Obama's "I inherited this mess" excuse vs reality

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2007, 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 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 FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and 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 FY 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 FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 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.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

 

[L.K.Eder]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2006 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2006/7/8 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 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 FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and 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 FY 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 FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 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.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

what happened in january 2006?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2006 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2006/7/8 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 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 FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and 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 FY 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 FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 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.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

what happened in january 2006?

Democrats Take Majority in House; Pelosi Poised to Become Speaker - washingtonpost.com

Democrats took control of the budget in 2007, with both houses of congress, the very budgets obama voted for and "inherited".

 

[EriktheRed]

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.



Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2006 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2006/7/8 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 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 FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and 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 FY 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 FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 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.

Can someone reconcile this reality with the Obama admin's talking points?

what happened in january 2006?

Democrats Take Majority in House; Pelosi Poised to Become Speaker - washingtonpost.com

Democrats took control of the budget in 2006, the very budgets obama voted for and "inherited".

No, the GOP was still in control in January 2006.

 

[hortysir]

*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*
go the crickets.....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

what happened in january 2006?

Democrats Take Majority in House; Pelosi Poised to Become Speaker - washingtonpost.com

Democrats took control of the budget in 2007, the very budgets obama voted for and "inherited".

No, the GOP was still in control in January 2006.

yes they were.

I fixed the OP to reflect that properly. Lucky for me it didn't change the point

 

[Greenbeard]

Let's clear up a basic point of confusion. Deficits tend to arise during recessions in a very natural way, through two primary mechanisms: 1) falling revenues as taxable income falls and 2) rises in mandatory spending as automatic stabilizers kick in. Money coming in drops, money going out increases all without a single appropriations bill required. Now this particular recession had some unique features, like a teetering financial sector, which led to some extra measures that are out of the ordinary (and, no, TARP isn't merely a creation of a Democratic Congressional majority).

Where was the deficit just before Obama took office? Here's what the CBO was telling us in January 2009 (I've bolded some of the new factors contributing to the deficit):

• CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. In CBO’s baseline, the deficit for 2010 falls to 4.9 percent of GDP, still high by historical standards.
• CBO expects federal revenues to decline by $166 billion, or 6.6 percent, from the amount in 2008. The combination of the recession and sharp drops in the value of assets—most significantly in publicly traded stock—is expected to lead to sizable declines in receipts, especially from individual and corporate income taxes.
• According to CBO’s estimates, outlays this year will include more than $180 billion to reflect the present-value of the net cost of transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was created in the fall of 2008. (Broadly speaking, that cost is the purchase price minus the present value, adjusted for market risk, of any estimated future earnings from holding purchased assets and the proceeds from the eventual sale of them.) The TARP has the authority to enter into agreements to purchase assets totaling up to $700 billion outstanding at any one time, but the net cost over time will be much less than that amount.
• The deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO’s estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing that cost in 2009 adds about $240 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year.
• Economic factors have also boosted spending on programs such as those providing unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance as well as those with cost-of-living adjustments. (Such adjustments for 2009 are large because most of them are based on the growth in the consumer price index over the four quarters ending in the third quarter of 2008.)

These factors were piled onto the other factors that were already creating deficits (e.g. two ongoing military conflicts, a revenue shortage due to tax cuts that weren't offset with spending cuts, etc). So when Obama walked through the door, the deficit for 2009 was forecast to be $1.2 trillion. And that's not because of out-of-control Congressional appropriations or whatever your chain email is suggesting, it's because he was taking office in the midst of an economic shitstorm, which never tends to bode well for the deficit.

 

[strollingbones]

why is everyone screwing anything but humans?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Democrats Take Majority in House; Pelosi Poised to Become Speaker - washingtonpost.com

Democrats took control of the budget in 2007, the very budgets obama voted for and "inherited".

No, the GOP was still in control in January 2006.

yes they were.

I fixed the OP to reflect that properly. Lucky for me it didn't change the point

how do you feel about the accuracy now.

 

[boedicca]

And Obama took that $1.2T deficit, increased it by 25% and then extended it so that for the next decade, the deficit will barely dip below $1T per year, if it accomplishes even that feat.

Time for the Pottery Barn Rule: Obama Broke The Economy. He Owns It Now.

