There They Go Again

Raise your hand if you're just sick of the 'librul' media distortions. I am.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_10/020483.php

THERE THEY GO AGAIN.... The lead overnight story on Mark Halperin's "The Page" features a photo of President Obama alongside U.S. currency. The text reads, "Red Ink Nation: Obama presides over $1.4 trillion deficit."

The front page of the Washington Post tells readers, "Record-High Deficit May Dash Big Plans; $1.4 Trillion in Red Ink Means Less to Spend On Obama's Ambitious Jobs, Stimulus Policies." The New York Times' front page says, "$1.4 Trillion Deficit Complicates Stimulus Plans."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/gdp%25.bmp

Let's set the record straight here. The Treasury Department officially announced that the federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.4 trillion. While that's hardly good news, it's worth remembering that the Office of Management and Budget had projected a deficit for FY09 of $1.8 trillion. As Dean Baker explained, "Given the new information about the deficit, a more reasonable headline would have been, 'Lower Than Expected Deficit Leaves Room for Stimulus,' since the government can now spend $200-$400 billion and still have a lower debt than what was projected just two months ago."

Second, while a $1.4 trillion deficit is unprecedented in size, as Paul Krugman explained in August, "it's not horrific either by historical or international standards." This chart, published by the WaPo today, shows the debt as a percentage of GDP, and adds some helpful perspective.

Third, let's give credit where credit is due. Halperin's report makes it seem as if the Obama administration deserves blame for the huge budget shortfall. That's demonstrable nonsense. The Center for American Progress' Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden recently explained, "The policies of the Bush administration, which included tax cuts during a time of war and a floundering economy, are clearly the primary source of the current deficits. The Obama administration policies that are beginning to give the economy a needed jumpstart -- the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in particular -- place a distant third in contributing to the 2009 and 2010 deficit numbers."

Specifically, 40% of the fiscal deterioration we're seeing -- the single largest contributing factor -- can be attributed to Bush policies. Another 12% comes from Bush's financial rescues, while 20% are the result of the economic crisis. What's President Obama's share? Just 16% of the total, most of which is the result of new spending that was necessary to prevent a depression. Indeed, blaming Obama is backwards: "{P}roperly accounted for, the deficit actually goes down when you compare Obama's budget proposals to current policy, not up."

And finally, let's also not forget that it only makes sense to run large deficits given the circumstances. We're dealing with an economic collapse and two wars, following eight years in which we were led by "the most fiscally irresponsible president in the history of the republic."

Bush inherited the largest budget surplus in American history and turned it into the largest deficit in American history. Obama, in contrast, found a fiscal fiasco waiting on his desk on his first day on the job. Before anyone blasts the president for the mess, perhaps they ought to grab a mop.

-Steve Benen

It never ceases to amaze me at how far the so called liberal media goes to cloud the truth.

the uncomfortable working poor.

There is no longer any working ethical code in place for journalism. That was scrapped long ago.

that Obama came into office with a deficit courtesy of Bush, his wars and economic policy. However nobody wants to remember that and wants to try to turn Bush's mess into Obama's.

and print it.

The 1Q deficit for FY09 was $485.2 billion. 34.7% of the current FY deficit occurred at least 20 days before Obama assumed the presidency.

Obama does indeed now preside over the deficit. Just as he now presides over 10%+ unemployment (25% if you prefer reality-based numbers instead of US government propaganda). Just as he now presides over even bigger too-big-to-fail still-unregulated banks vastly enriching their executives and making the world worse by the second.

He's the man now. Period. What's he gonna do about it?

You need to read up. Or perhaps you preferred idiot son.

Obama has done a little on some things, more on others, and nothing on others.

Whether he created the problems he now faces is not the issue. He's the one we elected to "fix things."

I'm more interested in what he does now that he is in power than I am in continuing to preach to the DU choir about how awful the last 30 years of neocon rule have been. Reagan--disaster; Bush I--more disaster; Clinton--qualified disaster; Bush II--biggest disaster in US history. I agree.

We definitely need to prevent the right wing from trying to shift responsibility to Obama for creating the problems, but that is not the same as ignoring Obama's responsibilities as President.

I think he can do much good--perhaps more good than any President in modern history.

I think, though, he has not shown leadership or commitment on health care reform. I also think he and his Goldman Sachs team have made our long-term financial problems worse rather than better. It's only month nine though. He still has a long way to go.

his Team are working 24/7 to clean up that fucker bush's mess.

Because it suggests another president could have had a surplus right now. That just isn't logical.

Look at it this way:

Let's say you're a back up on a team who's losing 52-0 entering the third quarter. The coaching staff decides to make mass substitutions and you're thrown into the game in the second half.

You and the subs go on to lead your team to a 62-0 loss.

Do you, as a second stringer, get blamed for the loss?

No. And no one would suggest you were the reason, even though the game ended with you out on the field and the margin was larger at the end of the game than it was entering the second.

Why? Because you weren't on the field when 52 points were put up. It was the first string (Bush) who allowed 52-points in the first half compared to your ten in the second.

So while the team lost by a larger margin than they were down at the half, they gave up less points than the first string.

They were damned from the start. You're not coming back from a 52-0 deficit in only a half.

Well Obama can't erase an entire deficit built up over eight years in one year. So of course if he spends, he'll be adding to that deficit, regardless. Just as if the other team scores in the second half, they're adding to the scoring deficit.

But we don't blame them. We blame the first string for putting them in the hole.

Obama won't own this deficit for a few years. Not until it grows and grows year after year. But to suggest he owns it in his first year is ridiculous because it suggests he should have been able to end the deficit in his first year - which is not possible.

With that said, I'll agree with you - if the deficit continues to balloon three, four, five and six years out, then it will be HIS deficit. You can blame Bush for getting them in the hole, but if he doesn't pull back spending, it won't matter.

Right now, though, it ain't his deficit.

This is the Great Neocon Depression.
Say it loud, say it strong and say it often.

It was in November last year.

Then tell 'em to shut up. Fucking liars.