Scarborough falsely claimed Orszag "admit[ted]" Obama budget "will create an unsustainable debt"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Joe Scarborough falsely claimed that the president's "own OMB director admits" that his budget will "create an unsustainable debt." In fact, OMB director Peter Orszag recently said that deficits at the level estimated by CBO in scoring Obama's proposed budget "would ultimately not be sustainable," but also said: "I think that what you're going to see, again, under our assumptions, our policies lead to lower deficits than that." Orszag also recently asserted that "[t]he President's Budget," if enacted, would "put the nation on a sustainable fiscal path."
On March 22, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough falsely claimed on his Twitter page that President Obama is "still defending a budget that his own OMB director admits will create an unsustainable debt." Similarly, during the March 23 edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough falsely asserted that Obama is "trying to pass budgets" that his own "budget director says [are] unsustainable." In fact, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Peter Orszag has not "admit[ted]" that Obama's proposed budget "will create an unsustainable debt." Rather, when asked during a March 20 conference call about the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) projection that deficits would "remain between 4 percent and 6 percent of GDP" from 2012-2019 under Obama's budget, Orszag said that deficits in the "5 percent of GDP range ... would ultimately not be sustainable" but also said: "I think that what you're going to see, again, under our assumptions, our policies lead to lower deficits than that." Moreover, in a March 20 blog post on the OMB website, Orszag specifically said that "[t]he President's Budget," if enacted, would "put the nation on a sustainable fiscal path."
Orszag also challenged the CBO projections in the blog post, writing that CBO's estimates "are subject to a high degree of uncertainty" and that CBO's projections after 2014 are "somewhat more pessimistic than the consensus."
From Orszag's March 20 blog post:
First, CBO's projections, like any budget projections, are subject to a high degree of uncertainty. (Trust me ... I know the former CBO Director quite well!) As an example of how much budget projections can shift, at this point last year, CBO was projecting a 2009 baseline deficit of $207 billion. It is now projecting a baseline deficit of about $1.7 trillion. CBO itself has estimated the margin of error around its 5-year deficit projection to be about 5 percent of GDP in either direction -- which means the confidence interval around the 2014 deficit is plus or minus about $900 billion.
Also note that a key driver of the new CBO deficit numbers after 2014 are estimates about long-term economic growth -- where CBO is somewhat more pessimistic than the consensus. For example, CBO projects long-term real economic growth that declines to 2.2 percent per year. Blue Chip pegs long-term real growth at 2.6 percent per year and the Federal Reserve forecasts long-term real growth of between 2.5 and 2.7 percent -- the same as the Administration, which is projecting real long-term growth of 2.6 percent. These differences may not seem big, but over time they accumulate. And since the deficit is the difference between two much larger numbers -- spending and revenue -- even relatively small differences in assumptions can have a magnified impact on the deficit. (As an example, imagine that spending is $1,050 and revenue is $1,000, so the deficit is $50. If revenue declines by just 10 percent, the deficit triples to $150.)
Second, and more importantly, the CBO report only underscores the severity of the economic and fiscal crisis the Administration has inherited. There is need for urgent action to get our economy moving again, invest for the future, and put the nation on a sustainable fiscal path. The President's Budget has proposed to do exactly this by addressing our big challenges head on[.]
From Orszag's March 20 conference call:
MR. ORSZAG: As expected, CBO released its re-estimate of the president's budget today. And, as expected, it reflected a worsening of both the economic outlook and the fiscal picture since CBO's January report.
Let me comment a bit about the projections first. I think one thing that needs to be -- that is often underappreciated is how sensitive the budget projections are to small changes in assumptions in how uncertain they are.
So for example, if you look at the CBO's analysis itself, the confidence interval for the budget projection -- the deficit projection for 2014 is plus-or-minus $900 billion, that is to say, plus-or-minus 5 percent of GDP. There's a huge amount of uncertainty surrounding the budget-deficit projections. And the reason that that's the case is that the deficit is the difference between two large numbers, spending and revenue.
