About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Quick Fact: Hannity falsely claims Obama "created" the "massive deficit" and that "stimulus is a failure"

January 29, 2010 1:31 pm ET — 111 Comments

On his radio show, Sean Hannity claimed that President Obama "seems to be concerned about a massive deficit," which Hannity said Obama "created," and asserted that the economic "stimulus is a failure." In fact, the 2009 increases in spending and the deficit include the impact of policies enacted under former President Bush, and economists have estimated that the stimulus "raised employment" by as many as 2 million jobs through December 2009.

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.

EMBED

From the January 28 edition of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: He lies about the Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. I think the biggest lie of the night, "Well, we saved 2 million jobs." You've lost 4 million jobs. You know, he seems to be concerned about a massive deficit -- he created it. You know, a guy that, you know, believes the federal government should run pretty darn near everything in your life -- the auto industry, the banks, the insurance companies, student loans, health care, and it never ends.

What is appalling is the massive ego of this president, which was on full display last night, taking responsibility for nothing, learning nothing. It's arrogant. He's cold, he seems detached, and literally is insisting on dragging this nation off a cliff. And his stimulus is a failure, so we'll spend $30 million more on the stimulus.

Fact: Policies enacted before Obama took office comprised much of FY 2009 spending increase

CBO: TARP, Fannie, Freddie commitments comprised much of spending increase in FY 2009. CBO stated in its January 2010 Budget and Economic Outlook that "[m]uch of the rise in outlays in 2009 came from mandatory programs." CBO added, "Three initiatives accounted for nearly two-thirds of that increase. Outlays recorded for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) totaled $152 billion in 2009; net payments to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac accounted for another $91 billion; and fiscal stimulus legislation, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), increased mandatory outlays by $80 billion." Spending for TARP and the Fannie and Freddie conservatorship was approved before Obama was elected.

$1.2 trillion of $1.4 trillion deficit was already projected before Bush left office. On January 7, 2009, CBO stated in its Budget and Economic Outlook that "[w]ithout changes in current laws and policies, CBO estimates, outlays will rise from $3.0 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009." This estimate included $240 billion -- in contrast to the $91 billion recorded at the end of fiscal year 2009 -- for "incorporating the two housing GSEs into the federal budget." Before Obama took office or signed any legislation, CBO had estimated that the deficit would be $1.2 trillion for fiscal year 2009.

Spending for unemployment benefits, Medicaid increased as result of recession. CBO also stated of fiscal year 2009:

Social Security outlays rose by 9 percent ($53 billion) last year, primarily because the 5.8 percent cost-of-living adjustment that took effect in January 2009 was the largest annual adjustment since 1982. Medicaid spending (excluding stimulus funding) increased by 9 percent ($18 billion) in 2009 -- exceeding its 7 percent average annual growth rate of the previous 10 years -- largely because higher unemployment boosted enrollment in the program. Medicare outlays (including an offset for premium payments) also rose at a faster rate than the average of the past decade, growing by 10 percent ($39 billion).

In addition, payments for unemployment benefits rose by $76 billion in 2009, pushing outlays for that program to more than double the level recorded in 2008. The jump was caused by substantially higher unemployment as well as increased and extended benefits to unemployed workers ($27 billion from ARRA and $17 billion from other legislation).

New York Times: Obama policies are "responsible for only a sliver of the deficits." According to a budget analysis by The New York Times, "Mr. Obama's main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies -- together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama -- account for 20 percent" of the increase between the FY 2008 and FY 2009 budget deficit estimates. The New York Times wrote that 70 percent of the increase is attributed to a combination of economic hardships, including "the fact that both the 2001 recession and the current one reduced tax revenue, required more spending on safety-net programs and changed economists' assumptions about how much in taxes the government would collect in future years" and "new legislation signed by Mr. Bush ... like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit."

Fact: Economic analysts estimate the recovery act increased relative employment by as many as 2 million jobs

Economists estimate stimulus "raised employment" by as many as 2 million jobs through December 2009. In a quarterly report issued January 13, the White House Council of Economic Advisers estimated: "As of the fourth quarter of 2009, the CEA estimates that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has raised employment relative to the baseline by between 1½ and 2 million. The CEA estimates for both the effects on GDP and employment are similar to those of respected private forecasters and government agencies." The CEA cited Moody's Economy.com estimates that the stimulus increased employment by 1.6 million jobs through the fourth quarter of 2009. From the CEA's quarterly report:

CEA chart of effects of ARRA on employment

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by shaggles (January 29, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
      8 1
      The right will admit that most of last years budget was determined before Obama took office. If this years is less they will claim credit for making him act more fiscally responsible.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by southerngal (January 29, 2010 1:55 pm ET)
      10 1
      It's a little tough to take a finger wagging from Sean Hannity on fiscal responsibility, considering I don't remember hearing a peep out of him criticizing the fiscal recklessness of the previous administration.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (January 29, 2010 2:05 pm ET)
        6 1
        According to Hannity no other administration caused the deficit.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by mari2jj (January 30, 2010 11:09 pm ET)
        2  
        Actually, Hannity et al are telling big whoppers when they make these statements. Either they are totally reading challenged and they are unable to fact check for themselves or they purposely just repeat the lies that first pops out of the first Fox commentator. I expected this in spite of the fact that the GDP has improved this last quarter. It is my party's full court press to shift the facts in favor of the failed Bush Presidency. That failure alone may be responsible for the failure of the Republican Party in the future. As moderates, we are completely isolated and many of us would bolt the party but we stay because we feel an obligation to pull the party back to a patriotic stance. Huge undertaking though with all these talking heads and their disinformation.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Samurai Cowboy (January 31, 2010 5:08 pm ET)
        2 1
        History shows that Republicans will always blame Democrats for any economic problems. Look at how they did former President Clinton. During the campaign in 2000, Uber Objectivist Alan Greenspan, for no appearent reason, raised interest rate to almost 9 per cent and caused the economy to start sliding backward. Bush started talking down the economy and pushing his tax cuts for the rich. Low and behold, after the tax cuts were signed, the country went into a recession in March of 2001 but it was former President Clinton's fault.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by PatriotsForever (January 29, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
         
