This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
  • Hubris Jun 7, 2013

    Obama brings the tour. Recovery to where to be seen.

  • Billy the Kid Jun 7, 2013

    Just go play some golf and stop causing so much damage. You're not fixing anything. The charade is over.

  • NoRespect Jun 7, 2013

    Geez... I didn't see our Governor meeting with the President... did I miss something?

  • Barfly Jun 7, 2013

    The magical mystery tour is waiting to take you away. Woohoo.

  • baldchip Jun 7, 2013

    It is time for some honest government!!! IMPEACHMENT TIME!!!

  • junkmail5 Jun 7, 2013

    ROFL!! Really? You should take your own advice- Yankee1

    I do. You can tell, because you have yet to show even the slightest evidence contradicting a single fact I've ever posted.

    How many trillions has Obama added in less than five years again?

    Depends on if you count the trillions the Bush policies he inherited cost... The 2 wars and the Bush tax cuts cost trillions on their own.

    Both have been TERRIBLE for the debt overall, but Bush moreso for the things he started, and Obama moreso for not doing much of anything to change course on them.

  • IdoNOTliveinDurham Jun 7, 2013

    "Obama brings economic recovery tour to NC"
    Hilarious! April Fools

  • yankee1 Jun 7, 2013

    Facts! Try them sometime!.... junkmail5

    ROFL!! Really? You should take your own advice. How many trillions has Obama added in less than five years again? How many more scandals will it take before you figure out what Obama and his gang of puppets is all about?

  • yankee1 Jun 7, 2013

    Thank God all this rain has washed away the pile of bs Obama left in Mooresville yesterday. Is anyone, I mean besides junkmail and the boys, that unemployment is up? Guess the laser is now focused on spinning the scandal carousel! Obama's missionof destruction continues.

  • free2bme Jun 7, 2013

    Yes, ifc director. I do not live where you live. I chose not to live in the bubble. I chose not to live in all the negativity some people love to generate. I chose to believe in this country and our great President.

  • junkmail5 Jun 7, 2013

    We had Embassies and than the USS Cole Blown up and Nothing Done while Clinton was in Office- bmac813

    And yet MORE americans, MANY MANY more, died while Bush was president, not just 9/11, but both wars he started... not to mention the -13- different attacks on US consulates and embassies under Bush...

    (yet people go nuts over ONE under Obama).

    By the way junkmail, the 6 trillion Surplus was another Clinton Lie- Bmac813

    No, it wasn't. Clinton ran budget surpluses his last several years in office- first time since the 60s that happened.

    In January 2001, The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO's) baseline projections showed a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion for the 2002–2011.

    Instead we got over 6 trillion in new debt.

    Largely from the 2 unfunded Bush wars and the Bush tax cuts.

    Facts! Try them sometime!

  • Capt. Obvious Jun 7, 2013

    Unemplyment went up :(....

    Got to be bush's fault

  • bmac813 Jun 7, 2013

    China was buying a lot of Gas than. Surplus, Is that why the Economy was Falling apart when Bush took over, The Stock Market fell 47% from March to Jan that year, and than we had 9/11, and Bush had to do something that Clinton failed to do, PROTECT AMERICA, We had Embassies and than the USS Cole Blown up and Nothing Done while Clinton was in Office. OH I forgot, he did blow up an Aspirin Factory with no one in it When Monica was being Questioned under Oath.
    By the way junkmail, the 6 trillion Surplus was another Clinton Lie.
    Just like when Old Man Bush was running against Clinton. Carville and his Lying Mouth Pieces were out saying IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID. I had to Laugh, LAST WEEK ON FOX NEWS and Bill O'Reilly CARVILLE SAID < REMEMBER BILL< WHEN CLINTON WAS TAKING OFFICE THE ECONOMY WAS STARTING TO GROW. BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT TEY WERTE SAYING IN 1992. MISINFORMATION again from the liberals.

  • junkmail5 Jun 7, 2013

    junkmail, Please, Bush has been gone for over four Years now and things are not getting any Better- bmac813

    Yes, because Bush turned a 6 trillion surplus into 6 trillion more debt.... that leaves a pretty deep problem for future administrations.