And just as a quick example, if spending is $1050 and revenue is $1000, then the deficit is $50. If revenue then declines by just 10 percent, the deficit skyrockets from 50 (dollars) to $150. In other words, a 10 percent reduction in revenue generates a tripling of the budget deficit. And that basic construct, or that basic insight, is why the deficit number is particularly sensitive to even small changes in assumptions, both technical and economic.
Second point is, if you look at that -- the central estimates, the central projections, especially in the back five years, they are very sensitive to the rate of economic growth. CBO's projected growth rate for the economy declines to 2.2 percent per year in the long term. The blue chip is at 2.6 percent. The Federal Reserve's central tendency is between 2.5 and 2.7, and we are at 2.6. So one of the significant reasons for the out-year deficits being different is that CBO's growth projection is below ours. But it's also below the blue chip and the Federal Reserve's central tendency also.
Despite those -- but nonetheless -- and although there are some, you know, technical differences, and these always arise when two sets of budget projections are put forward, we recognize that the budget resolution will be written off of the CBO numbers.
And I will just close by saying that we remain confident that the four key principles that the president put forward for the budget -- in particular, that it must invest in health care, that it must invest in education, that it must invest in clean energy and that it must cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term -- will all be accomplished as the resolutions move through committee next week.
And I think with that we can go ahead and open it up to questions.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to ask a question, please press star then 1 on your touchtone phone. You'll hear a tone indicating you've been placed in queue and you may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the pound key. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before dialing.
And first we have Andrew Taylor with the Associated Press. Please go ahead.
TAYLOR: Thank you, Peter. Regardless of the uncertainty over the projections, do you believe that structural deficits in the range of 4 (percent) or 5 percent of GDP are sustainable?
MR. ORSZAG: I think that what you're going to see, again, under our assumptions, our policies lead to lower deficits than that. The budget committees are going to be, you know, working their way, as they always do. No one ever had an expectation that they would just take our budget, Xerox it and vote on it. And I am confident that what will come out of the budget committees is also -- will also lead to a fiscally sustainable task.
So I don't want to get into a game of mixing and matching, you know, our projections and our policies. That's one set of -- that's sort of one set of things. And the second set of things will be what the budget resolution reflects, using CBO numbers. What I'm confident about is that both of them -- I know ours and I'm confident that the budget resolution using CBO's numbers will reflect a fiscally sustainable path.
TAYLOR: But what about the question itself, which is are deficits of 4 (percent) or 5 percents of GDP sustainable?
MR. ORSZAG: Deficits in the let's say 5 percent of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable.
TAYLOR: Thank you.
From the March 23 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: You look at the numbers, and this is interesting. You had the Democratically appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office last week saying the numbers aren't sustainable and that they would create a situation. This is, again, the Democratic CBO -- Congressional Budget Office -- said they're unsustainable, and just as [Sen.] Judd Gregg [R-NH] said, it would bankrupt America. And you actually had -- hey Chris, could we go to the last of the Orszag full-screen on the deficits -- full-screen.
The question was asked because these deficits are going to cause 4 to 5 percent -- these budgets, 4 to 5 percent deficits of the entire GDP. They even asked Barack Obama's budget director whether it was sustainable -- deficits in, let's say, the 4, 5 percent range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratio in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable. And his response was at the end, deficits -- what's that? Yeah, deficit -- yeah, deficits in the, let's say, 5 percent range of GDP would lead to that and would not be sustainable. So --
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Well, when you have Peter Orszag saying that, you wonder a little bit in terms of their plan, but their -- also their projections seem like.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, you've got the CBO saying it's not sustainable. You've got the head of the Budget Committee, the Democrat, saying they're not sustainable. You've got the Republican head of the Budget Committee saying they're not sustainable. And you have Peter Orszag saying deficits of that number are not sustainable. And then you have the president in a radio address this weekend saying I'm sticking with this budget the whole way.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: Can you spend as much money as a, quote, down payment on the health reform that we -- as we've spent on the Iraq war while you're having all these trillion-dollar bailouts, while you're trying to pass budgets that the congressional budget director says is unsustainable, your budget director says is unsustainable, the head of the Democratic Senate Budget Committee says is unsustainable, and the Republican head said is unsustainable.
