Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, September 29, 2016

The last 10 days or so have left Joe Ricketts, founder of TD Ameritrade, in damage-control mode as he tries to distance himself from an incendiary, racially charged anti-Barack Obama ad campaign that would have featured the president’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. After two or three news cycles in which Ricketts was harshly criticized for his support of the ad’s early-stage development — even Mitt Romney, the presumed beneficiary, wanted nothing to do with it — Ricketts retreated, claiming he never liked the idea, either.
The retired billionaire will look for other ways to use his super PAC, the Ending Spending Action Fund, to pummel Obama, according to news reports. If the defensive explanations offered by Ricketts’ supporters are to be believed, he is upset with the president for what he sees as a track record of excessive, wasteful spending that will bankrupt the country. Indeed, that is a central argument of Romney’s campaign, echoed by all the usual suspects, including House Speaker John Boehner.

But there is an obvious hole in their narrative: Where the heck were these guys when George W. Bush was president?

  • montanabill

    ‘these guys’ were out there yelling about the spending, but, as usual, Cynthia, you ignore the fact that the spending was done by Democrats in Congress. ‘these guys’ were imploring Bush to veto it. Unfortunately, he didn’t. Bush was also trying to curtail the oncoming economic catastrophe that ‘affordable housing’ was creating, but Democrats blocked that. So you and the rest of the left can scream all you want about ‘Bush spending’. At the end of the day, we can see $6 trillion in new debt during Obama’s time in office while he is saying, “I’m not an over-spender.” Only in the eyes of the left.

    • Ed

      The first thing that gave the repubs ammmo was when he brought the cost of the two wars back “on the books”, immediately increasing the deficit. But that was money spent by Bush.

      • Ed, you are absolutely right. Plus, the U.S. has to pay a huge amount in interest on the money that was borrowed to fund the wars. The interest that is paid, is, of course, part of the deficit.

        • dtgraham

          Exactly right Patricia. Bush tried to hide the cost of the wars. As much as his deficits began to pile up, they were still significantly understated.

    • don’t forget when Bill Clinton raised the taxes, we went into a recession. And in order to balance a budget, you must first pass one, we have not budget at this time.

      • Dale Bappe

        Bruce, that is a lie. There was no recession under Clinton. Check it out.

        • dtgraham

          Dale, these guys are living in a talk radio, Fox News, alternate reality. I can’t believe many of their posts.

    • Bill, past is prolog. You can’t ignore the policies that caused the financial drain and simply try and conflate the new debt with the current president. The policies are still in place that caused the financial pain, and so are the effects of the recession that started in 2007. The Congress has worked against everything that the administration has suggested. Where do you believe the country would be today if the obstructionist had worked just a little in a constructive way?

      • montanabill

        All those policies were the ones that Obama promised to do something about. Review his campaign speeches. There are two sides to the Congress. The House is accused of blocking Obama’s program, but the reality is that Obama has submitted two budgets which were unanimously defeated and the House has not cooperated on spending programs where the new spending was not going to be paid for by cutting spending elsewhere. In the meantime, the House has passed several pieces of legislation that were blocked by Harry Reid in the Senate. He wouldn’t even let them come up for consideration for fear that some Democrat might want to compromise. The first two years, Obama had no one blocking his plans, so he passed his pork barrel ‘stimulus’ that accomplished nothing but sinking us further into debt and loading more interest for us pay back in the future, and the Democrats passed a severely flawed health care package because they wouldn’t consider compromise. So where do I think the country would be today if there had been some obstructionism the first two years? I think we would have a health care program that would not be in front of the Supreme Court nor threatening to add trillions more to the debt. I think we would have saved a trillion dollars of ‘porkulus’ debt and its future interest payments. Without Democrat obstruction in the Senate, we might be on our way toward balancing the budget.
        By the way, the only compromise the Democrats have wanted is more taxation. They have not offered to cut one single dime of real spending. Here’s an exercise for you. You are told that raising taxes on the ‘billionaires and millionaires’ would reduce the debt. However, every time some new spending is proposed, the claim is that it could be paid for by that tax on ‘billionaires and millionaires’. Your task is to determine just how much money in increased taxes they are talking about and then to see if it will 1) reduce the debt, 2) pay for all new proposed spending, 3) both, 4) neither.

    • Nice try. Bush caused it, we know it and we have proven it. Don’t blame us for taking to long that has to clean up their messes.

      • montanabill

        Oops! A Freudian slip. Pin the blame on Bush but subconsciously use the word, ‘their’. “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
        ……Albert Einstein

    • Much of that ‘new debt’ that you are referring to is due to the huge amount of interest the U.S. has to pay because of all the money that it had to borrow to pay for the Iraqi war. Most of what Obama has spent was to repair the economic damage he inherited.