      Stimulus "raised employment" by as many as 2 million jobs through December 2009? Giving raises to government employees does not a stimulus make. Ask yourself why/how this makes sense when we have 10% unemployment.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by txthinker (January 29, 2010 2:05 pm ET)
         
      Is there any lie that is too outlandish for Sean Hannity to spew???
      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (January 29, 2010 2:06 pm ET)
      3 2
      Note to Hannity:

      The days of just making up schit and trying to pass it off as journalism are over.

      You may have noticed that the new kid in town knows how the game is played. Your audience is now 85 % teabaggers. They require the nonsense and insanity to follow connecting points and eventually be neatly tied by some vast commie conspiracy theory.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (January 29, 2010 2:20 pm ET)
        7 1
        Obama did a good job of proving that today when he spoke to the Republican caucus.

        He wants to meet with them once a month. Last night, his administration asked them to allow cameras into the Q&A session. The Republicans agreed, and Obama made them look really bad. I wonder if he'll meet with them again, and if they'll allow cameras for the upcoming Q&A's.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 29, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
          4 6
          "The Republicans agreed, and Obama made them look really bad"

          Wow, apparently you don't agree with the tone that Obama is advocating for more civility and that the two parties did not come to Washington to fight. I rather think that Obama would like cameras at these sessions to further cooperation and solving problems, not so he can be as gleeful as you are in making them "look really bad".
          Report Abuse
          • Author by wookie (January 29, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
            6 1
            Obama doesn't control Republican reactions. He just argues his own side as well as he can.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (January 29, 2010 4:07 pm ET)
            7 1
            You continue to be a real tool.

            I have expressed my feelings on this topic, as Obama did today too. I want there to be a strong 2 party system in this country. I want Republicans to exchange ideas and principles with us.

            I have NO thrill running up my leg from them making fools of themselves. Obama made them look bad in comparison to how he looked because HE looked so good and THEY looked so bad.

            Obama doesn't need to exhibit more civility. Nor do I. It's the other side that needs to move and behave differently. I am not gleeful, and neither is Obama - that's why both he and I complain about their behavior so far this past 12 months!

            But thanks for once again showing how controlling your personal animus towards me is. I always appreciate it when you continue digging your own holes.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (January 29, 2010 4:20 pm ET)
              3 6
              I have no interest in any thrill running up your leg Suzy, please, never again relay that chilling image in your posts, brrr.

              Also, I never said Obama needs to exhibit more civility, but you, being the nastiest potty mouth on this website, yes, you certainly could learn a lesson on civility. And yes, despite your lofty phony aspirations, your post displayed a gleeful disposition in what you claim was Obama making the Republicans "look really bad". Otherwise you wouldn't have emphasized it with "really". That's an easy one.

              So sorry, no sale. You exhibit rank pure partisan behavior in every post, peppered with vile insults at those who disagree with you. So you don't want substantive exchanging of ideas with anyone, you are incapable of such a thing, always have been. Your schtick is putting others down so you feel elevated. It just never works.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (January 29, 2010 6:26 pm ET)
                3 1
                No glee here.

                They didn't just look bad. They looked really bad. Really bad.

                Just like a traffic accident might look bad, really bad, or really bad, without anyone expressing any glee about how bad the accident looked.

                See, your personal animus so clouds your vision that you can't even understand this!

                The rest of your post is simply that person animus showing through loud and clear.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (January 29, 2010 6:30 pm ET)
                  2 5
                  Considering the nasty tone and offensive insults you haul out against anyone who disagrees or questions any of your posts, you have no interest in civility or decorum. Which means you delight in partisan bickering and stomping on any dissenting opinions. You're not fooling anyone Suzy, your posts speak for themselves. Read any one of your posts and they are riddled with condescension and growling.

                  Sometimes you think you have no verifiable history here, well you do.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (January 29, 2010 7:19 pm ET)
                    4 2
                    hey wrong on,look at how people on your side have (RUSH,BECK, PALIN, TEA BAGGERS). The hate and vitriol from your side makes our side look like goody two shoes.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by juliajayne1 (January 29, 2010 7:50 pm ET)
                    4 2
                    Hey Suzy, your name is Suzy. So Suzy, no calling anyone else Suzy. And further, Suzy, I am the biggest potty mouth on this site. Or aspire to be ;-0) BTW, do you know what potty mouth means, Suzy?

                    Thanks in advance for remembering the above, Suzy ;-0)

                    Good day, Suzy. ;-)

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (January 30, 2010 2:12 am ET)
                    2 2
                    Thanks for your ongoing inability to control your personal animus towards me.

                    You were wrong when you alleged that I was exhibiting glee when I said that the Republicans looked really bad because I bolded the word "really". I then debunked that allegation by providing an example of why one might emphasize am adjective and NOT be exhibiting glee about the event that the adjective was modifying.

                    So, did you then admit your error? Of course not, since you are so controlled by your personal animus - you have to through out some baseless insults instead of replying to the post I made.