Can you? No, you can't do that. You can't do everything. George Bush tried to do everything. He tried to fight two wars, he tried to cut taxes, he passed a $7 trillion Medicare drug plan, he increased --
BRZEZINSKI: But you --
SCARBOROUGH: -- domestic spending. He tried to do everything, and it crushed this country fiscally. Barack Obama is doing what George Bush did and multiplying it four, five, six times.

















SCARBOROUGH: -- domestic spending. He tried to do everything, and it crushed this country fiscally. Barack Obama is doing what George Bush did and multiplying it four, five, six times.
Joe say it aint so? Please don't ever compare President Obama to Bush. Yikes!!!
and like everyone at fox noise and Fake Business Channel?
It's a proven fact that 83.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
HA! allow me to finish the line
"you made that up"
"withdrawn"
"lawyered"
im assuming you were quoting how i met your mother. being that barney constantly uses that statistic
Was I defending FOX and its horrible business channel? The topic is Joe.
i was pointing out that fixed noise is way worse than msnbc.
Ok, agreed.
He's a gopologist. He kinda has to.
Scarborough... oh, that "liberal" MSNBC...
MSNBC has sold its soul.
They made a substantial down payment in their effort to recover it when they gassed tucker carlson. Then again, his dancin' with the stars, takin' on Jon Stewart bits haven't fared to well, either.
MSNBC can't be liberal with Scarborough. This show is horrible.
Watching morning Joe for 5 minutes makes me want Imus back LOL
-- the CBO's analysis itself...the deficit projection for 2014 is plus-or-minus $900 billion -- Orszag
Sweet fancy moses...the geniuses running the show can't predict the deficit closer than a trillion dollars!
I am having so much fun watching how MMFA and the regular left are now turning on the very same networks that got their man elected. In the run up to November 08 - no matter how much others said MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, ABC, etc were getting it wrong - MMFA remained quiet because it suited their cause. Now these same 'patriots' have turned 'traitor' and suddenly Soros and company have to put them in their place.
Ironic? Hypocriticl? Self Serving!!!
LMAO
Nice try, little other-worldly fella, but the bushleague/gop-slime record, the performance of clueless mcsame and psycho sarah and the good judgement of the American People got Obama elected.
Nice try. No sale.
Ya gonna try and blame it on racial quotas and Affirmative Action now, little factually-challenged fella?
I'm enjoyin' your factually-challenged foray into critical thinking immensely, little fella. The lunatic-fringe likes of you and your little coalition of the clueless comrades have quite the comedic touch.
That's entertainment.
"In the run up to November 08 - no matter how much others said MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, ABC, etc were getting it wrong - MMFA remained quiet because it suited their cause. "
A quick search of MMFA's archive, filtering for relevant date range and the terms MSNBC and Obama, reveals that you are completely full of it. MSNBC has been on MMFA's s*** list for a long time.
I did a MMFA archive search as you suggested. Looked at the time frame from March 08 to November 08. THere a handful of items where MMFA goes after Morning Joe but other than that most of the outrage from MMFA is over the fact they presented false facts by the republicans when reporting on what the republicans said. Now we all know that the Obama camp is not without its falsehoods or exaggeration fo the facts, but not a single rebuff from MMFA. Infact, I didn't see anything about the "tingle" or other equally sickening statements from MSNBC's key anchors for election coverage.
Now I may have a little of it on the soles of my shoes, but you my friend, have eaten up the stuff served here.
"THere a handful of items where MMFA goes after Morning Joe but other than that most of the outrage from MMFA is over the fact they presented false facts by the republicans when reporting on what the republicans said."
Therefore, MMFA did not remain quiet.