      • montanabill

        Sorry Patricia, not so much. But if you insist that Obama spent that money to repair the economic damage, then it would have to follow that he didn’t have a clue how to handle the situation.

  • Well if the Bush administration paid for those two wars,if Bush had listened to Powell instead of Rove we wouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place.Powell told Bush that there weren’t any WMDs in Iraq.If Bush didn’t want to finish his daddy’s job there would not be any war in Iraq to not be paid for.Also the main reason we went to Iraq was oil,which we did not get and 5 trillion dollars would not have been left for Obamas team to take the heat on.So stop being idiots out there in Montana.

    • montanabill

      Funny, that isn’t what Powell told the U.N. How about describing for us, a world with Saddam Hussein still in power? I’d also like to see your proof regarding going into Iraq for their oil.

  • perplejado

    Once again, the writer’s point is missed in an attempt to blame Obama. Fact, there was a budget surplus when Clinton left office. Fact, Bush started two wars and then cut revenues while similtaneous increasing expenditures for these wars. This is like buying a new car and then asking for a pay cut or asking your wife to quit her job, the money is going to have to come from somewhere and that somewhere was an increase in deficit spending. My parents, who bought war bonds and agreed to higher taxes to pay for WWII, would be ashamed of us. Next, you throw in a banking crisis that threatened to destroy our financial system and massive unemployment (the unemployed pay fewer taxes and thus decrease revenue), and you have a recipe for larger deficits. Is this President Obama’s fault, no it is not. Will things turn around once more people are back to work, yes it will. Will this happen over night, no it won’t. Now, do I think that this problem was solely created by Republicans, no I believe Democrats in congression, along with the press was complicit in not calling out the Bush administration for the decisions which caused the problems which President Obama inherited.

    • montanabill

      Couple more minor ‘facts’. 9/11, and revenues did increase as a result of the tax cuts. The banking crisis and economic crisis were caused by the ‘Affordable Housing’ act, not vise versa. I like your analogy of buying a car, though. If you are in debt, you don’t buy a new car. First, you pay off your debts.

      • I would like to see Bush/Cheney’s proof of wmd’s that some how have never been located. Where are they?

        • montanabill

          They said they didn’t find any. Not the same as saying they hadn’t been located.

          • dtgraham

            You’ve got to realize that Fixed News isn’t telling you the truth, man. No, revenues didn’t rise with the Bush tax cuts. They dropped dramatically and didn’t begin to make some comeback until 2006, with population growth. That’s overall tax revenues, although capital gains revenues did show positive movement. They were the only tax revenues that did. This can all be easily looked up.

            To suggest that the affordable housing act of 1977 caused the world wide banking meltdown of 2008 is beyond laughable. Did America’s lower income people take down Portugal, Spain, and Ireland too? Really?

            Fox News went to court, in the late 90’s, to actually argue that they had the right to lie to the public. They weren’t saying that lies weren’t part of their business model. Rather, they simply argued that it wasn’t unconstitutional to do so. Unbelievably, they won. You can look that up too.

          • montanabill

            How about if I always rely on government published figures? Revenues did drop, but they started dropping as the result of the impact to the economy by a thing that happened on 9/11/2001, not because of tax cuts. First year of Bush’s Presidency, income tax revenues were $1.145 trillion. At the end of his Presidency, they were $1.45 trillion. It is pretty hard to attribute that to either population growth or simply because the economy had improved.
            The world does not contain isolated economies. The U.S. banking meltdown was caused by the bad mortgages. Wall Street exacerbated the situation by bundling the bad paper and selling it as a legitimate investment. When the U.S. economy gets into trouble, financial institutions around the world feel the pain. That, in turn, hits the countries that are living heavily on debt.
            Commentary shows have the right to express whatever opinions they desire. Fox does it, CBS does it, NBC & MSNBC do it, PBS does it, CNN does it. Name one that doesn’t include opinion or news editing.

          • dtgraham

            Just a quick look at Wikipedia is revealing. Tax receipts, under Bush, began to approach 2000 levels in terms of actual dollars by 2006. However, expressed as a percentage of GDP, they had still not reached 2000 year peak levels by the end of 2008. He increased spending by 70% and increased tax receipts by 25%, but that 70% is questionable because military spending, alone, increased by 107%. Bush kept so much of discretionary defence spending off the books.

