Morning Must Reads: October 11

In the news: Shutdown drags on, truckers are headed to Washington, and weapons watchdog awarded Nobel Peace Prize

  • Share
  • Read Later
Nicholas Kamm / AFP /Getty Images

The US Capitol in Washington is seen on September 30, 2013 , a day before the government shutdown began.

  • After Meeting Obama, Republicans to Continue Talks: “President Barack Obama and a delegation of House Republicans concluded a lengthy meeting at the White House on Thursday afternoon without an agreement on how to raise the debt limit or reopen the government, but both sides described the summit as a positive step toward resolving a crisis that has bedeviled negotiators.” [TIME]
  • Chemical weapons watchdog tasked with destroying Syria’s stockpile has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. [NYT]
  • The hoax that may not have been a hoax…maybe: “Organizers of the “Truckers Ride for the Constitution” rally say they are indeed coming to Washington on Friday — but whether they will shut down the Beltway or just make a lot of noise remains to be seen.” [Washington Post]
  • Obama’s Crisis of Credibility: “Obama’s ineffectiveness, always a hallmark of his presidency, has reached a new cruising altitude this year. Not even a year into his second term, he looks like a lame duck and quacks like a lame duck. You guessed it — he’s a lame duck.” [Politico]
  • “Six in 10 people said they would defeat and replace every member of Congress if they could, including their own, a warning to members of both parties just a year before the midterm elections.” [The Hill]
  • Now is the Time to Delay Obamacare [WSJ]
  •  Obamacare Foes Using Shutdown Echo South’s Nullifiers: “The current fight, a budget standoff that threatens the creditworthiness of the U.S, has vestiges of the secession from the union that started in South Carolina and led to the Civil War. It carries echoes of the nullification crisis over tariffs in the 1830s and the so-called “massive resistance” movement to oppose desegregation of public schools in the 1950s.” [Bloomberg]
  • In 2009, Edward Snowden was suspected of trying to hack into classified files at the C.I.A., but the N.S.A. was reportedly never alerted [NYT]
1338 comments
nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

@collioure   Has to do with my knowledge of government accoun[t]ing: Third Grade.

Amazing what a colon can do to change an ostensible insult into admitted self-assessment.

fitty_three
fitty_three

I'll add another point:

Clinton had surpluses in his last few years in office. The national debt was going down.

Guess who blew those balanced budgets out of the water?

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

Speaking of "TARP games", how about this Colli?  I'll just quote a post from that Eisenhower article I posted earlier (from Forbes, just another branch of MSNBC right?) because it so succinctly debunks your nonsense:

I would imagine The Cato Institute (that gnarly bastion of liberalism…oh wait, no they aren’t) might take some offense. This from none other than Daniel Mitchell of The Cato Institute:

“The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).

www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/

And how big of a deal was the portion of the year’s pending was attributable to the Omnibus spending bill?

Not much according to the Von Mises Institute!

“The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.”
archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/

And it gets worse. Calling The Weekly Standard a bunch of idiots might get you drummed out of the Sons of Liberty brotherhood! Here’s what they have to say-
“In fairness, however, Obama can’t rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn’t sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush’s column). Rather, Obama’s record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic “stimulus” package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush’s should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).”
The Weekly Standard www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

I think Jim Michaels would owe me more than a dime.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

The economy has created 6.5 Million Private sector jobs to date while shedding almost three quarter of a Million Public sector jobs. When was the last time that government shrank as the economy expanded?

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

And here is something else for Curly and Handy to consider. If it wasn't for the all hostage threats by the GOP and the forcing to cut government payrolls we would be at 5.5% unemployment even as we speak according to Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

So let's recap:  Quoting a former Labor Secretary, Forbes, Factcheck.org, and the CATO Institute equals "keep watching MSNBC"

Wow.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

1.4 Trillion is the last best estimate of the final costs of our little adventure in Iraq. All the while cutting taxes for the rich. Wonder if that has anything to do with our deficits, especially seeing as many of the Iraq costs were kept of the books until Obama took office.

ahandout
ahandout

And the mother of all crazies: Nancy Pelosi.

"The cupboard is bare," the California Democrat said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "There's no more cuts to make."