"Now we all know that the Obama camp is not without its falsehoods or exaggeration fo the facts, but not a single rebuff from MMFA."
I wouldn't expect it from MMFA. As a progressive partisan organization, a fact that it is not hidden from you or anyone else, it would be outside their scope. They make no claims of fairness toward both political sides, so it's foolish and futile to expect it.
"Infact, I didn't see anything about the "tingle" or other equally sickening statements from MSNBC's key anchors for election coverage.
Condsidering the politics I just mentioned, why would MMFA want to go after Matthews if he has a man crush over Obama? BTW, man crushes are nothing new for Matthews. He's had the hots for Mitt Romney for long time.
"but you my friend, have eaten up the stuff served here."
Whatever. You obviously have no idea how many times I've questioned and criticized MMFA.
MMFA has been very fair in its discussions it has on MSNBC. I know a few posters want MSNBC off limits, but Joe Scarborough is one of the worst offernders of right wing lies and misinformation as far as I am concerned.
MSNBC may be doing better now but I still wouldn't call them balanced. Way more balanced than fox for sure, but until they get 50/50 on all issues they aren't balanced. All they've got going for them is a few more liberal types to offset the rightwing slant, but in reporting facts and on air interviews with elected officials or experts they are still sorely lacking.
Don't watch MSNBC so don't know all the players, but
Scarborough balanced by Olbermann
Mathews balanced by Mathews (depending on time/day/subject)
Maddow balanced by ????????
He gets hammered here regularly and on MRC quite often, so I just figured he balanced himself, but maybe we know now the root of the tingle.
ANYBODY who would dare utter a single word that shows leftist ideology in a negative light, or the bearers of liberalism/leftism/socialism thought is on media matters (for very little) hit list.
Why? Because what could be wrong with mm(fvl)'s vision of utopia people? What could dare be ill-spoken of those who love socialism? Any counter-revoultionary thought must be irradicated!
I think you grossly overestimate the power and influence of America's 37,753th most popular website.
DJNate aren't you the guy that came on this site to complain about how you got fired and/or were getting fired because your employer wanted to save money? Something to do with taxes(if i remember)you seemed pretty upset and angry, and I didn't recall you,at that time, saluting the virtues of capital. What a hyprocrite!
THE MEDIA AND THE RIGHT-WING WHAT'S THIS MAN TOO FAIL SO MUCH AND THEY NO IT!!!! JUST LOOK AT THOSE SAD FACES ON CABLE TODAY. THEY JUST KNEW THE MARKET WAS NOT GOING TO LIKE TIMMYS PLAN TODAY, BUT LOOK WHAT HAPPEND AFTER HIS SPEECH. THAT BLEW UP IN THERE FACES. AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE SAD FACES NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What's difference between estimates of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt when you're able to usher in socialism. Of course it's sustainable because our president has said so!
Ah, the ol' "when in doubt and you're holdin' gop slop, try to bluff 'em with bupkis and call 'em a socialist" song and dance.
Nice try, natewit. No sale.
You can show yourself out now.
What is the socialism you speak of? Where is it taking place?
From this website
http://www.socialistaction.org/whenamerica.htm
Where is this happening? Right here in the good ole USSA. Serious talk of nationalizing banks, taking over insurance and mortgage industry and what about the bailouts of car makers? Even Barney frank said that he had a right to stop the bonuses because, 'we own AIG'. We tell GM to make certain cars because of our interest in hybrids, even if no one wants to by them. Socialized medicine? Recently a series of deaths related to undiagnosed or ignored cancers has caused the British to rethink their two tiered socialized health system. And look at the death of the actress last weekend skiing in canada, a simple procedure could have easily saved her life but could not be acessed in time.
So, forward commrade, I say forward with due haste!
You are an absolute nutjob.
Anyone with a brain can see that the elements of socialism mentioned in that article cannot and will not be a reality in any of our lifetimes, our childrens' lifetimes, or our grandchildrens' lifetimes.