    It doesn't help that Obama has mostly just continued Bush policies either.

    gas prices were $3.50 a gallon you liberal said it was because he was in with BIG OIL- bmac813

    I dunno about that since I never said it, and I'm not "you liberals"

    Gas is expensive because other nations, China especially, are buying a LOT more of it. Supply and demand.

    It's $8/gal in europe if it makes you feel any better.

    Prices in the Grocery Store are SKY ROCKETING and you people keep Blaming Bush- bmac813

    Yeah, the ethanol requirements passed under him have driven the price of corn, and the animals that it eat, through the roof.

    Prices are going up Because Oblamea wants to Tax the Rich- bmac813

    No, they REALLY aren't.

  • Relic Jun 7, 2013

    This just in...Unemployment is up because "more people are looking for work". There is no "economic" recovery and it's because of the total and complete short sightedness and ineptitude of BOTH the Democrats and Republicans, BOTH "tea partiers" and "liberals". Why can't anyone seem to get that clear? NOBODY is working to improve things EXCEPT THE AMERICAN BUSINESS OWNERS, WORKERS and CONSUMERS.

  • bmac813 Jun 7, 2013

    junkmail, Please, Bush has been gone for over four Years now and things are not getting any Better.
    When Bush was in Office and gas prices were $3.50 a gallon you liberal said it was because he was in with BIG OIL. Well Oil was $150.1 barrel, Now Gas is $3.50 and Better and Oil is between $85.00 and %95.oo a barrel I don't hear a Word from you Libs.
    Prices in the Grocery Store are SKY ROCKETING and you people keep Blaming Bush.
    Prices are going up Because Oblamea wants to Tax the Rich and all they do is Pass it down to us when we buy their Goods and Services.
    Some Liberals Please tell me something, I am Confused, If Obama is so much against the Rich, WHY is he always Dining with the Rich? How come he is always Raising MONEY with the RICH? Why does he always say one thing and than do the Opposite?
    Claims to be a Christian , Yet he supports Killing of the Unborn, Supports Gay Marriage, Even though he was against it before? Why keep believing him when he has been caught Lying so much.

  • bowslinger70 Jun 6, 2013

    Go home Obama--wherever thatr is ??

  • NoKoolAid Jun 6, 2013

    junkmail5 - frightening, too how much time you've spent on this one article. It's almost like you have a problem. Take a time out.

    Anyone with an ounce of sense knows this is just more lies, more propaganda, more campaigning. No action, no leadership, no economic recovery, no direction. Period, end of story.

  • junkmail5 Jun 6, 2013

    And again, we are arguing that deficits of a TRILLION+ dollars annually are acceptable- areyououtofyourmind

    No, we aren't.

    LITERALLY nobody has said that.

    I simply pointed out it has been going DOWN under Obama, not up, and the record was under Bushes last budget.

    All of them are unacceptably high though.

    Now, stop defending a man who has yet to have one year in which the deficit was less than a TRILLION dollars.- areyououtofyourmind

    Again, I'm not.

    You seem to have confused correcting facts with "defending" a person.

  • lrfarms27572 Jun 6, 2013

    source? or just speculation? lrfarms27572

    Your google broken again?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324216004578483223631771366.html

    "The agency attributed the drastic shift to higher-than-expected individual and corporate tax payments"

    In part that's growth, and in part it's expiring the horrendous bush tax cuts on those making over 400k.

    junkmail5

    is that what the actual budget reflects?

