WaPo repeats “inherited” deficit fallacy

posted at 2:00 pm on December 8, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Is it too much to ask that political reporters and their editors pass a basic civics test?  Joel Achenbach isn’t the first reporter to refer to the ballooning federal deficits as something Barack Obama “inherited,” but one might have thought that the editors of the Washington Post might have finally flipped through a basic primer on legislation and spending, as well as recall when the FY2009 budget actually got passed:

But it may not be boring forever. The United States owes investors nearly $8 trillion. That number could more than double in a decade. The projected growth of the federal debt is widely viewed as unsustainable. It’s unlikely that the nation will ever default, but neither is that any longer unthinkable.

President Obama is expected to address the burgeoning debt in a major economic speech Tuesday in Washington. He inherited a huge deficit, and there’s nothing but red ink as far as the eye can see. The administration has estimated that there will be $1 trillion-plus shortfalls through 2011, followed by $700-billion-plus shortfalls through 2019.

Whopper budget deficits for so many years will mean that the cumulative debt will creep up as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product. How much debt the country can handle is debatable. The problem is that, if investors think the United States isn’t fiscally responsible, they could start demanding much higher interest rates when they bid on Treasury securities. The feedback loop could get ugly. The nation could have to borrow hundreds of billions just to pay interest on what it owes. This has been touted as a classic path to irreversible national decline.

“Right now, this year, we have 1.6 trillion in debt coming due. That’s roughly twice individual income tax revenue. Our only plausible strategy for paying that back is to borrow more money,” says Leonard Burman, an economist at Syracuse University.

Well, that’s not exactly true, Dr. Burman.  We could start cutting the size and cost of the federal government instead of expanding it.  We could then use the money we save to start paying off some of our debt, as well as use the increased revenues from better economic performance that would result.

But back to the civics lesson.  Budgets do not come from the White House.  They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.  They controlled the budget process for FY2008 and FY2009, as well as FY2010 and FY2011.  In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.  For FY2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.  At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time?  He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY2009.

Let’s remind people of what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets.  That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.  After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.  If Obama “inherited” anything, he inherited it from himself.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It’s unfair to call libs on their ways. And mean-spirited.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM

OT:

Here comes “Cash for Caulkers

Joe Caps on December 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM

A few weeks back, Obama blamed the deficit, in part, on Bush’s prescription drug program.

So, really, by this logic. The entire deficit isn’t Obama’s fault. It’s FDR’s fault, it’s Nixon’s fault, it’s Clinton’s fault. Etc etc.

Unless he continues forth with these programs, then it’s his fault. Good thing he stopped the prescription drug program to prevent future deficits.

Oh. He didn’t?

lorien1973 on December 8, 2009 at 2:03 PM

Joe Caps on December 8, 2009 at 2:02 PM

LOL

They emphasized that the $700 billion TARP program will end up costing the government $200 billion less than anticipated, helping to create fiscal room for job creation programs while simultaneously attacking the deficit.

We totally have $200 billion left over from the $700 billion that we didn’t have. So let’s spend it.

lorien1973 on December 8, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Pin the Tail on the Donkey anyone?

hawkman on December 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM

From the AP:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama outlined new multibillion-dollar stimulus and jobs proposals Tuesday, saying the nation must continue to “spend our way out of this recession” until more Americans are back at work.

Yeah! More spending! That’s the ticket!

Abby Adams on December 8, 2009 at 2:06 PM

The White House has had the lead on the budget for decades. Not that Congress is unengaged, but the big moment in the budget debate is when the President gives the big speech and sends the big line-item binder to the Hill. After that, it’s largely quibbling over a few billion here and there. With the exception of last year, I can’t recall a budget that wasn’t very close to what the President wanted since at least the Carter Administration.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM

“We inherited a deficit, so, clearly, the only solution is to adopt policies that exacerbate the deficit and make it infinitely worse.”

blatantblue on December 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM

lorien1973 on December 8, 2009 at 2:03 PM

You’re so ignorant! /SARC, I promise!!!!

Facts are a liberal’s bane. Never use them again! They’re sensitive! You might hurt their delicate feelings!

Now stop. You’re being unfair and mean-spirited, you evil member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy (you’re lucky I used caps there, too, BTW)

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Had Bush not gone along with them initially…oh nevermind…they’d have done it anyways.

SouthernGent on December 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM

We totally have $200 billion left over from the $700 billion that we didn’t have. So let’s spend it.

lorien1973 on December 8, 2009 at 2:05 PM

“and Oh, BTW…It’s not my fault.

Caper29 on December 8, 2009 at 2:08 PM

Rush summed the economic speech today up perfectly.

Obama basically said, “It’s all Booosh’s fault and I’m great.”

kingsjester on December 8, 2009 at 2:10 PM

It’s hard for the media to be objective from inside Obama’s trousers.

1. Get out
2. Get some sunshine
3. Do your jobs

If you can’t, give up your jobs and go into prostitution. It’s definitely a more honorable profession than yours.

Schadenfreude on December 8, 2009 at 2:10 PM

These people are incredibly stupid but they are counting on the American people being just as dumb.
The problem is that it is increasingly difficult to overlook the fact that we are spending money we don’t have.
We didn’t have the money for TARP. The American people knew that, now we are going to spend that money we didn’t have because we didn’t spend it?
College students can handle money better.

