Fox finds new way to blame Obama for Bush-era policies
Stating that President Obama's policies have "clearly failed," Fox Business stocks editor Elizabeth MacDonald falsely suggested that Obama has been in office for three years. This follows a pattern of Fox hosts and guests blaming President Obama for Bush-era policies such as TARP, the AIG bailout, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts, and the beginning of the recession.
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.
Fox Business falsely suggests Obama has been in office for three years
Fox Business' MacDonald: "The president's policies have clearly failed. For three years, we've been living with these policies." While guest-hosting Fox Business' Bulls & Bears, MacDonald suggested that Obama's policies have "clearly failed" because we've been living with them for three years and we are still "seeing job losses." However, as guest Erica Payne, founder and president of The Agenda Project, pointed out, Obama has only been in office for about a year and a half.
From the August 9 edition of Fox Business' Bulls & Bears:
PAYNE: The fact of the matter is the real unemployment rate is about 20 percent, you know, depending on who you talk to. These numbers are incorrect.
MacDONALD: But Erica, look, these --
PAYNE: These numbers are incorrect. So there are five people applying for every one job that there is.
MacDONALD: I'm sorry. The president's policies have clearly failed. For three years, we've been living with these policies. They've clearly failed. The Reagan tax cuts are cheaper than the president's spending plan.
PAYNE: OK. We haven't --
MacDONALD: The Reagan tax cuts -- we had --
PAYNE: First of all --
MacDONALD: Hang on. The Reagan tax cuts -- we saw job growth up 6 percent. We're seeing economic growth of 3 percent. We're seeing job losses. So, are -- should we -- why are we going down the same road? Do you -- don't you think that they've failed so far?
PAYNE: OK, so first of all, I don't know where the three years is, because he's been in office for about 18 months, number one. Number two, when he went into office, there were 750,000 jobs lost the month that he went into office. OK, and then last month --
MacDONALD: All right, you're right to correct me on the three years, but when I say the three years --
PAYNE: -- and last month that we gained 71,000 jobs --
MacDONALD: All right. When I say -- you're right.
PAYNE: -- and let's be clear. Since 1999, during the entire tenure of George Bush's presidency -- and I looked this up three times, because when I first read it, I didn't believe it -- during the entire tenure of George Bush's presidency, guess how many net jobs were created? How many net private sector jobs were created --
MacDONALD: Well, what is your number do you think it is?
PAYNE: -- during the eight years of George Bush?
MacDONALD: What do you think it was?
PAYNE: Zero. Zero.
MacDONALD: I don't know where you get that stat, but let's stay on point. Let's not go -- let's not do the blame Bush --
PAYNE: Well, you're trying to say --
MacDONALD: Hang on, Erica. Let's not do the Bush thing again, all right? Let's stay in the here and now. And I hear what you're saying.
PAYNE: OK.
MacDONALD: What I meant was that three years of policy, because we started spending under Bush, and now we're spending ourselves into oblivion -- no jobs created.
Fox continually blames Obama for policies that preceded his tenure
Varney claimed Bush "fixed the financial panic" but "[t]he economy fell off a cliff on President Obama's watch." On the July 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox Business host Stuart Varney addressed Vice President Joe Biden's statement that "8 million jobs [were] lost in the Bush recession" by stating: "He says it's Bush's recession, harking back two years ago. I think that's inaccurate. President Bush fixed the financial panic. The economy fell off a cliff on President Obama's watch, and President Obama's policies have not fixed that ongoing recession." In fact, the National Bureau of Economic Research announced on December 1, 2008, that based on "economy-wide measures of economic activity," including domestic production and employment, the recession began in December 2007.
Fox repeatedly falsely blamed Obama for TARP and bailouts. Fox hosts and contributors repeatedly advanced the falsehood that Obama was responsible for TARP, the AIG bailout, and the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts. In fact, Bush proposed TARP and signed the TARP legislation. Furthermore, each of these bailouts all occurred while Bush was in office.
