Fox News Washington editor caught on tape gloating about lying on air

[Seawytch]

Yes, President Obama increased the deficit, especially when he put Bush's wars on the books instead of hiding them in emergency spending.

 

[Article 15]

False, The democratic congress refused to send him one and waited for Obama to take office, that budget has Obama's signature on it.

The 2009 Budget was submitted by President BOOOOOOOOOSHHHH and it called for $3.1 trillion in spending. How much more or less was spent?

and a 407B deficit, how much was it after Obama got done with it?

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.p

Your link is bad and you just got finished saying that BOOOOSHH's deficit for the first half of 2009 was $468 billion...

The budget deficit for the first half of the year (under Bush) was projected to be 468B,

Make up your mind, dude.

 

[Article 15]

Yes, President Obama increased the deficit, especially when he put Bush's wars on the books instead of hiding them in emergency spending.

That doesn't count because of war and stuff.

The tax cuts that were in the stimulus count though because of socialism and stuff.

 

[BenNatuf]

The 2009 Budget was submitted by President BOOOOOOOOOSHHHH and it called for $3.1 trillion in spending. How much more or less was spent?

and a 407B deficit, how much was it after Obama got done with it?

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.p

Your link is bad and you just got finished saying that BOOOOSHH's deficit for the first half of 2009 was $468 billion...

The budget deficit for the first half of the year (under Bush) was projected to be 468B,

Make up your mind, dude.

Once again proving your ignorance, the budget fdeficit for the entire year was PROJECTED to be 468B, up from the 407B it was originally projected to be. Where did it end up when Obama got done with it?

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/hist.pdf

 

[BenNatuf]

Yes, President Obama increased the deficit, especially when he put Bush's wars on the books instead of hiding them in emergency spending.

Except of course that the deficit numbers include off budget items and the wars are still being paid for by supplemental appropriations.

 

[Article 15]

It was projected to be about $400 billion then a little economic crisis thingy happened and the estimated revenue of $2.7 billion turned out to be $2.1 billion.

Like I said, a trillion dollar deficit.

 

[editec]

Mischievous speculation isn't a lie.

Yeah right...only it is.

It is mischevious because the speculator already knows that the specualtion isn't based on fact.

That's WHY it is characterized (by the man himself, in case you missed that in the video) AS mischevious.

Now unless English isn't your first language, I should not have to explain something this obvious to you, lad.

No it's not based on fact, it's based on speculation. Being mischievous doesn't mean lying.

Damn you people are stupid!

mis·chie·vous (msch-vs)
adj.

1. Causing mischief.
2. Playful in a naughty or teasing way.
3. Troublesome; irritating.
4. Causing harm, injury, or damage.

Are all chickenfuckers like you incapable of understanding words in context?

Or are you especially contextually challenged even among the class of men who are also chickenfuckers?

I wouldn't want to speculate on that, so I am seeking your input.

 

[BenNatuf]

It was projected to be about $400 billion then a little economic crisis thingy happened and the estimated revenue of $2.7 billion turned out to be $2.1 billion.

Like I said, a trillion dollar deficit.

And Obam increased spending by over 400B to 3.5T(+) not including stimulus spending. Overall, they are each responsible for about half of it.

 

[Article 15]

It was projected to be about $400 billion then a little economic crisis thingy happened and the estimated revenue of $2.7 billion turned out to be $2.1 billion.

Like I said, a trillion dollar deficit.

And Obam increased spending by over 400B to 3.5T(+) not including stimulus spending. Overall, they are each responsible for about half of it.

Great. I agree that Obama and the Dems increased the spending. Bush put in for $3.1 trillion in spending and we received $2.1 trillion in revenue, hence the Bush trillion dollar deficit. The rest, yes, is on Barry.

 

[Article 15]

Yeah right...only it is.

It is mischevious because the speculator already knows that the specualtion isn't based on fact.

That's WHY it is characterized (by the man himself, in case you missed that in the video) AS mischevious.

Now unless English isn't your first language, I should not have to explain something this obvious to you, lad.

No it's not based on fact, it's based on speculation. Being mischievous doesn't mean lying.

Damn you people are stupid!

mis·chie·vous (msch-vs)
adj.

1. Causing mischief.
2. Playful in a naughty or teasing way.
3. Troublesome; irritating.
4. Causing harm, injury, or damage.

Are all chickenfuckers like you incapable of understanding words in context?

Or are you especially contextually challenged even among the class of men who are also chickenfuckers?

I wouldn't want to speculate on that, so I am seeking your input.

 

[gautama]

It was projected to be about $400 billion then a little economic crisis thingy happened and the estimated revenue of $2.7 billion turned out to be $2.1 billion.

