Obama claim that Bush is 90% responsible for current deficit gets 100% of Pinocchios at WaPo

posted at 10:01 am on September 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I hit this 60 Minutes quote two days ago in yesterday’s OOTD, but it’s worth revisiting in the form of Glenn Kessler’s fact check at the Washington Post.  Kessler misses one of the biggest problems with Barack Obama’s response to Steve Kroft’s question, which was about national debt, and Obama responded by talking about deficits — two different issues, although related.  I’ll put the question and the longer answer provided by Kessler together, emphases mine:

KROFT: The national debt has gone up sixty percent in — in the four years that you’ve been in office.

OBAMA: Well, first — first of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here. When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but ninety percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.

Now, if the deficit goes up, the solution would be to either spend less or tax more.  Obama has done neither in any of his budget proposals, and as I wrote yesterday, his last two budget proposals would have made the situation worse — which is why even his own party gave neither of them so much as one supporter in three floor votes.  Furthermore, the FY2009 budget in place when Obama took office was the creation of the Democrat-controlled House and Senate from the year before, and it was signed into law by Obama in March 2009, not Bush, after Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid played keep-away in the fall of 2008.  Barack Obama was part of that effort as a member of the Senate.

Kessler skips over these points to address Obama’s argument that the structural deficit is 90% George Bush’s problem.  Kessler says it’s the other way around — that Bush policies account for about 10% of the current annual structural budget deficit, and the rest is evenly split between bad projections from the CBO and Obama’s spending and economic policies:

As can be seen above, CBO’s errors in forecasting played a large role in the demise of the projected surpluses. CBO had kept counting on a gusher of capital gains revenue — and then obviously failed to predict the recession of 2008.

But Obama’s policies also played a big role during his presidency. Using the CBO data for the years 2009-2011, here’s a very rough calculation of the contribution to the deficit. To keep things simple, we did not try to allocate interest expense, and we did not include categories of spending or taxes that were difficult to allocate.

The 2009 fiscal year is especially hard because that budget year is so much of an amalgam of Bush and Obama policies; we essentially split the cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program between the two of them. Since this is not intended to be exact, but illustrative, we have rounded numbers and percentages:

2009:

  • Economic/technical differences: $570 billion (46 percent)
  • Bush policies: $330 billion (27 percent)
  • Obama policies: $325 billion (27 percent)

2010:

  • Economic/technical: $815 billion (51 percent)
  • Bush: $225 billion (14 percent)
  • Obama: $565 billion (35 percent)

2011:

  • Economic/technical: $720 billion (46 percent)
  • Bush: $160 billion (10 percent)
  • Obama: $685 billion (44 percent)

Clearly, a huge part of the deficit problem — about half — stems from the recession and forecasting errors. But Obama’s policies represent a big chunk as well.

So how many Pinocchios does Obama get?  One hundred percent of them:

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.  Four Pinocchios[.]

And as Kessler points out, the real structural bomb to annual deficits has yet to be triggered.  ObamaCare may be deficit neutral in its first ten years — which is still arguable, and based on a fiscal shell game — but after that, “all bets are off.”


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

He didn’t passively inherit anything. He actively sought out leadership on a promise to fix the economy and deficits. Now that he has failed, he is dodging accountability.

A question that should be asked: If presidents need 8 years to fix problems, why do we have elections at all?

xuyee on September 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

There was NO FY2009 budget signed into law by Bush. He signed a CR into law on 30 September 2008. It expired on 6 March 2009.

Further, the Democratic Congress only passed THREE of FY2009′s 12 appropriations bills for Bush to sign before 1 October 2008, the beginning of FY2009: Defence, Homeland Security, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs.

The Democrat-controlled Congress passed the rest of them in 2009 and…

On 11 March 2009, President Barack H. Obama signed the FY2009 budget into law. Furthermore, Bush is not responsible for the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Stimulus Act of 2009, the Defence Supplemental of 06.09 loaded with pork, Cash-for-Clunkers, Cash-for-Caulkers, Unemployment Insurance extensions, Making Home Affordable, a massive $680 billion defence bill in September – once again laden with pork, etc.

Uh-oh! There goes that “Blame Bush meme!”

President Bush’s proposed FY2009 budget called for spending of only $3.11 trillion, which was just a 3% increase. President Obama and his Democrat Congress ended up spending $3.52 trillion in 2009, which represented a 17.9% increase in spending — the highest single-year percentage spending increase since the Korean War.

Resist We Much on September 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Most of Obama’s spending ability hinged on Bush pushing through congress a $850B bill.

Then it was not so hard to pass a Stimuless bill slightly larger.
Then it was not so hard to pass Obamacare with a fake price tag of just shy of a trillion dollars.

Wonder what our deficits would be if the largest bill Obama could have pushed through congress for stimuless was closer to say, I dunno, $250 billion? I wonder if they would keep stone walling a budget if they were not so able to keep spending the just shy of a trillion dollars extra every year without one.

Suck on it progressive (R)s. Your Progressive (R) presidents suck and work to help the democrats destroy the nation.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Where’s bayam to quote all of those anonymous Krugman Economists telling us this is a Lie?