Socialism such as mentioned in the article will not happen here. Our government and political ways of life are too strong for that sort of socialism to take root.
You know better. Stop with the socialism nonsense. It's not going to happen.
"Socialized medicine? Recently a series of deaths related to undiagnosed or ignored cancers has caused the British to rethink their two tiered socialized health system. And look at the death of the actress last weekend skiing in canada, a simple procedure could have easily saved her life but could not be acessed in time." - DJNATE
Care to show your sources for these claims? They sound like bullhockey to me.
nosuchkindofpersonispossible,
H-E-double hockey sticks to you!
Here's the kind of quality care available in Canada thanks to SOCIALIZED medicine
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7139585&page=1
As far as the Brits and their system, just move down the page to see how their medical board decided it wasn't necessary to screen women under the age of 25 for cervical cancer. (I think this happens at all gyno exams here in the US.) But, because SOCIALIZED medicine means that care is rationed out, the board felt it necessary to save 30-40 pounds on these young women. Gee too bad that some may die, but oh well, they do have free, but inadequate, SOCIALIZED health care. Oh to be so lucky.
And guess what, the girls that died can't sue the government there because of malpractice, why? Because their health care is SOCIALIZED NATIONALLY and cannot be taken to task. Imagine....
Yo Nate enough already. I guess you got your job back! Last week you weren't trumpeting the virtues of capital. Hahaha your a joke and your BS aint selling here!
congaline,
It was the only way to get back on here. Much of what I had written was to close to home so I was told to not bring up such uncomfortable points in opposition to media matters (for very little). I wasn't 'moderated' out by the thought police here by saying what I did. That's the game you have to play on this site.
Thanks for affirming my suspicion. You are a fraud and phony and now you want to be taken seriously. I ain't buying your tired BS. BYE!
Well lah-de-freakin-dah! kangeroo90210 has given himself an excuse to deny the truth. Continue to hide in the old pouch, truth doesn't depend on you buying it or not.
HELLO!
I'm a little lost. Who is it?
It's a shame you can't avoid the immature cliches and your disdainful, ridiculous allusions to communist Russia in favor of being a bit more civil.
"Serious talk of nationalizing banks"
Wall Street seems to like it, are they a bunch of socialists too? Are we talking about ALL banks? Because if we're not, then we're not talking about socialism either.
"taking over insurance and mortgage industry"
I don't know where you're coming from on this one, especially with regard to the insurance industry. Can you elaborate?
"and what about the bailouts of car makers?"
What about it? The car makers came to the government, not the other way around. They're free to refuse the help they asked for.
"Socialized medicine?"
There are currently no proposals or "serious talk" about a government takeover of Hospitals, clinics, and doctor's offices.
Gee, I hate to keep confusin' ya with the facts, little reality-challenged fella, but Obama said the economy "..MAY not recover if...." That's a wee bit different than the latest load of psychotic slop you're tryin' to sell. Make a note of it, nitwit.
While you're unquestionably a leading authority in the gop-slime, peabrain "thinking" community and on the peabrain thinking process, ya clearly don't know which end is up, what day it is or have so much as a nodding acquaintance with reality concerning this or any other fact-based topic that may arise.
Get yourself a case and a clue or get used to it.
Always a pleasure.
Wow, and I thought the recession was a description of our current economy! (What was i thinking?)
Welp, it wasn't what you were thinking.
Clearly, little reality-challenged fella, you don't think at all.
Again, no facts. You are here to just argue and put down.
Yea, i mean after A-l-l the FACTS you presented it's hard for anyone to respond. Reality challenged is more accurate!
We've got a large glassful of fear
In case you missed it, foreclosures are at an all time high, unemployment is the highest its been since Saint Ronnie was in office, and banks are failing every week.
Sounds kind of scary to me.
But if you still own your house, still have a job, and don't do your banking at a closed bank, its business as usual. Nothing scary about it....unless you do the math on how your great great grandkids will pay these bailouts off. But if you could care less, just add a bunch of more zero's to this mess....what's the difference? If your going to lose as a country, might as well go out with a bang.