 

[EriktheRed]

Let's clear up a basic point of confusion. Deficits tend to arise during recessions in a very natural way, through two primary mechanisms: 1) falling revenues as taxable income falls and 2) rises in mandatory spending as automatic stabilizers kick in. Money coming in drops, money going out increases all without a single appropriations bill required. Now this particular recession had some unique features, like a teetering financial sector, which led to some extra measures that are out of the ordinary (and, no, TARP isn't merely a creation of a Democratic Congressional majority).

Where was the deficit just before Obama took office? Here's what the CBO was telling us in January 2009 (I've bolded some of the new factors contributing to the deficit):

• CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. In CBO’s baseline, the deficit for 2010 falls to 4.9 percent of GDP, still high by historical standards.
• CBO expects federal revenues to decline by $166 billion, or 6.6 percent, from the amount in 2008. The combination of the recession and sharp drops in the value of assets—most significantly in publicly traded stock—is expected to lead to sizable declines in receipts, especially from individual and corporate income taxes.
• According to CBO’s estimates, outlays this year will include more than $180 billion to reflect the present-value of the net cost of transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was created in the fall of 2008. (Broadly speaking, that cost is the purchase price minus the present value, adjusted for market risk, of any estimated future earnings from holding purchased assets and the proceeds from the eventual sale of them.) The TARP has the authority to enter into agreements to purchase assets totaling up to $700 billion outstanding at any one time, but the net cost over time will be much less than that amount.
• The deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO’s estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing that cost in 2009 adds about $240 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year.
• Economic factors have also boosted spending on programs such as those providing unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance as well as those with cost-of-living adjustments. (Such adjustments for 2009 are large because most of them are based on the growth in the consumer price index over the four quarters ending in the third quarter of 2008.)

These factors were piled onto the other factors that were already creating deficits (e.g. two ongoing military conflicts, a revenue shortage due to tax cuts that weren't offset with spending cuts, etc). So when Obama walked through the door, the deficit for 2009 was forecast to be $1.2 trillion. And that's not because of out-of-control Congressional appropriations or whatever your chain email is suggesting, it's because he was taking office in the midst of an economic shitstorm, which never tends to bode well for the deficit.

Nice try, Green, but one of the latest con talking points is that the COB is never right...






...at least when Dems control Congress, anyway.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Let's clear up a basic point of confusion. Deficits tend to arise during recessions in a very natural way, through two primary mechanisms: 1) falling revenues as taxable income falls and 2) rises in mandatory spending as automatic stabilizers kick in. Money coming in drops, money going out increases all without a single appropriations bill required. Now this particular recession had some unique features, like a teetering financial sector, which led to some extra measures that are out of the ordinary (and, no, TARP isn't merely a creation of a Democratic Congressional majority).

Where was the deficit just before Obama took office? Here's what the CBO was telling us in January 2009 (I've bolded some of the new factors contributing to the deficit):

• CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. In CBO’s baseline, the deficit for 2010 falls to 4.9 percent of GDP, still high by historical standards.
• CBO expects federal revenues to decline by $166 billion, or 6.6 percent, from the amount in 2008. The combination of the recession and sharp drops in the value of assets—most significantly in publicly traded stock—is expected to lead to sizable declines in receipts, especially from individual and corporate income taxes.
• According to CBO’s estimates, outlays this year will include more than $180 billion to reflect the present-value of the net cost of transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was created in the fall of 2008. (Broadly speaking, that cost is the purchase price minus the present value, adjusted for market risk, of any estimated future earnings from holding purchased assets and the proceeds from the eventual sale of them.) The TARP has the authority to enter into agreements to purchase assets totaling up to $700 billion outstanding at any one time, but the net cost over time will be much less than that amount.
• The deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO’s estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing that cost in 2009 adds about $240 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year.
• Economic factors have also boosted spending on programs such as those providing unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance as well as those with cost-of-living adjustments. (Such adjustments for 2009 are large because most of them are based on the growth in the consumer price index over the four quarters ending in the third quarter of 2008.)

