When I was reading Jeff Randall’s article at the UK Telegraph. My first reaction was that this had to be a typo. Even Obama, I thought, wouldn’t make such a spectacularly stupid claim in writing. I was wrong. Word for word, these are the very first words one reads when visiting Obama’s taxpayer funded website:
President Obama has led the way on forcing government to live within its means…
Really? This from a guy whose chief strategist, David Axelrod, claimed yesterday that “this is not the time” to address the fiscal time bomb that is Social Security, and whose Treasury Secretary (Turbo Tax Tim) recently told Paul Ryan that Obama doesn’t like the Republican’s plan, but feels no need to come up with his own, to deal with the entirely predictable fiscal calamity Obama is speeding America towards. To refresh your memory on that encounter, and to illustrate just how ridiculous the above White House claim is, watch this:
You’re all aware of magnitude of the problem — and the sublime stupidity of Obama’s claim — but I’ll end with a short reminder courtesy of Jeff Randall:
The White House website boldly claims: “President Obama has led the way on structuring the government to live within its means.” This is not even remotely true. By any measure, the US continues to spend way above its income and, as a result, its debt position is deteriorating apace.
These are the facts. George W Bush left behind a set of books that were not so much unbalanced as vertiginous. At the end of 2008, US debt was $9.9 trillion, or 69.7 per cent of GDP, and the ballooning deficit was $683 billion. Since then, all the key indicators have worsened markedly. By the end of this year, gross debt is forecast to reach $16.3 trillion (the number to which Letterman was alluding), more than 100 per cent of GDP, or a rise of two thirds under Obama. The annual deficit is close to $1.5 trillion, 10 per cent of GDP. Worse still, according to official forecasts, US debt is on course to hit $20 trillion by 2016. If this is a country living within its means, one dreads to think what would happen if Washington decided to throw a party.
How can Obama get away with such nonsense? My guess is that it has a lot to do with the low (or no) information voters which comprise his base.