Del Dolemonte on September 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Finally. A credible poll.

locomotivebreath1901 on September 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

The 2008 recession ended in June of 2009. The next summer Joe called The Recover Summer ((2010) then the just laughed that they thought there would be shovel ready jobs for all that stimulus cash.

Fleuries on September 26, 2012 at 10:08 AM

On Jan 3rd, 2007, both house of congress was taken over by dems, congress determines the budget and spends the money.

On Jan. 2nd, 2007 our unemployment was under 5%, dow was at 14,000, and we were just under 4 trillion in debt…

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that America changed…from that day on, it has been a disaster, mortgage, energy, unemployment, insurance, autos, manufacturing…Pelosi and Reid oversaw all of this. Yes, Bush was president fighting a terrorist war and should have paid better attention, but the majority was still with both houses, and the majority was democrat.
2/3 of the power lay with the dems…Jan 3rd, 2007, the turning point of our nation…

right2bright on September 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

this is not a winning thread. you have to blame all the deficit on obama. if you explain that a good portion of it was due bush policies or Economic/technical to show obama is a liar, you are already losing the spin.

nathor on September 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

President Bush’s proposed FY2009 budget called for spending of only $3.11 trillion, which was just a 3% increase. President Obama and his Democrat Congress ended up spending $3.52 trillion in 2009, which represented a 17.9% increase in spending — the highest single-year percentage spending increase since the Korean War.
Resist We Much on September 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

This. Plus it is now in the baseline until the end of time, or until Congress changes it, which might as well be the end of time.

txmomof6 on September 26, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Bush spent a lot, but he also had a lot more tax revenue coming in. The difference is, Bush would’ve adapted to new conditions. Obama didn’t. Obama had less revenue (with less people working,) and spent more.

RBMN on September 26, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I did some math on this and Bush is responsible for 24.5% of the debt accumulated after 1960 (adjusted for inflation using 1961 dollars). Obama is responsible for 25%. Again, inflation adjusted dollars! Bush was certainly a terrible deficit spender, but Obama is on track for being responsible for over half the debt since 1960 if he serves two terms. 50% of the debt over the last 50 years under one president!

NotCoach on September 26, 2012 at 10:13 AM

..but in other news today, Obama’s lead in swing state polling has surged to 10 points; pollsters flummoxed, speechless, tongue-tied.

The War Planner on September 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Folks, beside the left wing lunatics no one believe that Obama is not responsible for a 4 trillion dollar deficit in the last 3.5 and 6 trillions dollars in additional debt… He has been lying about this deficit/debt as well as everything else since he took office but now the majority of voters do not believe a word he says, in fact it has been the case since early 2010 that a majority of voters do not believe a word he says…

mnjg on September 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Resist We Much on September 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Nice summary.

Donald Draper on September 26, 2012 at 10:15 AM

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that America changed…from that day on, it has been a disaster, mortgage, energy, unemployment, insurance, autos, manufacturing…Pelosi and Reid oversaw all of this. Yes, Bush was president fighting a terrorist war and should have paid better attention, but the majority was still with both houses, and the majority was democrat.
2/3 of the power lay with the dems…Jan 3rd, 2007, the turning point of our nation…

right2bright on September 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Wow, seriously? Seriously?
I think you were serious on that… The housing bubble started and crashed in the same year, 2007? Seriously?

It was not an ongoing event starting around 2000, extended by Bush himself who actually promoted 0 down loans for the poor?

Seriously?

I do not give any one a pass, they are all a bunch of criminals in my judgement. That includes the voters who keep puting them into power in order to have them pay them back with goodies out of other people’s pockets.

Bush, Obama, Reid, Pelosi. Our House and Senate from 2001 through 2005. Crybaby cave-a-lot Beohner.

Democrats do this kind of crap, its expected of them. Stop giving the people of the nation reasons to fire the Republicans in office. Give them some freaking CONSERVATIVE policy!

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Out: The Buck Stops Here

In: The Nickel Stops Here

NapaConservative on September 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The new swing state polls are suspect.

But Bloomberg is out with a new national poll with a very good, realistic sample of Dems +2.

The result?????

Obama +6

GAME OVER.

gumbyandpokey on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Funny world we live in when reporters are assigned specifically to “check facts.” That used to be part of the job description for all reporters.

One problem is that fact-checkers are “blurring the line between facts and meaning.

Another is that Romney is being “fact-Checked for falsehoods at double the rate of Obama.

So I’m inclined just to ignore them altogether.

Drained Brain on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Obama gives new and emphatic meaning to the old, “If his lips are moving, he’s lying”, school of thought.

BettyRuth on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

right2bright: On Jan 3rd, 2007, both house of congress was taken over by dems

Exactly. Americans need reminding again and again and again…

The Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) Congress took control in January 2007 with Bush-era unemployment at 4.6%. The POR triumverate sunk it to a low of 10.1%.

