By Joe Conason

Deficit Of Truth: What Republicans Hope You Don’t Know And Never Find Out

February 6, 2014 11:58 pm Category: Memo Pad, Politics 85 Comments A+ / A-
Deficit Of Truth: What Republicans Hope You Don’t Know And Never Find Out

Listening to Republicans in Congress wailing incessantly about our spendthrift culture raises a nagging question: What would they do, besides talking, if they actually wanted to reduce federal deficits and, eventually, the national debt?

First, they would admit that President Obama’s policies, including health care reform, have already reduced deficits sharply, as promised. Second, they would desist from their hostage-taking tactics over the debt ceiling, which have only damaged America’s economy and international prestige. And then they would finally admit that basic investment and job creation, rather than cutting food stamps, represent the best way to reduce both deficits and debt, indeed the only way — through economic growth.

Fortunately for those Republicans and sadly for everyone else, the American public has little comprehension of current fiscal realities. Most people don’t even know that the deficit is shrinking rather than growing. According to a poll released on Feb. 4 by The Huffington Post and You.gov,  well over half believe the budget deficit has increased since 2009, while less than 20 percent are aware that it has steadily decreased. (Another 14 percent believe the deficit has remained constant during Obama’s presidency.)

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, it is Republican voters, misinformed by Fox News, who most fervently and consistently insist on these mistaken ideas, with 85 percent telling pollsters that the deficit has increased. Less than a third of Democrats gave that answer. But nearly 60 percent of independent voters agree with the Republicans on that question and only 30 percent of Democrats understand the truth – an implicit repudiation, as The Huffington Post noted, of the president’s political decision to prioritize deficit reduction rather than job creation.

The facts are simple enough even for a Tea Party politician to understand. The federal deficit reached its peak – in dollar amount and as a share of the national economy – in 2009, which happens to be the year that Obama took office. Thanks to the profligate war and tax policies of the Bush administration — which undid the fiscal stabilization achieved under President Clinton — the Treasury had no financial margin when the Great Recession struck. Federal spending required to avoid another (and possibly far worse) worldwide Depression, combined with declining tax revenues that resulted from economic stagnation and tax cuts, all led inevitably to that record deficit.

Pages →  1 2

Deficit Of Truth: What Republicans Hope You Don’t Know And Never Find Out Reviewed by on . Listening to Republicans in Congress wailing incessantly about our spendthrift culture raises a nagging question: What would they do, besides talking, if they a Listening to Republicans in Congress wailing incessantly about our spendthrift culture raises a nagging question: What would they do, besides talking, if they a Rating: 0

More by Joe Conason

American Amnesia: Why The GOP Leads On National Security

If the latest polls are accurate, most voters believe that Republican politicians deserve greater trust on matters of national security. At a moment when Americans feel threatened by rising terrorist movements and authoritarian regimes, that finding is politically salient – and proves that amnesia is the most durable affliction of our democracy. Every year around

Read more...

ISIS: Republican Reaction To Obama Speech Reveals Much — About Them

Within minutes after President Obama concluded his strong and sensible address explaining how he intends to destroy ISIS, the so-called Islamic State terrorist organization, Republicans popped up on television like political snipers. He should have kept a “residual force” in Iraq, complained Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and he is to blame for ISIS advances. He

Read more...

WATCH: ‘Last Days In Vietnam’ Trailer Is A Must-See

During the spring of 1975, as Washington policymakers confronted the inevitability of a North Vietnamese victory against the U.S.-backed government of South Vietnam, they made a decision that layered dishonor on the American defeat. They would do nothing to evacuate the South Vietnamese associated with the U.S. war effort, whose lives were in grave peril.

Read more...

Tags

Comments

  • daniel bostdorf

    The GOP does not want to ever admit to the fact that it was the GOP–that tanked this economy by starting to unjustified wars, cut taxes and created wealth for the billionairs, who in turn tanked Wall Street.

    Their GOP view during Bush/Cheney, and now, is that we need to base the economy on a war fighting one, a GOP House military-industrial-complex one, and not a peace-rebuild America and infrastructure one.

    As usual Joe, you bring it home to the overall view why the GOP/Teaparty is suffering from a group collective mindset of failing to grasp economics 101. And how to really solve America’s problems.

    If they supported Obama, instead of obstructing him past 5 yyears, then the black man in the White House did what they could not do.

    • Buford2k11

      well said, and true…Fascism is on the rise, here and elsewhere…

    • disqus_ivSI3ByGmh

      Very true, Daniel. The GOP created this monster during their era of unbridled control of all three branches of government, and now they are still trying to blame President Obama for not taking care of what they created, all the while refusing to pass legislation that would correct what they broke because they don’t want to give credit to that “damn (insert your personally favorite derogatory term for the President here), in the White House!” for solving any problems. However, they have all the time in the world to waste in pointless Congressional hearing that are nothing more than a 21st century version of the McCarthy hearings, only with significantly less results, or in holding vote after vote to repeal, defund, or otherwise eliminate the ACA.

      • Annemb

        Great post!

        Blessings and thanks.

    • Annemb

      This is a wonderful post – most complete one I’ve read so far. I like your quotes. I giving my first vote ever to General Eisenhower. He was a man with much wisdom brought to the job of presidency. I’ve added some more information.

      Indeed, if the TGOP was REALLY concerned about the deficit, they would
      not have voted to “repeal” the Affordable Care Act, over 40 times at a cost of $1.45 million each time, or shut the government down at the cost of 150 million per day.

      The GOP is always responsible for incurring debt and the rest of us pay for it.