Yup, you're one of those "I've got mine, screw everyone else" type of disgusting, un-American people. One of those "put my turtle head back into the shell" type of economic Einsteins that caused the Great Depression. Thank God you're not running the show.
Disgusting and unamerican? Step it up...heard it before. What else have you got? And tell me how taxpayers are going to pay for this mess? I'm listening.
As usual, you miss the big picture. We HAVE to spend the money. The only entity that can spend any money and revive our consumer-driven economy is the government. Not the people who are BROKE. I recommend reading up on the Great Depression, how we got into it and how we got out of it.
If our grandkids have to pay a little bit more, well, that's just too bad because if we don't spend any money there won't be any economy left for them to possibly prosper in.
Hey Dave, just take a peek at this to comfirm what the "einsteins" really did for our country in the 20's and 30's. From Hoover's attempts to 'stimulate' the economy to FDR's absolute destruction of wealth.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409
And what Hoover actually did to corrupt the economy (both he and FDR seem to look much like our present adm).....
http://mises.org/rothbard/AGD/chapter8.asp
From Hoover's attempts to 'stimulate' the economy to FDR's absolute destruction of wealth.
Yet more revisionist history. Here's a factoid for ya - they were called HOOVERVILLES, not ROOSEVELTVILLES. And good 'ol FDR got elected to 4 TERMS. So excuse me if I don't bother taking the time to read your internet-based lies.
boyisayboylistenhearah,
Calling them Hoovervilles is fine, but they were created when Hoover intervened in the banks, industry, public works and demanding tariffs. fdr extended the depression by continuing with those ruinious policies.
The scary thing is that is just what Bush started and now obama has ramped up, spending without thought of how it destroys individual wealth and our economy's ability to get back on track. Look at the out of sight spending spree our government has been on. At least some politicians are recognizing that obama is repeating the mistakes of hoover and fdr, and trying to slow this monster down.
fdr extended the depression by continuing with those ruinious policies.
Liar. You really need to bone up on your history. And economics for that matter.
foreclosures are at an all time high
Too many folks were approved for a loan for a home that should not have been. makes sense to me!
Listen around folks. Many economists "not on TV" are already seeing the light at the end of the tunnel without the stimulus. Pay attention.
I cannot use government, Bush or anyone else as an excuse to fail. The onus is on me to perform and support my family. Not Obama's responsibility. If you are sitting there waiting things will only get worse FOR SURE.
Too many folks were approved for a loan for a home that should not have been
And who are you blaming for that? And that is NOT the most common cause of foreclosures.
The onus is on me to perform and support my family
You and Dave should get a room, or at least have coffee together in the morning so you can lob insults and b**ch about how all the "losers" have ruined the economy by being layed off and/or foreclosed on.
I'm not blaming a politician or Jesus or anyone else if I signed a contract that I could not fulfill. THAT's for SURE! Who do you suppose we blame if I do not honor my word? If my word is not worth anything.
No economy is perfect. I pray for those less fortunate.
I pray for those less fortunate.
You probably pray that none of the "less fortunate" move in next door.
I find myself responding to some of these when I know that I should not.
I have no class envy at all. You are bringing it up, not me. Good for you if you are rich, and it is a fun ride growing up and supporting your family too from being poor.
You can have your class envy badge back now...
wow reality and what does obama stamps mean exactly......what is that?
see i happen to recall someone who was either on fixed noise or worked for the mccain campaing that said that obama would put his face on food stamps........in fact this person got a worst person in the world for her remarks which also included the good ol' racist steryotypes about chicken and watermellon.......so are you diving into that racist cesspool too?
well if you are, then you have proven yourself not only ignorant, uneducated, and a poor excuse for a human being who should leave this country immediatly.
and if you are not implying racisim.....well i would advise you to choose your words with much greater care in the future
OBAMA STAMPS STATEMENT = RACISM? I think that you just made that generalization up totally on your own! A lot of folks would resent that. I never stated the race of the 40+% that do not work.