  • lrfarms27572 Jun 6, 2013

    [abuse] Report abuse

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------

    lrfarms27572- try googling "why has the deficit gone down" and pick your favorite media source.

    raleighindependent

    gov't budgets are public you know. have you tried looking at that or are you still getting you kicks from "the news"

  • lrfarms27572 Jun 6, 2013

    The reason why labor participation is dropping are two reasons. Declining employment for High School students and college students, which has been occuring for the past 20 years due to the increased need for a higher education, as well as baby boomers retiring. http://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomers-and-the-decline-in-the-labor-force-participation-rate-2012-2

    Bill Brasky

    no it does unfortunately for you and those that refuse to acknowledge the obvious.

    retirees are not counted. nothing described in the BLS site speaks of retirees.

    even if that were the case (if they were counted), as folks drop out of the "work force" it would show an overall increasing trend in employment even if those not currently employed remained unemployed.

    so by your own argument, as retirees leave, the number gets better giving us a false sense of job creation.

  • junkmail5 Jun 6, 2013

    Actually, there's 2 problems with your math-

    One is confusing calendar year and fiscal year.

    Two is-
    The deficit (what we are actually talking about) isn't the only thing that changes the debt.

    That's why the DEBT did not go DOWN even when Clinton had SURPLUSES for a couple of years.

    So you can't use changes in debt to tell you the deficit.

    That's your other mistake.

    What I provided was the ACTUAL deficit for each year.

  • junkmail5 Jun 6, 2013

    Total debt when Bush left office: 10,699,804,864,612 (12/31/08).

    Total debt after year one of Obama: 12,311,349,677,512

    Total debt after year two of Obama: $14,025,215,218,709

    That equals 1.7 trillion.
    areyououtofyourmind

    Uh... when Bush left office HIS BUDGET STILL HAD 9 MONTHS TO GO.

    US Fiscal year is Sept through Sept.

    You seem to be confusing that with calendar years.

    But again- I gave you the ACTUAL DEFICIT for each fiscal year.

    It was the highest, ever, FY 2009. Under the Bush budget. 1.4T

    it was lower under Obama every year, and less than half the Bush deficit for 2013 is projected.

    And has NEVER been 1.7T under anybody.

    Again-

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

    2009 (last year under a Bush budget)- 1.413 trillion (highest ever)

    2010 (first year under obama spending)- 1.294 trillion

    2011 (second year)- 1.300 trillion

  • areyououtofyourmind Jun 6, 2013

    And again, we are arguing that deficits of a TRILLION+ dollars annually are acceptable. I don't care if a stinking communist is the president (I do, but not for this example,) a trillion dollar deficit it simply unacceptable.

    We are paying nearly a 1/2 of a trillion dollars annually in interest on this debt. So, what do ALL of our esteemed leaders decide to do about this looming tragedy? SPEND MORE.

    We have never had a trillion dollar deficit until the last year of Bush II's presidency. Now? We applaud and defend 1.3!

    The financial path we are on in unsustainable. Period. Democrat in office, Republican in office, Libertarian (which I am) in office, unsustainable.

    We need our leaders to become responsible and address this or we need to become responsible and replace them.

    Now, stop defending a man who has yet to have one year in which the deficit was less than a TRILLION dollars. He's as wrong as Bush was. Period.

  • areyououtofyourmind Jun 6, 2013

    Total debt when Bush left office: 10,699,804,864,612 (12/31/08).

    Total debt after year one of Obama: 12,311,349,677,512

    Total debt after year two of Obama: $14,025,215,218,709

    That equals 1.7 trillion.

  • Bill Brasky Jun 6, 2013

    "you sir are incorrect. here, I'll let you educate yourself on how the gov't (specifically the BLS) calculates it:"

    Your post doesnt prove anything that you said. You originally claimed unemployment is going up, however we have been experiencing net positive job growth since 2010.

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001?output_view=net_1mth

    The reason why labor participation is dropping are two reasons. Declining employment for High School students and college students, which has been occuring for the past 20 years due to the increased need for a higher education, as well as baby boomers retiring.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomers-and-the-decline-in-the-labor-force-participation-rate-2012-2

  • junkmail5 Jun 6, 2013

    Stop it. The deficit exceeded 1.7 trillion under Obama two times, years one and two of his presidency.
    areyououtofyourmind

    No, it didn't.

    Why are you just making up things that are simply to disprove?

