Obama’s Broken Deficit Promise

"Feb 13, 2012 12:49pm By Jake Tapper

“This is big,” wrote White House director of new media Macon Phillips in a February 23, 2009 blog post, ”the President today promised that by the end of his first term, he will cut in half the massive federal deficit we’ve inherited. And we’ll do it in a new way: honestly and candidly.”

Indeed, President Obama did make that promise that day, saying, “today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

The 2013 budget the president submitted today does not come close to meeting this promise of being reduced to $650 billion for fiscal year 2013.

The president noted in that 2009 speech the Obama administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.

The deficit was similarly $1.3 trillion in 2011, is projected to be $1.15 trillion in 2012, and the president’s budget claims it will be $901 billion in 2013.

George Stephanopoulos asked White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew about this yesterday:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, tomorrow’s budget’s going to make it clear that that promise will not be kept, not even close, really. The deficit will be well over $1 trillion for the fourth year in a row. Why?

LEW: You know, George, as I think you know, when we took office, the economy was falling so fast that the first thing we had to do was put a bottom in. That cost money in the Recovery Act. It cost money in terms of lost revenue and slower economic growth. We’re on track now. We’ve seen several months of sustained economic growth and job creation, but we’re not out of the woods yet. That’s one of the reasons that we still need even this month for Congress to take action and pass the extension of the payroll tax cut. The president’s budget is a plan for 10 years, and over the 10 years, what it would do is bring the deficit down to below 3 percent of the economy, which means that we won’t be adding to the deficit based on current spending. Secondly, it’ll bring the debt as a percentage of the economy down to a point that all international financial organizations look at and say is what you need to do to have stability.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But not even as quickly as you were projecting several months ago.

LEW: Well, look, the economic projections in a time of — of recovery from the deepest recession in a generation are going to fluctuate. Frankly, in the last three months, we’ve had better news than we expected in terms of job growth. That’s a good thing. I think that what we have to do is focus on the long term and the short term at the same time. In the short term, we need to keep the economy growing. In the long term, we need to get the deficit under control in a way that builds the economy that can last for the future, where we build a manufacturing base, we have Americans with the skills to do the work for the future, we have energy so that we can provide for more of our energy needs, and we do it in a way that’s consistent with American values so that everyone pays a fair share."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/obamas-broken-deficit-promise/

Hmmmmmmmm..........

 

Does "hmmm" qualify as a commentary on a link?

 

Yuppers.

 

This Adm.isn't even good at Smoke & Mirrors.Or some el cheapo
magic act at a circus carnival.They are actively and with sustained
vigor,with a Politburo MSM,flaunting their excesses.
They are royally sticking the middle finger right in the TV camera
and telling ALL Americans ... Take You you Mutha Fuch.
I mean,how much more do the people have to expect.

 

And that's why I found your thread lost at the bottom page page two.

GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.

END THREAD-

 

Obama joins a growing list of recent presidents going back to 1981, with the exception of President Clinton, who have made pledges about reducing the deficit but failed to deliver.

I never liked Obama's half hearted attitude about the deficits, which was a main reason I supported Clinton over Obama.

 

That was in sept of 2009 that Obama made that Pledge.
A President has to be held to account for his pledges.That is one
area where there is no wiggle room.
Obama seems to think he can slide on just about anything.

 

The electorate and conservatives let Reagan slide and let Bush slide. So I disagree that this is a case were Obama is likely to be held to his pledges any more than the others were.

 

And I supported Obama over Clinton. I knew Obama had problems, like the Rev. Wright thing, but I chose to trust him over the Clintons.

Right now, I'm very sorry for that decision, except for the fact that having a wild man like Obama in office brings liberalism that much closer to the public's realization that it should be shunned and destroyed.

 

I'm not sure why you are disappointed. Obama all along said his repeal of the Bush tax cuts would be limited.

 

Bush was thrown out for his "read my lips" pledge. Time to do the same with Obama.

