Obama Lies Bigtime on Deficit - A balanced look at the facts

KingCondanomation

New member
Here is Obama's lying claim and here are the facts contrasted to it:

"OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.


(AP) President Barack Obama speaks during a town hall meeting Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at Fox Senior...
Full Image


THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090429/D97SCPI00.html

His massive spending plans dwarf what the Iraq war costs and Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan while voting for most Iraq war spending anyway.

The Democrats in power in congress are out of control and to the far left with massive spending and massive deficits, that although Repubs are somewhat responsible for, the Dems are MORE responsible for and are making worse.
 
Now I know that you don't believe that deficit spending during a recession can do any good, dano, but you aren't taken seriously as an economic. The general line of thought is that if we don't do something to fight the recession, it's going to harm growth rates massively, and we're going to have a huge deficit down the line anyway with a much worse economy. Your solution (cutting taxes and attempting to balance the budget in a recession) is the worst of both worlds. I know you don't accept it, but don't pretend like this is a permanent deal, or that it has no purpose. It only has no purpose in your idiotic worldview that no real economist takes seriously.
 
Now I know that you don't believe that deficit spending during a recession can do any good, dano, but you aren't taken seriously as an economic. The general line of thought is that if we don't do something to fight the recession, it's going to harm growth rates massively, and we're going to have a huge deficit down the line anyway with a much worse economy. Your solution (cutting taxes and attempting to balance the budget in a recession) is the worst of both worlds. I know you don't accept it, but don't pretend like this is a permanent deal, or that it has no purpose. It only has no purpose in your idiotic worldview that no real economist takes seriously.
First saying I am not "taken seriously as an economic", well it's always cute when a fat kid in his parents house tries to pretend to know what he's talking about with big words and gets caught fucking up the vocabulary.

Up til last year no serious economist believed in Keynesian politics since the 70's. It's only panic that has fueled this mad desire to "do something" even if it means jacking up the deficit and debt to dangerous amounts.

There are hundreds of economists, seasoned economists, nobel-prize winning economists (and I mean real nobel prize winning economists, not ones who win it based on trade theory like Paul Krugman) who do not believe that the stimilus is the right thing to do:
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

And of course this is a permanent deal, when has government ever shrank? You actually think Obama and other far left Democrats are going to take back their massive spending increases to health and education?

As usual you are just a very young child who tries to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about, you also have way too strong a belief in what an intellectual majority believes and lack the objectiveness you used to have.
 
And of course this is a permanent deal, when has government ever shrank?

challenges09.png


Several times in the past 30 years alone.
 
The whole triumvarate of youthful stupidity have all gone in this direction.

Threedee, grind, Wateryskidmarx


I think epi is the Shemp of the group. The fourth stooge.
 
First saying I am not "taken seriously as an economic", well it's always cute when a fat kid in his parents house tries to pretend to know what he's talking about with big words and gets caught fucking up the vocabulary.

Up til last year no serious economist believed in Keynesian politics since the 70's. It's only panic that has fueled this mad desire to "do something" even if it means jacking up the deficit and debt to dangerous amounts.

There are hundreds of economists, seasoned economists, nobel-prize winning economists (and I mean real nobel prize winning economists, not ones who win it based on trade theory like Paul Krugman) who do not believe that the stimilus is the right thing to do:
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

And of course this is a permanent deal, when has government ever shrank? You actually think Obama and other far left Democrats are going to take back their massive spending increases to health and education?

As usual you are just a very young child who tries to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about, you also have way too strong a belief in what an intellectual majority believes and lack the objectiveness you used to have.

The Friedman's have had the economy for the last 30+ years and it has failed us miserably. We can not go back. We must look forward and if it isn't Keynesian, then it has to be something different than Friedman! I say Buffetian! We also need to look to Freud, or prehaps a New Renaissance! Would you like to be a Renaisance man?

Eramus, oh, Eramus where are you when we need you? Obama, the President of the New Renaissance?
 
There is no economic ideology more failed than classical and neoliberal economics. It just doesn't matter how many times these ideologies fail, the fascists keep digging them up.
 
Yes froggie, what we have been doing no longer works. A different path is required.

The old rules and assumptions on the economy are no longer very valid.
 
The Friedman's have had the economy for the last 30+ years and it has failed us miserably. We can not go back. We must look forward and if it isn't Keynesian, then it has to be something different than Friedman! I say Buffetian! We also need to look to Freud, or prehaps a New Renaissance! Would you like to be a Renaisance man?

Eramus, oh, Eramus where are you when we need you? Obama, the President of the New Renaissance?

Have we had growth in the U.S. any better than the last 30 years of our history?
 
Have we had growth in the U.S. any better than the last 30 years of our history?

A growth yes for the industrialized age. We are no longer an industrialized country. We are now a service nation, so Friedman doesn't work, if it ever really did. It allowed certain factions of our nation to grow, others to stiffle!

We can thank Friedman for making us like Venezuala, Peru and those other SA countries.

It is now time to remake ourselves and quickly. I look to Buffet, myself, or should have earlier than I did. We cuss ourselves for that mistake.
 
The Friedman's have had the economy for the last 30+ years and it has failed us miserably. We can not go back. We must look forward and if it isn't Keynesian, then it has to be something different than Friedman! I say Buffetian! We also need to look to Freud, or prehaps a New Renaissance! Would you like to be a Renaisance man?

Eramus, oh, Eramus where are you when we need you? Obama, the President of the New Renaissance?
Milton Friedman advocated a reduction in government, which we did in the 90's and were very prosperous. THIS decade as you well know had big increases in government and departed from a model of less government and the results as you point out are miserable.
So instead of reversing those large increases in government, we instead increase by even HUGER amounts and then call it "change".

The real problem is that too many believe that because Bush (a Repub) was in power, we must have been following right-wing model of less government, obviously that was not true.
 
The whole triumvarate of youthful stupidity have all gone in this direction.

Threedee, grind, Wateryskidmarx


I think epi is the Shemp of the group. The fourth stooge.

gentlemen, to arms, an assault has been made on youngins pwn!

up up and awayyyy ~/o/
 
Milton Friedman advocated a reduction in government, which we did in the 90's and were very prosperous. THIS decade as you well know had big increases in government and departed from a model of less government and the results as you point out are miserable.
So instead of reversing those large increases in government, we instead increase by even HUGER amounts and then call it "change".

The real problem is that too many believe that because Bush (a Repub) was in power, we must have been following right-wing model of less government, obviously that was not true.

Reduction in government in what areas though. Did you see wht the Chicago School did to South America. Small government, yeah, right...government control is more like it. Reagan actually started the bogger government movement while convincing the public he was going smaller. He was a master communicator!
 
Here is Obama's lying claim and here are the facts contrasted to it:

"OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.


(AP) President Barack Obama speaks during a town hall meeting Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at Fox Senior...
Full Image


THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion."
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090429/D97SCPI00.html

His massive spending plans dwarf what the Iraq war costs and Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan while voting for most Iraq war spending anyway.

The Democrats in power in congress are out of control and to the far left with massive spending and massive deficits, that although Repubs are somewhat responsible for, the Dems are MORE responsible for and are making worse.



I like how, without even a hint of irony and within a matter of a few paragraphs, the author of thsi "fact check" says that Congress is responsible for the deficits Obama inherited but Obama is responsible for deficits moving forward.
 
Back
Top