- Bolling blamed Obama for bailouts initiated under Bush. Fox Business' Eric Bolling attributed TARP spending, the AIG bailout, and the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts to Obama when in fact spending for all of these programs was initiated under Bush.
- Palin trashed the Obama WH over Bush administration-initiated bailouts. Fox News contributor Sarah Palin stated that a "fundamental difference" between "what's coming from the White House" and "a lot of conservatives" is the "belief that government is not the answer. The bailouts, the takeovers of the private sector -- that's not the answer." She went on to laud "free enterprise" and say: "I don't think that is what we're seeing coming out of the White House. It's quite fundamental, the difference there."
- Fox Business' Smith claimed the Obama administration decided which banks would receive TARP funds. Reporting on certain banks that had repaid TARP funds, Fox Business' Sandra Smith falsely claimed "the government, the Obama administration, deemed these banks necessary to receive these funds." In fact, the banks Smith mentioned reportedly obtained the funds under the Bush administration in December 2008.
Hannity referred to an "Obama recession" before Obama had even taken office. In November 2008, Hannity repeatedly blamed the recession on then-President-elect Obama, attributing the market decline to the public's anticipation of Obama's policies. On November 11, 2008, Hannity asked (accessed via Nexis), "Is this an Obama recession?" Hannity later explained: "He promises a trillion dollars in new spending. Promises to raise the capital gains tax. Promises to tax business further and are a lot of people looking at the marketplace saying, you know what? I'm getting out while the tax rates are this level not the higher rates. So, in other words, is he causing activity in the market to go down?" According to Nexis, Hannity also referred to the "Obama recession" on November 14 and 20, 2008, and February 10, 2009 (less than a month after Obama's inauguration)."
Fox repeatedly blamed Obama for deficit spending that occurred because of Bush policies. Fox News personalities including Bernie Goldberg, Karl Rove, Hannity, Brian Kilmeade, and Dick Morris all pushed the falsehood that Obama was responsible for a record-setting deficit of more than $1 trillion in Fiscal Year 2009. In fact, in January 2009, prior to Obama's inauguration, the Congressional Budget Office projected that, including spending authorized under the Bush administration for the TARP and government takeovers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the deficit would total $1.2 trillion in Fiscal Year 2009, which ran from October 1, 2008, to September 30, 2009.
I couldn't agree more. ;)
And if they can keep blaming Clinton for everything that happened four years into Bush's time...
Pretty soon, they'll get the Clinton and Obama presidencies to overlap, and then they can completely avoid "doing that Bush thing", meaning avoid " acknowledging the reality that Bush ever existed".
Actually, doing "the Bush thing again" is PRECISELY what Republicans like Boehner and McConnell are promising to do if they retake Congress and/or the White House in 2012. In other words, more tax cuts without spending curbs to balance the deficit.
Look at Newt Gingrich's comments earlier this month about wanting to cut the capital gains tax to zero percent a la China; a delightful suggestion, but it would send the deficit spiraling even higher towards Jupiter. But when Republicans retake power, I suspect they'll return to their blissful mantra of "Deficits don't matter" as they did under Reagan and both Bushes.
I know a guy who observed that stupidity is the 5th fundamental force in the universe. I'll leave it to the physicists in the house to ask why.
LOL. I can't believe he actually said this. Seriously the most absurd thing I have ever heard from Hannity. The stock market is in far better condition than it was under Bush before the end of his term, so if Hannity was truly right, than wouldn't the stock market be in the ditch by now in response to Obama's policies???
Hannity is either intentionally lying for his paycheck or is really that dumb. I think it's the former.
If the guest hadn't called her out on it, the pathetic Fox viewers would have been left thinking, "wow, maybe they're right... Obama is responsible for whatever happened before he came into office, too". What a joke.
OMFG, all day everyday on FOX "Don't blame Bush!".
Listen, it's important to remember where blame belongs so that we don't repeat mistakes of the past. If Bush (GOP) policies of tax cutting to fix everything works then why the hell after massive tax-cuts during his first term did we end up with no job growth to show for it at the end of his whole 8yrs? Because it doesn't work!