These factors were piled onto the other factors that were already creating deficits (e.g. two ongoing military conflicts, a revenue shortage due to tax cuts that weren't offset with spending cuts, etc). So when Obama walked through the door, the deficit for 2009 was forecast to be $1.2 trillion. And that's not because of out-of-control Congressional appropriations or whatever your chain email is suggesting, it's because he was taking office in the midst of an economic shitstorm, which never tends to bode well for the deficit.

And how did obama vote on those very spending bills that added to the defecit while bush was still in office

 

[L.K.Eder]

Democrats Take Majority in House; Pelosi Poised to Become Speaker - washingtonpost.com

Democrats took control of the budget in 2007, the very budgets obama voted for and "inherited".

No, the GOP was still in control in January 2006.

yes they were.

I fixed the OP to reflect that properly. Lucky for me it didn't change the point

oh, it did.

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.

classic case of confirmation bias.

edit: your OP still does not jump over the very low bullshit/retard line. moar editing please.

 

[Modbert]

And how did obama vote on those very spending bills that added to the defecit while bush was still in office

From a study that came out four days ago:

US bailouts prevented 1930s-style Great Depression says new study | Business | The Guardian

To Washington conservatives they were egregious examples of "big government" overreach, but the White House's economic stimulus and bailout policies have saved 8.5m jobs and averted a further slump of 6.5% in US economic output, according to a study by two influential economists.

An in-depth modelling exercise by Moody's chief economist, Mark Zandi, and a Princeton University expert, Alan Blinder, paints a bleak scenario of a 1930s-style Great Depression if the US government had enacted none of its $1.7tn (£1.3tn) programmes to avert a financial meltdown.

Using historical statistical relationships and a focus on the government's impact on narrowing credit spreads, the pair found that the downturn would have continued into 2011, with unemployment peaking at 16.5% rather than last year's actual high of 10.1%.

 

[hortysir]

I ain't looking it up, right now, because I did enough of it when Barry was running for President.
Check out Illinois' deficit for the years he was a State Rep. (controlling their budget)
All but 1 year they had the country's worst. For that *other* year, they were 2nd worse....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

No, the GOP was still in control in January 2006.

yes they were.

I fixed the OP to reflect that properly. Lucky for me it didn't change the point

oh, it did.

I got this from a friend of mine but I felt it needed to be shared and feel it is accurate.

classic case of confirmation bias.

did you read the ENTIRE post.
I think you missed this part in the first post (which is unedited in your quote)

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 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.

As you can see it was accurate later, its the 06 thing that was off and its been fixed so now do you have any comments relating to non-typo related items?

 

[Smartt33]

What is Obama complaining about? Not only did he help create the mess, He, by choice, ran for the office of President of the USA knowing what the mess was. He is too arrogant to take any responsibility for anything.

I personally believe he is wrecking the nation intentionally.

 

[strollingbones]

but of course reagan policies allowed the clinton years lol.....


i love the logic of conservatives and republicans.....never their fault...never

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

And how did obama vote on those very spending bills that added to the defecit while bush was still in office

From a study that came out four days ago:

US bailouts prevented 1930s-style Great Depression says new study | Business | The Guardian

To Washington conservatives they were egregious examples of "big government" overreach, but the White House's economic stimulus and bailout policies have saved 8.5m jobs and averted a further slump of 6.5% in US economic output, according to a study by two influential economists.

An in-depth modelling exercise by Moody's chief economist, Mark Zandi, and a Princeton University expert, Alan Blinder, paints a bleak scenario of a 1930s-style Great Depression if the US government had enacted none of its $1.7tn (£1.3tn) programmes to avert a financial meltdown.

Using historical statistical relationships and a focus on the government's impact on narrowing credit spreads, the pair found that the downturn would have continued into 2011, with unemployment peaking at 16.5% rather than last year's actual high of 10.1%.

Oh so DID vote for those budgets, thanks for agreeing and providing a lot of extra info modbert.

 

[Greenbeard]

And Obama took that $1.2T deficit, increased it by 25% and then extended it so that for the next decade, the deficit will barely dip below $1T per year, if it accomplishes even that feat.

Obama's first funding request (i.e. for FY 2010) projected a $1.171 trillion deficit. The notion he just loves deficit spending and is bumping up the existing deficit to fund pet projects (enhanced FMAP rates are his diabolical wish? really?) isn't borne out by the facts.