federal_Debt_Held_by_the_Public_1790-2013 DOT png

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Mortgage PAYMENTS fall within a budget. What we pay to others on our debt is comparable to that mortgage payment. No one ever expects us to pay off $17 trillion and have a zero balance. Do you really think we’re going to go back 177 years? http://www DOT npr DOT org/blogs/money/2011/04/15/135423586/when-the-u-s-paid-off-the-entire-national-debt-and-why-it-didnt-last

        My point is conservatives never said ANYTHING about the debt until January 20, 2009. They were more than happy to let Bush double the debt.

        And. again, where is that money we are spending going and what do you want to cut? It is far simpler to say “cut spending” than to actually do the cutting. The biggest budget items are Defense, health care and social security. The one that has been killing us is health care, since the government is the single largest purchaser of health care.

        Given we’ve had debt since we became the US, I have no idea when it became a problem. Do you? $5 trillion? $10 trillion? $20 trillion? Who was it who said “A billion here, a billion there and your talking real money.”

      • Charles Vincent

        UUGGGHH I hate that I cannot use graphs to illustrate my point.

        “My point is conservatives never said ANYTHING about the debt until
        January 20, 2009. They were more than happy to let Bush double the
        debt.”

        This is irrelevant because both parties are doing everything they can to balloon the debt this is not a its the republicans or its the democrats issue.

        ” I have no idea when it became a problem. Do you? $5 trillion? $10 trillion? $20 trillion?”

        When did deficit spending become an issue as soon as they(the federal government)spent more money than they took from we the people that’s when and more specifically when the fed opened its doors in 1913. Up until Clinton we actually had a chance of getting out from under the debt. Now its not ever going to happen because dipshits like Bush and Obama to an even bigger extent can’t grasp how a budget is supposed to work.

        “Given we’ve had debt since we became the US”

        Already went over this Andrew Jackson paid of the entire debt of the us government that lasted about 2 years then the democrat run congress went off the rails on a god awful spending spree.

        “The biggest budget items are Defense, health care and social security.”

        Not sure if you ordered these by largest to smallest but here is the breakdown from 2011. *note 2012 is similar

        Social security; 725 billion at 4.8% GDP part of mandatory spending and need to be cut and eventually phased out.
        Defense: 700 billion at 4.7% GDP part of discretionary spending need cut back(considered traditional government)
        Non-defense: 645 billion at 4.3% GDP part of discretionary spending and needs cut back.(considered traditional government)
        Other mandatory spending: 545 billion at 3.6% GDP part of mandatory spending and needs cut.
        Medicare: 480 billion at 3.2% GDP part of mandatory spending and needs phased out.
        Medicaid: 275 billion at 1.8% GDP part of mandatory spending and needs phased out.
        Net Interest: 227 billion at 1.5% GDP
        Total expenditures: 3.6 trillion dollars

        Individual Income Taxes; 1.1 trillion
        Social insurance tax: 819 billion
        Other: 211 billion
        corporate Income tax: 181 billion
        Total revenue: 2.3 trillion

        Note if we only spent money on traditional government and the net interest on the debt in 2011 we would have seen a budget surplus of 773 billion which could have been applied to the debt to further decrease the net interest. But we all know we cannot end the mandatory spending over night thus it needs cut back and eventually phased out.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        “Already went over this Andrew Jackson paid of the entire debt of the us government that lasted about 2 years then the democrat run congress went
        off the rails on a god awful spending spree.”

        A democrat in 1835 isn’t the same critter in 2013. Neither is a Republican. And I believe the conditions surrounding the crash after Jackson paid off the debt wasn’t due to reckless spending.

        So it would appear that governments in general do business with debt. http://en DOT wikipedia DOT org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt Compared to the UK, France and Germany, we’re doing rather well.

      • Charles Vincent

        I wasn’t blaming democrats I was illustrating that we did have 0 debt at one point. It wasn’t just congress it was also flawed policy from Jackson in an attempt to curtail spending. We are not doing well because the numbers you look at do not include future unfunded liabilities at least for the most part.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        And that 1 point was 0.4% of the US lifespan. So what happens when all us Boomers are dead and gone?

      • Charles Vincent

        I think that you baby boomers will have the unfortunate luck of seeing the economy implode because Congress prefers to kick the can down the road instead of dealing with the problem. And this means that I will bear witness to that unfortunate event as well.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So you are younger than me?

      • Charles Vincent

        I don’t know how old you are but if your a boomer I am guessing 50-60 and if that’s the case yes I am younger

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        59. And there are a lot of you on facebook. WIll try tomorrow.

      • Charles Vincent

        see my profile pic here its my FB profile pic just saying

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        From the NPR source cited:

        “Andrew Jackson tried to slow everything down by requiring that all government land sales needed to be done with gold or silver. Bad idea.

        “It was a huge crash, and the beginning of the longest depression in American history,” Gordon says. “It actually lasted six years before the economy began to grow again.”

        During the depression, the government started borrowing money again.