I do not watch Olbermann since he left Sportscenter. He is a quack.
obviously you did not read the last sentence i wrote. so cherry pick all you want. if you weren't implying any racisim i said this:
"and if you are not implying racisim.....well i would advise you to choose your words with much greater care in the future"- me
I don't feel we can discuss these topics and be too sensitive. I apologize if what i said was taken in that manner, really sir.
thats fine....if nothing else i was trying to warn you about remarks like that. i don't wanna see anyone band for making comments like that.
i freely admit i make fun and use sarcasim and wit at times and sound mean especially when it comes to w. and dick. but you can tell with my posts there is a marked difference when im trying to be funny and serious.
and i also apologize myself if you felt i was calling you racist.
I do not watch Olbermann since he left Sportscenter. He is a quack.
What exactly does Olbermann have to do with this thread?
"in fact this person got a worst person in the world for her remarks which also included the good ol' racist steryotypes about chicken and watermellon"
This does!
i was pointing out the fact that someone on a presidential campaign had made more obvious racisit comments and was pointing out how yours came very close to that line if not crossed it.
again cherry pick my statement however you like. but like i said above being that you didn't intend it as such....you need to choose your words with greater care.
You mean there is 40% unemeployment? WTF are you talking about? Have you seen the lines of people applying for work? Seven openings and several thousand applicants. You pray for the less fortunate, how condescending, save your prayers,or use them for yourself, by your selfish scribes you need them. This crisis was not caused by the working man , it is a crisis of unregulated capitalism,try looking past your narrow blinders, we are social beings and do not live in isolation. You are where you are today because of others and their hard work and blood.
Hey FANTASY, Tell me would you rather have your heros BOY GEORGE AND DEAD EYE DICK back in office. If so ,then you are really loony tunes.
Nope. Didn't say THAT, did I!
You sure implied it.
I don't imply, I say what i mean. I was not implying McCain either which would have been more in context since Bush is long gone except with you guys. Tis is Obama's horse to ride now. To bad during an economic crisis that he cannot fill a seat to save his life in the Treasury Dept.
You actually did imply it.
HE is having problems getting his GOVT up and smoothly running just like any new administration. Considering the disaster on many fronts that BOY GEORGE left him with, i'm willing to cut him some slack.
Oh, I know. It's clear! 17 seats vacant.
I am going to speak to Republicans AND democrats on this one. What happened to the position of politician? Folks used to shake a mans hand, look him in the eye and tell the truth more than not.
Any president from any party would have trouble at this point. They all have baggage.
Oh, I know. It's clear! 17 seats vacant.
I am going to speak to Republicans AND democrats on this one. What happened to the position of politician? Folks used to shake a mans hand, look him in the eye and tell the truth more than not.
Any president from any party would have trouble at this point. They all have baggage.
Actually, I think that LULU has her feet firmly on the ground and you and FANTASY are lost in never never land.
Amazing, I think Scarbrough is a liar, yet for some reason I am wrong? Please tell me more.
I never said anything like Joe Scarborough was beyond criticism. I complained that you attack the messenger and not the message coming from the messenger. If you want to attack something that Scarborough or Tucker Carlson says, that's fine. That's what MMfA does. They attack what the people say, not the people themselves. You, on the other hand, attack the person, or the network in a generalized smear. I never said that CNBC or MSNBC are off limits. I have made clear the problem I have with your behavior is you attacking the messenger instead of the message. As hurricaneyankee says, it is you who is lost in a fantasy world and detached from reality. My message has been very clear and concise.
LULU in the last post of mine I was refering to REALITY as FANTASY and both him and CASEY are in NEVER NEVER LAND. CASEY was way off base to imply that you are lost, Hence my reply that I believe you have your feet planted firmly on the ground and you know what you are talking about unlike most of the RIGHTIES that post here.