                    All you're trying to do is to derail the thread. That's all. You keep proving that disrupting this site is your sole goal. Occasionally you post something halfway reasonable (posts that I will and have given thumbs up to) just to try to pretend that you're reasonable. Then we see your real purpose here with a bunch of derailing posts.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by juliajayne1 (January 30, 2010 11:45 am ET)
                4 2
                Hey Suzy, DD is correct. Watch this video of that event, and tell me that Obama didn't seriously spank the Republicans, albeit nicely.

                http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/obamagopqa/
                Report Abuse
              • Author by DellDolly (January 29, 2010 6:47 pm ET)
                4 2
                If the other side, on this blog, were participants in fair debate, then it'd be easy for me to show that.

                Just like if the Republicans were participants in bipartisanship, it'd be easy to see how Obama has been a participant in bipartisanship. But since they aren't, they allege that he isn't since there aren't many signs of it.

                Your attempt to portray your side as victims of my unwillingness to engage in civil discourse when someone approaches me with civil discourse is off-base and without foundation.

                And is yet another example of your personal animus coloring almost every reply you've made in the past 6 months I've been posting. I haven't 'racked up any other screen names'.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by southerngal (January 29, 2010 6:53 pm ET)
                  3 5
                  "If the other side, on this blog, were participants in fair debate, then it'd be easy for me to show that"

                  Ha! Lol! I knew you couldn't do it. You are such an incredible phony talking about civility and exchanging ideas. Example, show me one of Dex's posts where he initiated anything other than a fair point and you didn't immediately insult him. And now you play victim saying you can't help it.

                  You kill me.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (January 30, 2010 2:20 am ET)
                    2 1
                    I could have done it, but I was not going to buy into your false portrayal of YOUR side as being my victims.

                    The problem here was not me in any way, shape or form. It's all on you. It's all you.

                    And you are really teed off that I keep pointing out how disreputable you are. Too bad, so sad. You aren't a victim of me. If your side wants to have a fair debate on topics, then I will be glad to do so, on this site and on many other sites and in other forums. You couldn't show me examples of reasonable comments on this site that I reacted badly to - because it doesn't happen.

                    If you want to allege that I have been confronted with reasonable posts from Dex that were also on-topic that I have responded badly to, please provide that evidence. You won't be able to do so, but please, waste your time looking for those examples. Please!

                    I am not, nor never have, played the victim. I didn't say I couldn't help it. I said I wouldn't stop doing what I'm doing because these reasonable, on-topic posts from your side haven't happened. If and when they happen, I will be thrilled and overjoyed and very willing to interact with them.

                    But as Obama said today, and as MMFA says, it doesn't happen right now. It hasn't been happening. Your claims fall flat with a vast absence of evidence supporting what you're saying, and an overabundance of what I am saying (along with Obama and MMFA) that liberals are not being confronted with cooperative, reasonable debate from people on the right.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 30, 2010 12:13 pm ET)
               
            I think Obama was only showing himself to be a bigger man. Clearly, he does want to work with Republicans. In order to get any big legislation through, he is going to have to. The Democrats will not all fall into line like the Republicans did under Frist. He is going to need to the support of moderates on both sides of the aisle. They will only look really bad if he continues to ask them for their ideas and some level of compromise and they remain a party of nihilists. This is their chance to actually do some governing. I would not hold my breath, but it is a chance.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DellDolly (January 30, 2010 2:53 pm ET)
              1 1
              We see further examples of which side is 'to blame' here with the behavior of FoxNews yesterday. They cut away from the event before it was done. Other cable news channels did not!

              The Republicans aren't interested in a fair debate if their side doesn't win. It was a fair debate, and what that fair debate showed was that the Republicans are bereft of reasonable solutions and they falsely portray their opponents. In that fair debate, Obama showed that he's willing to own up to his own shortcomings, and that he's willing to hear other's ideas and accept reasonable ones (just like I said I would in my replies to RightON yesterday), but that the Republicans haven't been offering those.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by Commonman (January 30, 2010 4:15 pm ET)
                1
              So now he "clearly wants to work with Republicans"....after Massachusetts. I can understand how he might like to work with Republicans since all the Democrats had to do to have their way was to all vote in unison. They still have the majority.

              The Republicans aren't the party of no. They were not invited to the discussion in terms of health reform until now when they can legitimately hold up a bill in the Senate by voting in unison.

              The majority of the people in the country don't want Health Care reform in any of it's current versions. All the progressives can do is talk about how "stupid" the people are for "not knowing what is best for them" and for "throwing a tantrum" by voting for a Republican in Massachusetts.

              He still doesn't want their ideas. He just wants someone to cave so that he can pass what the public doesn't want.

              When my kids wanted me to buy them something that cost to much I told them no. They probably thought I was mean at the time. I knew how much money we had in the budget. Sometimes the smart thing to say IS "no". And more power to the Republicans in congress for having the guts to do what is right.



              Report Abuse
          • Author by politeradical (January 30, 2010 2:08 pm ET)
               
            Obama is an idealist. He sincerely wants the parties to work together. But every time he's extended his hand, it's been bitten.

            He needs to realize this, put away the doves and olive branches and put on boxing gloves. His opposition is intent on destroying or marginalizing him regardless of his good intentions.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by scanlontodd9871 (January 29, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
          4  
          Some of the republicans already said that cameras should not have been allowed. It seems that they had there asses handed to them with the Q&A. It was really fun to watch. One Question though why was Frank Lutz there. Did he focus group his own side?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Onyxcat (January 29, 2010 2:26 pm ET)
          5  
          View the total meeting. President Obama made the commitment for these monthly meetings. However, if they continue to espouse those constant talking points, "he cause these huge deficits" then the meetings will be useless.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (January 29, 2010 4:10 pm ET)
            3 1
            I did watch the entire thing.