So when conservatives are actively campaigning THIS YEAR for those same policies, it's important to note that it's been done recently and we can see the results of that kind of policy. It doesn't work & you can BLAME BUSH for making that glaringly clear to anyone willing to examine the facts. Yes FOX, BLAME BUSH!!
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com...a decidedly left-leaning site sums it up succinctly:
"One problem that Obama is having -- and not just on the left, although it might be most acute there -- is the dissonance between the grand, poetic narratives of the campaign trail and the prosaic and transactional day-to-day grind of governance...
Either way, it speaks to the need for some fresh blood and some fresh ideas in the White House. The famously unflappable Obama is losing his cool."
But, that's right, facts and Reality have a liberal bias.
What is your political affiliation?
My state has non-partisan registration, so I am not registered as anything. I vote for Democratic candidates the majority of the time (though by no means always). This year, I have been a supporter of Barack Obama. The other contributor to this website, Sean Quinn, has also been a supporter of Barack Obama.
Just another example of how you can't ever seem to be honest.
But thanks for once again showing us that you're incapable of being honest, you weasel.
Who are you talking to? And wouldn't that support the need to extend unemployment benefits?
Actually, unemployment reached 10% under Reagan and only came down when he raised taxes.
Yep, we don't want to point out the pattern of tax cuts for the rich driving up the debt and creating no jobs.
Given that we've passed the point where he said his policies would make a difference, I think it is fair to start assessing whether they have indeed worked as planned.
I also think it is fair to be flexible on time when judging, but not so flexible as to have no standard. Otherwise, you can keep going until there is an upturn and then you can say-- its Obama's success!
The bottom line is that we at some point have to decide whether or not they have worked, and from what I can tell, they have not worked (at least yet).
We decide if we like his policies at election time.
Whether or not his polices 'worked as planned' is a MUCH more nuanced question and can NOT be summed up with a yes or no. I also find the use of 'planned' as a potential sticking point in a diagnosis. Can we talk about worked better than nothing? worked better than alternatives? In your case what policies are claiming have not worked yet?
Thanks for the answer, and those are good points. For arguments sake, consider the stimulous that promised to keep unemployment from going up too high and above a certain point. It went above that point, and has remained above it.
On a basic level, it has arguably failed. Yet, the argument is now that it helped things get a lot worse. Maybe, but the jury is indeed out on that point now. It is a lot easier to say it kept things from getting worse than it is to say it failed when you support the policy, even if it may be the correct stance.
But the simple truth is that he had promised to get the economy moving and it still is not moving. Job growth is at best little, and by many accounts has dropped.
Election time? On a level, that is a good baramoter of what people think of its success, and right now, to be honest, it looks grim for the Dems. That is a different measurement than the reality of an economic policy succeeding or failing.
My personal opinion is that no one has any real confidence in the direction of the market or of the policies that will come from Washington now. No one knows what the best thing to do is, and so they don't do anything.
Your argument that the stimulus failed simply based on employment figures doesnt account for what it DID do and were it was successful.
But, if you want to analyze why it was not as successful enough to defeat the unemployment problem, again we have to have a nuanced conversation on a range of issues about the legislation.
I will state that I believe the stimulus was constrained by the same politicians (conservatives) who are now complaining that it has not worked enough.
We can talk about the policy, sure, and I agree that there are many many factors that go into it, many beyond the power of the president.
On the same token, are you willing to acknowledge the same factors outside the perview of the pres. went into the economies downturn?
It does take time, but I view the economy as confused now. No one is sure what is going to happen.
I think a little direction would go a long way to cure the ills in the economy.
Oh, and we are no where near as bad off as we were in 1930.
We will have no problem calling Obama a failure in 2012, if it comes to that. Over and over again he softens or rejects liberalism, and we have realized that and stated that throughout his presidency. By contrast, conservatives didn't say that Bush was failing to implement conservatism until six or more years into his presidency, so they're just rationalizing.
Given that we've passed the point where he said his policies would make a difference, I think it is fair to start assessing whether they have indeed worked as planned.