In 2008, the public was furious at George W. Bush, not because he was too much of a right-wing tightwad, but because he ran up a series of (what were then thought to be) gargantuan deficits. The result was that under a (allegedly) conservative administration, the national debt nearly doubled, from $3.3 trillion to $6.3 trillion, in just eight years.

The Obamateur apparently never figured out that he had been elected (in part) because massive Republican borrowing had sickened the American people. So in near-suicidal fashion, he took Bush’s last scheduled budget deficit of more than $500 billion (Bush’s Keynesian attempt to get the country out of the 2008 recession and financial panic) and nearly TRIPLED it by 2010!

The Obamateur’s new red ink added more than $4 trillion to the national debt– with near-trillion-dollar yearly deficits scheduled for the next decade. All of that will result in a U.S. debt of more than $20 trillion and continuing high unemployment for the forseeable future.

Obama “inherited” the Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) legacy. Own them.

Terp Mole on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Heard him claim the unfunded wars and the tax cuts were the entire problem and thought – yeah, the MSM will totally let him skate on that.

He could say the deficit was created by Shrek and NBC’s intrepid Brian Williams would say, “Yes Lord Barky. Americans know that Shrek and Global Warming caused the deficit.”

CorporatePiggy on September 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Quinnipiac should get a full round of Pinocchios for those polls they had the gall to put out today.

+10 democrats in Ohio (2008, the zenith Barack, was +8)
+9 democrats in Florida (2008, the zenith of Barack was +3)

They think we’re fools. It’s insulting.

SouthernGent on September 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM

No, O is fully responsible for the soaring spending and out of control deficit. And for Obamacare and Big Govt like we never wanted it.
Which brings up a point. On Morning Joe yesterday someone said that Romney is running, like Seinfeld’s show, “a campaign about nothing.” People laughed and nodded in agreement. Heck, I myself seemed to agree. But I know it is not about nothing. But my feelings don’t matter. The only thing that matters is what the people feel.
Romney needs a short tagline.
I heard the RNC chair wPreibus saying that Romney’s campaign is about the 5 “short” points, but that’s good, but they need to get it down to 5 words, as:

Tagline:
Romney/Ryan: For a Smaller, Smarter Government

Take a day or at most two to come up with a tagline, and tag the campaign with it. Add it to the ads, and make it a part of the standard conversation. Remedy the ambiguity, the sense of nothingness.
Currently the tagline on the website is “American’s deserve more jobs and more take home pay.” True, but I think that’s not the essence. Whatever, if that’s to be the main tagline expressing what the campaign is about, add it to -everything- so it is said that that is what the campaign is about. I think, yes, it is about jobs etc, but it is about Smaller Govt primarily.
Your tagline ideas?

anotherJoe on September 26, 2012 at 10:21 AM

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Cycles happen, but you are saying that the laws and efforts of Barney Frank, Dodd, etc., had no effect?

Really, really?

I don’t get the “bubble started and crashed in the same year” that’s not what I posted, it’s what you posted and imagined I stated.

I said the downward slope of our economy is directly related to the democrat takeover of budget and spending…guess I didn’t use simple enough words for you.

On Jan. 2nd, 2007 we were just under 4 trillion in debt, unemployment was under 5%…

Since it has climbed to over 10%, and 16 trillion…the dems presided over each of those budgets, and often had super majority to pass whatever they wanted…get it? No, you don’t because your agenda get’s in the way of logic.

right2bright on September 26, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Obamanomics laid bare. Blame the other guy.
In fact, Obama laid bare. Blame someone or something else.

As long as placing blame is part of his repertoire there will be no way “Forward”.

Alinsky just met the law of diminishing returns.

Jabberwock on September 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Bush spent a lot, but he also had a lot more tax revenue coming in. The difference is, Bush would’ve adapted to new conditions. Obama didn’t. Obama had less revenue (with less people working,) and spent more.

RBMN on September 26, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Obama is kynesian or took advise from kynesians. so, in case of recession, deficit spending is part of the kynesian medecine. no surprise here.
what still is for republicans a huge drag, is how to justify that they are greatly concerned about deficit when during 8 of gop presidency deficit was increased during a good economy moment. this is not kynesian or austrian. this is nothing and mines the little credibility gop has on the issue and gives an opening for guys like clinton hit hard on the gop.
while obama deficit was surely not all bushes fault, if the gop loses it will still be because of the bush years legacy!

nathor on September 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Obama “inherited” the Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) legacy. Own them.

Terp Mole on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Thank you, a better explanation than mine…

right2bright on September 26, 2012 at 10:24 AM

I’m sure Steve Kroft laughed and then followed up with the obvious question challenging such a ridiculous and outright lie, right? I mean he is a journalist.

Ellis on September 26, 2012 at 10:25 AM

My teenage kids have more responsibility than Obama..

He’s the lame ass high schooler that never grew up to accept the role of being a man. (adult)

What a POS this guy is.

RockyJ. on September 26, 2012 at 10:28 AM

The new swing state polls are suspect.

But Bloomberg is out with a new national poll with a very good, realistic sample of Dems +2.

The result?????

Obama +6

GAME OVER.

gumbyandpokey on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

…how was your orgasim?