Like I said, a trillion dollar deficit.

And Obam increased spending by over 400B to 3.5T(+) not including stimulus spending. Overall, they are each responsible for about half of it.

Great. I agree that Obama and the Dems increased the spending. Bush put in for $3.1 trillion in spending and we received $2.1 trillion in revenue, hence the Bush trillion dollar deficit. The rest, yes, is on Barry.

Well.....then fuck the chicken-fucker Barry.

Although giving the chicken-fucker Barry an apple-sauced enema with a dash of DRANO shouldn't be outa the question.

 

[Article 15]

And Obam increased spending by over 400B to 3.5T(+) not including stimulus spending. Overall, they are each responsible for about half of it.

Great. I agree that Obama and the Dems increased the spending. Bush put in for $3.1 trillion in spending and we received $2.1 trillion in revenue, hence the Bush trillion dollar deficit. The rest, yes, is on Barry.

Well.....then fuck the chicken-fucker Barry.

Although giving the chicken-fucker Barry an apple-sauced enema with a dash of DRANO shouldn't be outa the question.

Gaytrauma fail. There is not even a single Salaami in this post.

 

[Seawytch]

Looks like a whole lotta BUSH to me...

 

[BenNatuf]

It was projected to be about $400 billion then a little economic crisis thingy happened and the estimated revenue of $2.7 billion turned out to be $2.1 billion.

Like I said, a trillion dollar deficit.

And Obam increased spending by over 400B to 3.5T(+) not including stimulus spending. Overall, they are each responsible for about half of it.

Great. I agree that Obama and the Dems increased the spending. Bush put in for $3.1 trillion in spending and we received $2.1 trillion in revenue, hence the Bush trillion dollar deficit. The rest, yes, is on Barry.

No, we don't agree, budget projections are no actual spending. In 2008 the budget defict was projected to be 350B, it ended up being 162B. Until Obama almost every budget deficit was overestimated in projections. Over all, including the 200B in tarp loans (remember when TARP was loans?) in 2009 that has since been mostly paid back (with interest) Bush's end is about 700B (500 if you subtract the repaid TARP loans). The other 700B is obama's, including increasing spending over 20% to 3.5T, about 150B in stimulus spent that year and 150B or so in TARP funds we're never going to get all of back. Obama's rediculous deficits even benefit from Bush's TARP loans being paid back when that should be applied to the source... Bush's end of 2009. They were paid back in 2010 and subtracted from Obama's deficit making it 1.4T, when in reality minus the loan paybacks it was closer to 1.6T

 

[Article 15]

And Obam increased spending by over 400B to 3.5T(+) not including stimulus spending. Overall, they are each responsible for about half of it.

Great. I agree that Obama and the Dems increased the spending. Bush put in for $3.1 trillion in spending and we received $2.1 trillion in revenue, hence the Bush trillion dollar deficit. The rest, yes, is on Barry.

No, we don't agree, budget projections are no actual spending. In 2008 the budget defict was projected to be 350B, it ended up being 162B. Until Obama almost every budget deficit was overestimated in projections. Over all, including the 200B in tarp loans (remember when TARP was loans?) in 2009 that has since been mostly paid back (with interest) Bush's end is about 700B (500 if you subtract the repaid TARP loans). The other 700B is obama's, including increasing spending over 20% to 3.5T, about 150B in stimulus spent that year and 150B or so in TARP funds we're never going to get all of back. Obama's rediculous deficits even benefit from Bush's TARP loans being paid back when that should be applied to the source... Bush's end of 2009. They were paid back in 2010 and subtracted from Obama's deficit making it 1.4T, when in reality minus the loan paybacks it was closer to 1.6T

Bush put in for $3.1 trillion in spending and we took in $2.1 trillion in revenue. That's a trillion dollar gap and I really don't care what your spin on it is.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yeah right...only it is.

It is mischevious because the speculator already knows that the specualtion isn't based on fact.

That's WHY it is characterized (by the man himself, in case you missed that in the video) AS mischevious.

Now unless English isn't your first language, I should not have to explain something this obvious to you, lad.

No it's not based on fact, it's based on speculation. Being mischievous doesn't mean lying.

Damn you people are stupid!

mis·chie·vous (msch-vs)
adj.

1. Causing mischief.
2. Playful in a naughty or teasing way.
3. Troublesome; irritating.
4. Causing harm, injury, or damage.

Are all chickenfuckers like you incapable of understanding words in context?

Or are you especially contextually challenged even among the class of men who are also chickenfuckers?

I wouldn't want to speculate on that, so I am seeking your input.