Gezuz, this is the Democrat's leadership.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

OT: Just saw Gravity in IMAX 3-D.  Holy cow, talk about an experience with a capital "E".  I generally don't like 3-D films but that was clearly made for it.  I can't imagine enjoying it as much though not seeing it in theaters.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

Speaking of Godwin's Law, this is a good opportunity to post this

ahandout
ahandout

@nflfoghorn @collioure @paulejb @ahandout  "They cling to their guns and their religion."  Not our religion or my religion.

Then there's this:

JERUSALEM – In his major address to the Muslim world last week, President Obama quoted a verse from the Quran that is interpreted as urging Muslims to follow Muhammad in waging jihad against nonbelievers.

The context of the verse – first noticed by Robert Spencer of the Jihad Watch website – was confirmed by Quranic experts contacted by WND.

“I have pointed to this section of the Quran as showing the importance of jihad and to follow the prophet (Muhammad) in jihad even though a war may be difficult,” Abu Abaida Al-Ahmed, the imam of a central mosque in Gaza City, told WND.

Obama quoted the verse in question during a section of his speech where he was stressing a “new beginning” between the U.S. and the Muslim world, and the need for a “sustained effort to listen to each other.”

Obama continued: “As the Holy Quran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.’ That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.”

Obama was reading from chapter 9 verse 119 of the Quran, which deals with the theme of not abandoning Muhammad.

The next Quranic passage continues: “Neither the dwellers of the city, nor the Arabs around them, shall seek to stay behind the messenger of Allah (when he mobilizes for war). Nor shall they give priority to their own affairs over supporting him. This is because they do not suffer any thirst, or any effort, or hunger in the cause of Allah, or take a single step that enrages the disbelievers, or inflict any hardship upon the enemy, without having it written down for them as a credit. Allah never fails to recompense those who work righteousness.”

The two passages are part of a Quranic section scolding local Muslims in Medina for refusing to accompany Muhammad on a war expedition to Tabouk in northern Arabia, where he was seeking to fight a Byzantine garrison.

Abu Saqer, the head of Jahidiya Salifiyah, an Islamic outreach movement in Gaza, explained there are two main interpretations of the verse cited by Obama:

“First that you should follow the truth of Allah, but in specific to follow those who are in jihad with the prophet in spite of the great heat of going to war,” he said.

Al Ahmed, the Gaza imam, stated, “The verses come from the period of the Al-Tabouk war, the year when the prophet left Mecca for Madina.”

The main official Quranic exegesis, or tafsir, concerning verse 119 deals with the importance of speaking the truth. A secondary tafsir, however, uses the verse quoted by Obama to argue for jihad.

That tafsir reads: “(Be careful of your duty to Allah) obey Allah in that which he has commanded you, (and be with the Truthful) with Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and their companions when they stay behind and when they participate in jihad.”

During his speech in Cairo last week, Obama referred to the Quran as “holy” four times and quoted several verses from the Islamic text. He also used Muslim terminology, such as the Quranic obligation of “zakat” or charity.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/06/100504/#iyxEs8pYZjzwcmXD.99

ahandout
ahandout

@fitty_three Clinton forced the banks to lend to people that could not afford their mortgages, causing the Mortgage Meltdown.  You lose, 53.

ahandout
ahandout

@DonQuixotic  Both the Ominbus pork bill (really I am surprised that you even admit to that pile of crap) and the total failure $900 billion dollar stimulus belong to Obama.  

Then there is the reality: 

They were drawn up practically overnight and rushed out the door for purely political reasons – to trick Congress into handing over tons of instant cash for Wall Street, with no strings attached. “Without those assurances, the level of opposition would have remained the same,” says Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a leading progressive who voted against TARP. The promise of housing aid, in particular, turned out to be a “paper tiger.”

HAMP, the signature program to aid poor homeowners, was announced by President Obama on February 18th, 2009. The move inspired CNBC commentator Rick Santelli to go berserk the next day – the infamous viral rant that essentially birthed the Tea Party.

Reacting to the news that Obama was planning to use bailout funds to help poor and (presumably) minority homeowners facing foreclosure, Santelli fumed that the president wanted to “subsidize the losers’ mortgages” when he should “reward people that could carry the water, instead of drink the water.” The tirade against “water drinkers” led to the sort of spontaneous nationwide protests one might have expected months before, when we essentially gave a taxpayer-funded blank check to Gamblers Anonymous addicts, the millionaire and billionaire class.