            He won't meet with them if they don't invite him to. I know he said he'd come back.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by scanlontodd9871 (January 30, 2010 11:20 am ET)
          1  
          I would guess that there will not be cameras in the room next time, that is if there is a next time. I was watching MSNBC yesterday on this and Luke Russert had mentioned that a congresssman told him it was a mistake to have the cameras rolling. What I am wondering why they would not want cameras. they bitch about no transparency but I guess when the tables are turned they don't like transparency.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 30, 2010 12:16 pm ET)
            3  
            In fairness, almost all politicians call for transparency only when they are out of power. Once they are in power, transparency takes a backseat to many other things.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by skycatcher (January 29, 2010 2:10 pm ET)
      14 1
      My fiancee received a letter from her employer which, in a nutshell, said that they could no longer afford her position, BUT since they received stimulus funding they'd be able to keep her on for a couple of years. Now, maybe the economy will turn around before then and everything will be okay, maybe not. However, at least we now have time to plan and prepare. I wouldn't expect a "cold," "arrogant" twerp with a "massive ego" to be able to comprehend that.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by So Fain (January 29, 2010 3:38 pm ET)
        4 1
        Good to hear a story about the stimulus helping real people.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by skycatcher (January 29, 2010 5:39 pm ET)
          2 1
          I'm glad you were able to take something from my post. It was great reading that letter!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Publius39 (January 29, 2010 2:16 pm ET)
      4 1
      This is what the right has had to resort to now, outright lying. They couldn't just doctor some footage or misrepresent numbers, they have to lie. Hannity is especially guilty of this.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (January 29, 2010 7:23 pm ET)
           
        HANNITY
        Report Abuse
        • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (January 29, 2010 7:26 pm ET)
          1  
          Excuse me i meant to say HANNITY is a consumate professional when it comes to lying to further the RIGHT'S cause.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by DellDolly (January 29, 2010 2:18 pm ET)
      3 1
      As I have pointed out before, there are times when spending is necessary, even if it's deficit spending. The Financial Stimulus bill is an example of that. And there are examples of unnecessary, voluntary spending or tax cuts that aren't wise. Examples of that would be 2 tax cuts while we're at war, and going to war in Iraq.

      I haven't seen any evidence of Obama being for any unnecessary deficit spending. I've seen tons of evidence that the Republicans don't understand 'paygo'. They passed that huge Medicare Drug benefit bill without making any efforts to pay for it - in fact, they purposefully and dishonestly minimized the expected costs of that program!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (January 29, 2010 2:24 pm ET)
        6 2
        The deficits caused by the stimulus will hurt, in the long term.

        The collapse of our economy and the world's economy if we had NOT passed the stimulus package would have been much more financially painful than the deficits caused by the stimulus ever will.

        That's the point that Hannity and his ilk never address.

        Deficit spending when we're already so much in debt is a problem, and should be avoided when possible and reasonable. But when it's necessary to prevent a depression, it'd be criminal to fail to act and allow our nation to fall into a recession or a depression.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by leatherhelmet (January 30, 2010 3:32 pm ET)
        1 1
        Really, what about all the earmarks he said he would not approve, yet he did.

        I agree the Republicans were horrid in overspending, Obama however is increasing the education budget by 100 percent, antipoverty programs by 20%, overall budget increase of $1 trillion dollars. How is he going to pay for the increase and the current debt?. This is without the horrific cap and trade bill that thankfully he will never get passed. Obama is a spending machine that makes George Bush look like a cheapskate.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by wesley (January 29, 2010 2:22 pm ET)
      2 11
      I dislike the tactics and style of Hannity...so this is not a defense of his antics.

      Yet, it must be said about the 2009 federal budget that it was a democrat bill...that passed in the senate 48-45 with only the support of two republican senators...and then Sen.Obama voted for the budget.

      It's wrong and dishonest to paint Pres.Obama as the sole culprit for the exploding deficit spending in 2009...but his fingerprints are all over it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by all your eyes (January 29, 2010 2:32 pm ET)
          1
        48-45? I thought you needed 51 votes to pass a bill through the Senate?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (January 29, 2010 2:38 pm ET)
          1  
          No, the Constitution requires only that a quorum be met and that there is a simple majority.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Compared To What? (January 30, 2010 11:50 am ET)
               
            Oh, that explains needing sixty for a healthcare bill. Thanks.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (January 29, 2010 2:38 pm ET)
        5 1
        The 2009 federal budget was proposed by Mr. Bush and signed by Mr. Bush. If he had not approved it, he could have vetoed it like he did several other bills presented by the very slim Democratic majority [he did not veto a single spending bill for the six years of Republican majority . . . not one]. The deficit has not "EXPLODED" under Obama. It EXPLODED under GWB. He took a budget surplus and turned it, with the help of his rubber stamp Congress, into the largest deficit in our country's history and he insisted on carrying the cost of the unnecessary invasion of Iraq AND the war in Afghanistan OFF BUDGET. Did you scream about Bush and his rubber stamp Congress's complete and total irresponsibility, wesley? I did . . . VERY LOUDLY. Also, Mr. Bush was President for 3 of the 12 months of FY09.

        Obama's 2010 budget carries both Iraq and Afghanistan ON BUDGET. He was also able to make many more budget cuts in his 2010 budget than Bush ever accomplished.

        Try looking at facts before you make ridiculous statements which support your divisive and destructive "us v. them" game, wesley. I wasn't an Obama supporter, but the specious claims being made by Fox/hate talk radio and regurgitated here by you makes them and you look silly, dishonest and petty to me.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 29, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
          3 4
          "The 2009 federal budget was proposed by Mr. Bush and signed by Mr. Bush"

          In fairness, Bush wanted cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and the Dems had more billions more in spending programs than what Bush wanted. I am not excusing him either, his eight years on fiscal sanity was insane. And you're right, he signed it. But these issues are always far more complicated than simple Hannity-esque soundbites blaming the other side. All these politicians had a hand in the mess we are in.

