The New York Times‘ Jackie Calmes has a piece yesterday (9/26/12) on Obama’s failure to rein in the budget deficit. The big problem is that Obama’s explanation is apparently hard to follow:
Professor Obama? (photo by Natsuko)
Four years ago, Barack Obama campaigned for president on a promise to cut annual federal budget deficits in half by the end of his term. Then came financial calamity, $1.4 trillion in stimulus measures and a maddeningly slow economic recovery.
Now, despite small annual improvements, the deficit for the fiscal year that ends on Sunday will surpass $1 trillion for the fourth straight time. Against that headline-grabbing figure, Mr. Obama’s explanation–that the deficit he inherited is actually on a path to be cut in half just a year later than he promised, measured as a percentage of the economy’s total output–risks sounding professorial at best.
Huh. So the deficit will be cut in half in four years instead of five. How is that too “professorial”?
What Calmes means is that Obama is talking about the size of the deficit as a percentage of the size of the economy rather than as a dollar amount. This makes more sense than talking about the deficit as a big number isolated from any meaningful context. But that was apparently the approach the Times‘ headline writer favored: “Test for Obama as Deficit Stays Over $1 Trillion.”
This arithmetic stuff is just too hard for some folks!
“Math is hard. Let’s go shopping!”
I have said it any number of times, since the year Shrub wormed his way into office; If the republican in charge says they are going to have to take their children out and shoot them in front of them, they will accept it as fine. If the Democrats give them $1000 with no strings attached, they will decry it as a “foul and horrible and going to destroy the world”.
Peter Hart says, “So the deficit will be cut in half in four years instead of five. ”
Obama, paraphrased, says that “the deficit he inherited is actually on a path to be cut in half just a year later than he promised”
I think Peter Hart means “So the deficit will be cut in half in five years instead of four.”
It would have helped to look up the Obama 2008 campaign promise to see whether he promised to cut the deficit as a percent of GDP in half in four years. My guess is that that is not what he promised. As of March, 2009, it appears that he had promised to cut the deficit in half in five years. And not as a percent of GDP but in nominal dollars. But of course this is relying on Politifact, an organization which should not use the word “fact” in its title.
I wouldn’t call Obama’s statement “professorial.” I’d call it “fudging.”
i’d call obama a liar like most other politicians and leave it at that!
I hope Calmes went downtown and had a couple of martini’s after writing something so painfully embarassing. I have to wonder if the job pays enough to make such groveling to the corporate media worthwhile.
Also left out of Jackie Calmes’ story is the historical context. As I emailed to one of her colleagues yesterday, is it really asking too much of the NYT and its reporters to ONCE put into a story that focuses on the deficit the fact that under Reagan the deficit tripled, under Bush II it doubled (despite having inherited several annual surpluses) and that under Obama (who inherited the worst economic conditions in over three quarters of a century) it has increased some 35%?
Re “i’d call obama a liar like most other politicians and leave it at that!” (ajamu chaminuka), this seems to me to be very lazy thinking. One doesn’t have to be a professor to distinguish between Jean Valjean and Bernie Madoff (both thieves) or between a serial killer and drug addict who mugs someone to get money for a fix (both criminals), does one?
How is it beyond the average reader to grasp that $10,000 is a lot of debt, but a significant problem if you have $20,000 annual income and not much of a worry if you have $200,000 annual income?
People people I don’t mean to sound the doom day-ish, but I cant help it. We are 16-17 trillion in dept.Real numbers are far far higher.Somewhere up in the stratosphere.Unemployment numbers in the Obama years are 39 straight months at over 8%.Real numbers near 17%.We have not equaled that in the last 60years!!!When divestitures come a calling we will be talking 1 quatrillion(with a Q).Gas is up more than 100% over 4 years ago.The fed just began printing unfettered.Chinese have stopped buying our bonds,so WE are buying our own bonds with fed money(67%).They will only deal with us in petro dollars now,and they want the world to move away from the dollar as we have shown no restraints from printing, borrowing and spending.We are looking at a complete collapse in as long as 12 years but as short as this coming March.I cant even say UNLESS WE DO THIS OR THAT,because I have not been shown anything that will stop this inevitable conclusion.OBAMA and ROMNI both miss that in all their speeches.And here you are re-arguing whether or not Obama can make any headway on the deficit.What deficit?Which one?Away with your math games.I don’t know and I doubt the Mitt can turn this ship of state back into the wind..I know for sure that BAM can not.My true feeling is we are arguing on the deck of the Titanic the very idea that an iceberg can sink us.Mitt and Obama with side by side podiums on the deck debating who will best be able to save us.Trouble is the water is up to our necks.