In fact, the amount of money that eventually got spent on homeowner aid now stands as a kind of grotesque joke compared to the Himalayan mountain range of cash that got moved onto the balance sheets of the big banks more or less instantly in the first months of the bailouts.

At the start, $50 billion of TARP funds were earmarked for HAMP. In 2010, the size of the program was cut to $30 billion. As of November of last year, a mere $4 billion total has been spent for loan modifications and other homeowner aid.

In short, the bailout program designed to help those lazy, job-averse, “water-drinking” minority homeowners – the one that gave birth to the Tea Party? – turns out to have comprised about one percent of total TARP spending. “It’s amazing,” says Paul Kiel, who monitors bailout spending for ProPublica. “It’s probably one of the biggest failures of the Obama administration.”

collioure
collioure

@DonQuixotic  

You can quote anyone you want, but you can't change the facts

Bush's true share of the FY09 deficit is about $800 billion.

fitty_three
fitty_three

@ahandout 

It sucks that the only way to avoid a Teabaggar mass extinction is to work something out with Pelosi.

ahandout
ahandout

@DonQuixotic  Sure DQ, Democrat math:  BLOW UP the defict to $1.3 trillion and then projections of a $ trillion a year don't look so bad, claim that you are cutting...feed to idiots like yourself and keep repeating it.

collioure
collioure

@DonQuixotic  

The incompetent community organizer played games with the deficit of FY2009 to which he contributed mightily. 

He has at least doubled the deficit.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@ahandout @nflfoghorn @collioure 

Go away yourself.

I gotta tell you handy. Reading you coming unglued is not mystified as your party flounders and goes down in flame. But as much as we here tolerate your howling we only ask for a ignore feature, not that you leave.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@ahandout @fitty_three 

That's BS.

The Mortgage Meltdown wasn't caused by forcing anyone. It was caused by immoral banking practices from lending to the way the banks packages these toxic mortgages.

ahandout
ahandout

@collioure @DonQuixotic  It is estimated that $12 trillion has been drained from the US to Europe.  Your $800 billion is chump change.

fitty_three
fitty_three

@collioure

This is ridiculous. We have "your word" on this as someone who "knows government accounting" vs several documents from reliable sources.

Can you guess what the average reader here on Swampland will choose?

ahandout
ahandout

@mantisdragon91 @ahandout  Out Commander in Chief is arming terrorists, YOU don't have a problem with that.  Now that is crazy, criminal and shows where Barry's heart is.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@ahandout @DonQuixotic  

Not even worth a reply, I've debunked everything you just regurgitated throughout the tread.  Feel free to read any of it.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

He has at least doubled the deficit.

Also false.

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

  • In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
  •  In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
  • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
  • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

Deficits Falling (From Way Up)

When Obama took office in 2009, he inherited a projected deficit of $1.2 trillion. He added another $200 billion in deficit spending to that. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit in fiscal year 2009 came to 10.1 percent. That’s by far the highest percentage over the last 60 years (you have to go back to the World War II years between 1942 to 1945 to see higher figures). Over the last 60 years, deficits as a percentage of the GDP have averaged 2.4 percent. The deficit was 3.2 percent in 2008, the year before Obama took office; and it was 1.2 percent the year before that. In other words, it had a long way to drop from 2009.

“Think about it this way,” Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense wrote to us in an email. “I like to compare budget numbers to diets. Bob weighs 400 pounds and loses 60 pounds in a year. Ralph is 210 pounds and loses 40 pounds in a year. Bob has lost more weight than Ralph, but Ralph is losing it faster, at a 19% rate versus a 15% rate.”

 tl;dr - Obama is actually lowering the deficit he inherited.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@collioure @DonQuixotic  

The incompetent community organizer played games with the deficit of FY2009 to which he contributed mightily. 

False.

Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit

 But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009  fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).

notsacredh
notsacredh

@MrObvious, the way Reid is holding firm in the negotiations, wait until a deal is reached if you want to see the right become unglued.

collioure
collioure

@DonQuixotic @collioure  

Re:  "CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac –  plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone)."

Yes, and in standard government accounting these bailout loans are charged as expenses in the year in which they were made and the repayments are revenues in the years in the which they are repaid.

So that was about $400 billion charged against FY09 and the repayments of like amounts credited to later years.  In standard accounting - and even in some governments - these are wash transactions.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@collioure @DonQuixotic  

But don't take my word for it, I actually back up anything I post.

