In what had to be the most stunning array of lies I have ever read, the New York Times tries to pin almost all of the current 1.2 trillion debt on the Bush administration. They even go back to 2001 to make the deficit $2 trillion so that Obama's portion seems meager!
Here is a small except of their lies:
You can think of that roughly $2 trillion swing as coming from four broad categories: the business cycle, President George W. Bush’s policies, policies from the Bush years that are scheduled to expire but that Mr. Obama has chosen to extend, and new policies proposed by Mr. Obama.
The first category — the business cycle — accounts for 37 percent of the $2 trillion swing. It’s a reflection of 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.
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
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 swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas.
The fact of the matter is Bush left office with about a $460 billion deficit, all these trillions we speak of today, comes from the out of control spending by Obama and the Democrats. This simple fact isn't going unnoticed by the public either, thus the New York Times sees the need to engage in fuzzy math like a third world government run newspaper.
Posts
8 comments:
Kool Aid drinking at its best at the Times. They are obviously using the same calculators that B-Rock uses to calculate jobs saved or created.
I did not know that the Times still had money to publish a paper so i guess you read it online :-)
What, this comes as a surprise to you. This is standard operation producure for them.
Cover for the liberals,and blame - even it isnt't true - for the conservative.
The coward (Obama) has his flunkies (the state-run media) to help him blame the Bush Administration every step of the way. Every single time either Obama speaks or one of his flunkies speak, they blame Bush. It never fails. Keep saying it and it will be true.
This is Obama's economy and anyone with a brain can figure it out if they look at the money he is spending. People are going to wake up, I just hope it's not too late.
I've been debating on making a post on this poor excuse of an article.
Here were some of my points.
* They had to bump up the number from $1.2 trillion in actual deficits and tack on Clinton's so called "budget surplus" in order to bump Bush's numbers up high enough. Last time I checked, there is nothing wrong with a balanced budget. No need to pretend that surplus dollars some how represent a deficit.
* Even with their numbers what is worse Bush causing 33% of the problem over 8 years (a little less than 2% problem every 5 months) or Obama causing 10% of the problem in 5 months.
* Bush passed TARP, but Obama spent a majority of it.
* Obama continues the wars
* Obama adds to the budget woes by keeping executive pay low and injuring tax revenue generation
* Obama doesn't know how to count. His numbers are all wrong and the deficit is sure to be much higher than projected. In 5 months not one number they've projected has been right.
* Wouldn't the 37% caused by economic factors indicate a good reason not to inflate the deficit even larger?
Ron B:
Clearly the Times is doing the fuzzy math thing, and not very well either.
I would not waste one pennie to buy the NYT. It pained me just to post the link!
C Scalawag:
While I am quite familar with the Times regular forms of bias, this one was so stunningly dishonest, I could not believe my eyes.
TCL:
Clearly the game plan is blame Bush for the next 4 years. Even if Obama implodes from his own bad policies, it will be Bush's fault. Nevermind with each passing month, the blame Bush meme gets weaker and weaker.
c generation:
Excellent points, you should have wrote the post.
I would also add, that the 37% is partly due to some of the job killing policies that have gone into effect.
Post a Comment