KOOLAID2 on September 26, 2012 at 10:28 AM

“Debt and Deficit both begin with D…and that letter comes after B for Bush but before G for GOP…so I’m right & voters will agree with me – K?” – His Excellency Prezident Obama

workingclass artist on September 26, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Suck on it progressive (R)s. Your Progressive (R) presidents suck and work to help the democrats destroy the nation.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

OK, I’m just going to kill myself now since you clarified everything for me.\

NJ Red on September 26, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Judging from the latest media polls, it appears that a large number of American voters prefer lying, cheating, incompetence and amorality. Sad state of affairs for this once great Republic.

rplat on September 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Cycles happen, but you are saying that the laws and efforts of Barney Frank, Dodd, etc., had no effect?

Really, really?

I don’t get the “bubble started and crashed in the same year” that’s not what I posted, it’s what you posted and imagined I stated.

I said the downward slope of our economy is directly related to the democrat takeover of budget and spending…guess I didn’t use simple enough words for you.

On Jan. 2nd, 2007 we were just under 4 trillion in debt, unemployment was under 5%…

Since it has climbed to over 10%, and 16 trillion…the dems presided over each of those budgets, and often had super majority to pass whatever they wanted…get it? No, you don’t because your agenda get’s in the way of logic.

right2bright on September 26, 2012 at 10:22 AM

We had 55 senate seats. More than enough to Reign in Barney Frank and Dodd. If you have delusions that we could not have, then you are blind.
We had a large majority in the house. We could have reigned in Barney Frank and Dodd. If you have delusions to the contrary, they are yours.

Yes, Cycles happen. The question is whether you want to be the instagotrs of those cycles. Demoralizing your conservative base goes a long way to enabling your enemy. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, Immigration Reform (AMNESTY by any other name is still the same), Police State DHS, TSA, Wire Tapping without warrant American Citizens. Shall I continue?

When you force voters to abandon you because you refuse to represent the ones that voted for you. You are very much culpable for the resulatant damage. Perhaps not in a direct sense, but certainly in an overall sense.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

astonerii: The housing bubble started and crashed in the same year, 2007? Seriously?

You’re only half right. The bubble started under Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act.

FACT: The Housing crash began precisely when the Pelosi-Obama-Reid triumverate took Congress– January 2007.

Terp Mole on September 26, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Obama is kynesian

nathor on September 26, 2012 at 10:23 AM

No he isn’t! He was born in Hawaii!!!

Happy Nomad on September 26, 2012 at 10:32 AM

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:16 AM

It must be noted for the record that the Bush administration had clear signs as early as 2001 of the danger of the housing bubble and did their best to warn Congress, to which they were vilified by Barny Frank, Chuck Schumer, and the regular ilk.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/jackson/index.ssf/2010/02/democrats_failed_to_take_housi.html

itsspideyman on September 26, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Wasn’t Obama a part of Congress that played a part in what he inherited? Could have sworn he was a Senator, even if he never really worked at the job.

Wagthatdog on September 26, 2012 at 10:33 AM

OT: (sorta)

Parts of I-75 and I-475 will be shut down today to accommodate Obama’s visit here.

On a Wednesday, on a workday, on a day that normally has the highest volume of truck traffic on this vital North-South artery.

Once again, our Glorious Leader is far more concerned about himself than commerce and the economy.

coldwarrior on September 26, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Math and responsibility are hard

Yeah, it’s much easier to “unskew” polls that show Romney is losing.

chumpThreads on September 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM

“I do however take credit for killing Bin Laden.”

-pssst, Mr. President, the muslims are rioting over there partly as revenge for Bin Laden being killed.

“As I said, my predecessor is responsible for the death of Bin Laden.”

Bishop on September 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM

We had 55 senate seats. More than enough to Reign in Barney Frank and Dodd.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

We?

Happy Nomad on September 26, 2012 at 10:37 AM

OK, I’m just going to kill myself now since you clarified everything for me.\

NJ Red on September 26, 2012 at 10:29 AM

astonerii, unfortunately, is hitting the nail on the head. Sure, Obama lies (constantly) but Democrats and Republicans have brought us to this point. That’s not blasphemy, that’s the truth.

Compassionate conservatism was a lie. It was a ruse to install more and bigger government. I don’t hate Bush but I seriously don’t like where he left this country when he left office.

Obama has had an easy time advancing the progressive ball once he took over as quarterback, thanks in part, to Bush.

Obama still lied about his responsibility in all of this, but astonerii has told the truth.

Fallon on September 26, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Judging from the latest media polls, it appears that a large number of American voters prefer lying, cheating, incompetence and amorality. Sad state of affairs for this once great Republic.

rplat on September 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

45% never vote.
80% of those who do vote are straight ticket voters for one party or the other.
49% have figured out they can vote money from other people’s pockets.
25% think charity is government welfare checks and not churches and non profits.
80% of the entire population is OWED by the government something, because well, they paid in.