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html

    2009 (last year under a Bush budget)- 1.413 trillion (highest ever)

    2010 (first year under obama spending)- 1.294 trillion

    2011 (second year)- 1.300 trillion

    So again- highest ever- last year under Bush.

    NONE have EVER been as high as the made-up number you claimed for Obama.

  • junkmail5 Jun 6, 2013

    lrfarms27572- The reason it has gone down is because of the improving economy which has increased tax revenues...

    raleighindependent

    source? or just speculation?
    lrfarms27572

    Your google broken again?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324216004578483223631771366.html

    "The agency attributed the drastic shift to higher-than-expected individual and corporate tax payments"

    In part that's growth, and in part it's expiring the horrendous bush tax cuts on those making over 400k.

  • raleighindependent Jun 6, 2013

    lrfarms27572- try googling "why has the deficit gone down" and pick your favorite media source.

  • areyououtofyourmind Jun 6, 2013

    "The DEFICIT has never been more than 1.4 trillion. Which was under Bushes last budget (Fiscal year 2009)."

    Stop it. The deficit exceeded 1.7 trillion under Obama two times, years one and two of his presidency.

  • lrfarms27572 Jun 6, 2013

    lrfarms27572- The reason it has gone down is because of the improving economy which has increased tax revenues...

    raleighindependent

    source? or just speculation?

  • junkmail5 Jun 6, 2013

    lrfarms27572- I will venture to say that we will never see the national debt decrease in total dollar amount, that would mean a surplus budget with extra paying down the debt which I don't see happening in my lifetime.

    raleighindependent

    well maybe it's just my patriotic nature that I haven't given up on this hope yet
    lrfarms27572

    Just to be clear- the last time the national debt went DOWN was 1956->1957.

    it has gone up every single year since, under every single president, and both major parties controlling congress.

    So I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen again.

  • raleighindependent Jun 6, 2013

    lrfarms27572- The reason it has gone down is because of the improving economy which has increased tax revenues. You are no more patriotic than I, I am just a realist. The last time we had a surplus Bush gave it away in tax cuts. It will be a long time before we have another surplus, but the deficit is going down which is better than it going up. When Reagan increase the deficit he said we would grow out of it.

  • junkmail5 Jun 6, 2013

    The president chose to address his intellectual peers.
    Ripcord

    that would finally explain why Bush was reading to 5 year olds on 9/11!

  • lrfarms27572 Jun 6, 2013

    lrfarms27572- I will venture to say that we will never see the national debt decrease in total dollar amount, that would mean a surplus budget with extra paying down the debt which I don't see happening in my lifetime.

    raleighindependent

    well maybe it's just my patriotic nature that I haven't given up on this hope yet

  • lrfarms27572 Jun 6, 2013

    You should ask yourself, Why should retired people be counted that aren't looking? Not to mention the U6 unemployment numbers that count part time workers has been dropping as well from 17.1% in 2009 to 13.9% last month.

    http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

    Bill Brasky

    they're not counted read the information provided directly form the gov't BLS

  • lrfarms27572 Jun 6, 2013

    ok to be technical: w/ raleighindependant I was explain that the national debt had not decreased under Obama.

    you brought up yearly budget deficit, which is what I was commenting on in my last post- lrfarms27572

    to be technical, no, you weren't saying that.

    You said DEFICIT.

    Here's your exact words-

    "deficit going down?- are you on crack? really? the national deficit has nearly DOUBLED under the Obama admin!"

    notice how you said DEFICIT there?

    You were wrong.

    Now you're pretending you were talking about something entirely different, despite your own words proving that untrue.

    junkmail5

    Let's go pick the fly droppings out of the pepper while were at it, you and he BOTH know what I meant. stop being socratic and admit that this admin has doubled the national DEBT!

    yes the house curbed yearly DEFICIT over the past 4 years to nearly HALF of what it was

    House in 2009 - DEM

    House in 2013 - GOP

  • lrfarms27572 Jun 6, 2013

    again dept of labor DOES NOT count those not seeking a job. the number can go down when in reality the number has gone up."