      They should not get paid for the days they aren’t working. (As Michelle Bachmann always manages to “remind” the American people, THEY, Congress they don’t work and therefore should not eat IMHO, these are pseudo-representatives and deserve to be impeached – or better yet, definitely voted out of office.

      Blessings…and thanks.

      • daniel bostdorf

        thanks—just back in from bix conference…appreciated…

        joe Conason is the guy! I have followed his career 35 years…

        • Annemb

          You are most welcome!

      • ThomasBonsell

        If anyone can find a way to impeach and convict a member of Congress that would be a better solution.

        If convicted after impeachment the person is ineligible to hold any other federal office and might be ineligible for other benefits, such as pensions. (Perhaps someone might know this so I don’t have to do any more research.)

        If voted out of office, they could live the rest of their lived on a great pension we would have to pay for. Only five years in office is needed to collect the congressional pension.

        The problem with impeaching these miscreants is that only the House can determine the fitness to serve of its members, and only the Senate can make that judgment on senators. That means the House can not impeach a senator and the Senate cannot convict a representative.

        • Annemb

          I totally agree with you!

          Damn!!! I’d much rather they got nothing when they leave office. Most don’t deserve anything except disgrace.

          Blessings…

        • Bodine666

          The House impeaches. The Senate holds the trial. Conviction means only removal from office and not being eligible to hold another Federal office.

          This does not mean the person impeached cannot be tried if a crime was committed. If the person impeached committed a crime then that person can still be tried in state / federal court for the crime.

          Impeachment means removal from office only, NOT immunity from being held accountable for any crimes he / she may have committed.

          • ThomasBonsell

            I know what it all means. Constitutional Law was my area of study in the graduate school of one of America’s most-prestgious universities.

            I never said that an impeached official is free from criminal prosecution. I know what is covered in Article I, Section 3, the last paragraph. Nothing I said contradicts that.

            I also know that paragraph is the blueprint for the Fifth Amendment. Virtually no one else does.

          • toncuz

            Impeachment doesn’t even mean that. It’s just a formal censoring. The Senate has to then convict and remove from office. That’s why conservatives who babble on about Clinton getting impeached are beyond stupid.

  • Dominick Vila

    I can’t help wondering if some of the claims made so routinely by the Republican leadership, and their followers, are the result of ignorance, a deliberate attempt to deflect attention from their record, or because they are convinced that they are all idiots.
    From illegal immigration to the economy, their claims are the exact opposite to reality. The only U.S. President who granted amnesty to illegal immigrants in recent history was Ronald Reagan, who did so in 1986 when he pardoned 5 million illegal immigrants with no strings attached. This is the same guy that put in place a policy to grant asylum to Cubans the moment they set foot on U.S. soil. Who does the GOP blame for illegal immigration? President Obama who hold the record on deportations and whose only involvement on this issue involves the need to review and change our immigration laws in an effort to find a long term solution, rather than kicking the can down the road like Reagan did.
    On the economy, every single Republican President since Eisenhower has left a deficit larger than what they inherited, and most increased it substantially. Interestingly, every Democratic President left a deficit lower than what they inherited, and one managed to balance the budget! The dichotomy of their rhetoric and their record, which should be apparent to everyone, is carefully hidden by a barrage of propaganda designed to brainwash a naive electorate…and many take the bait time and again.
    Our economy has improved by orders of magnitude since President Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, when we are all looking down at the edge of an abyss after President Bush acknowledge our economy was on the verge of collapse, the DOW was at 6,500 points, bankruptcies and foreclosures were the order of the day, construction had come to a halt, real estate sales were plummeting, Wall Street was gasping for air, and unemployment was growing at leaps and bounds. Against tremendous odds, and a barrage of negativism and obstructionism, a young African American President managed to put in place an array of socio economic policies that may appear trivial when we look at them individually, but that turned out to be an incredibly successful strategy when we look at them at a macro level. From the stimulus package, to cash for clunkers, credits to those who replaced old with new appliances, credits to first time home buyers, making it easier to refinance mortgages, restrictions on Wall Street investments, low interest rates to stimulate the economy, bailing out two American industrial icons, and other such initiatives, we managed to slowly but steadily recover, and we can once again dream of a better future for our children.
    Much remains to be done, but little will be accomplished as long as the party of NO continues to insist that we are spending too much, instead of acknowledging that the reason sustained economic stability still eludes us is because private and public sector investment has been inadequate. The irony of their claim, is that it was precisely out of control spending in crusades, granting sole source contracts to repair what we destroyed, deregulation, and handouts to the elite that created the mess we are finally extricating ourselves from.

    • TZToronto

      In the campaign this year, I hope we hear some of what you’ve written here coming from the mouths of Democratic candidates. I want to see some serious ads for the Democratic party that show what’s really been accomplished by the President over the severe obstructionism of the Republican Party. (It’s not the Tea Party. It’s the Republican Party. They’ve allowed themselves to be taken hostage by the extreme far right, and they’re afraid of losing their cushy government jobs.) And I want to hear ads that point directly at Republicans in the House and Senate who have stood in the way of economic recovery while promoting anything that makes the wealthy even wealthier. And finally, I want to see ads that fully debunk the myth that tax breaks for the wealthy create jobs.

    • FT66

      Good to know Dominick that Pres.Reagan pardoned 5 million illegal immigrants in 1986. I wish Pres. Obama can pardon 11 million or more illegal immigrants before this coming Nov. and let republican idiots go and hang themselves.