ORconservative on December 8, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Joel Achenbach clearly isn’t one of the WaPo’s first string. Really stupid mistake on his part.

WarEagle01 on December 8, 2009 at 2:12 PM

College students can handle money better.
ORconservative on December 8, 2009 at 2:10 PM

My ex-wives can handle money better than this bunch. And that’s saying a lot.

kingsjester on December 8, 2009 at 2:12 PM

We totally have $200 billion left over from the $700 billion that we didn’t have. So let’s spend it.

lorien1973 on December 8, 2009 at 2:05 PM

Why can’t I keep writing checks? I still have some left in my checkbook!

LOL

rockmom on December 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Can we stop and ask some questions here: Why did the banks give it back? Did they really not need it? Are they paying it back with other funds they were given? Are they paying it back so they can get out from under the thumb of government?
Then let’s ask a question about what the government is going to do with the money they get back from the banks. If they are spending it on job creation, what was the stim package for? Does that mean it was a failure? If creating jobs was so important to this adminsitration then why didn’t they make that their first priority instead of Cap and Tax and the healcare bill? I also thought that passage of the healthcare bill was going to help the economy? Since it’s so close to passage, why isn’t the economy starting to turn around? And if the healthcare bill was so important to the economy, why isn’t it going to be implemented for four more years?
Kind of makes you go HMMM?

thetriguy on December 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM

With the exception of last year, I can’t recall a budget that wasn’t very close to what the President wanted since at least the Carter Administration.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM

You either haven’t been paying attention or have very serious memory problems.

jwolf on December 8, 2009 at 2:17 PM

The White House has had the lead on the budget for decades. Not that Congress is unengaged, but the big moment in the budget debate is when the President gives the big speech and sends the big line-item binder to the Hill. After that, it’s largely quibbling over a few billion here and there. With the exception of last year, I can’t recall a budget that wasn’t very close to what the President wanted since at least the Carter Administration.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Execpt whenever there is a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, the Congressional leaders immediately declare the President’s budget “dead on arrival” and proceed to pass their own which soends at least 10% more than the President requests. Then they spend the entire next two years running a campaign against the Republicans’ “draconian cuts” in everything.

We aren’t letting them get away with it anymore.

rockmom on December 8, 2009 at 2:19 PM

…it’s largely quibbling over a few billion here and there.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Hey, BB, what’s a few billion?
Every time you post some inane nugget of twaddle, I keep thinking it can’t possibly get worse.

anXdem on December 8, 2009 at 2:21 PM

With the exception of last year, I can’t recall a budget that wasn’t very close to what the President wanted since at least the Carter Administration.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM

You either haven’t been paying attention or have very serious memory problems.

jwolf on December 8, 2009 at 2:17 PM

Untrue. White the president doesn’t win every fight, the budget he sends up to the Hill basically sets the terms of the debate and he usually gets pretty close to what he wants.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Untrue.
Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Typical lib way of denial: If I don’t believe it, it’s not true.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Just glanced through the Senate Democrats response to Bush’s FY2008 budget. Even Bleeds Blue may laugh when reading it. Fun quote about the debt:

If we continue with these policies, gross debt is projected to soar to $12.2 trillion by the end of 2012.

With the Dems in control we got there in 2009.

The budget did have some nice stuff in there if they got implemented:

- Make 2001\2003 tax cuts permanent.
- $15,000 personal deduction for health insurance.
- Create lifetime savings accounts to replace IRAs, 401ks etc.
- Expand HSAs

WashJeff on December 8, 2009 at 2:23 PM

Execpt whenever there is a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, the Congressional leaders immediately declare the President’s budget “dead on arrival” and proceed to pass their own which soends at least 10% more than the President requests. Then they spend the entire next two years running a campaign against the Republicans’ “draconian cuts” in everything.

We aren’t letting them get away with it anymore.

rockmom on December 8, 2009 at 2:19 PM

Except, of course, based on the graph at the top of this page the biggest pre-recession Bush deficits were with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

And Bush and Cheney, of course famously told off Treasury Secretary Snowe when he tried to fight for a lower deficit figure.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Can we stop and ask some questions here: Why did the banks give it back? Did they really not need it? Are they paying it back with other funds they were given? Are they paying it back so they can get out from under the thumb of government?

None of them needed it, except for Citigroup. The others were forced to take it in order to stave off a collapse of confidence in Citigroup and a massive run on Citibank. And of course they all want to pay it back now, even Citigroup, to escape the meddling of Tim Geithner and Ken Feinberg and co. in their businesses.

Then let’s ask a question about what the government is going to do with the money they get back from the banks. If they are spending it on job creation, what was the stim package for? Does that mean it was a failure?

Yes.

If creating jobs was so important to this adminsitration then why didn’t they make that their first priority instead of Cap and Tax and the healthcare bill?

Because Barack Obama made promises to the SEIU and GE, and their payback was more important than you getting a new job.

I also thought that passage of the healthcare bill was going to help the economy? Since it’s so close to passage, why isn’t the economy starting to turn around? And if the healthcare bill was so important to the economy, why isn’t it going to be implemented for four more years?
Kind of makes you go HMMM?

thetriguy on December 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM

Because it is ALL political theater, paid for with YOUR money!

rockmom on December 8, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Untrue. White the president doesn’t win every fight, the budget he sends up to the Hill basically sets the terms of the debate and he usually gets pretty close to what he wants.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Read\glance at this and tell me if the Dems in the House\Senate gave Bush close to what he wanted.