 

Reagan promise to cut the deficit was ignored by the electorate and conservatives who re-elected him in a landslide. Bush2 squandered the rare opportunity of a surplus budget and gave us new record deficits, and conservatives put him back in office for another term.

Why the double standard?

And are you applying the same standard to the Tea Party Republicans who refused to compromise one inch to get a budget deficit reduction deal done?

 

The Tea Party people have a certain belief they follow and do not speak for the majority of conservatives. Also I did not see the democrats compromising on any republican legislation. Blaming one party for this is irresponsible.

 

Obama offered up trillions in cuts in spending including Democratic sacred cows SS and medicaid/care for which he took a lot of flack from his own party.

How much more of a compromise did you need?

Where were the conservatives compromising on a tax increase?

Are you going to hold them to the same standard you hold Obama?

So you aren't blaming Obama? Good for you.

 

I'm disappointed for the same reason you are, because he is half-hearted about the deficits.

Also because he seems to be very dishonest.

 

Got a link where it shows how much he was going to cut out of ss and medicare? Not saying I don't believe you, I just don't remember hearing about it.

 

The Obama administration, in seeking $4 trillion in spending cuts in a debt limit deal, has put major changes to Social Security and Medicare on the table if Republicans agree to increased tax revenues.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-puts-medicare-social-security-cuts-table-031442907.html

 

Well thanks for the link but there were no numbers attached to this proposal apparantly. I'm skeptical that Obama would ever touch the entitlement programs and this article doesn't offer any proof that he would have.

I know for a fact that any reduction in entitlements would never see the light of day in the Senate. Look how they demonized the republicans for putting out legislation for a modest reduction in medicare.

 

The article mentions a $4 trillion deal in cuts.

How can you have proof of a deal when there was no deal because the other side is unwilling to compromise?

Where is your proof that the Republicans were offering an increase in taxes?

Hell, I'll even take an article where they even mentioned the prospect, much less proof of how much they offered.

 

Reagan ran deficits just long enough to get out of the Stagflation
Jimmy Carter years.Certainly not FOUR years.

 

Is that what Rush and Sean told you?

Year - Deficit on budget
1980 -73.1
1981 -73.9
1982 -120.6
1983 -207.7
1984 -185.3
1985 -221.5
1986 -237.9
1987 -168.4
1988 -192.3
1989 -205.4

 

That was disputed by Speaker Boehner.Obama traispsing around
bragging he cut a deal with Boehner to slash $ 4 trillion was never
even remotely put in writing.It was Obama's word against Boehner.
Obama did it so he could appear like a cutter,and then make Boehner
look like someone inflexible.Obama was purely calling Boehners bluff
which should tell you something about the honor of this president.
Practicularly given the seriousness of the Debt.Which the Democrats
are right now,scoffing down.

 

What tax increase offer of compromise did Boehner put on the table?

 

More numbers again.Reagan at this time in his Presidency was
well on the way to a Booming Economy not the Fairy Tale
this President is advertising.Obama is a Disaster.He is banking on the
sheer stupidy of many in this Country.The same ones who bought his
juvenile Hope & Change message.That's all most Obama voters cared about.
Anyone who thinks Unemployment is at 8.3% needs their head examined.
Both S.Carolina and Florida,even under Obama's cushy standards of
applying unemployment were at 9.9% when they held their Primaries.
If the Unemployment is coming down,it's because of States like
Ohio and Wisconsin where Big Republican Governors did what Reagan
would have.Cut programs and cut spending and got their fiscal house
in order.Look at Obama home state ... Illinois.It's near default.
Illinois has raised and created new taxes like a Mad Hatter.
And still they're bankrupt. Obama's model is doomed to failure like
Illinois.Yer silly numbers game don't mean squat.

 

More baseless nonsense again.

Reagan at this point in his presidency had seen the unemployment rate rise just as much as Obama has.

And Reagan didn't inherit the worst economy in 80 years.