  • charles king

    I think the American Public understand What? is going on in their country, we are Not asleep as Fox News and other wish we were the People has been doing some (Critical Thinking) and they know Which? Party is trying to throw the country under the bus. The problem now is for the President to find What? kind of Presidential Powers does he has Which? I think he could start a WPA program like Roosevelt started back in the thirites(1930) that program gave many young American women and men jobs and the companies had to play ball or the government would handle the problems and the people would maintain their assets and not be placed in the hands of private MONIES, at least the Peoples’ Assets would still be theirs. Capitalism has to remember that the country is about (All the People, and Not Some People Who? has MONIES) The government is there to protect the People Not the corparations, Not the Plutocracts but the Democracy Of the People, For the People, and By the people, once this is understood By all the People involve with our Democracy, only then will we all be Free. Thank You are the magic words with me. I Love Ya All. Keep the Faith…Mr. C. E. KING

  • http://www.nofica.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    It’s worse than Joe thinks.

    The U.S. government (unlike state and local governments) became Monetarily Sovereign (http://mythfighter.com/2010/08/13/monetarily-sovereign-the-key-to-understanding-economics/) on August 15, 1971.

    On that date, it gave itself the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency. It never can have any difficulty paying any debt denominated in dollars.

    If all federal taxes fell to $0 or rose to $100 trillion, neither event would affect the government’s ability to spend — not even by one penny.

    Thus, federal “borrowing” no longer is necessary, but federal deficit spending is necessary to grow the economy.

    Those who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty ( http://mythfighter.com/2013/07/27/i-just-thought-you-should-know-lunch-really-can-be-free/) do not understand economics.

    Sadly, Joe is one of those.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    • jmprint

      Waste of type space.

      • http://www.nofica.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

        Thank you for your intelligent, informative and well-documented argument.

        • jmprint

          Your welcome!

          • Alice Kottmyer

            It’s “you’re.”

            And …. you’re welcome.

          • jmprint

            You are absolutely correct.

    • daniel bostdorf

      “thank you for your point of view”

    • charleo1

      Well, Mr. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, I took a look at your website.
      It’s interesting, and unconventional, to say the least. Your contention, if I understand you correctly. Is, since the Federal Government is, or has, what you describe as Monetary Sovereignty, there are actually no restrictions on the number of dollars the Fed may create, to pay in full all our creditors, except those restrictions that are arbitrarily placed on the Fed, by the Legislature. That, in direct contradiction to what we’ve all been conditioned to believe, that there is, in reality, no limitations on how much debt the Federal Government can run. And in fact, Federal Deficits are necessary, for economic expansion. And, if I understand you, the higher the deficits, (which are essentially meaningless, since we have Monetary Sovereignty,) the more economic expansion we’ll have. Question: Is it necessary to underwrite these dollars we’re printing, with anything, other than the fact that we have the ability to print them? Is it necessary, for example, to sell T-Bills? Or, could the Fed just press a 17 trillion dollar coin, deposit it into the general fund. Write a 3 trillion dollar check to China. Another 4 trillion dollars to Japan, and mark as paid, all the IOUs we’ve written to ourselves, and announce we’re now debt free? Then, abolish all Federal taxes altogether. Even,
      send $5000.00 to everyone, or pay the States $5000.00 for each
      person living in each of the States. And since the dollar is the
      reserve currency, all the other Countries are going to be okay
      with this? It wouldn’t reduce the value of the dollars they’re now
      holding? And, if the price of a commodity, say a barrel of oil,
      which is now globally priced, in dollars. If the world is drowning
      in dollars, because we just keep pumping them out, would that
      tend to increase the market value of oil, priced in dollars, or not?
      And, isn’t the amount of dollars we may print limited, to some
      degree, on the amount of dollars other economies are willing to
      accumulate, and hold, while having confidence the dollars they
      accept as payment for a barrel of oil today, are going to have an equal or similar value tomorrow?

      • http://www.nofica.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

        Some good questions, which I am happy to answer:

        You said as part of a question, ” . . . there are no restrictions on the number of dollars the Fed may create, to pay in full all our creditors . . . ”
        True. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign (since August 15, 1971), has the unlimited ability to create dollars. It never can run short of dollars.
        That said, there are circumstances in which the Supply of dollars could exceed the Demand, in which case we could have an excessive inflation (i.e., more inflation than the Fed wants).
        That type of inflation is quite rare.
        The inflations since August 15, 1971, have not been caused by excessive Supply. They have been caused by oil prices: See: mythfighter [dot] com/2010/04/06/more-thoughts-on-inflation/
        Currently, the Fed is more concerned about deflation and slow economic growth than about inflation.

        Your question, ” . . .Federal Deficits are necessary, for economic expansion.”
        That is correct. By definition, a large economy has more money than does a smaller economy. So, for an economy to grow, it must have a growing supply of money. The formula is:
        Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports
        The Federal government creates dollars by paying bills (not by “printing” as often claimed). To pay a bill, the government sends instructions (not dollars) to creditors’ banks. The instructions (in the form of checks or wires) tell the banks to increase the numbers in the creditors’ checking accounts. Increasing the numbers increases the money supply.

        Your question: ” . . . the higher the deficits, (which are essentially meaningless . . . ”
        As described above, DEFICITS are not meaningless. They are necessary for economic growth. Every depression and nearly all recessions have come on the heels of insufficient deficit growth. (See: mythfighter[dot]com/2009/09/07/introduction/)

        By contrast Federal DEBT, is meaningless and unnecessary. The government does not need to borrow the dollars it already has the unlimited ability to create. In fact, the government does not really borrow dollars at all.
        To “lend” to the government you buy a T-security. You instruct your bank to remove dollars from your checking account and deposit those dollars into your T-security account at the Federal Reserve Bank.
        To “repay” you, the FRB merely transfers those same dollars from your T-security account back to your checking account. The process is identical with transferring dollars from your savings account to your checking account.
        No new dollars are needed.