I do not know what to do about the non voters…
The straight ticket no questions asked voters allow encumbents to have unlimited tenure.
Those who vote other people’s money have learned they do not even have to steal this generation’s money, they can steal my daughters money instead, since she has no vote, they get less push back from the other voters.
the people who think government is charity are the people who would never give more than 1% of their income to charity and also refuse to pay for the government charity the demand.
The 80% owed by the government. Well, you never seen anyone work harder than watching a person trying to keep their ill gotten money.

A man approaches a guy at the end of the bar. Whispers in his ear, and the guy at the end of the bar beats the living hell out of him. Out the door, down the block, back up the block, and then back to his seat. The bartender is like, man, I never seen you get worked up like that before, what did he say? I dunno, something about a job!

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Judging from the latest media polls, it appears that a large number of American voters prefer lying, cheating, incompetence and amorality. Sad state of affairs for this once great Republic.

rplat on September 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Don’t use media polls to form your judgement, they lie, lie, lie.

Here’s a poll adjusted for the media bias that shows you where we really stand at this point.

NapaConservative on September 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I would have stopped the interview and clarified with him that he understood the question, because it sounds as if either he didn’t, or he doesn’t even know the difference between deficit and debt.

And frankly, I would not be at all surprised if that’s the truth.

KMC1 on September 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

But Bloomberg is out with a new national poll with a very good, realistic sample of Dems +2.

The result?????

Obama +6

GAME OVER.

gumbyandpokey on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Maybe, but this was the same Bloomberg poll that had Obama leading by 13% in June.

They spiked the White vote from 67% to 73%.

Also, the head-to-head question doesn’t come until….the 15th question!

sentinelrules on September 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

We had 55 senate seats. More than enough to Reign in Barney Frank and Dodd. If you have delusions that we could not have, then you are blind.
We had a large majority in the house. We could have reigned in Barney Frank and Dodd. If you have delusions to the contrary, they are yours.

Yes, Cycles happen. The question is whether you want to be the instagotrs of those cycles. Demoralizing your conservative base goes a long way to enabling your enemy. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, Immigration Reform (AMNESTY by any other name is still the same), Police State DHS, TSA, Wire Tapping without warrant American Citizens. Shall I continue?

When you force voters to abandon you because you refuse to represent the ones that voted for you. You are very much culpable for the resulatant damage. Perhaps not in a direct sense, but certainly in an overall sense.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I agree with all of this and it explains why Romney is unable to pull ahead in this years election.

bgibbs1000 on September 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM

astoneri lied: We had 55 senate seats. More than enough to Reign in Barney Frank and Dodd… We had a large majority in the house.

^ Rubbish.

FACT: January 2007: Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate controlled the Senate with a 51-49 majority (with 2 Independents caucusing with Harry Reid).

FACT: January 2007: Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate controlled the House with a 233-202 majority.

You clearly have no grasp on reality.

Terp Mole on September 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM

it’s much easier to “unskew” polls that show Romney is losing.

chumpThreads on September 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Hey, that’s because O’bamna has the High School Dropout Vote all locked up. he got a record 70% of that vote in 2008, and will get the other 30% this November. So nice to see you’re on board.

BTW, the most recent stats show that the state with the highest percentage of high school dropouts is Delaware. You know, the state where our current 5-Time Draft Dodger “Vice President” hails from.

Del Dolemonte on September 26, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Also, new Rasmussen poll shows Romney leading by 2% with leaners…48%-46%

sentinelrules on September 26, 2012 at 10:42 AM

It must be noted for the record that the Bush administration had clear signs as early as 2001 of the danger of the housing bubble and did their best to warn Congress, to which they were vilified by Barny Frank, Chuck Schumer, and the regular ilk.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/jackson/index.ssf/2010/02/democrats_failed_to_take_housi.html

itsspideyman on September 26, 2012 at 10:32 AM

He had the bully pulpit and the responsibility to use it for the good of the nation.

I would blame him much less if it was a credible claim he did not see the danger.

I think he was just looking to push the crisis off onto the next president. But his Treasury guy was more loyal to Goldman Sachs than Bush and pulled the lever early in order to control the payouts.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:43 AM

gumbyandpokey on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Maybe, but this was the same Bloomberg poll that had Obama leading by 13% in June.

They spiked the White vote from 67% to 73%.

Also, the head-to-head question doesn’t come until….the 15th question!

sentinelrules on September 26, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Don’t bother with the Boy of Clay. It’s desperately trying to hijack this thread to deflect from the fact that the Dear Leader it worships has once again been exposed as a serial liar.

Del Dolemonte on September 26, 2012 at 10:44 AM

gumbyandpokey on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Do you think we can’t read?
Page 2

among likely voters: Republican 24 Democrat 30 that’s D +6

leaning means zip

tbrickert on September 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

FACT: January 2007: Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate controlled the Senate with a 51-49 majority (with 2 Independents caucusing with Harry Reid).

FACT: January 2007: Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate controlled the House with a 233-202 majority.

You clearly have no grasp on reality.

Terp Mole on September 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Looking at the Playa Del Rey and Hawthorne area in California, right around the airport on the beach. By 2007 95% of the housing bubble had already been built. Bush had tried to do something in 2002ish I think it was, but was called mean and dropped it. Between the time Bush knew there was a bubble and the time it popped, we had 55 seats in the senate. I have looked it up.

