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


















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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Sometimes you think you have no verifiable history here, well you do.
Thanks in advance for remembering the above, Suzy ;-0)
Good day, Suzy. ;-)
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.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/obamagopqa/
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
He won't meet with them if they don't invite him to. I know he said he'd come back.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Do you have a concept of the way Congress works, wesley?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
He's a fraud.
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.
Sounds like a death threat to me.
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.
We don't need to grow government at everyone's expense, we need to grow the economy for everyone's benefit.
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.
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.
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.
That's basic economics!
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.
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.
Without govt assistance, velcro (believe it or not), the internet, the highway system would not have been developed.
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.
Government spending is one of the four components of GDP. Did you overdose on your stupid pills today?
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.
reduce taxes
reduce pathetic regulations
tax American companies that go offshore?
hmmm that's a start... YOU got any ideas????
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.
enron anyone?
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.
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.