A pretty good President after all...

[Alan]

Well he did cut Social Security taxes, it is in sound financial shape isn't it.

Well, according to Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, just last year, it is:

Interviewed Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Reid said he's bothered that people "run to Social Security" when "we start talking about the debt." "Social Security is a program that works and it's going to be, it's fully funded for the next 40 years. (So) stop picking on Social Security," he said.
When host David Gregory asked if the program was in crisis, Reid replied: "No, this is something that's perpetuated by people who don't like government." Then he reiterated his opinion that "Social Security is fine."

Unfortunately for Mr Reid:

The entitlement, established in 1935, has historically run surpluses. But payouts have begun to exceed revenue. Last year, the program ran a temporary deficit of $41 billion, and this year it will also pay out more than it takes in.
Temporary becomes permanent, however, in 2015, when the red ink returns one year sooner than the government's previous projection. From there on out, Social Security is projected to pay out $7.9 trillion more in benefits than it will receive in tax revenues.

[Rogar]

As the election heats up the numbers will probably be reworked in many different variations. I think the real point is that much of our current deficit that is blamed on Obama had roots in the Bush administration. A useless war in Iraq was enormously expensive and dribbled into the Obama administration. The Bush tax cuts reduced the government's ability to pay off debt. And whether TARP should or shouldn't be included, it started in the Bush administration and is a budget item that Obama tends to get sole credit..or blame.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...al_graph2.html

[Gardenarian]

Criminy, are taxes the only thing people care about?

[ApatheticNoMore]

Criminy, are taxes the only thing people care about?

+1000, really, and we wonder why this country is circling the drain. I caught myself thinking: "that's not how I'd evaluate a pretty good president after all".

And even taking the analysis, there are so many things wrong with it that I don't know where to start. Does it matter at all, what the money is spent on? Shouldn't liberals, I don't know, be willing to spend money if it's for say Social Security or environmental protection or something? No analysis at all of where this savings (assuming it is real), is coming from. Break it down: Military, entitlements, farm subsidies, whatever. What about the effect of things like record low interest rates. Seriously, record low interest rates, spending grows in part based on interest on the debt, what is the effect of this on spending growth (significant, immaterial, what?). The implementation of Obama's major program - healthcare (and he has enacted no other major spending programs - unless you want to count, and you probably should, started a few more wars), doesn't even really go into effect for a few years.

[Alan]

No analysis at all of where this savings (assuming it is real), is coming from.

There are not now, nor have there been any savings. Real federal dollars spent during the period are as follows:

2008: $2.98T
2009: $3.52T
2010: $3.46T
2011: $3.60T
2012: $3.80T
2013: $3.80T (projected)

Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com

Forget all the partisan analysis of who spent what where. Look at the numbers.