I also think it is fair to be flexible on time when judging, but not so flexible as to have no standard. Otherwise, you can keep going until there is an upturn and then you can say-- its Obama's success!
The bottom line is that we at some point have to decide whether or not they have worked, and from what I can tell, they have not worked (at least yet).
Why?
First off, the topic here is how FoxNews created yet another revision of the truth to unfairly blame Obama for something done under Bush - the same way they blamed Obama for not prosecuting the NBPP guys when it was the Bush Administration that did that.
And so, your question is thoroughly and completely off-topic.
The subject here is NOT MMFA trying to shield Obama from culpability for his own actions, doofus! It's FoxNews trying to blame him for something he's not to blame for!
And if YOU can't tell/don't know that Obama's policies HAVE helped, then you're a real doofus! But we already knew that.
You fools try to look at stuff in isolation, and so the fact that unemployment is still high means that it didn't succeed, but that's baloney. Unemployment would have been much higher, and our country's (and likely the world too) financial strife would have been much greater had his financial stimulus bill not passed!
His policies clearly helped. Had he not been so dedicated to trying to be bipartisan, he would have included much more straight stimulus spending and much less tax cuts, and the economy would have done even better! It's YOUR SIDE'S FAULT that it wasn't as effective an effort as it could have been! It's YOUR side's political philosophy that fails on this issue.
Good to see you again.
I never said my question was on topic, rather I asked if there is a cut off for when success or failure will be granted.
Actually, I'd say whether or not his policies have helped is in debate. I am not suggesting a definitive answer, because I do not know. I happen to think, though, that he's not giving anyone any sort of direction. And if we had some direction, we would be able to recover quicker. This really isn't a policy argument, but a leadership argument in that I am suggesting he is failing to instill the confidence needed to get the economy going.
We can argue day in and out whether or not his policies have worked. Maybe they have helped keep it from getting worse. But also maybe they have and will continue to keep us back. Yet, as I said, I think he needs to affirmitively lead us into the future.
Confidence goes a long way.
Oh, and please, stop with the blaming. It helps nothing. As I've said twice in this post alone: its less about policy at this point than confidence.
Says the guy who elected and re-elected and defended and cheered on the policies that got us in this mess. Priceless.
Way to go Uncle Rupert!
Before you answer, consider why you are quick to answer the way you do. I'd expect its something like you agree with the general principles that the people speaking have, and you'll put some rationales for why they are right.
Do you think that the same general idea is the same on the other side? That they generally agree to begin with? Do you then not think that they rationalize their way to the answer?
If that's the case, then shouldn't we compare notes rather than call them "these poor souls" who don't even suspect "these wicked people are lying to them."
to our country..way to go wreck the country ,blame the democrats.It took 12yrs for you people to get us in this mess,do you think 18mos.
is sufficient for Obama to straighten it out
All flame and rhetoric with little to no substance.
Yes, I know what you are talking about, and yet you still ignore an important part of my post, avoiding it for fear of getting into word game.
Do words scare you? They don't scare me, and I am more than willing to discuss this issue in a serious manner, without playing around with words. I happen to believe words mean things and thus write what I mean. I do not use double entendre or any sort of loose language, at least not intentionally.
I think Obama messed up when he promised no unemployment above 8%. Had he not said that, we would not be having this discussion.
Is that the better way to convince someone they are "wicked"?
Before you answer, consider why you are quick to answer the way you do. I'd expect its something like you agree with the general principles that the people speaking have, and you'll put some rationales for why they are right.
Do you think that the same general idea is the same on the other side? That they generally agree to begin with? Do you then not think that they rationalize their way to the answer?
If that's the case, then shouldn't we compare notes rather than call them "these poor souls" who don't even suspect "these wicked people are lying to them."
Before you answer, consider why you are quick to answer the way you do. I'd expect its something like you agree with the general principles that the people speaking have, and you'll put some rationales for why they are right.
Do you think that the same general idea is the same on the other side? That they generally agree to begin with? Do you then not think that they rationalize their way to the answer?
If that's the case, then shouldn't we compare notes rather than call them "these poor souls" who don't even suspect "these wicked people are lying to them."