Grasp on reality? Much better than yours. It keeps me up at night.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Fallon: astonerii, unfortunately repeatedly, is hitting the nail on the head lying through his teeth.

ftfy

Terp Mole on September 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Math is hard.

Evidently, it’s too hard for President “I’m going beddie-byes, let me know if the morning if our Ambassador to Libya is still alive.”

(I’ll leave it to Bishop to turn that into an acronym)

UltimateBob on September 26, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Terp Mole
109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

astonerii: the housing bubble had already been built

You look pretty silly pinwheeling across the stage of HotAir, desperately moving those goalposts, don’t you.

FACT: The housing bubble began in 1978 with Carter’s CRA. It burst in January 2007precisely when the radical “progressive” (read: Marxist) Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate took power.

Try harder to come to terms with the facts.

Terp Mole on September 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Terp Mole

107th
(2001-2003) 435 212 221 Independents (2) 0 4/1
108th
(2003-2005) 435 205 229 Independent (1) 0 4/1
109th
(2005-2007) 435 202 232 Independent (1) 0 4/1

You were saying?

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Obama certainly inherited an economic mess, and that accounts for a large part of the deficit.

STOP WITH THE G– D— FLUKEING “inherited” MEME ALREADY! I’M GOING TO BURN THE EMBASSY OF THE NEXT JOURNALIST THAT USES THAT STUPID TERM!! OBAMA CHOSE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT; HE DIDN’T INHERIT ANYTHING!!!!one!!!!eleventy!!!!

At leat I got that off my chest.

Nutstuyu on September 26, 2012 at 10:54 AM

astonerii pinwheeled: 109th Congress (2005-2007)

^ More irrelevant half-truths?

FACT: The housing bubble began in 1978 with Carter’s CRA. It burst in January 2007… precisely when the radical “progressive” (read: Marxist) Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate took power.

Try harder to come to avoid muttering ahistorical nonsense.

Terp Mole on September 26, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Terp Mole on September 26, 2012 at 10:51 AM

You should probably look at the charts…

True, some of the underpinnings of the housing crisis started in 1977 with Jimmy Carter.

http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/

But the reality is that the CRA had only a small impact on house prices. What drove the boom and bust was Bank Regulation that restricted banks on where they could make their money. They had a limited number of options to get the best returns on investments. It turned out Mortgage Backed Securities were the single best option, and everyone jumped in on it. This drove a huge demand for them.

Bank makes a mortgage. Sells it to a company that packages it. Makes instant profit and no risk. Thus they were able to make bad loans and make money. This was undergirded by Bushes banking policy which his people pushed.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Pinocchios are okay, but I was thinking more along the lines of a glowering look from Rebel Without a Cause James Dean: “Grandma Barry, you tell another lie– you’re going to turn to stone.”

de rigueur on September 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM

BTW, the most recent stats show that the state with the highest percentage of high school dropouts is Delaware. You know, the state where our current 5-Time Draft Dodger “Vice President” hails from.

Del Dolemonte on September 26, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Hey, don’t look at me, I’m a college graduate. I didn’t vote for him and I wasn’t even born here.

For that matter, neither was Joey, he’s originally from Scranton, PA, as 0bama was so fond of reminding us during the 2008 campaign in his zeal to win PA.

UltimateBob on September 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Don’t use media polls to form your judgement, they lie, lie, lie.

Here’s a poll adjusted for the media bias that shows you where we really stand at this point.

NapaConservative on September 26, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Perhaps, but you still must counter headlines like this one from this mornings NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/polls-show-obama-widening-lead-in-ohio-and-florida.html?hp

rplat on September 26, 2012 at 11:01 AM

So, if we add up Kessler’s numbers for 2009, 2010, and 2011, we get $2105 billion for Economic and Technical Differences, $715 billion for Bush policies, and $1575 billion for Obama policies, for a total of nearly $4.4 TRILLION. On a percentage basis, we can blame 48% on the economy, 16% on Bush, and 36% on Obama.

Obama is more than twice as much to blame than Bush, according to the Washington Post.

Of course, this doesn’t count Obama’s responsibility in the Economic and Technical Differences. If Obama had not held back economic growth by ObamaCare, strangled our supplies of oil and gas with his energy policies, and strangled businesses with excessive regulations, the economy would be doing better, more people would be working and paying taxes, and less people would be collecting unemployment and food stamps, which would reduce the deficit.

Steve Z on September 26, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Conditions were right for the Basel I and then Basel II international capital accords (Basel II was a disaster so now we are on Basel III). Basel brought international banks closer together on capital requirements, largely by bringing the top banks down rather than bringing the bottom banks up.