  • Fiscal 2009 began Oct. 1, 2008. That was before Obama was elected, and nearly four months before he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.
  • President Bush signed the massive spending bill under which the government was operating when Obama took office. That was Sept. 30, 2008. As The Associated Press noted, it combined “a record Pentagon budget with aid for automakers and natural disaster victims, and increased health care funding for veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
  • Bush also signed, on Oct. 3, 2008, a bank bailout bill that authorized another $700 billion to avert a looming financial collapse (though not all of that would end up being spent in fiscal 2009, and Obama later signed a measure reducing total authorized bailout spending to $475 billion).
  • On Jan. 7, 2009 — two weeks before Obama took office — the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued its regular budget outlook, stating: “CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion.”
  • CBO attributed the rapid rise in spending to the bank bailout and the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac –  plus rising costs for unemployment insurance and other factors driven by the collapsing economy (which shed 818,000 jobs in January alone).
  • Another factor beyond Obama’s control was an automatic 5.8 percent cost of living increase announced in October 2008 and given to Social Security beneficiaries in January 2009. It was the largest since 1982. Social Security spending alone rose $66 billion in fiscal 2009, and Medicare spending, driven by rising medical costs, rose $39 billion.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@ahandout @mantisdragon91  

That was also an action approved by Congress, so unilaterally associating it to the President is kind of silly.  The Contra rebels on the other hand...

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ahandout @mantisdragon91 Idiot. There are still rebels in Syria that are friendly to the US. More importantly the GOP have been saying arm the rebels until Obama leaned towards doing it at which point they became opposed. So spare me your crap.

ahandout
ahandout

@mantisdragon91 @ahandout   Several years ago, there were rebels in Syria who were friendly to the US.  Now, most are terrorists.  But you knew that; intentional stupidity is your specialty, Manty.  You do it so well.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@ahandout @mantisdragon91 More curiously, did you have a problem when Reagan armed the Iranian Mullahs and the Central American drug cartels? The difference of course is that Reagan hid what he was doing and lied about it until caught.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@ahandout @mantisdragon91  

Out Commander in Chief is arming terrorists

Are we talking about Obama or Reagan?  I could understand the confusion because I did just post a picture of the two...

ahandout
ahandout

@DonQuixotic @ahandout  Been there lived it.  Liberals lie and then lie more about how much they spend.  And then they cover it up and blame Republicans.  YOU have NO idea how much Obama has spent.  YOU have no idea how many trillions have been mortgaged.  YOU are a partisan fool.

fitty_three
fitty_three

@mantisdragon91

He's just trying to .make the point that taxes are unfair to him and shouldn't be counted as revenue reducing the size of the deficit.

Something like that.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@collioure Nice catchphrase. Too bad it has as little basis on reality as your claim of being an independent.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@collioure @DonQuixotic  

Hey stupid, we're not talking about averages.  The spending and the deficit are going down.  Stop trying to change the subject to make yourself not look like an idiot, it's not working.

collioure
collioure

@DonQuixotic 

Yep, just too stupid.

FYI I think the FY13 deficit is now estimated at $759 billion.  That makes Barry 0's 4-year average about $1.1 trillion.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

Just too, too stupid. 

Projection at its finest.  You may be the stupidest, laziest poster we've seen here in a looooong time Colli, and that is certainly saying something.

You failed to prove that spending is going down under Obama along with the deficit.  Deal with it.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@collioure @DonQuixotic  

Hey, Colli is admitting defeat because he once again cannot back up any of his stupid, off the wall claims.

Imagine that.  The asterisk is what is budgeted Colli, it's not an "estimate".  You'll also note that from 2009 to 2012 the deficit went down.

Goodbye collie.  Hope your tail between your legs doesn't give you too much discomfort.

collioure
collioure

@DonQuixotic @collioure  

Pardon me if I butt out, but someone who posts budget estimates of future years as proof of some trend is not worth my time.

Just too, too stupid.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@collioure @DonQuixotic  

I'll save you some time from posting "nuh-uh".  You wrote that Obama doubled the deficit.  I've pointed out - and linked to multiple sources - that show that the deficit doubled under Bush in FY2009 and since then Obama has been scaling it down.  You can hem and haw all you like but that's a fact.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@collioure @DonQuixotic  

* Federal Deficit is budgeted.