WashJeff on December 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM

The White House lashed out at the Gallup Poll on Tuesday after the survey’s daily tracking numbers showed President Obama’s approval rating dropping to a new low of 47 percent.

Asked for a response to Monday’s tracking poll, which placed Obama’s approval numbers among the lowest of any recent president in December of his first year in office, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs mocked the reliability of the widely respected polling firm.

“I tell you, if I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I’d visit my doctor,” Gibbs said. “If you look back, I think five days ago, there was an 11-point spread, now there’s a 1-point spread. I mean, I’m sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend.”

He added: “I don’t pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it.”

Gallup’s tracking poll showed an uptick in Obama’s numbers last week following his speech outlining a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. But in Monday’s polling release, Gallup’s Jeffrey M. Jones wrote: “Any slight bump in support Obama received coincident with his new Afghanistan policy proved to be very short-lived, as his approval rating returned to below the majority level by the weekend and slipped further to 47 percent in Dec. 4-6 polling.

politico.com

ted c on December 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM

If Obama “inherited” anything, he inherited it from himself.

Hooray! I’m glad to see someone in the media call Obama out on this. I am sick and tired of his whining, poor me “I inherited this mess” crap.

GrannySunni on December 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM

It’s been over a year since Obama’s election.
It’s been 3 years since the Dems swept in ’06.
It’s 11 months since since THE ONE took office.

And yet it’s all Bush’s fault. And you wonder why his poll numbers are tanking.

angryed on December 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Just glanced through the Senate Democrats response to Bush’s FY2008 budget. Even Bleeds Blue may laugh when reading it. Fun quote about the debt:

Ah, the good old days….

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Except, of course, based on the graph at the top of this page the biggest pre-recession Bush deficits were with a Republican President and a Republican Congress after 9/11, the collapse of Enron and WorldCom, and the bursting of the dot-com bubble caused a mild recession.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Fixed.

rockmom on December 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Spend, except when Bush says so, right after 9/11/01. Also, is Obama showing his middle finger in that picture?

Schadenfreude on December 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Ah, the good old days….

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Off topic, one-on-one: Why do you come here?

I do because I’m a conservative. What’s your reason?

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Ah, the good old days….

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM

So did Bush get close to what he wanted????

WashJeff on December 8, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Off topic, one-on-one: Why do you come here?

I do because I’m a conservative. What’s your reason?

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:29 PM

George Soros pays him to come here.

angryed on December 8, 2009 at 2:31 PM

The sign on his podium states, Honest Leadership, Open Government. I wouldn’t be standing anywhere near that podium as i have great respect for lightning.

rjoco1 on December 8, 2009 at 2:31 PM

angryed on December 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM

Accountability is not in the liberal dictionary, rube.

Bleeds Blue, the smartest liberal around, knows best.

Schadenfreude on December 8, 2009 at 2:31 PM

From todays news:

Without giving a price tag, Obama proposed a package of new spending for highway, bridge and other infrastructure projects, deeper tax breaks for small businesses and tax incentives to encourage people to make their homes more energy efficient.

“We avoided the depression many feared,” Obama said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. But, he added, “Our work is far from done.”

For the third time in a week, Obama sought to focus on job creation, noting that the unemployment rate was still at 10 percent in November, though down slightly from its 10.2 percent peak. He said “a staggering” 7 million Americans have lost jobs since the recession began two years ago.

Isn’t this exactly what the $700 Billion dollar porkulus was supposed to freaking do already? Get ready for #2 folks.

Johnnyreb on December 8, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Does anyone else think the federal government’s predicament looks a lot like the predicament of California? Huge deficits caused by special interest group lobbying for more services than the government can afford, and relying on projected tax revenues from record boom years as a way to justify the new/expanded services? Then, when the budget turns grim, rather than taking the necessary steps to fix the budget, the government offers more spending and higher taxes. If states are the “laboratories for democracy,” why not look to states that are not going bankrupt as the models for fiscal responsibility?

Conservative in NOVA on December 8, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Except, of course, based on the graph at the top of this page the biggest pre-recession Bush deficits were with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Keep adding caveats blue, you’ll convince someone some day…
Tell me what year(s) was it when we had record revenues?
Hmmm, who’s tax cuts were responsible?
B U S H ‘ s ! ! !

MechEng5by5 on December 8, 2009 at 2:32 PM

What’s your reason?

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Decent, considerate and intelligent dicourse. Isn’t that what all elitist intelligent liberals stand for?

Schadenfreude on December 8, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Except, of course, based on the graph at the top of this page the biggest pre-recession Bush deficits were with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:24 PM

My mother taught me never to call someone a liar. The polite way is to say that the person is mistaken.

You are mistaken.

It is particularly irritating that another leftie troll — maybe even you, I don’t remember — posted the same erroneous BS just a few days ago. Republicans did NOT control the Senate during Bush’s presidency, except during the two years 05-07. You may recall — if you were paying attention — that the extremely liberal “Republican” Jeffords defected to the Democrats specifically to block a Republican majority in the Senate during the early Bush years.

jwolf on December 8, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Chaos, libs are headed for straight jackets, confusion and the inability of refrain from even the most obvious of stupid lies, its a symptom of the coming end, dear leader’s propagandizing today falls right in line with the rest of the toddlers lashing out, throwing their own crap, they’ll be spitting and biting next.

