pal, when you make a statement that is untrue, it is a lie. furthermore, there isn't a need for a panel of "truth tellers" because the truth is what it is, nothing more or less. I suspect that you do not like the truth when it fails to agree with your world view.
This doesn't tell the entire story. Yes the deficit has been cut in half compared to fiscal year 2009 but that is the year when the deficit swelled due to the massive stimulus program. Since this was one time spending a more fair and honest assessment for Obama's deficit reduction success would be to compare to 2008. Last years deficit was still higher than 2008. More importantly, Obama has not put the government on a path that will keep deficits stable. Even without the wars you mention and higher taxes under Obama last years deficit is even worse than 2008. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45471-Long-TermBudgetOutlook_7-29.pdf
No, 2009 was the last George Bush budget. It is a logical place to start comparing Obama's budgets. Of course, but the GDP is also higher! The deficit has fallen from 3.1% of GDP to 2.7 %. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYFSGDA188S The graph in the article you posted has the deficit as essentially flat for the next 15 years. Beyond that it is more speculative and hard to blame Obama for, especially since the budgets were authorized by a Republican Congress.
Haven't you learned by now that when the republicans do it it's ok, but when President Blackenstein does it, he is a traitor? Amnesty... Prime example.
Please remember that it was Bush who signed the stimulus into law, not Obama. Would Obama have done so if Bush had not, yes, I'm sure he would have.....I don't know that there was any other choice at the time given the gravity of the situation. That said, most conservatives like to try and lay that at Obama's feet but to be sure the name on that piece of legislation is Bush. I think Obama has done all that he can to put the government on a path that will keep deficits stable. He is only part of the equation when it comes to economic legislation. I would say we are in a time of unprecedented partisanship, as evidenced by our inability to even get an infrastructure bill that's worth a damn, and that there is plenty of blame to go around for that. You are correct that the deficit was extremely low in 2008 and we all know why: we had a housing bubble that was on the cusp of bursting, our economy had been artificially propped up by loans that the banks would refuse to stand behind only months later after the crash of Lehman, etc. To be honest I think that Obama has been much to concerned with the debt and deficit, and we could have recovered faster with a more robust stimulus that included some bold infrastructure projects that would put people to work and repair our crumbling infrastructure that had largely been built during and right after the depression. Spending on things like infrastructure are an investment in our collective future. There are no Republican or Democrat high speed rails, just high speed rails that everyone benefits from.
It's actually been pretty funny to watch so many conservatives espouse Obama's ideas when they come from Trump's mouth. Raising taxes on the top tax brackets, Maintaining the Iran agreement, Maintaining funding for Planned Parenthood, Advocating a strong workers union.........a thing of beauty I tell ya.
I'll be kind and say that is an exaggeration. Steel and other manufacturing industries were so inefficient and non competitive they were losing money hand over fist. Unions AND management were not responsive to the new competition from overseas. It wasn't only high wages, poor work rules, but bloated management, old infrastructure, over capacity, poor quality and complacency that made US steel, cars and other heavy industrial products unable to stand on its feet. Reagan ended support and made these industries learn how to compete. Was it hard and create hardship? Yes. However the result was that the different industries, steel specifically rebounded and is a vigorous competitor with new plants being built all over. To blame Reagan (or Carter or any other president) for the tidal changes brought about by a rebounding Europe and Japan (NOT CHINA) is at best ignorant.
Boy, you sure do make it sound like old Ronnie really cleaned'em up. When you say that "Reagan ended support and made these industries learn how to compete...." your the one who is exaggerating here. You make it sound so sanitized and clean but Ronald Reagan made US companies compete against Chinese companies who had no worker safety standards, who had no standards about the quality of steel they produced and shipped to the US, who had no minimum wage. Reagan paved the way for the Wal-Mart's of this world by "making us compete" as you call it. This is also the same time that we began to see wages flat-lining across all manufacturing sectors and snapped the first vertebrae of the middle class' back. I do blame Reagan, not because I do not understand that there are other factors at play, but because his so called "competition" wasn't on a level playing field at all. Every factor that you listed above that led to the problems in steel and other manufacturers were correctable and fixable.