Reading is fundamental.

No serious economist would even consider FY 09 to be Bush's

More gibberish.  Prove it.

collioure
collioure

@DonQuixotic @collioure  

No serious economist would even consider FY 09 to be Bush's, given the actions and shenanigans of the Obama admin.in 2009.

FY 2015*: $577 billion
FY 2014*: $744 billion

LOL  !!!!!!

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@collioure @DonQuixotic  

$800 billion of FY09 is Bush. 

Except that's a factoid you're making up and no serious economist would argue.  My original and only premise is that the deficit (and spending) are going down throughout Obama's term.  Here's Obama's deficits by year:

Obama Deficits
FY 2015*: $577 billion
FY 2014*: $744 billion
FY 2013*: $973 billion
FY 2012: $1,087 billion
FY 2011: $1,300 billion
FY 2010: $1,294 billion

They are going down, which has been my point all along.  Even conservative economists agree on that even if they don't agree with Obama's policies.  You're trying to prove to me that 2+2 = 5, and it doesn't.  It's OK to admit that Colli.  If you don't agree that his spending and the federal deficit is going down, then prove me wrong.

collioure
collioure

@DonQuixotic @collioure  

$800 billion of FY09 is Bush.  Obama was in excess of $1 trillion three times 

Your original premise is ridiculous and you know it.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@collioure @DonQuixotic Yes lets do the comparison one inherited a booming economy and a surplus and one got an economy on free fall and two unpaid for wars. Sounds like a reasonable comparison. In idiot winger world.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@collioure @DonQuixotic  

You're still ignoring the fact that the bulk of FY2009 is credited to Bush, and since 2009 the deficit has been going down, which has been my point all along.  Moving the goal post to "averages" is cute though.

collioure
collioure

@DonQuixotic  

When you get FY2009 adjusted - that is, absent stimulus expenditures and credited with the repayment of all the TARP loans that were retired, I believe the FY09 deficit will be about about $800 billion.  Average that with the other Bush years and compare it to Obama's average (without the TARP repayment credits BTW) and it will be apparent that Obama has more than doubled the deficit.

collioure
collioure

@mantisdragon91 @collioure @DonQuixotic  

TARP loans came to about $400 billion.  Most of those were charged to FY2009.

Most TARP repayments were credited to later years.  I think I know now why the feds would not permit banks to repay TARP loans early.   They wanted the repayments credited to an Obama fiscal year.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@collioure  

In fact all of my sources save the one below are from non-liberal sources.  I even quote CATO institute, Colli.  By all means, keep your head in the ground.

mantisdragon91
mantisdragon91

@DonQuixotic @collioure Curly thinks that because some of the Stimulus money was used by State and Local Government officials to keep from laying off existing employees something shady or corrupt happened. Never mind what the impact would have been of all those additional consumers being left without an income.

collioure
collioure


@DonQuixotic @collioure  

I did read what you wrote, but you aren't up to speed on the TARP games, and you do not recognize that when a President substantially changes the course of events he assumes the fiscal year too.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

Of course you could make the following argument:

But Gordon warns not to give too much credit to Obama or Congress for the drop in the deficit. That’s mostly due to the growth — albeit slow — of the economy, bringing the government more revenue than expected, he said. The CBO says the increased revenue is also due to tax increases, most notably the expiration of the payroll tax cut and the higher rates enacted on upper-income taxpayers.

“That’s allowing deficits to come down,” Gordon said. “The deficit is not shrinking only, or even mostly, because of the actions of Congress or the president.”

Which is true, but I'm just trying to point out that the deficit is actually going down.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@collioure @DonQuixotic  

With the huge stimulus Obama made FY2009 his own.

Did you read what I just wrote? The lion share of the FY2009 deficit goes to Bush, as Bush added $1.2 trillion to the deficit that year and Obama added $200 billion on top of that.  The deficit has been going down every year since, too.

collioure
collioure

@mantisdragon91 @collioure @DonQuixotic  

The unpaid wars ran up the previous deficits, Third Grade - and then he tripled down on Afghanistan.

Barry' 0's answer to the financial collapse was the non-Stimulus.

Once again you are trying to blame someone else.

Hey, it's four years later and Barry 0 is still in the same rut - only it's all his now.