Speakup on December 8, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Pesky thing, that Article 1.

tgharris on December 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM

George Soros pays him to come here.

angryed on December 8, 2009 at 2:31 PM

*L* I think so, too.

But I want reasons now, real-time and hard-core, asking of the person in question. He’s someone who fears to speak of his compadres, yet behaves like them.

I’ll never be welcome on Huff, but this person remains here; I’d be banned on Huff but this person is here with impunity. I’d like knowing why this person comes here, since he shows his revulsion of us.

All we do here is express opinion. I don’t see that as worthy of hate, yet he, simon, and Grow Fins find us worth hating. I don’t get that.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Decent, considerate and intelligent dicourse. Isn’t that what all elitist intelligent liberals stand for?

Schadenfreude on December 8, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Yes, forever!

When pigs grow wings and fly on their own.

Evolution, baby!

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Read\glance at this and tell me if the Dems in the House\Senate gave Bush close to what he wanted.

WashJeff on December 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM

I think that document is mostly a criticism of the accounting, rather than a policy counter-proposal. And, besides, it’s the opening volley in a protracted struggle. We’d have to go through and see where everything finally eneded up (and, of course, this whole budget was obliterated by the Wall Street bailout, anyway).

A quick glance makes it appear that the Dems were objecting to only about $20 billion in cuts, which is only 5% of the deficit and spit in the ocean compared to the budget as a whole.

Which isn’t to say they aren’t somewhat significant. But it does speak to my original point that the President sets the larger terms of the debate and the Congress tends to nibble around the margins.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM

ObaMao wants to dip his hand into the TARP cookie jar. That’s the Targeted Asset Relief Program.

Judd and Cantor weigh in on ObaMao’s remarks to the Brookings Institute. h/t “The Corner”

Gregg, Cantor ‘Unimpressed’ With Obama’s Jobs Speech [Robert Costa]

In a speech at the Brookings Institution today, President Obama outlined a wide-ranging new jobs program focused on infrastructure investment and small-business initiatives. “It was nothing but ‘Stimulus 2,’” says Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.) to NRO. “Clearly the White House has taken the position that deficits don’t matter.”

Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, tells us that he was “not impressed” with Obama’s remarks. “This concept that ‘TARP money’ can be used is a total fraud,” says Gregg. “It’s nothing more than political cover. There is no TARP money to use. TARP was authorized to draw down debt by $700 billion. They’ve drawn down about $600 billion, so theoretically there is $100 billion more they could draw down, but then they would have to issue more debt.”

Gregg is adamant that adding debt to support a massive expansion in government would be a mistake. Besides, he says, the law is clear: “Using these funds for stimulus projects is not legally allowed. The law is precise — I wrote it. The funds are meant to address systemic risk and financial crises. Building roads and giving dollars to local projects is not that. The money they want to use doesn’t exist.”

Agreeing with Cantor, Gregg adds that Obama’s program is another major stimulus package. “The last one took a huge hit on the deficit and debt,” says Gregg. “It just became ‘walking around money’ for appropriators in the House and Senate. According to Chairman Bernanke, we’re moving out of recession. I doubt that this proposal will help to lower unemployment. We’ll be well out of the recession by the time Congress acts. Instead of this measure, fiscal balance and solvency have to be brought back into the equation — not more federal dollars for green jobs or whatever the cause du jour is at the White House.”

Cantor adds that Obama’s plan misses the core ingredient of job creation: a strong marketplace. “The government is trying to create jobs that they like, rather than encouraging the market. How does increased government spending create an environment where investors, families, and businesses can count on federal fiscal responsibility? In the past we’ve seen government spending miss the mark by an incredible amount.”

onlineanalyst on December 8, 2009 at 2:39 PM

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM

That was a total over-intellectualization, seeking to justify your view.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:39 PM

The fraud HAS to keep repeating that “I inherited” line over and over and over because that’s the ONLY defense he has…and the country is waking up to the facts outlined so nicely in this post. More folks are actually keeping track (not the libtards, of course) and we KNOW where the fault/blame settles.

“W” was no saint when it came to spending, but the fraud currently residing in the White House – along with a House and Senate bent on their Socialist agenda – have spent more in a month than Bush did in a year!

GoldenEagle4444 on December 8, 2009 at 2:39 PM

If states are the “laboratories for democracy,” why not look to states that are not going bankrupt as the models for fiscal responsibility?

Conservative in NOVA on December 8, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Because they all have Republican governors and/or legislatures, or are states like Virginia with no public sector unions bleeding the taxpayers dry with gigantic pensions and salary increases and job protections.

rockmom on December 8, 2009 at 2:40 PM

What libs have never grasped is that to over-intellectualize tells they’re intelligence is in question.

It’s holding to the basics that work, not the penumbras.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Like Metallica once sang: You feed it once and now it stays.

Like a stray cat.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Which isn’t to say they aren’t somewhat significant. But it does speak to my original point that the President sets the larger terms of the debate and the Congress tends to nibble around the margins.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM

So Bush got the tax cut made permanent?
HSA expansion? Health insurance deductions of 15K?
They were castigating him for small spending cuts in medicare, education, welfare, etc.