As feared, governments used the models to steer credit to their favorite sectors. A loan to Apple, Microsoft or a family drug store would carry a 100% risk weighting. Sovereign debt – i.e., loans made to the governments writing the rules – was given a zero risk weighting. Housing loans – another favorite of politicians – were given a 50% risk weight (25% if you securitized the loans and bought back the securities). Not surprisingly, excessive real estate and sovereign lending followed.</blockquote>

Basel II was the one that Bush’s men signed off on by the way…

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM

astonerii: CRA had only a small impact on house prices

^ Delusional rubbish? Or HuffPo pantomime?

Flashback 2000: The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown

Stop drinking the bongwater.

Terp Mole on September 26, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Basel II was the one that Bush’s men signed off on by the way…
astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Who exactly were “Bush’s men”?

Nutstuyu on September 26, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Perhaps, but you still must counter headlines like this one from this mornings NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/polls-show-obama-widening-lead-in-ohio-and-florida.html?hp

rplat on September 26, 2012 at 11:01 AM

True, but you can’t use this garbage as the basis for your opinion. The NYT is the farthest up Barfy’s a$$ of all the “news” outlets.

NapaConservative on September 26, 2012 at 11:09 AM

rue, but you can’t use this garbage as the basis for your opinion. The NYT is the farthest up Barfy’s a$$ of all the “news” outlets.

NapaConservative on September 26, 2012 at 11:09 AM

Perhaps not but many do and if there is not strong counter it will affect the outcome of this election. Saying one should not use it does not reduce its affect on the voting public.

rplat on September 26, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Who exactly were “Bush’s men”?

Nutstuyu on September 26, 2012 at 11:08 AM

As Accords, they can only be signed off by the Executive branch of the Federal government. Who ever was in charge then would have been those who signed off on it. In effect though, that would mean Bush himself signed off on it. The buck stops at the foot of the president.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Whoopee! I guess Obama is finally assuming 10 percent more responsibility than he has any time previously!

rockncoal on September 26, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Will somebody please ask the Emperor how will taxing the rich (his only proposed solution) create more jobs?

RedManBlueState on September 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM

This is probably a better candidate for OOTD (subhead: Math is Hard) than today’s nomination of the President’s UN speech regarding “tolerance” vs the First Amendment (too serious to be an Obamateurism). This would not be a two-fer, as yesterday’s OOTD on the “Blame Bush for the Debt” comment was under the subhead: Words are Hard.

Upstreamer on September 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM

FY 2004 ==> FY 2007 In three years, the Republican House, Senate and President reduced annual deficits by 61%, from $413 Billlion down to $161 Billion.

FY 2008 ==> FY 2009 In two years, the Democrat House, Senate and (by Jan 2009) President increased annual deficits by 779%, from $161 Billlion down to $1,412 Billion ($1.412 Trillion).

Data Source: White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

ITguy on September 26, 2012 at 11:39 AM

D’oh! “up to”, not “down to”…

ITguy on September 26, 2012 at 11:40 AM

FY 2004 ==> FY 2007 In three years, the Republican House, Senate and President reduced annual deficits by 61%, from $413 Billlion down to $161 Billion.

FY 2008 ==> FY 2009 In two years, the Democrat House, Senate and (by Jan 2009) President increased annual deficits by 779%, from $161 Billlion up to $1,412 Billion ($1.412 Trillion).

Data Source: White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

ITguy on September 26, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The Democrats (including Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Senators Obama, Biden, Clinton, etc.) “inherited” a deficit of $161 Billion. And for the last four years in a row, they have produced deficits over a Trillion dollars bigger than that Fy 2007 deficit.

It is the Democrat policies that have failed.

The economy was actually doing quite well under 12 consecutive years of majority-Republican control from FY 1996-2007.

It is the Democrats who drove the economy into the ditch and left it there.

ITguy on September 26, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The new swing state polls are suspect.

But Bloomberg is out with a new national poll with a very good, realistic sample of Dems +2.

The result?????

Obama +6

GAME OVER.

gumbyandpokey on September 26, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Poll Troll is Trolling Polls

ShadowsPawn on September 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Interesting to read this again with the benefit of something approaching 20/20 hindsight:

Do Deficits Matter?

“We should figure out what we want before we calculate what we can afford, not the reverse.”

Fallon on September 26, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Poll Troll is Trolling Polls

ShadowsPawn on September 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Oh dear, that reminds me of a It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia episode, Troll Toll. I don’t think I’ll link because it’s definitely NSFW.

You gotta pay the troll toll.
You gotta pay the troll toll to get in.
Troll toll!
What’d you say?!
Troll toll!
Hey, hey, hey!
Troll toll!

Fallon on September 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM

And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but ninety percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for

The Bush Tax Cuts did NOT make deficits go up.

Quite to the contrary, the Bush Tax Cuts made deficits go DOWN.

After the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts, both employment and tax revenues went up.

FY 2007 revenues were an amazing 44% larger than FY 2003 revenues!

Really let that sink in… revenues went up 44% in just four years’ time following the passage of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.

Yet Obama ignorantly and/or dishonestly claims that defcits went up “as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for”.

No, deficits went up because Democrats and their policies tanked the economy and employment while they simultaneously sent spending through the roof.