          Because they get drunk on spending other people's money. That's the real problem.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (January 29, 2010 2:57 pm ET)
            4 4
            But he didn't have to sign it. See that's the point. Bush did not veto the budget nor did he veto a SINGLE Republican spending bill from 2000-2007. The very first time he picked up the veto pen at all was the stem-cell research bill in the summer of 2006. The next veto didn't occur until May 2007.

            As I said, I was screaming about the complete lack of constraint Bush and the Republican majority had regarding spending. Most "conservatives" I knew were blowing it off; after all, Bush was a "conservative" and the Congress was "conservative." Everybody knows that "conservatives" don't run up budget deficits. LOL! This conservative was ticked! LOL!

            My comments were to the ridiculous statements made by Wesley.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by wesley (January 29, 2010 3:27 pm ET)
              3 9
              The FY2009 Federal budget was passed in the senate 48-45...with only 2 republicans supporting the bill

              The FY2009 Federal budget was passed the house 214-210...with no republicans supporting the bill.

              The FY2008 Federal budget was passed in the senate 52-40...with 2 republicans supporting the bill.

              The FY2008 Federal budget was passed in the house 214-209...with no republicans supporting the bill.

              The budgets were passed during the watch of Pres.Bush...by democrats...they were not republican spending bills.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by bintx (January 29, 2010 3:41 pm ET)
                4 2
                I will say again, the Democrats did not have a veto-proof majority. All Mr. Bush had to do was veto the final bill . . . he did not. If he had vetoed them, they would have been sent back for revisions until he got the budget he wanted. Apparently, he signed the one he wanted.

                Do you have a concept of the way Congress works, wesley?
                Report Abuse
                • Author by wesley (January 29, 2010 3:59 pm ET)
                  3 8
                  Yep...the democrats passed the spending bills and Pres.Bush signed them...they are not republican spending bills.

                  FY2008/FY2009 were passed with the signature of Pres.Bush, and the support of Pres.Obama (then senator)...the democrat party...and 2 republican Rino's (Snowe/Collins).

                  No matter how you cut it...the spending lies at the feet of the democrat party who passed the legislation...not the republicans who voted against them.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (January 29, 2010 4:25 pm ET)
                    2 3
                    Why bother to argue with someone who refuses to call the party by it's name. I've never heard of a Democrat Party. It's the Democratic Party moran.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by warmonkey66627450 (January 29, 2010 9:51 pm ET)
                         
                      Limbaugh does this, and it has caught on. Not sure why, "Democratic" sound scary?[or too good?] Or just as a sign of disrespect?
                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by worrierking (January 29, 2010 7:32 pm ET)
                    3  
                    What happened to the big tent?

                    Calling a Republican elected official a RINO implies that Republicans require adherence to strict beliefs, that no outside thinking is allowed.

                    If that's what the Republican Party has become, it is no longer the Party of Lincoln.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by wesley (January 29, 2010 8:55 pm ET)
                      2 5
                      Big tent? Big tent for a political party? The premise is silly to start with.

                      Do democrats have a big tent? Hell no. Does Ron Paul's movement have a big tent? Hell no.

                      There are a lot of tents set up across the political landscape which welcome all that have similar beliefs...anyone can feel free to waltz into the one that best suits them.

                      Snowe and Collings rate Rino status because they vote more often with the democrats. They should switch to the democrat party...and campaign as democrats...assuming the democrat's big tent would accept them.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by So Fain (January 29, 2010 3:49 pm ET)
                5 2
                What do these budgets matter when Bush was hiding trillions of war money?

                The fact is that Bush took us from a surplus to the biggest deficit in history. George W. Bush. Clinton didn't do it and Obama has just scratched the surface.

                How does this fact get 100% ignored by the right? How is it even possible to ignore?

                This is rediculous but republicants won't stop. They control the airwaves and the corporations. For the bulk of White America, the "truth" is simply what they see on Fox News... No matter how ludicrous their claims may be.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 30, 2010 12:19 pm ET)
            1  
            And I would not give any credence or credit to Bush for pretending like he wanted cuts in Medicare after his Part D.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (January 29, 2010 7:33 pm ET)
          4 1
          Rachel Madoww had a good graph on her show yesterday about deficets under DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN administrations up to OBAMA.The results,the deficets under REGAN,BUSH 1, and BUSH 2,much greater than under CARTER and CLINTON.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Commonman (January 30, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
            1  
            Did she then show the Obama deficits that blows them all out of the water? If you progressives aren't worried about deficits why would that be a big deal anyway? If they are a big deal and a bad thing, then President Obama and the current incarnation of congress is big bad news for the nation.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by highliter (January 29, 2010 2:46 pm ET)
        1 7
        Not to mention the fact that republicans authored and passed all those surplus budgets. When was the last time the Democrats had the majority in congress and we had a budget surplus?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (January 29, 2010 3:01 pm ET)
          9 2
          And??? That doesn't negate the fact that the current deficit was created by and under George W. Bush and his Rubber Stamp Congress. Bush did not veto a SINGLE spending bill proposed by the Republican majority from 2001-2006. Not one. He also prosecuted two military actions, one just and one not, OFF THE BUDGET which ran the deficit even higher. Obama's 2010 budget includes those expenses on budget.

