Four Pinocchios for Obama
Obama: lying again.
Obama is getting four PInocchios for his comments blaming the deficit on Bush. And this is from Glenn Kessler, hack extraordinaire who falsely accused Romney of taking those redistribution comments out of context. But even Kessler can’t stand by and watch as Obama blames 90% of the deficit on Bush:
Obama certainly inherited an economic mess, and that accounts for a large part of the deficit. But Obama pushed for spending increases and tax cuts that also have contributed in important ways to the nation’s fiscal deterioration. He certainly could argue that these were necessary and important steps to take, but he can’t blithely suggest that 90 percent of the current deficit “is as a consequence” of his predecessor’s policies — and not his own.
As for the citing of the discredited MarketWatch column, we have repeatedly urged the administration to rely on estimates from official government agencies, such as the White House budget office. It is astonishing to see the president repeat this faulty claim once again, as if it were an established fact.
Astonishing, I tell you!
In shocking news, Kessler has done nothing to correct his misleading post on the redistribution comment.
Astonishing!
Key point from above analysis:
“But he has also supported permanently extending the Bush tax cuts for Americans making less than $250,000, which by itself will shrink federal revenues for years to come. That means these are no longer Bush’s tax cuts, but Obama’s.”
LOL.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:11 amThat has been pointed out for two years, PT. More importantly, Obama signed the extension of the rates. They have been his tax rates for years now.
You snark again only reinforces your stupidity.
SPQR (32142d) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:20 amBaby steps, you can’t go from chartered accountancy to lion taming;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/from-video-to-terrorist-attack-a-definitive-timeline-of-administration-statements-on-the-libya-attack/2012/09/26/86105782-0826-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
narciso (ee31f1) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:21 amNote that Bush’s tax cuts came in the wake of the dot-com crash (which was Clinton’s fault). Not only does Obama falsely claim that Bush inherited and squandered a surplus — no one was predicting that would continue in 2001 — but he fails to understand that Bush’s tax cuts were the stimulus that prevented a recession. If the cuts had not already been in place when the WTC was hit, the downturn that followed might have been far worse.
Two can play this “look what we prevented” game.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:29 amTillman wants to raise taxes on the middle class
Icy (735d7a) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:35 amWhy do I keep thinking of “Tea for the Tillerman”?
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:43 amI’m pretty certain I know who Bush was, it’s Greenspan I was confused about.
Trophy wife Andrea ain’t the prob.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:44 amIs it just me, or does “P Tillman” look like a tasteless joke on Pat Tillman to others as well?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:45 amHave you looked at Andrea lately?
The patina on that trophy is starting to show.
Icy (735d7a) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:47 am“P Tillman”
look likeis a tasteless joke— Fixed
Icy (735d7a) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:50 amP. Tillman,
Your education continues…
First of all, it’s been a decade after the actual reduction in tax rates took place, therefore, they’re no longer “tax cuts.”
They’re now tax rates, and they’ve merely been maintained at the same level. A “cut” is a reduction. Obama didn’t sign for a reduction—he signed for a maintenance on existing rates. It’s just basic math, pal.
Secondly, if you do still want to call them tax cuts, and then do an end zone about it, it’s an implicit admission on your part (and Obambi’s) that tax “cuts” are a good thing.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:53 amAnd if that is the case, then why are you lefties always screaming that tax cuts are bad for the economy ?
Why do I keep thinking of “Tea for the Tillerman”?
— Because it was written by a Muslim . . . you racist.
Icy (735d7a) — 9/27/2012 @ 8:55 amThe Wall Street Journal ran an editorial about this on Tuesday:
The 10% President
The annotated Obama: How 90% of the deficit becomes somebody else’s fault.
Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 9/27/2012 @ 9:41 am“The annotated Obama: How 90% of the deficit becomes somebody else’s fault.”
To be fair, I agree that Obama’s statement is not accurate.
100% of the deficit is Bush’s fault…he came in with a surplus, and then POOF! No Bush = no deficit.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/27/2012 @ 9:45 amIllman’s daily lie and hate-fest to commence …
JD (7e251a) — 9/27/2012 @ 9:48 am“No Bush = no deficit.”
