Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The American auto industry is thriving, and the American taxpayer got a return on their investment. I hear that Ford is adding third shifts to their plant, and canceling the usual two week vacation this summer.
Ford, GM shares gain on Moody's upbeat view - MarketWatch
I have to call Bull Shit.
Obama had nothing to do with Ford. They never took TARP funds. GM is another thing. They asked for billions more after already receiving $40 billion in economic aid. They're still in debt to the Treasury a roughly $20 billion.
Ford stock was still less than $2 a share, in January '09. Ford still did benefit from the Cash-For-Clunkers program.
Cash For Clunkers Boosts Ford Production: "Eye-Popping" Sales in August
Posted by: David Kiley on August 13, 2009
Yeah right, call bullshit and claim that Obama had nothing to do with Ford. The facts show you wrong.
Oh, so the $5 trillion in new debt is just a figment of everyone's imagination.
I'm so relieved.
The statistic quoted was SPENDING - not DEFICIT.
Do you understand the difference?
But what creates those deficits?
I have to call Bull Shit.
Obama had nothing to do with Ford. They never took TARP funds. GM is another thing. They asked for billions more after already receiving $40 billion in economic aid. They're still in debt to the Treasury a roughly $20 billion.
Ford stock was still less than $2 a share, in January '09. Ford still did benefit from the Cash-For-Clunkers program.
Cash For Clunkers Boosts Ford Production: "Eye-Popping" Sales in August
Posted by: David Kiley on August 13, 2009
Yeah right, call bullshit and claim that Obama had nothing to do with Ford. The facts show you wrong.
He had nothing to do with it. The Cash For Clunkers program lasted only a few weeks and went broke. Many of th purchases were by companies replacing their fleets. And much of the profit went to foreign auto purchases because they qualified. The result was over $2 billion. Came out of the Treasury to pay for new cars for large corporations. Thousands of perfectly good cars were scrapped. The program was broke in a fraction of the time they intended it to operate.
Pelosi's bogus chart.
"We can see why a liberal group would tout such numbers, since -- if accurate -- they offer powerful counterevidence to the claims by conservatives that President Barack Obama has been a spendthrift whos set the nation on an unsustainable fiscal path.
But the reader who sent it to us was surprised to see the debt increase under Obama was so small. So we decided to check the numbers.
The chart actually comes from a Flickr page belonging to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who posted it on May 5, 2011. Specifically, the chart tracks "percent increase in public debt" for the five presidents during the following time periods -- January 1981 to January 1989 (Reagan), January 1989 to January 1993 (George H.W. Bush), January 1993 to January 2001 (Clinton), January 2001 to January 2009 (George W. Bush), and January 2009 to April 2011 (Obama).
We checked with Pelosis office to see what data they used to assemble the chart. They referred us to the U.S. Treasurys "Debt to the Penny Calculator."
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...pelosi-posts-questionable-chart-debt-accumul/
The statistic quoted was SPENDING - not DEFICIT.
Do you understand the difference?
But what creates those deficits?
From 2005 to 2009, the Bush Administration increased the federal debt by $4.521 billion.
From 2009 to the end of 2011, the Obama Administration increased the federal debt by $4.334 billion - and yet the Republicans act as if they only discovered that the debt was a problem after Obama took office.
History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"we quickly discovered the source of the discrepancy: Whoever put the chart together used the date for jan. 20, 2010 -- which is exactly one year to the day after obama was sworn in -- rather than his actual inauguration date. We know this because treasury says the debt for jan. 20, 2010, was $12.327 trillion, which is the exact number cited on the supporting document that pelosis office gave us.
However this error happened, it effectively took one year of rapidly escalating debt out of obamas column and put it into bushs, significantly skewing the numbers."
From 2005 to 2009, the Bush Administration increased the federal debt by $4.521 billion.
From 2009 to the end of 2011, the Obama Administration increased the federal debt by $4.334 billion - and yet the Republicans act as if they only discovered that the debt was a problem after Obama took office.
History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The point is that the worst criticism the conservatives can direct at Obama is that he's spending like a Republican!From 2005 to 2009, the Bush Administration increased the federal debt by $4.521 billion.
From 2009 to the end of 2011, the Obama Administration increased the federal debt by $4.334 billion - and yet the Republicans act as if they only discovered that the debt was a problem after Obama took office.
History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What point are you trying to make?
The point is that the worst criticism the conservatives can direct at Obama is that he's spending like a Republican!From 2005 to 2009, the Bush Administration increased the federal debt by $4.521 billion.
From 2009 to the end of 2011, the Obama Administration increased the federal debt by $4.334 billion - and yet the Republicans act as if they only discovered that the debt was a problem after Obama took office.
History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What point are you trying to make?
I'm glad we agree - a "god" no but perhaps a "demi god" (half man, half god) would be a more appropriate description."we quickly discovered the source of the discrepancy: Whoever put the chart together used the date for jan. 20, 2010 -- which is exactly one year to the day after obama was sworn in -- rather than his actual inauguration date. We know this because treasury says the debt for jan. 20, 2010, was $12.327 trillion, which is the exact number cited on the supporting document that pelosis office gave us.
However this error happened, it effectively took one year of rapidly escalating debt out of obamas column and put it into bushs, significantly skewing the numbers."
lies! All lies! It's all bush's fault! Obama is god!
"The T;5334499" also conveniently omits to mention that Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 2001 to 2007, 6 of the 8 years that GW Bush increased the federal debt/GDP ratio from 56.4% to 84.2% of GDP - up 27.8%.The point is that the worst criticism the conservatives can direct at Obama is that he's spending like a Republican!What point are you trying to make?
As Democrats have held both houses since 2007 until 2011.
"The T;5334499" also conveniently omits to mention that Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 2001 to 2007, 6 of the 8 years that GW Bush increased the federal debt/GDP ratio from 56.4% to 84.2% of GDP - up 27.8%.The point is that the worst criticism the conservatives can direct at Obama is that he's spending like a Republican!
As Democrats have held both houses since 2007 until 2011.
Liberals are so evil and stupid.
"The chart has some basic conceptual flaws. For instance, as the debt keeps getting higher, the possible percentage increases will keep getting smaller.
A bogus chart on Obama and the debt gets a new lease on life - The Washington Post
"Under the mixed-up logic of this chart, a person can go from 10 to 20, and that would be a 100 percent increase. If the next person goes from 20 to 30, thats only a 50 percent increase, even though the numerical increase (10) is the same.
The chart also cherry-picks the data that portray Obama in the best light by claiming to show public debt but in actuality using the statistics for gross debt.
Gross debt includes intergovernmental transactions such as bonds held by Social Security and Medicare, but public debt is the more commonly used figure of national indebtedness, at least among economists.
*If the chart actually used public debt rather than gross debt, it would have put Obama and George W. Bush virtually in the same league 60 percent increase (as of September 2011) for Obama versus 70 percent for Bush even though Bush served as president much longer.
*
But the biggest problem is that this is just dumb math. What really counts is not the raw debt numbers, but the size of the debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The GDP is the broadest measure of the national economy and directly indicates the nations ability to service its debts. In fact, the White House budget office historical tables portray much of the data as a percentage of GDP, because that is the best way to truly compare such numbers over time."