          I'll say again, I was not an Obama supporter, but your regurgitation of false, inaccurate talking points just to support your "side" in the ridiculous and destructive "us v. them" game makes you look as small, dishonest and petty as Hannity.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (January 29, 2010 3:10 pm ET)
          4 1
          So by your reasoning we should have had surplus budgets the first couple of years of Bush's first term.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (January 29, 2010 3:14 pm ET)
          4 1
          BTW senators do not author the budget, the budget request comes from the President and the Executive Branch.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by So Fain (January 29, 2010 3:53 pm ET)
            5 3
            I think that no matter what the facts are and no matter how clear they seem to reasonable people, the right will find a way to blame it on Dems. Knowledge of how out government works is pointless since they will just let Hannity and his ilk come up with some BS talking point to parrot.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by John Paradox (January 29, 2010 4:31 pm ET)
            2  
            The President (as the Head of the Executive Branch) proposes a budget, the HOUSE is the author (right there in that "g-d piece of paper"). The Senate can create another version, but the primary authorship is the House.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Jen7 (January 29, 2010 2:27 pm ET)
      4 1
      And the right asks why Obama always has to blame Bush? There is your answer. It's people like Hannity who lie about who created this mess to begin with.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (January 29, 2010 2:53 pm ET)
      3 14
      Probably not fair to blame bho... HOWEVER the dems took control of congress in 2006, the economy started to tank in 2007... bho enjoyed a supermajority for a year and unemployment hasn't gone below the 8% he promised (or lied take YOUR choice) would never go above....

      I'm convinced that it's unfair to push the burden of failure on bho, BUT he needs to get something done to create jubs, NOT government jobs, REAL long term private sector jobs. If you don't want tax cuts for small (and large) business, fine do SOMETHING...

      Either bho will learn like JFK or he will be a one term failure like jimmy carter...


      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (January 29, 2010 2:59 pm ET)
        5 5
        You're right. People now want and expect results. No more Bush, no more excuses for failure, no shirking away because they don't have the nerve to go forward. They campaigned on change with a host of promises of results. Obama should be given the benefit of the doubt for 2009, but he and the Democrats own it now. It's theirs. They should deliver what they promised, or they are just useless politicians.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (January 29, 2010 5:44 pm ET)
          4 2
          I hope you realize that contary to what you wingnuts believe, the President (this one nor any other) has a magic wand. Jobs are usually the LAST thing to recover from a recission. Sorry to bust your bubble, but there are results happening, but you are too blind to see them. Unemployment has dropped slightly, the GDP grew this quarter for the second quarter in a row. Even if it is not as high on the final report as it was today, it still grew and this is an indication that the recession may be coming to an end.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (January 29, 2010 5:52 pm ET)
            2 4
            Then don't promise what you can't deliver. The Democrats control everything and at some point have to take responsibility for their action, or their inaction. They can whine and bellyache about the obstructionist Republicans but they had a super majority in the Congress this past year and couldn't get a health care bill passed. Their ineffectiveness on that issue alone is reason to be skeptical. So don't talk to me about wands and tell me all the accomplishes so far. I have heard them all before. If the Democrats are finished are resting on their "laurels", fine. Then hand off the "wand" to those interested in fixing the problems, whoever they may be, and step aside.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by raddave43 (January 29, 2010 6:04 pm ET)
              5 1
              I guess you didn't read what I wrote, I said that indications are that the economy is recovering and only a fool would expect instant results.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by my4cents (January 29, 2010 10:46 pm ET)
                3  
                bravo.
                I was reluctant to call RO a fool. But, if someone wants to, and comes out, as nothing but a Repubblican apologist, so be it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (January 30, 2010 2:17 pm ET)
                  4 1
                  He's not an apologist. He knows better. He's just intellectually dishonest enough to get into inane arguments via his fake reading comprehension problems.

                  He's a fraud.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (January 29, 2010 3:09 pm ET)
        7 1
        Get your facts straight. While the Democrats got a very slim majority [one vote, Joe Liebermann and that vote was questionable] in 2007 [they were elected in 2006 and took office in January 2007], the passage of any legislation required that they be joined by at least some Republicans and by Bush. The only legislation vetoed by Bush prior to 2007 was the stem cell legislation in July 2006. The Democratic majorities in both houses were not veto-proof. If they were not joined by Republicans and if Bush did not agree, the legislation did not pass. Also, the slight Republican minority in the Senate filibustered more legislation than any other Senate in history . . . a practice which continues today.

        This ridiculous "us v. them" game being played by folks like you and Fox/hate talk radio is destroying our country. Let it go. Make Team USA your team for a change.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by So Fain (January 29, 2010 3:54 pm ET)
        1 3
        "Either bho will learn like JFK"

        Sounds like a death threat to me.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (January 30, 2010 9:14 am ET)
          1 3
          Sso fain - your just an idiot....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by benjr (January 30, 2010 3:32 pm ET)
              1
            I generally don't make grammatical comments, but "Sso fain - your [sic] just an idiot" is too juicy a comment to ignore. Do you understand "hypocrisy"?


            If you had simply hit the wrong key on your (or should it be you're?) keyboard that would be one thing. Not understanding the difference between "your" and "you're" is a different matter. You do not deserve to call anyone else an idiot until you can grasp basic grammar.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (January 29, 2010 5:36 pm ET)
        4 1
        Let me ask you a silly question as a government employee. What makes my job less "real" than any other job?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by southerngal (January 29, 2010 5:54 pm ET)
          2 6
          It isn't that any job is less "real" than any other job but the private sector is where job creation is and should be.

          We don't need to grow government at everyone's expense, we need to grow the economy for everyone's benefit.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (January 29, 2010 6:08 pm ET)
            7 1
            Sorry but a job is a job, whether it is in the Private sector or in government. Your buddy up above wrote REAL in caps to emphasize that government jobs are not real. I served in the military for 20 years and retired recently and got a "government" job still working for the military, SO don't you or anyone else lecture me about what consitutes a REAL job or not.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by southerngal (January 29, 2010 6:18 pm ET)
              2 8
              Oh stop being so sensitive, I clearly did not disrespect your job or any job.