        You asked, “. . . could the Fed just press a 17 trillion dollar coin, deposit it into the general fund. Write a 3 trillion dollar check to China.”
        Actually, it would be the Treasury, not the Fed, but as you can see from above, it isn’t necessary. China’s dollars already exist in China’s T-security account at the FRB. To “pay China back,” the FRB merely would transfer China’s dollars from its T-security account to its checking account (also at the FRB).
        No new dollars or platinum coin needed.
        The purpose of the platinum coin suggestion, was to demonstrate that the debt is a meaningless worry — the result of people being told that the federal government’s finances are like personal finances. We call that “”The Big Lie.”

        You asked, “If the world is drowning in dollars, because we just keep pumping them out, would that tend to increase the market value of oil . . .”
        In a “normal” market, increasing the supply of oil would decrease the price of oil. However, the price of oil is controlled by OPEC and others, so the price doesn’t act “normally.”

        You asked, ” . . . isn’t the amount of dollars we may print limited, to some degree, on the amount of dollars other economies are willing to accept, accumulate, and hold.”

        Yes, and that returns us to the question of inflation. So long as the Fed continues to be successful in its efforts to keep inflation in the 2.5% – 3% range, other nations will be delighted to accept dollars for goods and services. The Fed does this by “strengthening” the dollar (raising interest rates) whenever inflation threatens.

        You asked good questions, and I hope I have answered them. If you have follow-up questions, I’ll try to answer them, also.

        Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

        • 788eddie

          Dick Cheney told us that “deficits are meaningless.” Who are we to contest him?

  • charleo1

    As Daniel stated, the GOP never take responsibility. Take the deficits. They’ll never admit it was their policies of slashing taxes by reckless amounts, and deregulating investment banking, that were by far the two major culprits, that set the stage for the financial catastrophe, that created the mountain of debt. Slashing taxes for the top % was the way the gov. ceased to collect money to pay for, the two wars, the private contractors, an entirely new government agency, (TSA,) an expansion of Medicare, the trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street. And the trillions more, in there’s a lot more where that came from, if needed, strategy, in explicit, promissory obligations, made to calm terrified investors, who stood to lose trillions. Republicans weren’t trying to stop the spending, until they lost the election. Until they lost the election, Uncle Sam’s wallet was wide open, assuring the full faith and credibility of Wall Street. Covering all bets on CDOs, the bundled mortgage debt packages, bankers had sold trillions of dollar of. “Uncle Sugar,” was guaranteeing dollar for dollar refunds on every one of these, “toxic assets.” To stop a wholesale dumping, that would have sunk ours, and the world’s economy. By all Rights, this should have settled the subject of taxes, and deregulation. Where a small government steps aside, and instead of collecting taxes, leaves it in the private economy, and it’s invested, and those investments create jobs, and everybody, except the moochers, and welfare Queens, prospers. The results of them urging for years the Country drop Roosevelt’s New Deal, and embrace true Capitalism, and the free market, should have shut their mouths for at least a week. But, they were back after the Christmas break, demanding huge cuts in spending, protecting the ridiculous Bush tax cuts, and opposing regulation. As millions lost their jobs, and the recession their policies led to, took full effect. They were claiming the stupid Democrats had elected a Kenyan National, as
    President. And he and his Commie pals, like George Soros, who all hate
    America, were going to destroy it by spending it into oblivion. And almost
    half of the Country swallowed it, hook line, and sinker. And in six months,
    polls showed Americans trusted Republicans on economic matters, over
    Democrats, by the same margins they did before the recession.

  • jmprint

    We need to hear more democrats call republicans liars on the air. They need to get in front of every tv camera and call out every lie with proof and rebuttals, that is all that is needed. People that are watching Fox news do not deviate, they will see local news and fox and that’s it. Only those that want to hear the truth listen to MSNBC. I try to do my part with facebook and tweeter, but I am just one voice. Our democratic leaders make plenty of money to defend us, but they don’t. It seems like they are scared, but I don’t know of what. LET’S ALL FIGHT TO MAKE THIS A BETTER WORLD FOR ALL. If there are any listeners that have enough money to buy air time, please make a commercial so that your local people can see the truths.

  • dana becker

    The problem is the Republican message is what is being heard and not enough people or media taking them to task for lying. If no one is hearing the truth the Republicans can continue their lying campaign. It does work for them because they have the platforms to keep saying the lies over and over and it seems no news site is making sure the lies are called out repeatedly.

    • Alice Kottmyer

      There’s just so much dumbness around. I heard Erin Burnett on CNN whining about an ambassador nominee not having visited the country he was nominated for. Hello? If he had “visited” Argentina, what would that have proved? Hey, I visited Russia once — can I be the U.S ambassador?

      The career Foreign Service does all the grunt work — the ambassador is the President’s representative. Why doesn’t she KNOW that? I wanted to scream at the TV.

      The reason for this rant is that the media, on all sides, is stuck on stupid. That’s why the truth isn’t getting out.

  • roguerunners

    Trying to understand the behavior of the GOP these days is like trying to smell the number 9!

  • centerroad

    Folks don’t get the details, but they do get the big picture, the debt is going up, deficit reduction is stalled, entitlements are growing.

    Twisting a few shallow stats won’t make a case, it’s just playing to your base.

    • jmprint

      The bigger the bullshit, the larger the pile, the bigger the picture. As long as the minimum wage is held down, as long as unemployment benefits extension are denied the larger the entitlements will grow. You can’t have both ways.