I always go after Scarborough and Tucker Carlson. I have no idea why you have gone after me because I want a dedicated progressive at 6am on MSNBC not a Republican congressman in Scarborough. Also your attacking the messenger instead of the message? Can you give an example? Am I supposed to ignore Joes falsehoold on the budget and just talk about the budget? You are not making sense. It actually appears you are just trying to explode the board. Please explain.
We have a lot of deficit hawks here.
It's gratifying to know that all these people are surely pressuring their congressmen to raise taxes on the rich, since that would help the deficit. I mean, these aren't mindless ideologues here. They want to help.
Yeah, my least favorite relative sent me an email he got from Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and she complained about the deficit in one breath and then pushed tax cuts for businesses in another.
How do they think that tax cuts don't increase the budget deficit? Oh yeah, I know, they believe that decreasing taxes increases revenue, even though it's been disproven.
Isn''t it crazy. They have no solutions other than tax-cuts and a unregulated market. Thats what got us here! I remember reading a series in the "Time" magazine back in the 90's that was on the states and cities that had given tax-breaks built roads and other incentives for business to move there only to have them move to other countries after they took advantage of the states and cities. I will look for that series.
No irresponsible govt spending got us here. NOW, Obama is taking the spending to an unprecedented level.
No what got us here is eight years of irresponsible government under BUSH.
That is not the foundation of this financial crisis, sorry.
I'm afraid it is .
Wow! Your thinking is muddled. You seem unable to notice content, you see a tree and all you see is tree not what makes 1 tree different from another. You see spending and to you all spending is the same, you don't or can't differentiate one thing from the other, therefore your unable to correctly analyze similar but different conditions. The spending your talking about uner Bush, was tax-cuts for the wealthy top 2% of the country,payed for mind you, by the surplus created by the tax increases on 95% of the people (under Clinton). Yes, I'am saying WE WAS ROBBED! Without going into a long spill on the abuses of the last administration, I'll just say 95% of the people will see tax relief, along with spending to shore up our infrastructure(creating jobs,people with jobs spend money)neglected under Bush's robbery of the middle-class. Money spent on reducing our dependence on "oil",(need I remind you of $4/gal. gas)creating more jobs,, and money used to improve our educational system and make it a little easier for our kids to go to college if they choose, and on health insurance and reducing medical cost(something that is making it harder for the Auto industry to compete). This is a qualitatively different kind of spending than the one undertaken by G.Bush. Like I said your reality is "black" and "white", yes and no and everyone who has lived and opened their eyes knows you cannot approach life like that.
I can definitely appreciate your response. All administrations have one black eye or another, Republican or democrat. "Ye without sin cast the first stone." What is most alarming to me is how the trusted economists are now stating this is unsustainable.(At least the ones that I have always found to be correct more times than not.) They say someone with a fifth grade education should be able to figure this one out.
I do not trust any of the American media, I verify info across the pond as much as I can. Reuters, BBC, etc. Even then, I shuck off the accusations that I am a Fox watcher or Rushbo fan. I despise the twisted opinionated information provided by ALL of the media. Their job is to report the news, point blank. Now the media has turned into a circus. By emcompassing my opinion with several sites such as this one, I feel I can have a more rounded picture.
Republicans are not all neocons, rich folks, greedy people, bible beaters, loudmouths, sovereignty invaders, Bush-voters or supporters, on and on. I'd rather have a beer with Obama than Ahminajhad (whatever his name is)any day. We are all Americans and the split between Americans is growing alarmingly wider. Don't hate America because of Bush folks. We still live in the greatest country on earth. Everyone eventually pays their pennance.
Look at this thought process. "Spending = bad. Recession = bad. Therefore recession = spending". Yeah, economies hate giant piles of free money.
Yeah, economies hate giant piles of free money.
Free money? Have you been drinking?
No, it's free until it's paid back. Bush's economy got trillions in extra money and sucked anyway.
That's how Reagan got his modest economic successes, too. Just slide in a hefty percentage of GDP in extra cash and let the democrat pay it back.