              The private sector is preferable for job creation because government does not create wealth, and unless wealth is created there is nothing for the government to consume or redistribute. So government workers do not create wealth so their salaries must be paid by those working in the private sector. That is not disrespecting anyone with a government job, that is simply a fact.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by puttforever4682 (January 29, 2010 6:58 pm ET)
                4 1
                So how can we create jobs in the private sector? I rarely if at all read or hear any practical solutions. Tax cuts are all I hear from republicans, but it is clearly more complex than that. I lament that the manufacturing base has been eroded and am straining to hear inovative ideas. The only area which looks promising to me is in green technology. Cellulosic ethanol is one possible growth industry which would employ many people. Maybe if we built the parts for wind farms in this country that would help ,too. I wish more reasoned discussion would ensue intead of partisan bickering(especially from the Republicans).
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (January 30, 2010 9:18 am ET)
                  1 4
                  Well the reason you hear tax cuts is because tax cuts work.. I'd like to hire a person or two but with the pending tax increases and dismal looking future hesitate as I fear I'll only have to let them go... I can't pay employees when I have shrinking margins, or am loosing money...
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by puttforever4682 (January 30, 2010 11:47 am ET)
                    1  
                    Targeted tax cus would likely help--I agree. As I said previously, this is the only idea that is advanced by conservatives. What else can be done?
                    A dismal record of job losses in the past and the future is the present reality. I would still like to hear about other options.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (January 30, 2010 12:12 pm ET)
                    2 1
                    Tax cuts worked? Where the hell were you the last 8 yrs. of the Bush administration? We had the lowest job growth under his administration and increase in debt.
                    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/job-creation/
                    Tax-cuts in and of themselves won't solve the problems we face but even still as part of his comprehensive jobs program Obama is proposing a tax-credit for small businesses(don't know what tax increases your're talking about).
                    http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/01/29/president-pushes-job-creation-tax-credit-harkin-pushes-back/

                    The White House describes their proposal like this:

                    • Businesses will receive a $5,000 tax credit for every net new employee that they employ in 2010. The total amount of credit will be capped at $500,000 per firm, to ensure that the majority of the benefit goes to small businesses.

                    • Small businesses will be reimbursed for the Social Security payroll taxes they pay on
                    real increases in their payrolls. Specifically, firms that increase wages, expand hours or
                    hire new workers would get a credit against the added payroll taxes that result. This bonus would be based on Social Security payrolls, so it would not apply to wage increases above the current taxable maximum of $106,800.

                    • Firms will be able to claim the credit on a quarterly basis, which gets money out to
                    businesses quickly and provides an early incentive to hire and increase payrolls. Non-
                    profits will be eligible for the credit and start-ups will be eligible for half the credit.

                    • The proposal is estimated to cost $33 billion.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by sjw (January 30, 2010 1:49 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Really?? Your business is bound to go belly up if you think a tax cut is all that stands between you and hiring. A successful business owner is not going to say, "Hey, look, my tax bill just cut got $10k (which is being generous), I'm gonna go hire some people." A smart business owner hires based upon need - not how much cash they have laying around.

                    That's basic economics!

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by DellDolly (January 30, 2010 3:07 pm ET)
                    4 1
                    Tax cuts have never worked. That's been proven. And additionally, tax cuts are about the least stimulative cuts to federal revenues imagineable. That's been proven too.

                    If you need more production, you hire more workers.

                    There's no pending tax increases on any small business owner who is making a profit of less than $200,000. A PROFIT of that much. So don't whine to me that you can't afford to hire another worker. If you'll make more profits from having greater production, it will pay you back in the end. It NEVER costs you more to make money than you pay in increased taxes.
                    Report Abuse
              • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (January 29, 2010 7:42 pm ET)
                4 1
                wrong on, 1 out of every 8 jobs in this country are GOVT. related so drop that RIGHT WING talking point that it dosen't create jobs.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (January 30, 2010 9:19 am ET)
                  1 7
                  Government job are CONSUMPTION jobs, they CONSUME wealth. private sector jobs CREATE wealth. This isn't a comment on the value of Government jobs just the realities...
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (January 30, 2010 11:13 am ET)
                    3 1
                    Your're so full of it . First off tax what tax increases are you talking about? Most people will see a tax-reduction only the the top 2% will see a tax-increase of 3%,hardly suffocating. No one is arguing about private sector jobs...alert, business is not hiring and it's not because of high taxes,how ridiculous. Second, government jobs don't create wealth? Where did you pull that BS from? What do you mean by wealth? People with government jobs pay taxes,spend money in their communities and engage in other social interactions that are beneficial to society,thus increasing its economic and intellectual worth.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by sjw (January 30, 2010 1:51 pm ET)
                    5 1
                    How do public jobs consume wealth? I can't wait for the load of bull fertilizer that's coming from you on this one.

                    How about how govt was instrumental in the creation of the internet? Seems to me the technology created there caused billions and billions of wealth to be created.

                    How about velcro? How about the highway system? These are just a few tangible items where wealth was created.

                    EPIC FAILURE ON YOUR PART.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by usp (January 30, 2010 2:05 pm ET)
                        2
                      i believe the internet was a military invention.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by congero6189599 (January 30, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
                        3  
                        You mean the government had no part in it's funding to create it. What do you think the military is? How about government funding on medical research and medicines.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by usp (January 30, 2010 2:04 pm ET)
                      2
                    amazing. that makes no sense at all. bravo!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by sjw (January 31, 2010 10:06 am ET)
                        1
                      Of course it makes no sense to you because it's completely logical.