The President has to submit a budget, but the House holds the cards…especially when the President is unpopular and a lame duck. At most, the Dems used Bush’s FY2008 budget for toilet paper to save on usage per Sherle Crow instructions.

WashJeff on December 8, 2009 at 2:45 PM

It is particularly irritating that another leftie troll — maybe even you, I don’t remember — posted the same erroneous BS just a few days ago. Republicans did NOT control the Senate during Bush’s presidency, except during the two years 05-07. You may recall — if you were paying attention — that the extremely liberal “Republican” Jeffords defected to the Democrats specifically to block a Republican majority in the Senate during the early Bush years.

jwolf on December 8, 2009 at 2:33 PM

They took the Senate back in 2002, not 2004. And they had the House (where budget bills originate) the whole time. And Jeffords voted for the tax cuts.

*

L* I think so, too.

But I want reasons now, real-time and hard-core, asking of the person in question. He’s someone who fears to speak of his compadres, yet behaves like them.

I’ll never be welcome on Huff, but this person remains here; I’d be banned on Huff but this person is here with impunity. I’d like knowing why this person comes here, since he shows his revulsion of us.

All we do here is express opinion. I don’t see that as worthy of hate, yet he, simon, and Grow Fins find us worth hating. I don’t get that.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM

I enjoy it. Sometimes I learn something. I certainly as polite to others as they are to me. And I think you should be allowed oh Huffpost and respect Ed for his tolerance of me.

Pesky thing, that Article 1.

tgharris on December 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Yeah, but you and I both know that Article 1 has at best a moderate influence on the budget debate (these days). You have 435 House members with limited staff going up against all the numbers crunchers in the agencies and the White House, not to mention the bully pulpit of the White House versus the scattered and often uncoordinated communications efforts of the members. It’s an unfair battle.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM

The White House has had the lead on the budget for decades.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM

The bottom line Bleeds Brains is that Obama voted for the 2008 budget and campaigned on and signed the 2009 budget that was written by people in his own party in full control of congress. Thus he can’t now claim he inherited this as if he were some innocent bystander.

PackerBronco on December 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Obama is a child. And like a child, instead of taking responsibility he blames others. This is the equivalent to Bart Simpson’s I didn’t do it catchphrase.

angryed on December 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM

ALL BUSH’S FAULT.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 8, 2009 at 2:48 PM

“W” was no saint when it came to spending, but the fraud currently residing in the White House – along with a House and Senate bent on their Socialist agenda – have spent more in a month than Bush did in a year!

GoldenEagle4444 on December 8, 2009 at 2:39 PM

I wish our Guard Dog Media would pay an ounce of attention to the unprecedented “budget” process this Congress has pursued. They actually REFUSED to pass any appropriations bills in the last year, so that they could get whatever they wanted signed by Pbama after the inauguration. The Porkulus bill is a bigger amount of money, but the absolutely fraudulent way in which the Democrats handled the FY 2009 budget and ended up getting another $470 billion of DEFICIT spending rammed through in an omnibus bill should have had the media frothing at the mouth!!

I defy Bleeds Blue or any other troll to defend this.

rockmom on December 8, 2009 at 2:48 PM

So Bush got the tax cut made permanent?
HSA expansion? Health insurance deductions of 15K?
They were castigating him for small spending cuts in medicare, education, welfare, etc.

The President has to submit a budget, but the House holds the cards…especially when the President is unpopular and a lame duck. At most, the Dems used Bush’s FY2008 budget for toilet paper to save on usage per Sherle Crow instructions.

WashJeff on December 8, 2009 at 2:45 PM

HSA and the Health Insurance deductions are relatively small potatoes. He didn’t get the tax cuts, but they didn’t expire, either. He was just trying to get that in before the White House changed hands and so launched a pre-emptive strike.

The war was funded, S-Chip wasn’t, there were no tax increases…

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Obama voted for the 2008 budget and campaigned on and signed the 2009 budget that was written by people in his own party in full control of congress. Thus he can’t now claim he inherited this as if he were some innocent bystander.

PackerBronco on December 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM

True.

And remember, O’bama ASKED to “inherit the deficit. If he didn’t want to “inherit” it, he should have stayed in the Senate.

Del Dolemonte on December 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM

If states are the “laboratories for democracy,” why not look to states that are not going bankrupt as the models for fiscal responsibility?

Conservative in NOVA on December 8, 2009 at 2:32 PM

As I see it, leaving the various states alone is the greatest place for liberty. The states were never meant to be labs, where DC can make a one-size-fits-all kind of tyranny.

If I hate laws imposed on me here in NY, the liberty of the Various States means I can vote with my feet and move to another state more to my liking.

That’s what it’s all about. By the Constitution, DC is limited in power. I, however, have many rights.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:50 PM

They took the Senate back in 2002, not 2004. And they had the House (where budget bills originate) the whole time. And Jeffords voted for the tax cuts.
– Bleeds Blue

Dude they “took it back” with a whopping 51 to 49 margin. As you very well know in the senate 51/49 or 49/51 doesn’t make much of a difference. Hell, anything less than 55/45 doesn’t really make much of a difference except for the size of one’s office (whether you’re in the minorty or majority).