    • charleo1

      Do,”they,” really get it? Or, is that just what they hear 50 X a
      day? That the debt is going up, and deficit reduction is stalled,
      it’s because, entitlements are going up. Isn’t that about it?
      As dana becker commented, they say this over, and over.
      And it’s absolutely BS. But no one ever ever, calls them on it.
      It’s as if all the entire media were all these corporations,
      or something. And, it’s very important to corporations that
      everyone of us hear that, until it’s just accepted fact. Like
      babies are cute, and Democrats support shiftless louts.
      Republicans are always the careful, and prudent stewards
      of everything business. If the economy is in trouble, we’d better elect Republicans. Because, unlike tax and spend Democrats.
      They’ll cut the fat, and waste out of government, and give all the workers a big tax cut. Ask a Democratic politician if that’s true,
      and they’ll tell you, that’s really an unfair characterization. They
      are for helping the poor, and believe the government has a role
      in insuring everyone gets an opportunity. Ask a Republican if
      that’s true what they say about the Democrats. And they’ll tell
      you, damn straight, it’s true! Everybody knows that!

    • daniel bostdorf

      “thank you for your point of view”

    • plc97477

      It must be really tough that you can’t be happy with out telling lies.

  • Mortalc01l

    I think the lesson we should all learn from this, is that the Republican party has become allergic to fact, logic and what’s commonly known as “the truth”.

  • sunspot

    Most of the respondent who say that the deficit is increasing are actually talking about the national debt, which is in fact increasing as long as there is a deficit, no matter how small. The question of what fraction of GDP is reasonable for the debt – and the answer is not zero – does not get discussed.

  • Angel Perea

    THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH:

    • drrn

      What was the national DEBT when Obama took office and what is it now?

      • daniel bostdorf

        Debt has nothing to do with deficit.

        • drrn

          Obama promised to do something about it, and not only has he done nothing, he has proposed more programs that will only increase our obligations. The politicians know that no one wants to hear about cuts in programs, they just want to hear that we can have all these great programs and if we just increase taxes on someone else we will live in utopia and the bill will never come due.

          • daniel bostdorf

            “thank you for your point of view”.

      • Bodine666

        What most, including virtually all of the tea baggers and gopers don’t seem to understand is the President cannot spend money. Congress spends money. The President can veto a spending bill but the President CANNOT spend any money except what Congress gives him.

        The increase in the debt is mostly for the things, such as two unfunded wars, two huge tax cuts for the rich, and the unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, the repubs put in place.

        The repubs kept the wars off the books and financed it with ‘emergency’ spending. That way they could claim they had no / low deficits. The fact is the repubs handed President Obama a $1.5 Trillion deficit.

        On more important point that baggers / repubs don’t seem to be aware of is the fiscal year for the Fed starts in October. That means that until October, 2009, we were still under the policies and spending from the bush admin.

        Most of the increase in the debt is the result of what repubs started when they had the power to do so. Repubs have never seen a country they don’t want to start a war with and the absolutely, totally, completely discredited ‘trickle down economics’ is something they all believe just a much as they believe their ‘jesus’ is coming back during their lifetimes.

        I’ve challenged many baggers and repubs to tell me exactly what has President Obama spent money on. Not one has been able to tell me. Just as none can tell me anything President Obama has done that Presidents before him did not do. They continually throw out words such as ‘traitor’ and ‘terrorist’ while having no idea what these are. To CONs these are universal words that have been used so much they really have no meaning any more. They’ve become dog whistle words for CONs.

        Repubs want to have it both ways. They want to claim President Obama’s policies are what have caused the increase in debt while, at the same time, obstruct every thing he’s tries to do. Only a CONservative has a mind so compartmentalized he can believe President Obama’s policies have cost $Trillions$ while, at the same time, cheer on the blocking of every policy President Obama has attempted to put in place. Not a single one of them can seem to understand the policies that were blocked cannot possibly be the same policies that have driven the national debt higher. I can’t help but laugh out loud every time a CON tries to tell me the Affordable Care Act is what has driven the national debt to new levels over the past few years. They don’t seem to know the only part that may actually cost something didn’t go into effect until this year. That is equivalent to telling an 18 year old who just bought his first six-pack of beer in his life that the reason he has no money is because he’s always spent all his money on beer.

        Repub and tea bagger politicians can get away with telling their worshipers any lie they want to any time they want to because their followers believe what they want to be true is, in fact, true. TGOPers know their followers will never attempt to ferret out what is true. They don’t want to know the truth. They CAN’T handle the truth. That’s the way it is because to admit to the real truth they would have to admit to their culpability in things being as bad as they are.

        • drrn

          Something liberals don’t seem to get is that Democrats were completely in control of Congress in 2006, including Obama himself, so he handed HIMSELF the trillion dollar deficit., AND if this lie that Dems keep telling themselves that our 17 trillion debt would just disappear if they would just raise taxes on a handful of Americans who already pay a huge portion to the taxes and get rid of a drug program, why didn’t Obama just do it when he had the chance?

          Also, part of the stimulus bill and TARP were under the October 2009 year, Bush did not propose the stimulus bill Obama did and Obama was not against the TARP bill that the DEMOCRATIC congress was for. Love how liberals faint over a talk show host calling a woman wanting free birth control names, while they call people who are against spending ourselves into oblivion every deragatory name in book.

          • toncuz

            First of all…stop confusing Democrats with the people who controlled Congress in 2006. The GOP tool control of Congress in 1994. The “Dems” who had control for four years out of the last twenty were CONSERVATIVE Democrats, also called DLC Democrats…who voted with the GOP giving the GOP a sixty-five percent conservative majority…and why we have no Public Option in heathcare.

            That means the GOP has controlled the Congress and MONEY for the last TWENTY years STRAIGHT.

          • drrn

            I confused Pelosi for a Democrat? I think you are the one that is confused.