                      Without govt assistance, velcro (believe it or not), the internet, the highway system would not have been developed.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (January 30, 2010 12:37 am ET)
                4 1
                So government workers do not create wealth so their salaries must be paid by those working in the private sector.


                So Government workers do not spend money at all? So not purchase goods? doesn't invest their money at all? BTW we government workers pay taxes and therefore we also pay our own salaries. By stating what you did, you did in fact disrespect my job, but I was talking more to the idiot that said they were not REAL jobs.

                Most of that money that the government redistributes go for buying military equipment, highway construction projects, space programs. All of these create jobs and therefore wealth.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (January 30, 2010 9:20 am ET)
                  1 6
                  CREATE WEALTH. CREATE PRODUCT... read, understand - it's NOT rocket science... EVERY working person contributes to the tax base... ONLY private employees contribute to the GDP....
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by congero6189599 (January 30, 2010 11:24 am ET)
                    3 1
                    So government workers who pay taxes and spend in their communities spurring bakers to bake bread,construction workers to build houses,aero-space workers to build planes everything raddave outlined is what? Your assertion that government workers don't create wealth is wrong headed.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by sjw (January 30, 2010 1:52 pm ET)
                    4 1
                    Wrong again.

                    Government spending is one of the four components of GDP. Did you overdose on your stupid pills today?
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (January 29, 2010 3:32 pm ET)
      12 2
      Of course it is regrettable to expand the budget, but two unnecessary wars and tax cuts for the rich made massive deficits that we will take a long time to recover from.

      I hear little discussion on jobs loss, which goes back to the 7o's when the government decided we no longer needed to manufacture goods in this country and now it seems everything is made in China. Maybe we could not compete globally but to allow the jobs to slip away without a counter strategy has made our country approach 3rd world status. The days of thinking the US could build the country's economy on financial intruments are over. Lets try to figure out how to manufacture in this country once more.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by So Fain (January 29, 2010 3:55 pm ET)
        4  
        Amen!!!!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ABBA|Proudly teaBAGGING Liberals (January 30, 2010 9:22 am ET)
        1 5
        Hmmmm strategies to keep jobs here??? right???

        reduce taxes
        reduce pathetic regulations
        tax American companies that go offshore?

        hmmm that's a start... YOU got any ideas????
        Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 30, 2010 12:31 pm ET)
          3 1
          I love it when rabid right-wingers continue to push this idea that we need less regulation. We need more regulation. Lack of regulation is what got us into this mess in the financial sector. Now, you are actually still arguing that we need less? Incredible that you actually choose ideology over what is right in front of your face. At least learn from your mistakes.

          We allowed financial companies to do whatever they pleased and they leveraged themselves at 35 to 1 in order to increase bottom line profits and bonuses. Then they were on the brink of collapse. We have bailed them out in order to stabilize not just our economy, but the world's as best we could. It looks as if we may not even change any substantial rules in order to allow this to happen again. And, still ideologues on the right like yourself continue to bark for less regulation. Well, good luck selling the American people on less regulation. Enjoy the wilderness.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by usp (January 30, 2010 2:15 pm ET)
            3 1
            see how effective that whole deregulation thing worked in california- electric companies- nice- rolling black outs.

            enron anyone?
            Report Abuse
    • Author by dream1958 (January 29, 2010 4:02 pm ET)
         
      When is Hannity going to be waterboarded?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pabobfin (January 30, 2010 2:48 am ET)
         
      Sean Hannity's nose is so far up the Republican Talking Points memo dispenser (their ass) and making so much money from Saudi-owned Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, that we can't give him any credence. The shame of it all is that he's heard around the world on a station that falsely claims itself to be a News network, and drills the "Fair and Balanced" mantra into viewers to the point that some actually believe it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by politeradical (January 30, 2010 1:58 pm ET)
         
      Poor Sean, he still can't grasp basic math. Without the stimulus, 4 million (jobs lost) minus 2 million (stimulus created jobs) equals 6 million (total lost jobs without stimulus).

      For months, he's been touting the widely debunked lie that Obama "quadrupled" the deficit, asserting that Bush was only running a $400 billion deficit when he left office. Given that the current deficit is $1.35 trillion, even accepting Hannity's figures, his quadrupling claim is off, by a lot.

      He conveniently ignores the CBO report issued 11 days before Obama took office which projected the 2009 deficit at $1.2 trillion.

      Hannity rides the FAIL BUS again.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Natasha12 (January 31, 2010 1:32 pm ET)
         
      I know this is an over simplification but lets say you have a bank account with $200 then you turn it over to me to manage and I spend money and turn that into a $1000 overdraft and turn it back over to you and then blame you for the overdraft. Am I correct to blame you for this?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by adandydude (February 01, 2010 3:54 am ET)
         
      Congress sets and votes on the budget. Dems in control since 2006. Bush did more to work with the dems than Obama has. Bush signed off on the budget his last 2 years in office.
      Also, where are these 1.6 mil jobs created? Where are the 4 mil jobs Obama promised? Obama said that unemployment rate wouldn't go above 8%. Now it's at 10 and forecast to stay above 8% for several years.
      This country will be better off when neither party has a majority in congress. It's all about balance. To think the dems are better than the repubs is just stupid.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by factoid (February 01, 2010 1:20 pm ET)
         
      Sean Hannity the "Real American" who never graduated from college, never served in the military, and never held any elective office spewing out his fabricated propaganda. Sad story is those who buy into his parroting and propagating right wing lies. Just imagine what things would have been like with John McCain and Sarah Palin. Yikes!!
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.