        No one says that paying off the debt caused the depression. The bubble was going to pop sometime. But the result was that we had to kiss a debt-free U.S. goodbye. The country never came close again.

      • Charles Vincent

        look me up on FB this wading through post is bullcrap

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        OK. This is weird. The website is allowing me to edit everyone’s comments.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        “Social security; 725 billion at 4.8% GDP part of mandatory spending and need to be cut and eventually phased out.”

        Why? My IRA took a beating twice during the Bush years. It’s nice to have enough of a SS cushion so I can buy cat food while living in a refrigerator box. And, according to Reagan, Social Security has nothing to do with the national debt.

        But Glenn Kessler labels this idea as “true but false.” Made my head hurt.

        http://www DOT washingtonpost DOT com/blogs/fact-checker/post/social-security-and-its-role-in-the-nations-debt/2011/07/11/gIQAp1Wl9H_blog.html

      • Charles Vincent

        “Why? My IRA took a beating twice during the Bush years. It’s nice to
        have enough of a SS cushion so I can buy cat food while living in a
        refrigerator box. And, according to Reagan, Social Security has nothing
        to do with the national debt.”

        Because population growth is out pacing revenues and has been for a long time

        Congress cannot be trusted to administer the program they have sacked it and this is one reason the SS program is in trouble any future programs need to be out of congress so as to assure they can not use it as a personal slush fund to borrow against when they over run the budget. its part of the debt now because congress has to borrow money to fund it .

        http://crfb DOT org/blogs/cbo-social-security-looks-much-worse-we-thought

        http://www DOT npr DOT org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/09/17/223366240/cbo-report-warns-of-long-term-debt-problems

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What is “traditional government” spending? And why would you want to phase out Medicare and Medicaid? Who else is going to pay for that health care? Poor people can’t afford traditional insurance and insurance companies don’t want to underwrite old sick people. If we had a single payor we’d save a bundle.

      • Charles Vincent

        “What is “traditional government” spending?”

        The stuff in discretionary spending.

        And why would you want to phase out Medicare and Medicaid?

        I think these resources could be allocated in a much more efficient way to provide people with health services.

        “Poor people can’t afford traditional insurance and insurance”
        Poor people cant afford a 5000 dollar deductible either.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        “Poor people cant afford a 5000 dollar deductible either.”

        You just made the argument for continuing Medicaid.

      • Charles Vincent

        No I think it can be done better and not through a wasteful government bureaucracy.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What about Medicaid is wasteful? I think it’s underfunded but certainly not wasteful. Medicaid in Illinois pays pretty well for maternity. For gyn, not so much.

      • Charles Vincent

        “What about Medicaid is wasteful?”

        Government bureaucracy.

        Like via a flex account i.e. the money from the medicaid tax goes to a flex account and stays there collecting interest and when you need to use some the healthcare provider bills the account or you take the money out to pay the provider. Medicaid also does not cover any dental work, or at least very little i.e. emergency extractions and maybe cleanings for adults and that’s it.

        I think SS should work the same. except the money should be in CD’s that roll over and reinvest until you retire this would IMO stop congress from plundering the money to pay for budget overruns.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        So what’s the difference between Medicaid and traditional insurance, other than Medicaid is one program and traditional insurance is thousands of plans administered by hundreds of companies with 30% going to overhead? Both have a cache of money they use to pay charges.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Under our modern IOU-based monetary system, reeling in the U.S. national debt would be a hugely deflationary activity. Were the politicians actually to accomplish such a thing the result would be a swift and crushing deflation, the likes of which the world has never seen.

        Despite the posturing of both major U.S. political parties that’s going on right now, few politicians will be able to summon the will to reduce the debt and therefore begin contracting the U.S. and global economies.

        Source: http://wealthcycles DOT com/features/eliminating-us-national-debt-no-longer-possible

  • suburbancuurmudgeon

    One problem is people don’t understand the difference between the debt and the deficit. The Republicans have no desire to clarify that difference.

  • VALERIE MARTIN

    It really doesn’t matter does it?
    Just be honest.
    Barack Obama could reduce the national debt to ZERO,
    reduce unemployment to ZERO,
    fix EVERY little thing the GOP, Republicans, & T-Baggers
    find to bitch & moan about EVERY FRICKIN’ day of the week!!
    They will NEVER have a positive thing to say about him, EVER!!!
    Yet, after saying all that, I find myself smiling.
    I voted for Barack Obama, TWICE! brought me to tears both times.
    WHY? Because I truly believe that I and my fellow Americans got
    it right! We elected a man who actually wanted to help America & Americans.
    What a great and wonderful time in our history this had the potential to be
    if only those on the other side of the aisle had chosen to help him
    succeed instead of hoping and working to make him fail.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Just out of curiosity, how would Obama or anyone else reduce the debt to zero?

  • disqus_SSwDuMyDFK

    It never ceases to amaze me that people will quote Wikipedia like it is an absolute biblical truth. Uhm….hello?!? Any idiot can go in and change or alter that info.

  • Jim Thompson