    Except for the fact that we as a nation have been experiencing net positive job growth since 2010. Again, using facts you are incorrect. But I will ask, why do you care to count people who aren't looking for work? Most are in fact retired baby boomers.

    Bill Brasky

    you sir are incorrect. here, I'll let you educate yourself on how the gov't (specifically the BLS) calculates it:

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

    I posted it earlier too for all the other know-it-alls but I guess you missed that.

  • RAA0013 Jun 6, 2013

    This is Obama's De Ja Vu tour. Or should it be the Altzheimer's Tour? Either way he has to have a teleprompter to speak as he can't memorize the words and he has forgotten he has said these same tired things over and over and over. Heck - I could give this speech for him at this point from memory.

  • Bill Brasky Jun 6, 2013

    "Tell that to the millions upon millions of Americans that are no longer counted among the unemployed because they have been unemployed for so long they have given up hope of ever working again...OR the millions upon millions who had to accept part time work because there is nothing else available..."

    You should ask yourself, Why should retired people be counted that aren't looking? Not to mention the U6 unemployment numbers that count part time workers has been dropping as well from 17.1% in 2009 to 13.9% last month.

    http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

  • C6-YA Jun 6, 2013

    Don't bother Obama. This state doesn't support you anymore, it's Red once again.

  • me2you Jun 6, 2013

    Go away...we don't need your lies!

  • Ripcord Jun 6, 2013

    "The president will visit Mooresville Middle School..."

    The president chose to address his intellectual peers.

  • Billy the Kid Jun 6, 2013

    How Nixon of you, Mr President. "Getting back to work" just like he did after Watergate.

  • Bill Brasky Jun 6, 2013

    "again dept of labor DOES NOT count those not seeking a job.
    the number can go down when in reality the number has gone up."

    Except for the fact that we as a nation have been experiencing net positive job growth since 2010. Again, using facts you are incorrect. But I will ask, why do you care to count people who aren't looking for work? Most are in fact retired baby boomers.

  • JustAName Jun 6, 2013

    Currently, Jimmy Carter did a better job at employing a larger percentage of Americans than Obama is doing.

    What a legacy.

  • junkmail5 Jun 6, 2013

    I'll even give you one of the several examples of it being higher-

    1947- Debt to GDP was 121.7%

    That's the record by the way, but not the only year prior to Obama that it was over 100%.

  • junkmail5 Jun 6, 2013

    Our deficit increased from 4.5 Trillion under President Bush to 16 Trillion under President Obama- chuckyoung

    No, it didn't.

    The DEFICIT has never been more than 1.4 trillion. Which was under Bushes last budget (Fiscal year 2009).

    You seem to have confused it with the DEBT, which is an entirely different thing.

    Your numbers are STILL wrong though- the debt was over 10 trillion when Bush left office, not 4.5.

    Thats right the Senate can overwrite any proposal made my the president- Sunshine

    This doesn't even make sense as a sentence, and even less sense as an explanation of how government works.

    Other than hold hearings the senate can't do much of ANYTHING entirely by itself.

    Here's a link. First time ever the debt is more than GDP- areyououtofyourmind

    Your link only goes to 1976.

    Hint: If you wanna claim it's the first time in history, you might wanna go back more than ~35 years.

    So again, you're wrong, it has been over 100% before. Higher than it was under Obama.

  • junkmail5 Jun 6, 2013

    ok to be technical: w/ raleighindependant I was explain that the national debt had not decreased under Obama.

    you brought up yearly budget deficit, which is what I was commenting on in my last post- lrfarms27572

    to be technical, no, you weren't saying that.

    You said DEFICIT.

    Here's your exact words-

    "deficit going down?- are you on crack? really? the national deficit has nearly DOUBLED under the Obama admin!"

    notice how you said DEFICIT there?

    You were wrong.

    Now you're pretending you were talking about something entirely different, despite your own words proving that untrue.

    Thank you, GOP controlled House.
    JustAName

    Remember- anything GOOD under obama, that's the GOP doing it... anything BAD under Obama, the GOP had no responsibility!

    Nice work if you can get it.

Oldest First