          • toncuz

            You can spin it any way you like. Congress has had a 65% conservative majority the last twenty years…there’s no one else to blame for America’s fastest decline and the reason we have no real progressive change in America…just more GOP corporate agenda. If you can’t understand the math, um… that’s understandable.

          • drrn

            Spin that Pelosi is a Democrat and was speaker of the House 4 years? You are the ones that spin that Clinton alone balanced the budget and handed Bush a surplus when Congress was controlled by Republicans at the time this was done.

          • daniel bostdorf

            “thank you for your point of view”

          • daniel bostdorf

            “thank you for your point of view as always”

          • drrn

            Thank you as always for showing that you are incapable of supporting your positions other than saying “READ THIS” especially an article you clearly did not understand.

          • daniel bostdorf

            “…IBID…. “thank you for your point of view”

          • Barbara Morgan

            What you and others like you don’t understand that the cost of Bush’s 2 wars wasn’t even shown on any of the books until Democrats took control of Congress in 2006 and started showing the cost of the wars on the books even through Bush 2 tried to keep them out the deficit and the national debt bottom line. Democrats did not think our our 17 trillion would disappear if taxes was raised on a handful of Americans who do not pay their fare share taxes. They had felt that way they would have let Bush 2′s tax cut stop in 2008 when they were suppose to stop, because the economy was in such bad shape they voted to extend all tax cuts until 2010 to help the economy. When it came time for the Bush 2 tax cuts to stop in 2010 Republicans held the unemployed hostage to get them extend until Jan. 1, 2013 then tried to make them permanent using black mail again this time the President stood his ground and the tax cuts expired and ever since Republicans have called it a tax raise when it just the expiration of a tax cut that was supposed to happened 4 years later. When the Democrats tried to let the tax cuts expire in 2010 Warren Buffet and at least 40 or more millionaires and billionaires send letters and made visits to Republican members of Congress asking them to let the tax cuts for people in their situation because they had done for the past years and that the Country needed the money to recover now. The Republicans still carried on the blackmail that added two more years to the big tax cuts for the rich. Also you need to do your research on the stimulus Bush 2 started it by giving money to banks that claimed to be to big to fail with out any pay back stuff in it. President Obama continued but there were provisions for the money to be paid back which it was and thousands upon thousands of jobs were saved and this Country did not have another great depression like the one in the 1930′s. drrn where is the outrage over the waste of money spent on the not real scandals that Republicans keep investigating over again and again. Can’t remember the exact amount spent just on the so called IRS scandal so far but it was 14 or more millions dollars spent and they spending more money to re investigate the IRS or the billions that the Republican-Tea Party of Congress cost us or the continuation of paying out billions for military equipment that is already obsolete, that the military says it doesn’t need, equipment that isn’t used because the bugs in them were never fixed making them unsafe or case like this the branch of the service that order something like 20 jets from aircraft military company cancelled the orders when they could even get the first plane off the ground but a Republican Congressman from the district(and other Republicans) where the plane was made decided the military plane was needed because jobs were at stake and it was election year. So the 20 jets at the cost of billions were built and promptly sent to airplane boneyard in Arizona never flown yet Republicans cause the US taxpayers to pay billions for a trash plane.

          • drrn

            Military spending only makes up 19% of the budget, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, make up over half and just cash payments to welfare programs make up 12%. To act as if we had not removed Saddam Hussein from power and Bush had not cut taxes for everyone, that someone that 17 trillion dollar national debt would not be there is naive thinking. Obama owns the debt and deficit now, he does not want to cut anything but our military. Giving countries like Russia signals they can do what they want and no one will stop them, Even Republicans supported the sequester that cut 2% from the military, to help balance the budget, but not gut our military so our government can continue to hand out iphones to people and pay them more to sit at home then if they got a job as a secretary. This path of spending more and more, is putting our country on a path to bankruptcy. The forty billionaires do not have the trillions in their pockets to hand our government.

        • daniel bostdorf

          This article is about the deficit which has absolutely, positively nothing to do with debt. Confusing this difference is the biggest GOP propaganda talking point out there to intentionally confuse the real facts about the deficit.

          When I state that debt has nothing to do with deficit, I am referring to an extremely well thought out article from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

          Separating the Debt Limit From the Deficit Problem

          Here is the quote broken int:o a few paragraphs:

          “Some lawmakers speak of refusing to raise the debt limit and thereby risking default on obligations of the U.S. Treasury unless Congress and the President agree to harsh spending cuts, or of raising the debt limit for only a few months at a time and thereby fostering ongoing uncertainty. To be sure, the nation’s long-term fiscal path is unsustainable due to rising health care costs, an aging population, and inadequate revenues… and policymakers should address that challenge in a balanced and timely way.

          But lawmakers should not hold the debt limit hostage to deficit reduction measures of their choosing or increase uncertainty and heighten the risk of default by raising the debt limit for only a few months at a time.

          Policymakers cannot let the government default and shouldn’t create any doubt or uncertainty about that.

          Some policymakers and opinion leaders confuse the issues of budget deficits, debt, and the debt limit.

          The deficit is the amount by which spending exceeds revenues in a particular fiscal year.

          The debt that matters for policy is essentially the total of federal budget deficits, minus federal budget surpluses, over the course of U.S. history. The debt limit is the legal ceiling on how much total debt the government can issue, including not just amounts borrowed in credit markets but also — oddly — Treasury securities issued to federal trust funds such as Social Security (that is, money that one part of the government lends to another). Policymakers must periodically raise that dollar cap so that the federal government can pay its bills.”