            The world does contain isolated banking rules. Some economies hardly missed a beat in 2008 because their banks weren’t deregulated and used systems like branch banking. Canada was among them. Others got into the derivatives game too. Deutschebank, banks of Great Britain and Spain, and so on. Germany could easily recover. The others not so much.

            By itself, alone, the AHA had very little to do with what happened 4 years ago. Jamie Dimon just lost between 3 and 7 billion dollars (we’re still not sure). Did poorer folk not paying their mortgages cause this? C’mon.

            Incidentally, Fixed News plays loose with hard news and those crawlers at the bottom of the screen. You know, Obama’s trip to India costs 10 billion a day or some ridiculous figure that they lied about for days. That and about 10 billion more examples. That’s what they argued for all those years ago.

          • montanabill

            Bush only spent what a Democrat congress appropriated.
            Folks not paying their mortgages were in the trillions of dollars. You don’t think that had any impact?
            Jamie Dimon’s loss at JPMorgan was a tiny fraction (less than1%) of the company’s net worth. It might be a big loss from your pocket, not so much from theirs.
            I could point to equally bad behavior by the other news organizations I mentioned, but all that is irrelevant.

          • dtgraham

            What congress appropriated money for Bush from January 2001 through February 2007?

          • montanabill

            Republicans, where spending was pretty much commensurate with spending under Clinton. It was the last two years, 2007 & 2008, where spending took a giant leap forward.

          • dtgraham

            Bush did TARP in 2008 and I don’t blame him for that. Far too much of 401k’s, pension plans, and the like were tied up in Wall St, among other reasons. Obama should have found a way in those first two years to return to the Clinton era tax rates when things were actually getting paid for and budgets were getting balanced. I think his stimulus should have been very different too, but that’s another matter.

      • scareygary

        “De-regulation” that has allowed Wall Street to engage in the sort of speculation that helped cause the mortgage crisis and NOW is a factor in gasoline price ‘gouging’ as well as high food prices because of speculation, is just another factor. I LIKE the ‘pay your debts’ idea, but when tax CUT after tax CUT has cut the government’s ‘income’, it’s harder and harder to pay our bills, some of which are quite necessary and support many JOBS. I’m in favor of asking the beneficiaries of the ‘redistribution of wealth’ to the top for the last 30 years to start contributing some of their exploding wealth to the commons. We have too many companies paying nothing, or next to nothing, in taxes, not to mention the 13,500 millionaires who paid a LOWER tax rate than I did last year; and I’m retired….my wife is one of those first grade teachers that someone will tell you is responsible for our economic mess…..; we have very little ‘debt’, personally, but are FAR from millionaires… CUTTING is not the only answer to deficits; I know from experience. The other course is to RAISE your income, and we have people making millions who have so far been asked to sacrifice NOTHING for the good of the nation…..

        • montanabill

          de-regulation is what allowed Wall Street to try to handle all of the bad paper created by loaning money to people who couldn’t pay it back. You can try until you are blue in the face to blame someone other than Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Affordable Housing Act, but that is not going to change the factual history.
          How many millionaires paid a tax rate 3-4 times yours? Never mind. There are upwards of 3.5 million millionaires, so just 0.38% of them paid a lower tax rate than you and it was because their income is capital gains, not earned income. By the way, the number of millionaires increased by nearly 8%, so somehow they got there without having ‘wealth to explode’.
          If you are in debt and you can’t increase your wealth, you certainly can’t get out of debt by charging more on your credit card. If the Democrats ever actually put REAL SPENDING CUTS on the table, then maybe the Republicans would consider some increases, but first things first.

          • bigspender7

            What evidence do you have that republicans “would consider some tax increases” in light of the Norquist pledge foolishness that most republicans have signed? What evidence do you have that the kind of spending cuts sought by republicans would do anything other than styme growth even further thus further reducing revenues and putting more people on the dole? What evidence do you have that almost no millionaires paid a lower tax rate than the middle class? The vast majority of Americans get little or none of their income from capital gains earnings. What evidence do you have that Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Affordable Housing Act have done anything other than offer some protection to those who aren’t rich and lack any real political power?

          • montanabill

            1. They have said as much. Pay attention. 2. Government data. 3. Look around. Or do you think the housing crisis and unemployment are figments of the imagination.