For all intents and purposes the senate was a a tie 2001-2005 and then the GOP controlled 2005-2007. So of the 8 Bush years, he had the senate and house for only 2.

angryed on December 8, 2009 at 2:51 PM

I defy Bleeds Blue or any other troll to defend this.

rockmom on December 8, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Bleeds Brains has the impossible task of defending Bambi’s position that he merely inherited the budgets that he supported and voted for.

Look for further confusication from Bleeds Brains on what is a very simple point.

PackerBronco on December 8, 2009 at 2:51 PM

The White House has had the lead on the budget for decades.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:07 PM

The bottom line Bleeds Brains is that Obama voted for the 2008 budget and campaigned on and signed the 2009 budget that was written by people in his own party in full control of congress. Thus he can’t now claim he inherited this as if he were some innocent bystander.

PackerBronco on December 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM

One could argue about the ’09 and ’10 budgets as they were affected by the recession/bailout. But clearly, it’s ours going forward.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:51 PM

The war was funded, S-Chip wasn’t, there were no tax increases…

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:49 PM

No tax increases…..except the $1 per pack tax increase on cigarettes. Or are we now counting a tax increase as a non-tax increase for purposes of defenfing Dem programs?

Hey look everyone, your taxes just doubled to pay for ObamaCare, but there were no tax increases.

angryed on December 8, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Dude they “took it back” with a whopping 51 to 49 margin. As you very well know in the senate 51/49 or 49/51 doesn’t make much of a difference. Hell, anything less than 55/45 doesn’t really make much of a difference except for the size of one’s office (whether you’re in the minorty or majority).

For all intents and purposes the senate was a a tie 2001-2005 and then the GOP controlled 2005-2007. So of the 8 Bush years, he had the senate and house for only 2.

angryed on December 8, 2009 at 2:51 PM

C’mon, now you’re quibbling. We mostly only filibustered judicial nominees, anyway — I’m trying to think of a significant budget-type battle that turned on a single vote (Not saying that there weren’t any, just that none spring to mind). And Bush was pretty effective with the veto pen when we actually did get something through.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:54 PM

One could argue about the ‘09 and ‘10 budgets as they were affected by the recession/bailout. But clearly, it’s ours going forward.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:51 PM

… and with joint custody in ’09 and ’10 due to the divided nature of the government and the fact that the budget bills originated, were written, and supported by the Democrats in congress including Bambi O’bama.

Y’see Bleeds Brains, you can’t claim to merely inherit what it is you had a part in bringing about; but this is what Bambi wants to argue.

PackerBronco on December 8, 2009 at 2:55 PM

thetriguy on December 8, 2009 at 2:16 PM

To answer one of your questions. Yes, quite a few banks that did not need a “bailout” were “forced” to take it anyway. I can think of two off the top of my head…BB&T and Regions Bank. I know there is more I just can’t think of them.

milwife88 on December 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM

I’m not quibbling anything. Your premise is that Bush could get anything he wanted from con/gress because the gop controlled congress for his entire time in office. That is simply not true. And even when the GOP was in the majority it was such a small majority that it barely, if at all helped Bush get his wished.

Obama on the other hand, so far, has received everything he’s asked for, and then some.

And yet somehow it is still all Bush’s fault. Or it is Reagan’s fault? Or Eisenhower’s?

angryed on December 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM

I enjoy it. Sometimes I learn something. I certainly as polite to others as they are to me. And I think you should be allowed oh Huffpost and respect Ed for his tolerance of me.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:46 PM

Re: my comment that you quoted, you truly don’t respect me at all. I’ve been debating you many times, and I get a lot of insults from you, just for my opinions when I’ve tried debating you with honesty.

Don’t try making yourself somehow a ‘victim’. We have seen your posts, we know what have said which have made obvious your beliefs a long time.

Who do you think you’re kidding? You might not use the words of simon and GF, but never once have you denied them.

You wrote of KKK types who murdered blacks among others, but you forget we cons refuse Kluckers–unlike how Dems embrace the Klan recruiter Robert Byrd.

Who do you think you’re kidding? Where are YOU somehow a ‘victim’?

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Complicit – Conspirators – Criminals

marklmail on December 8, 2009 at 2:59 PM

I wonder how long it will be until it’s finally Obama’s economy? Or will it ever be?

Dark-Star on December 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM

I wonder how long it will be until it’s finally Obama’s economy? Or will it ever be?

Dark-Star on December 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Never, lib. You know that.

In the year 2525, you’ll still be blaming Bush.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 3:03 PM

and with joint custody in ‘09 and ‘10 due to the divided nature of the government and the fact that the budget bills originated, were written, and supported by the Democrats in congress including Bambi O’bama.

Y’see Bleeds Brains, you can’t claim to merely inherit what it is you had a part in bringing about; but this is what Bambi wants to argue.

PackerBronco on December 8, 2009 at 2:55 PM

My argument — which I know you won’t agree with so we needn’t start it — would be that the 2009-10 budgets were responses to a unique and challenging economic situation and people did what they had to do. Beyond 2010, it is indeed wholly owned (although you guys are going to take back the House in ’10, right?)

Re: my comment that you quoted, you truly don’t respect me at all. I’ve been debating you many times, and I get a lot of insults from you, just for my opinions when I’ve tried debating you with honesty.