          The entire article is here….again….do not reply to anyone that does not know the difference, but instead, troll posts GOP falsehoods in an effort to engage us in futile troll thinking.

          here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3888

          • Allan Richardson

            The deficit is the derivative function of the debt, that is, the amount by which the debt increases, not counting interest. The last time we had a surplus, that is, extra money to pay down the debt, was just before Shrub took office. But debt as a fraction of GDP is what is important. When GDP shrinks or fails to expand, the debt becomes more of an issue, but the way to fix that is not to cut spending when the economy needs stimulation, it is to spend enough to prime the pump, preferably on people who will go out and spend it (because they HAVE TO), not on people who can stash it outside the country in secret bank accounts.

          • daniel bostdorf

            Agreed…I hope drrn below reads this….jeesh…

          • drrn

            I did, and it is also one of the stupidest things I keep hearing from liberals ( and that is saying a lot): Tax the productive more to give to the nonproductive and the 17 trillion debt with just evaporate with a strong economy. If that was the case we would have a GDP of 5% and unemployment back to 4%. Obama has raised taxes twice on the upper 3% and has increased payments to entitlement programs and extended unemployment benefits. GDP, employment numbers remain weak and our debt keeps growing and our deficit is still more than it was for the vast majority of the time when Bush was in charge.

          • daniel bostdorf

            humm… “thank you for your point of view”

          • drrn

            The way to grow the economy and the GDP is to tax the working more and to give to the nonproductive more? If that was the case we would be in a full, strong economy not limping along with not enough job creation to keep up with population growth.

          • daniel bostdorf

            “thank you for your point of view”……

        • Allan Richardson

          If Jesus did come back today, they would call him a communist, or worse. He would end up being tortured just as he did in Dostoevsky’s speculative essay on “Christ and the Inquisitor.”

    • daniel bostdorf

      I would appreciate that we do not reply to anyone that posts here that does not understand that the GOP/Teaparty has prevented the Obama administration from enacting ANY legislation to create jobs and lift up those in poverty..

      This article is about the deficit which has absolutely, positively nothing to do with debt. It is the biggest GOP propaganda talking point out there to intentionally confuse the real facts about the deficit.

      When I state that debt has nothing to do with deficit, I am referring to an extremely well thought out article from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

      Separating the Debt Limit From the Deficit Problem

      Here is the quote broken int:o a few paragraphs:

      “Some lawmakers speak of refusing to raise the debt limit and thereby risking default on obligations of the U.S. Treasury unless Congress and the President agree to harsh spending cuts, or of raising the debt limit for only a few months at a time and thereby fostering ongoing uncertainty. To be sure, the nation’s long-term fiscal path is unsustainable due to rising health care costs, an aging population, and inadequate revenues… and policymakers should address that challenge in a balanced and timely way.

      But lawmakers should not hold the debt limit hostage to deficit reduction measures of their choosing or increase uncertainty and heighten the risk of default by raising the debt limit for only a few months at a time.

      Policymakers cannot let the government default and shouldn’t create any doubt or uncertainty about that.

      Some policymakers and opinion leaders confuse the issues of budget deficits, debt, and the debt limit.

      The deficit is the amount by which spending exceeds revenues in a particular fiscal year. The debt that matters for policy is essentially the total of federal budget deficits, minus federal budget surpluses, over the course of U.S. history. The debt limit is the legal ceiling on how much total debt the government can issue, including not just amounts borrowed in credit markets but also — oddly — Treasury securities issued to federal trust funds such as Social Security (that is, money that one part of the government lends to another). Policymakers must periodically raise that dollar cap so that the federal government can pay its bills.”

      The entire article is here….again….do not reply to anyone that does not know the difference, but instead, posts GOP falsehoods.

      here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3888

      • drrn

        What has Obama proposed to deal with our debt or deficit problem? Or do you believe it is a problem? Do you believe the debt ceiling should be done away with and Congress given a blank check to “produce” government jobs. Explain how a government spending more money on infrastructure and printing money puts itself on a path to prosperity while raising taxes on the private profitable companies and citizens.

        • daniel bostdorf

          “thank you for your point of view”.

          Read this:

          here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3888

          • drrn

            Hey let’s just do away the with debt ceiling all together, I mean if the mere talk about cutting ANY spending will destroy our economy. Sounds like a great plan. Go full speed ahead with free preschool. What us worry?

          • daniel bostdorf

            “thank you for your point of view”.

          • drrn

            Thank you conceding that your point of view (let’s keep spending and denigrate anyone who thinks it might be a bad idea) cannot be backed up with logic.

          • daniel bostdorf

            “thank you for your point of view”.

          • drrn

            You convinced me. NOW Let’s SPEND!!!

          • drrn

            Did you read your own article? Does 80 percent sound good to you as opposed to 90 percent? Why would SS payments not be included, a program that is increasing by the second, with so many Americans going on disability because they can’t find a job. And to top it off, it clearly states we need to cut,:

            Confusion about gross debt crops up in a widely cited analysis of 44 countries by University of Maryland professor Carmen M. Reinhart and Harvard professor Kenneth Rogoff, which concluded that debt-to-GDP ratios of 90 percent or more are associated with significantly slower economic growth. Their analysis, which used gross debt as its debt measure, suggested that the United States is close to that 90 percent tipping point. However, what other countries call gross debt is very similar to what we call debt held by the public; most other countries do not have the equivalent of our Social Security and other trust funds, with one part of the government lending money to another part. Federal debt held by the public is just under 73 percent of GDP now, and would rise to about 80 percent of GDP over the next decade. Stabilizing it would require further deficit reduction of approximately $1.4 trillion for the next decade.

