President Obama has been guilty of many things and has done many things differently than needed. However, despite his mistakes he has taken a lot of blame from a lot of liars for things he did not do. Mostly, running up the debt, deficits and crashing the economy. Now, yet another right-wing liar is lying about the bad Obama had nothing to do with.
Just listen to lying elitist Sean Hannity trying to convince the masses Obama, not failed Corporate Conservative politicians have created the debt-ceiling crisis:
Ah but as always with lies and the lying liars who tell them the truth is not too far around the corner. With the CBO:
In a January 7, 2009, report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected, based on spending authorized under the Bush administration, that the federal deficit in FY2009 would total $1.2 trillion. According to the CBO, the actual federal deficit for FY2009, which began during the Bush’s last year in office, was $1.4 trillion.
The Center for American Progress even made a nifty little chart that should explain it all in terms that even a tea-bagger brain of mush can understand:
They went on to explain further:
As for the deficit’s cause, the single most important factor is the legacy of President George W. Bush’s legislative agenda. Overall, changes in federal law during the Bush administration are responsible for 40 percent of the short-term fiscal problem. For example, we estimate that the tax cuts passed during the Bush presidency are reducing government revenue collections by $231 billion in 2009. Also, because of the additions to the federal debt due to Bush administration policies, the government will be paying $218 billion more in interest payments in 2009.
Had President Bush not cut taxes while simultaneously prosecuting two foreign wars and adopting other programs without paying for them, the current deficit would be only 4.7 percent of gross domestic product this year, instead of the eye-catching 11.2 percent–despite the weak economy and the costly efforts taken to restore it. In 2010, the deficit would be 3.2 percent instead of 9.6 percent.
The weak economy also plays a major role in the deficit picture. The failure of Bush economic policies–fiscal irresponsibility, regulatory indifference, fueling of an asset and credit bubble, a failure to focus on jobs and incomes, and inaction as the economy started slipping–contributed mightily to the nation’s current economic situation. When the economy contracts, tax revenues decline and outlays increase for programs designed to keep people from falling deep into poverty (with the tax impact much larger than the spending impact). All told, the weak economy is responsible for 20 percent of the fiscal problems we face in 2009 and 2010.
President Obama’s policies have also contributed to the federal deficit–but only 16 percent of the projected budget deterioration for 2009 and 2010 are attributable to those policies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, designed to help bring the economy out of the recession is, by far, the largest single additional public spending under this administration.
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities also deemed Sean Hannity a bald-faced liar and charted proof:
Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years.
Harvard’s Business Review Group Director also agreed:
The Treasury Department reported on Oct. 15 that the deficit in fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30, was $1.294 trillion. That’s less than FY 2009’s $1.416 trillion, but it’s still really really big. Why is it so big, though? Is it because of all that stimulus and bailout spending? Or is something else going on?
To find out, I created a fantasy world. I figured out how fast federal spending and revenue grew over the last business cycle, from 2000 through 2007, and calculated where we’d be today if those growth rates had continued through 2010. I was originally motivated to do this for a commentary that’s supposed to air tomorrow night on Nightly Business Report. But I’m thinking there’s not a huge overlap between Felix Salmon readers and Nightly Business Report viewers, so I’ll go ahead and share what I learned.
In my no-financial-crisis, no-bailout, no-recession, no-stimulus scenario, spending kept growing at 6.22% a year, and revenue kept growing at 3.45%. You can see from the difference between the two numbers that this was an unsustainable path. But it clearly could have been sustained for a few more years.
Where would it have left us in fiscal 2010? With $2.843 trillion in federal revenue and $3.270 trillion in spending, leaving a deficit of $427 billion. The actual revenue and spending totals for 2010 were $2.162 trillion and $3.456 trillion. So spending was $186 billion higher than if we’d stuck to the trend, and revenue was $681 billion lower. In other words, the giant deficit is mainly the result of the collapse in tax receipts brought on by the recession, not the increase in spending. Nice to know, huh?
Yes it appears the big lie that Hannity is covering up is that President Obama has done much more harm to the economy by trying to appease folks like Sean Hannity than anything else. What I want to ask them all is that if the model so pushed by Hannity and the other sickening minions in Republican talk radio really works, why in the hell did the economy crash in the first place??
Trickle-down type policies have been in place for the better part of thirty years and what has happened?? Debt has skyrocketed jobs have been outsourced and the middle-class is almost non-existent. Now that people like Sean Hannity have picked the system clean they seek to blame others in a desperate attempt to keep from having to give back to the system they robbed from.
With his refusal to fight for Progressive vision sadly it appears as if the big lie about Obama may have been that he was really one of
them all along.