Don’t try making yourself somehow a ‘victim’. We have seen your posts, we know what have said which have made obvious your beliefs a long time.

Who do you think you’re kidding? You might not use the words of simon and GF, but never once have you denied them.

You wrote of KKK types who murdered blacks among others, but you forget we cons refuse Kluckers–unlike how Dems embrace the Klan recruiter Robert Byrd.

Who do you think you’re kidding? Where are YOU somehow a ‘victim’?

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM

I don’t recall claiming to be a victim and if I did I know there are a dozen people here who would kick my a**, so I’m not likely to bother.

I am well aware of Bobbie Byrd’s past, since I get reminded of it every time civil rights comes up. I’m not sure what it has to do with this discussion, nor does it change the fact that — whatever party labels they operated under — liberals (and moderates including Ike and many Republicans) were on the right side of that issue and conservatives on the wrong one. You think I like George Wallace just ’cause he had a “D” next to his name?

Next time Simon and GF show up, I will parse their words closely and see if I can put a little daylight between them and me. Just for you.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM

My argument —

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Which YOU started, is the basis of all you say.

Po’ wittle victim!

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 3:15 PM

My argument — which I know you won’t agree with so we needn’t start it — would be that the 2009-10 budgets were responses to a unique and challenging economic situation and people did what they had to do.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM

And that, you should be willing to admit, is not how Bambi is presenting the facts, nor is the MSM. For them, the budget is all Booosssshhhh’s fault and they just inherited the deficit rather than being accomplices in its creation.

PackerBronco on December 8, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Next time Simon and GF show up, I will parse their words closely and see if I can put a little daylight between them and me. Just for you.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM

No you won’t. By your own posts, you agree. All you’ll do is try to make it sound better.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Bleeds Blue: My argument — which I know you won’t agree with so we needn’t start it — would be that the 2009-10 budgets were responses to a unique and challenging economic situation and people did what they had to do. Beyond 2010, it is indeed wholly owned (although you guys are going to take back the House in ‘10, right?)

The fact of the matter, though is that the 2009-2010 budgets did not address the “unique and challenging economic situation.” The bulk of the appropriations were made up of leftover wish-list items of the Dem Left, items that did/do nothing to “address the unique and challenging economic situation.” These items, which bloated the budgets, were simply political payback to special interests.

onlineanalyst on December 8, 2009 at 3:19 PM

…would be that the 2009-10 budgets were responses to a unique and challenging economic situation and people did what they had to do. Beyond 2010, it is indeed wholly owned…

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM

But projected budget deficits in FY 2011 are still twice as much as FY2008 (the last one Bush signed). If the economy is in growth mode as fully expected by the Obama administration, why is this deficit sooooo huge? What is our money being spent on? The deficits cannot be from the Bush tax cuts, they expire Dec 31, 2010 (if not earlier if the Dems do something).

WashJeff on December 8, 2009 at 3:21 PM

And that, you should be willing to admit, is not how Bambi is presenting the facts, nor is the MSM. For them, the budget is all Booosssshhhh’s fault and they just inherited the deficit rather than being accomplices in its creation.

PackerBronco on December 8, 2009 at 3:16 PM

President Obama has got some good points too, with the Medicaid drug spending and the tax cuts contributing to a structural deficit, not to mention that recession thing that Barney Frank caused, with ACORN.

I’m juts taking a more practical approach.

No you won’t. By your own posts, you agree. All you’ll do is try to make it sound better.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Man, you are like a Gila monster…once you get your teeth in you don’t let go.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 3:23 PM

I don’t recall claiming to be a victim

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Nor speaking it doesn’t let you off your hook.

Your ACTIONS betray you, the others terms you have used show you.

The same way everything I post tells of me.

Never once have I backed from anything I wrote, never once have I claimed anything other than I typed.

I don’t balk a whit or a hair. If another con here speaks, and if I back him, I never once backtrack my support either implicitly or explicitly.

You, tho, being a lib, hide what you say in couched language. Your silence on abusive left-wingers says all about you, really.

You attack us cons for KKK murders when we cons have no problem with the death penalty for those vermin.

You, on the other hand, are fine (by your own posts) with simplesimon calling us ‘racefans’–an insult.

Your own silence tells of you, pure and plain.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Man, you are like a Gila monster…once you get your teeth in you don’t let go.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Yes, you’re right.

But if my opponent wants talk to reason and honest debate, I’m there. No bite.

I’ll talk, sure. Libs like you make enemies of people like me, when I’m willing to chat.

I want you and all you love having all the liberty I demand for myself.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 3:26 PM

All we do here is express opinion. I don’t see that as worthy of hate, yet he, simon, and Grow Fins find us worth hating. I don’t get that.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Dear Liam, to be “hated” by them is a badge of honor.

Schadenfreude on December 8, 2009 at 3:51 PM

President Obama is expected to address the burgeoning debt in a major economic speech Tuesday in Washington.

We can hardly wait.

Herb on December 8, 2009 at 3:52 PM

fraudulent way in which the Democrats handled the FY 2009 budget and ended up getting another $470 billion of DEFICIT spending rammed through in an omnibus bill should have had the media frothing at the mouth!!

I defy Bleeds Blue or any other troll to defend this.

rockmom on December 8, 2009 at 2:48 PM

They can’t be “frothing at the mouth” when they are busy in Obama’s trousers.

