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.