          • scareygary

            I am NOT in debt, friend. And when I was, I took a second and third job to increase INCOME, while selling every toy, canceling the newspaper, garbage pickup, etc. You can’t just CUT your way out of debt sometimes, especially when TAX CUT after tax CUT has cost the government a ton of income. Check the facts. Under Clinton (balanced budgets?) the government took in about 20.9 of GDP. Last year? 15.9% of a CRAPPY economy. Thank BUSH for the tax cuts (read INCOME reduction). REAL spending cuts? Like on the bloated MILITARY (the largest part of the budget?) Nope…protected by the GOP. The GOP would actually consider raising taxes? Ha Ha. You haven’t read your Grover Norquist lately, have you? The Coast Guard can’t fix safety issues on our river, teachers are being laid off by the hundreds, roads are NOT being built, bridges crumbling, but you say there are no ‘real cuts’? What’s it gonna take? You want everyone with a government check to lose his/her job? All THAT unemployment and increased foreclosures will sure help the economy, huh? It’ll finally ‘trickle down’ to YOU, Buddy. And I mean the GRIEF, not the ‘wealth’. That’s been a 30 year FAILURE, are you not paying attention????

          • montanabill

            I was not implying anything about your personal situation.
            Clinton was forced into balanced budgets and surpluses by Newt Gingrich. The Bush tax cuts were in response to 9/11’s impact on the economy. By the end of his administration, tax revenues were well above those at the beginning of his administration. Instead of paying attention to Grover Norquist, who is not in government, pay attention to John Boehner, unless you believe that George Soros tells Harry Reid what to do. The Department of Education budget has gone from $14.6 billion in 1982 to $68+ billion this year. Why has the U.S. dropped? I’m not sure why you think roads are not being built. Around here and other places I visit, road construction is everywhere! Do you really think government checks help the economy? All we are doing is taking money out of one pocket, squandering a little of it and putting what’s left into another pocket. No way that’s going to help the economy. Did any of your jobs come from a poor man? If not, you benefited from ‘trickle down’.

          • scareygary

            You give Clinton no credit for a booming economy, but blame Obama for the current mess? Good grief; you’ve certainly drunk your share of koolaid. IF Grover Norquist is of no consequence, why have the tea party congress types taken a PLEDGE of his to never raise taxes….ever? That man as stated clearly that he wants about as much ‘government’ as they have in Somalia. That’s where the ‘NO government and No Taxes” philosophy will take you, eventually… Want that?

            And I know this much… IF I owned a business, I would hire people and become a ‘job creator’ NOT because I was given another tax break, but because I couldn’t keep up with DEMAND for goods and services. Every time I spend a buck somewhere, whether that money came from a GOVERNMENT job (i.e. MILITARY?), or a private job, I’m helping to create ‘demand’. Even the government HATERS in business benefit when a teacher comes in to his/her business to buy something. Take away THAT job and there are fewer people to support the PRIVATE sector. Why that’s so hard to understand is beyond me…. When we ALL do better, even the RICH do better, generally. Or do you really prefer a “ME society” to a “We society”?

          • montanabill

            Okay, a Democrat, Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress lead by Newt Gingrich managed to create a balanced budget, reduce entitlement spending and helped create a booming economy. I don’t care about Grover Norquist. These people are politicians, and when and if, increased taxes are required, they will vote for it. But do not expect that to happen if Democrats cannot find the will to approve real cuts to spending.
            I don’t have to ‘If’. I hire people as I need them to help my businesses grow. Tax breaks play absolutely no part in hiring decisions but make for good political sound bites. If government takes $1 from someone, that is $1 out of the economy. Government will lose some part of the money paying interest and foreign aid, say 8%. That will leave 92 cents. Now for our purposes, we will assume the government sends that 92 cents to some citizen. Do you believe that 92 cents will stimulate as much economy as the original $1? Actually, the picture is far worse than that, but the principle is still the same.
            Finally, you are mistaking people who desire less government for government haters. Big difference.

          • scareygary

            We’ll probably agree on very little, Bill. My contention is basically that we NEED government to balance what I see as the ever growing $$$$= POWER of big corporate interests…and ‘regulation’ costs them money, but without it, we have ever larger monopolies, dirtier air, water, and food, not to mention more $$$ influencing politics. A check of FACTS should prove that corporations and the wealthy are paying FAR less in taxation than they USED to (prior to Reagan, Bush, Bush II), and we are WORSE off for it as a nation. The DEBT alone is reason to want to see them pay a ‘fair share’. I’d love to see a tax structure closer to what it was before Reagan….or certainly similar to what Clinton (and Newt) enjoyed, but GOP Tax Cuts have cost the middle class a LOT. I’m pissed off that our jobs have gone to China, etc., to the benefit of ONLY the Communists and the Fat Cats who are reaping huge profits at the expense of the little guy. CEO pay has ‘exploded’ in the last 30 years while the middle class is barely hanging on, losing jobs, pensions and homes, etc. The richest have been asked to sacrifice NOTHING, while the country goes further and further in debt, not due to excessive spending (IMHO), although I’ve very agains FRAUD, but because they are paying very little into the ‘commons’, comparatively. I happen to VALUE the military (up to a point), the VA, good roads, good public schools, even Planned Parenthood, Public TV and radio, National Parks, and even reasonable regulation to protect our environment from those who seem very willing to do
            ‘anything for a buck’. I’ll happily pay my fair share. I don’t resent my federal income tax at all; I just resent all those who aren’t willing to pay a little ‘rent’ to live in a decent civilization. I see government CUTS everywhere….. and wonder what it will take for you to believe that there are ‘real cuts’ being made…. I’m sick of CORPORATE welfare to companies making billions in profits while it’s the ‘poor’ or ‘unions’ getting the blame.

