No, it is simply a reference to that part of the debt 0bama incurred, promoted and created. We finally found something he can do really fast and well.
When economists start whipping out charts and graphs, you can be pretty sure they are lieing.
But that just makes the phrase even weirder. If you are indeed referring to the debt incurred under Obama and only under him, why would you just want to get rid of what he incurred? Why not focus on getting rid of all the debt? That would seem a smarter thing to do and say. What you're saying here is essentially, you're going to get rid of the debt Obama incurred and then stop there.
Which is just stupid really, considering Obama didn't incur the entire debt.
LIFI or FIFO, you have to start somewhere. No one said ayting about stopping at a particualr spot. Why must you imply so much or act so deliberately obtuse?
The original phrasing was "once we get rid of Obama's debt." You can look at it on the last page in Gunny's post. That implies we only get rid of the debt that Obama created, and Obama didn't create all the debt, so you guys apparently want to get rid of part of the debt. The part Obama made for whatever odd reason.