Schadenfreude on December 8, 2009 at 3:56 PM

***
The democRATS took over the House in 2006–they write spending bills. All the president can do is sign them or veto them after the Senate passes them.
***
Anyway–don’t confuse anyone with economic or Constitutional facts. IT’S ALL BOOOOOOSH’S FAULT!
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on December 8, 2009 at 4:07 PM

Well, that’s not exactly true, Dr. Burman. We could start cutting the size and cost of the federal government instead of expanding it. We could then use the money we save to start paying off some of our debt, as well as use the increased revenues from better economic performance that would result.

Sooooo, if I don’t have money to spend, I shouldn’t spend it? That sounds just like anyones personal financing. I thought the idea, as Joe Biden said was to spend your way out of debt? Keynes was an idiot too.

dthorny on December 8, 2009 at 4:21 PM

President Obama is expected to address the burgeoning debt in a major economic speech Tuesday in Washington.
We can hardly wait.

Herb on December 8, 2009 at 3:52 PM

He will use 60 Limo’s to announce we should save money?

Right, we, excluding DC, must save money.

dthorny on December 8, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Bush deficit of $250B, unsustainable!

Obama deficit of $2T, no big deal, or if it is Bush’s fault!

I think that about covers it, no?

By definition, you can’t inherit a deficit. Obama could complain about the national debt, but since his primary complaint is that Bush didn’t piss enough money away, he doesn’t have much room there either.

18-1 on December 8, 2009 at 4:28 PM

and the tax cuts contributing to a structural deficit, not to mention that recession thing that Barney Frank caused, with ACORN.

I’m juts taking a more practical approach.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 3:23 PM

What part of RECORD TAX REVENUE’s FOR 2008 do you not understand? This was entirely due to tax cuts, you can’t blame RECORD SPENDING by Obowma on tax cuts. When this administration, the most opaque in history, spent MORE THAN ALL PAST PRESIDENT’s COMBINED in 10 months,

Not Bush’s fault.

dthorny on December 8, 2009 at 4:29 PM

But back to the civics lesson. Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY2008 and FY2009, as well as FY2010 and FY2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY2009 budgets.

–The President first issues a budget request, which he prepares with the help of the CBO, to Congress. Then Congress passes a budget. And FY09 started in October of 2008.

Jimbo3 on December 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM

I can remember when Bush vetoed that big fat farm bill and the Democrats over rode the veto and said he was stingy.

Honestly, these people have no shame. When Bush cut taxes, revenues increased. April 2006, was the biggest pay day the Federal government had ever seen.

The deficit was less than $200 billion when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took control of the Congress.

Terrye on December 8, 2009 at 4:41 PM

Dark-Star on December 8, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Never, lib. You know that.

In the year 2525, you’ll still be blaming Bush.

Liam on December 8, 2009 at 3:03 PM

So much for an honest question.

When did I blame Bush, wingnut? I’m well aware Obummer has outspent the almighty GW by a long shot…I just wonder how long it will be before his starry-eyed suckers realize the same.

Dark-Star on December 8, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Obama was at the Brookings Institute today whining about how Republicans created the problem and then dumped it on him and now won’t help him fix it. I swear to God, this man is the biggest cry baby weenie we have ever had as President.

Terrye on December 8, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Watching Obama on TV this morning was initially agravating but then I realized something.

Obama IS in OVER his HEAD!

Obama does not know what he is doing, and the staff he has assembled around him is equally lost. At first I wondered if pity was appropriate, but as I thought about it, it becomes clear that we are in grave danger. At best, Obama is losing touch with reality. At worst Obama is going to lie to people until he is finally removed from office.

The delusional statements Obama made were just stunning in their conflict. First Obama claimed his massive stimulus spending had saved the country, then he claimed that no deficit was caused by this spending. No reasonable person can expect these statements to go unquestioned for long.

As Obama continued to ramble on in a campaign like mode, it became clear that he is losing touch with reality. I do not recall ever seeing Obama have such strange mannerisms. It was almost as if he was wishing that the speach would just end with some grand applause and a miracle would occur to solve his problems.

I wonder if we have ever had a president declared ‘incapable of doing his job’ and removed from office before? Seems like this may have ‘unofficially’ happened once before with the VP stepping in very quietly. I doubt that with all the media exposure in todays world that it can be done as quietly.

Freddy on December 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM

The democRATS took over the House in 2006–they write spending bills. All the president can do is sign them or veto them after the Senate passes them.

Do you know that’s not what actually occurred? During the years when Bush submitted budgets with Republicans in control of the Congress, the annual budget increased from $2 trillion to $2.7 trillion. In every case, his budgets excluded wartime spending, which amounted to hundreds of billions in additional outlays that were excluded from the budget.

Do the math- an increase from $2 tril to about $2.8 tril (when you include war costs) amounts to a 40% increase in federal spending. And this occurred with big cuts to the EPA and no significant investments in infrastructure. Quite an amazing feat.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_07/b3920046_mz011.htm
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22278794.htm

bayam on December 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM

And Bush was pretty effective with the veto pen when we actually did get something through.

Bleeds Blue on December 8, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Bush only vetoed 12 bills and 4 were over ridden…he was crazy with the veto/s

CWforFreedom on December 8, 2009 at 5:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2