            I’m done with this discussion, now. I’ve got a life, and projects to do….Thanks for listening. I think it’s been mostly civil, and I appreciate that….

    • The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

      The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

      For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:

      January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:

      The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

      The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

      The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

      George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

      Remember the day…

      January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

      The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

      BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

      Unemployment… due to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

      Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

      And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

      And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

      OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

      So when someone tries to blame Bush..

      REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”

      Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

      Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.

      In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

      For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

      And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

      If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

      If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

  • Thank you very much Ms. Tucker for setting the record straight. We already know, no matter how the truth is being told, there are still some folks that won’t accept the truth. They rather believe a lie than the truth which continue to remind me how hateful they are towards another human being.

  • Tucker, you should find another job….”Let’s remember, too, that the massive Wall Street bailouts were orchestrated by the Bush administration. They were necessary, and Obama rightly supported them.”….end of story.

    • skytimer01

      Surely Dave, the support was the right thing to do at the time. That showed working together for the good of America. (Called Patriotism)

  • IdaBill

    Thanks Cynthia for a well-researched and well-written reminder of who are the really BIG SPENDERS! Thank goodness all Americans do not have amnesia and we also know that when you launch wars they have to be paid for!

    We are paying big-time in $$$’s and more importantly in the loss of lives of our innocent troops for Bush wars that never should have been!

    Thank God for the Obama Administration and their efforts to set America back on course and fighting for We The People! The FORWARD thrust must continue!

  • howa4x

    Dosen’t matter, the Tea party has never let facts interfere with their thinking. A few hundred years ago, these were the people who said the world was flat. Evangelicals think people lived with dinosaurs, and you can’t tell they they lived 250 million yrs apart. That is because they think the world is 5000 yrs old. This is with all the books, and data and carbon testing of bones, and fossils availible.
    So how are you going to get people like these to believe anything?

  • William Deutschlander

    To become a superior republican, you must first become a “COMPULSIVE LIAR”, without this certification you can not seek elective office as a CONSERVATIVE!

  • The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

    The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

    For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:

    January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress. At the time:

    The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

    The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

    The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

    George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH

    Remember the day…

    January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

    The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

    BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

    Unemployment… due to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

    Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

    And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

    And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

    OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

    So when someone tries to blame Bush..

    REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”

    Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

    Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.

    In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

    For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

    And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.

    If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

    If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself. In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

    • dtgraham

      The loans themselves only became toxic when they could be bundled up with derivatives, hedge bets, and other truly risky investments in increasingly complex financial instruments where nobody could figure out the value of what they were getting. It was designed that way. An entire financial services sector was being built on shadows. It became known as the dark market or black box. Trillions of dollars in “assets” never really existed. Fannie and Freddie were culpable, yes, but were only bit players in that market.

      Blame the Republican congress of the 90’s for pushing complete deregulation and blame Bill Clinton for agreeing to abolish Glass-Stegall.

  • There is no mystery here. Republican’s elected to serve all of the American people and swearing an oath of office to put all other interests aside…obey instead an oath put forth by Grover Norquist that decrees taxes should not be raised. This man is no elected official. Nor should he enjoy import or power; particularly any exceeding all other in government. He is a nobody and he runs our tax policy through Republicans. All Republicans who pay obeisance to this charlatan are in violation of their oath to serve this nation. Is that treasonous? I don’t know, but spending is necessary when an economy is starving to death. A pump must be primed with water if it is to draw water. Money in: money out. Simple.

  • “The federal deficit is massive, but Obama’s spending has been but a pittance compared to that of his predecessor.”

    If you guys think this is true and call this “setting the record straight” you have some issues. This is a bag of ridiculous historical rewriting in the hopes of getting a man reelected after he has done a horrible job.

    He has increased the deficit more than almost all of our previous presidents combined.