Petey – That equation has not worked for Obama, perhaps due to the increased spending, which he has not intentions of trimming back to Bush levels.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/27/2012 @ 9:50 amPetey has always been an economic illiterate here under all the various names it has used.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/27/2012 @ 9:58 amGreetings:
My personal favorite is President Obama’s whine about Bush “tax cuts” not having been “paid for”. So, if the government doesn’t take your hard-earned money, someone or something should pay for that.
Mind-boggling.
11B40 (3db209) — 9/27/2012 @ 10:09 amKind of curious coming from Obama’s Gepettoes. You have to dig deeper for their false-flag purpose. For one thing, they are using the perception of criticizing Obama for making the claim that lower taxes lead to fiscal ruin.
j curtis (be8a02) — 9/27/2012 @ 10:15 amThe problems with Obama’s claims: (rewriting what the Wll Street Journal had to say)
Claim number 1: Obama inherited the biggest deficit in history
You can claim the last Bush deficit was the biggest deficit in history (up to that point!! Another thing Obama ignores) only if you use nominal dollars I think. Or at best dollars that ignore the size of the economy.
As a percentage of Gross National Product (now called Gross Domestic Product) the biggest deficit was Fiscal 1943 (July 1 1942-June 30, 1943) when it was 30.3% The next biggest were Fiscal 1944 and Fiscal 1945, when it was 22.7% and 21.5%, respectively. The deficit in Fiscal 2008 (October 1, 2007-Sept. 30, 2008) was 3.2% of GDP and the one for Fiscal 2009 (October 1, 2008-September 30, 2009) was 10.1. This was the largest since World War II, but not the largest in history.
Claim number 2: Obama is only responsible for 10% of the deficit
Obama claims his “emergency actions” – the stimulus and maybe the payroll tax cuts – are only responsible for 10% of the deficit, and 90% of the deficit was caused by the Bush tax cuts, the prescription drug plan, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
1. You can’t put any blame at all on the Bush tax cuts because by Fiscal 2006 and 2007 (running from October 1 of the previous year through September 30 of the calendar years 2006 and 2007) tax revenues were back up at historic norms as a percentage of GDP.
Furthermore, Obama is now for most of the Bush tax cuts because 71% of the “cost” is from people whose rates he wants to keep the same.
2. Obama can’t really blame the Medicare Part D
because, as far as we know, Obama was all for the 2003 prescription drug plan, and enlarged it as part of Obamacare (eliminating the doughnut hole) with no specific tax increases or spending cuts to pay for it.
3. And the Iraq war was winding down as he came into office and he increased spending on the Afghanistan war with the surge.
If these things caused the deficit, he is responsible for and/or agrees with much of it.
Indeed the real cause is the number 4, the economy. And if the stimulus is the only way he increased the current deficit, he should claim near 0% responsibility maybe.
What caused income tax revenue to decline was the recession – and in recessions, income of high earners falls a lot more than aggregated income of more average people, and income tax revenues drop by a greater percentage than the percentage decline in the economy, because we have a progressive tax system. (as Jerry Brown has noted)
But the recession has not caused the deficits of the size under Obama. It’s rather the very slow recovery.
Revenues are below 16% of GDP. That’s not because of Bush tax cuts. They were over 18% before the recession.
Claim number 3: Obama is keeping a tighter rein on federal spending than anyone since Eisenhower in the 1950s.
Obama also said to 60 Minutes that the federal government is now growing at a slower pace than any time since the Eisenhower Administration.
There are two problems with this last claim:
First, he has baked in more deficit spending with Obamacare, so this trend is not going to continue.. Second we now have a higher baseline for spending, since the stimulus is in the baseline.
Annual growth in government spending is now running at 5% says the Wall Street Journal editorial page- this is before anything hits from Obamacare.
Of course a lot of the spending increase has to do with he poor economy.
So it really all goes back to the economy.
Sammy Finkelman (1190c5) — 9/27/2012 @ 10:29 am“Of course a lot of the spending increase has to do with he poor economy.”
Sammy – Really? How much do you estimate?