          • daniel bostdorf

            I would appreciate that we do not reply to anyone that posts here that does not understand that the GOP/Teaparty has prevented the Obama administration from enacting ANY legislation to create jobs and lift up those in poverty..

            This article is about the deficit which has absolutely, positively nothing to do with debt. Confusing this difference is the biggest GOP propaganda talking point out there to intentionally confuse the real facts about the deficit.

            When I state that debt has nothing to do with deficit, I am referring to an extremely well thought out article from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

            Separating the Debt Limit From the Deficit Problem

            Here is the quote broken int:o a few paragraphs:

            “Some lawmakers speak of refusing to raise the debt limit and thereby risking default on obligations of the U.S. Treasury unless Congress and the President agree to harsh spending cuts, or of raising the debt limit for only a few months at a time and thereby fostering ongoing uncertainty. To be sure, the nation’s long-term fiscal path is unsustainable due to rising health care costs, an aging population, and inadequate revenues… and policymakers should address that challenge in a balanced and timely way.

            But lawmakers should not hold the debt limit hostage to deficit reduction measures of their choosing or increase uncertainty and heighten the risk of default by raising the debt limit for only a few months at a time.

            Policymakers cannot let the government default and shouldn’t create any doubt or uncertainty about that.

            Some policymakers and opinion leaders confuse the issues of budget deficits, debt, and the debt limit.

            The deficit is the amount by which spending exceeds revenues in a particular fiscal year.

            The debt that matters for policy is essentially the total of federal budget deficits, minus federal budget surpluses, over the course of U.S. history. The debt limit is the legal ceiling on how much total debt the government can issue, including not just amounts borrowed in credit markets but also — oddly — Treasury securities issued to federal trust funds such as Social Security (that is, money that one part of the government lends to another). Policymakers must periodically raise that dollar cap so that the federal government can pay its bills.”

            The entire article is here….again….do not reply to anyone that does not know the difference, but instead, troll posts GOP falsehoods in an effort to engage us in futile troll thinking.

            here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3888

          • daniel bostdorf

            This article is about the deficit which has absolutely, positively nothing to do with debt. Confusing this difference is the biggest GOP propaganda talking point out there to intentionally confuse the real facts about the deficit.

            When I state that debt has nothing to do with deficit, I am referring to an extremely well thought out article from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

            Separating the Debt Limit From the Deficit Problem

            Here is the quote broken int:o a few paragraphs:

            “Some lawmakers speak of refusing to raise the debt limit and thereby risking default on obligations of the U.S. Treasury unless Congress and the President agree to harsh spending cuts, or of raising the debt limit for only a few months at a time and thereby fostering ongoing uncertainty. To be sure, the nation’s long-term fiscal path is unsustainable due to rising health care costs, an aging population, and inadequate revenues… and policymakers should address that challenge in a balanced and timely way.

            But lawmakers should not hold the debt limit hostage to deficit reduction measures of their choosing or increase uncertainty and heighten the risk of default by raising the debt limit for only a few months at a time.

            Policymakers cannot let the government default and shouldn’t create any doubt or uncertainty about that.

            Some policymakers and opinion leaders confuse the issues of budget deficits, debt, and the debt limit.

            The deficit is the amount by which spending exceeds revenues in a particular fiscal year.

            The debt that matters for policy is essentially the total of federal budget deficits, minus federal budget surpluses, over the course of U.S. history. The debt limit is the legal ceiling on how much total debt the government can issue, including not just amounts borrowed in credit markets but also — oddly — Treasury securities issued to federal trust funds such as Social Security (that is, money that one part of the government lends to another). Policymakers must periodically raise that dollar cap so that the federal government can pay its bills.”

            The entire article is here….again….do not reply to anyone that does not know the difference, but instead, troll posts GOP falsehoods in an effort to engage us in futile troll thinking.

            here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3888

      • toncuz

        Please go here…You would have a field day debunking their immensely ignorant belief system.

        @megynkelly

        • daniel bostdorf

          Yes ‘The White Santa” queen is a real doozy eh?

          • drrn

            You do realize Megyn Kelly would wipe the floor with you?

          • daniel bostdorf

            “thank you for your point of view”….

          • toncuz

            She’s got 600k following in her collective of hate and misinformed GOP voters

        • drrn

          You must have meant this for someone else posting, because Daniel is clearly incapable of debunking anything.

        • daniel bostdorf

          Hey toncuz–some advice:

          A social media troll as someone who seeks to lure or bait people into negative, disruptive rhetoric for their own edification or to commandeer an otherwise free-flowing discussion among colleagues…..their intent has nothing to do with community building or public enlightenment….So how should you deal with trolls?

          Ignore them. Trolls exist for the spotlight. Often ignoring them will either make them simply go away or they’ll say even more ridiculous things making them look foolish and desperate…..as evidence by the below post from you know who…

          If you want to respond:
          “thank you for your point of view” is enough.

          • drrn

            I did mistake this forum for people to debate their positions, not an echo chamber for people who only like to tell each other how smart they are and how stupid anyone else who doesn’t think like they are.

  • White True Patriot

    The bloodsucking International Jews run everything today other than God’s voice at Fox News that only speaks the real truth. The sooner the ZOG communist government is overthrown and the White Christian Empire takes over the better.

  • daniel bostdorf

    Some advice to all RE: post below….

    So how should you deal with racist, anti-semetic, hate filled white supremist trolls?

    Ignore them. These “devil’s trolls” exist for the spotlight. Often ignoring them will either make them simply go away or they’ll say even more ridiculous things making them look foolish and desperate….if that is possible…

    Vote down and flag for moderation…

    Be nice. Anger only encourages response. My technique: “thank you for your point of view”. is enough. The more you say, the more you feed ‘em.

scroll to top