Don't project your sexual fantasies on me.

“At that time, I have to admit that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched.”

As I said,"mischievous speculation" isn't lying. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

 

[BenNatuf]

Great. I agree that Obama and the Dems increased the spending. Bush put in for $3.1 trillion in spending and we received $2.1 trillion in revenue, hence the Bush trillion dollar deficit. The rest, yes, is on Barry.

No, we don't agree, budget projections are no actual spending. In 2008 the budget defict was projected to be 350B, it ended up being 162B. Until Obama almost every budget deficit was overestimated in projections. Over all, including the 200B in tarp loans (remember when TARP was loans?) in 2009 that has since been mostly paid back (with interest) Bush's end is about 700B (500 if you subtract the repaid TARP loans). The other 700B is obama's, including increasing spending over 20% to 3.5T, about 150B in stimulus spent that year and 150B or so in TARP funds we're never going to get all of back. Obama's rediculous deficits even benefit from Bush's TARP loans being paid back when that should be applied to the source... Bush's end of 2009. They were paid back in 2010 and subtracted from Obama's deficit making it 1.4T, when in reality minus the loan paybacks it was closer to 1.6T

Bush put in for $3.1 trillion in spending and we took in $2.1 trillion in revenue. That's a trillion dollar gap and I really don't care what your spin on it is.

There is no spin, do you know the difference between a projection and actual spending appropriated? Evidently NOT.

 

[edthecynic]

3 trillion in two years ther sport. not less than 8 trillion (12 is wrong) in 20 years.

Not according to the very rules St Ronnie said should be used to calculate each president's debt!!! He said you start with the first FISCAL year for each president, which begins Oct 1, and you include the interest on the debt of each president. He told us that in his first speech as president. As the chart shows, the 8 fiscal years of Reagan plus the 4 fiscal years of Bush I and the 8 years of Bush II debts plus the interest on those debts comes to a little over $12 trillion.

You can blame a President for the debt if Congress is cooperative with him. When did Bush ever have full cooperation from Congress? Bush had spent 4 years trying to balance the budget and nearly had it done when the Dems took over. They took a deficit that was $169 billion and drove it up in two years to $1.7 trillion. Problem is the Dems are in control of Congress yet they've never passed a budget. I don't think they know how. But because of this, nobody knows how much has been spent or where.

Damn, don't you ever get tired of lying!!!!!!!!

First of all, Bush signed the budget, therefore he owns it. You might have an argument that congress owns it if Bush vetoed it and congress passed it over his veto, but that never happened.

And all you have to do is look at the deficits for each of Bush's fiscal years to see what a monumental lie your post is!!! Even with a GOP congress Bush was running up a half a trillion in debt each year, not any $169 billion.
Why are CON$ not the least bit ashamed of their lying??????

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010

Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.
To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.

Date
Dollar Amount

09/30/2010
13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009
11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008
10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007
9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006
8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005
7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004
7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003
6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002
6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001
5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000
5,674,178,209,886.86

 

[edthecynic]

And Obam increased spending by over 400B to 3.5T(+) not including stimulus spending. Overall, they are each responsible for about half of it.

Great. I agree that Obama and the Dems increased the spending. Bush put in for $3.1 trillion in spending and we received $2.1 trillion in revenue, hence the Bush trillion dollar deficit. The rest, yes, is on Barry.

No, we don't agree, budget projections are no actual spending. In 2008 the budget defict was projected to be 350B, it ended up being 162B.

The 2008 budget deficit was a hell of a lot more than $162 billion!!!!!
Try a trillion dollar deficit!!! Do the math if you can.

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48

 

[mudwhistle]

I know, because nothing is a lie.

he said, he knew where they were. If he didnt know where they were why didnt he say that? Answer: because it was a lie.

In other words, he was asked a question where were they, He said he KNEW where they were, he did not. What is that called?

Now, when Obama said the stimulus would keep unemployement down under 8% righties went crazy screaming liar.

it's ok, I see from this thread repubs only believe that dems lie and Repubs never lie. Like kids believe in Santa Clause

He said "we know where WMD's are" and at the the time he believed that to be a true statement based on the intel that he had. In order for you to prove he lied you must prove that he knew the statement was untrue at the time he made it. Good luck!

Your strawman has no place in this discussion. Obama did say that about the unemployment and he was wrong, as he was and is on many things.

One has to wonder at the incompetence of the Bush administration, or (gods forbid) the incompetence of the on-the-ground military forces...if they KNEW where these WMDs were, but they let them go.

So you think our troops are incompitent?

I can tell you've never spent much time on patrol in the Middle East.