Of the now trillion dollar permanently higher baseline spending established by Obama after factoring in TARP and Porkulus in Fiscal 2009, how much is discretionary policy spending?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/27/2012 @ 11:08 amSammy,
If MORE spending equates a BETTER economy, then how come it has happened during the past 4 years ?
And how come when the economy was last “good,” (2007) it accomplished so with less government spending ?
Oy vey.
Elephant Stone (65d289) — 9/27/2012 @ 11:17 amIt’s all pretty much like this;
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/09/27/carney-we-didnt-lie-about-libya-we-just-said-things-that-werent-true/
narciso (ee31f1) — 9/27/2012 @ 11:47 am100% of the deficit is Bush’s fault…he came in with a surplus, and then POOF! No Bush = no deficit.
Comment by P. Tillman — 9/27/2012 @ 9:45 am
— Bush is responsible for Obama’s deficit. You heard it here first!
Icy (735d7a) — 9/27/2012 @ 12:50 pm1. Keller is not a trustworthy source. (~T)
Leviticus (61da63) — 9/27/2012 @ 12:50 pm2. Keller is a trustworthy source. (T)
_________________________________________
Therefore, Johnson will win the election in November. (W)
“If MORE spending equates a BETTER economy, then how come it has happened during the past 4 years ?”
Uh, because not all spending was created equally.
Obviously.
P. Tillman (fcbc8b) — 9/27/2012 @ 1:03 pmWe needed more bigger better stimulus creating bigger deficits and debts!!!!
JD (7e251a) — 9/27/2012 @ 1:08 pmToo true. For instance: consumers earning higher wages, and spending those wages on goods & services = good; government taking more money from the providers of goods & services AND the payers of higher wages = bad.
Icy (735d7a) — 9/27/2012 @ 1:12 pm21.“Of course a lot of the spending increase has to do with he poor economy.”
Comment by daleyrocks — 9/27/2012 @ 11:08 am
Sammy – Really? How much do you estimate?
I don’t know. I don’t even know how much higher it is.
But there are more people now on Food Stamps, on Medicaid, on other insurance, on Social Security, collecting unemployment insurance.
Of the now trillion dollar permanently higher baseline spending established by Obama after factoring in TARP and Porkulus in Fiscal 2009, how much is discretionary policy spending?
Probably not too much. Did any major bills pass increasing spending?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 9/27/2012 @ 1:44 pmWe’re all on track for an Obamaphone now. Thank you Obamy.
SarahW (b0e533) — 9/27/2012 @ 4:33 pmWhat needs to be repeated is this.
In 2004, per capita spending was less than $8000.
If per capita spending was reduced to $8000, there would be a budget surplus.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 9/27/2012 @ 11:20 pmOh come on, didn’t Romney’s campaign say that they will not allow themselves to be dictated to by factcheck? Denounce yourselves for this double standard. 🙂
The Emperor (97d748) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:12 amHush, lovie. You are an idiot.
JD (318f81) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:16 amjd is in love with a strawman…
The Emperor (97d748) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:21 amLove, are you claiming that factcheck got this one wrong?
Icy (f5a1fc) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:25 amThe only strawperson was your attempt to distract from Obama’s blatant lies, sonlatant that even Kessler couldn’t ignore them, by doing a SQUIRREL and trying to change the subject to the Romney campaign.
JD (318f81) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:27 am@icy, since when does factcheck matter here? Am I missing something?
The Emperor (97d748) — 9/28/2012 @ 11:40 am22. Elephant stone
Sammy,
If MORE spending equates a BETTER economy, then how come it has happened during the past 4 years ?
And how come when the economy was last “good,” (2007) it accomplished so with less government spending ?
I didn’t say that MORE spending will create a better economy. That is Keynesism, which has never worked. Romney shouldn’t use any Keynesian arguments. Cutting spending won’t cause a recession easier. Neither will raising taxes and lowering them may make it easier to raise money but won;t help the economy. what counts is monetary policy. Spending more only helps to the extent it increases the money supply.
A lot of money has now been destroyed in Europe and it’s beginning to affect us.
Financial crisis destroy money. The money must be replaced.
Sammy Finkelman (70f9a1) — 9/30/2012 @ 3:06 pm