The worst deficit from when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency was FY 2004, when:
(Receipts 1.88 Trillion) – (Outlays 2.29 Trillion) = Deficit 0.41 Trillion

And the worst deficit from when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency(*) was FY 2009, when:
(Receipts 2.10 Trillion) – (Outlays 3.51 Trillion) = Deficit 1.41 Trillion

The problem wasn’t the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts. Revenues were higher in 2009 than they were in 2004.

The problem was the FY 2009 spending, which was over 53% more than it had been in FY 2004!

FY 2009 spending was passed by the Nancy Pelosi House, Harry Reid Senate, and a majority of the spending was signed by Obama in 2009 (with only a minority of the spending signed by Bush in the last three months of 2008).

Things like the 2nd half of TARP were requested by Bush AT OBAMA’s SPECIFIC REQUEST. And the “stimulus” and “Cash for Clunkers” were 100% Democrat initiatives in FY 2009.

They fully intended to run up spending as high as they possibly could in FY 2009, and then BLAME THAT ALL ON BUSH and set that level of spending as their new “baseline”!

ITguy on September 26, 2012 at 12:13 PM

The question is, how many of those “Bush policies” did Obama vote in the affirmative for while in the Senate?

robertlbryant on September 26, 2012 at 12:25 PM

This is coming from an empty chair that still doesn’t know the difference between debt and deficit. 41 Days!

Kissmygrits on September 26, 2012 at 12:30 PM

“The 90¢ stops here.”–B. Obama

mrt721 on September 26, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Suck on it progressive (R)s. Your Progressive (R) presidents suck and work to help the democrats destroy the nation.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 10:06 AM

What really stinks is Mitt Romney supported both of these near Trillion dollar pieces of PORK.

Steveangell on September 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Reduce it to the simple…
We all know that Obarry is a LIAR.
He has been a practiced liar all of his “miserable” life.
He married a LIAR.
Just vote R on 11/6.
III%

dirtengineer on September 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

nathor on September 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Having tried for far too long now, I’ve come to the realization that one can’t possibly have a civil, intelligent conversation with a moronic liberal such as yourself, so let me simply invite you to f@#$ off, imbecile.

Midas on September 26, 2012 at 2:06 PM

If you hired someone who did not succeed, blamed his failure on others, and whined at what he inherited, wouldn’t you fire him?

billrowe on September 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM

If you hired someone who did not succeed, blamed his failure on others, and whined at what he inherited, wouldn’t you fire him?

billrowe on September 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM

He’d have been fired quite awhile ago.

Midas on September 26, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Attention Terp Mole and astonerii
Google Wikipedia

109th Congress
January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007
House
Democrats: 232
Republicans: 201
Independents: 1

Senate
Democrats: 44
Republicans: 55
Independents: 1

110th Congress
January 3, 2007, to January 3, 2009
House
Democrats: 202
Republicans: 233
Independents: 0

Senate
Democrats: 49
Republicans: 49
Independents: 2

Nuf said…now fight nice.

timberline on September 26, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Attention Terp Mole and astonerii
Google Wikipedia

109th Congress
January 3, 2005 to January 3, 2007
House
Democrats: 232
Republicans: 201
Independents: 1

Senate
Democrats: 44
Republicans: 55
Independents: 1

110th Congress
January 3, 2007, to January 3, 2009
House
Democrats: 233
Republicans: 202
Independents: 0

Senate
Democrats: 49
Republicans: 49
Independents: 2

Got the Dems and GOP wrong on 110th Congress House.

timberline on September 26, 2012 at 4:13 PM

timberline on September 26, 2012 at 4:13 PM

My numbers came directly from the House and Senate records. I seriously doubt there was any mistake in them.

George W Bush and Republicans had enough control to make changes where they wanted…

Republicans controlled the House of representatives from 1995 through 2007. REPEAT there was no democrat control of the House of Representatives between 1995 when Contract with America brought the first Republican Majority since 1949 into power. THANKS NEWT.

Then the Democrats took over in 2007 due to a demoralized Republican party due to the Republicans turning their back on everything conservative including the war effort. The war was fought as if it was a god forsaken committee conglomeration of progressive methods. On the cheap, low man power, winning the hearts and minds. WTF in hell is that shit? If your going to war, you go to war to SUBJUGATE THE OTHER SIDE. You make them want the war to end so they come to the table meek and mild.

REPEAT from 1995 through 2007, every single minute of every single day, it was the REPUBLICANS who were in power. AND ONLY BECAUSE THEY PLAYED NICE NICE WITH THE DEMOCRATS did they have any power WHAT-SO-EVER in the house. The house is a straight and narrow majority OWNS IT place.

astonerii on September 26, 2012 at 5:20 PM

timberline boasts: “Got the Dems and GOP wrong on 110th Congress House

^ Pernicious nonsense.

FACT: January 2007: Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate controlled the Senate with a 51-49 majority (with 2 Independents caucusing with Harry Reid).

FACT: January 2007: Pelosi-Obama-Reid (POR) triumverate controlled the House with a 233-202 majority.

You and astonerri clearly have lost your grasp on reality.

Terp Mole on September 27, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2