Stephanopoulos Blames Budget Deficit On Bush
On Monday, President Obama announced that 2011's budget deficit is going to be an all-time high $1.65 trillion.
In an interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly later in the day, ABC's George Stephanopoulos predictably blamed the red ink on former President George W. Bush (video follows with transcript and commentary):
BILL O'REILLY, HOST: Now, it's funny because you, when you were with Clinton, you guys actually balanced the budget back then. It wasn't that long ago, all right? And so the -- the government was actually spending what it took in. How in a period of, what, 13, 14 years did it get so wildly out of control? Was it the war on terror that did it?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC: Well, I said, well, you're going to disagree with this, I think it was the tax cuts passed in 2001 combined with the war on terror. And that's -- that -- that's what did it. And that's where -- what is going to be a problem for the Republican Party going forward.
Yes, you do need to cut Medicare and -- and get control of Medicare and get control of social security to get control of the debt in the long run. But you also need to do something on the tax side whether it's tax reform or some other kinds of proposal.
O'REILLY: Well, I mean, if they raise taxes, they risk strangling the economy and the reason that taxes were cut by Bush in the first place was to get out of the recession that happened after 9/11 which -- which happened.
But --
(CROSS TALK)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Although he was arguing for those before the -- the recession.
First off, George W. Bush began calling for tax cuts in December 2000 right after the Florida Recount debacle ended as he wisely predicted the economy was going to recede as a result of the bursting of the tech stock bubble.
This turned out to be rather prescient as the recession officially began in March 2001.
As for those tax cuts being responsible for today's deficit, Stephanopoulos like so many of his fellow shills in the media completely ignores the fact that the last budget under Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress in 2007 produced a deficit of only $160 billion. The largest deficit during that period was 2004's $413 billion.
This means that Bush's worst deficit under a Republican-controlled was one quarter the size of 2011's.
A chart posted by Jim Hoft Monday demonstrates this point (h/t The Captain’s Comments):
As NewsBusters reported Monday, the cumulative deficits of $5 trillion created by a Democrat-controlled Congress in those four years was greater than all of the nation's previous 220 budgets combined.
Taking this further, the final Republican budget in 2007 called for spending of $2.7 trillion. The last one authored by Democrats called for $3.8 trillion in outlays in 2011.
Exactly how did Bush tax cuts in the previous decade cause a rise in spending by $1.1 trillion or 41 percent?
Ironically, on the very same day Stephanopoulos was making this pathetic claim, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman asked his readers, "How can voters be so ill informed [sic]?"
As I wrote concerning this question later that day, it's because people like Krugman and Stephanopoulos are the ones doing the informing.
For the time being, I rest my case.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Don't look now...
Submitted by ontheright on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 11:39am.
...but it would appear we are completely surrounded by ignorant, liberal fools. I guess Stephie missed his Econ 101 class...too busy catching the bouquets on the drama stage.
Georgie is just ...
Submitted by Travalot on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 11:41am.
... another myopic liberal media stooge.
Go Away, just go away George.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 11:48am.
Everything is Bush's fault. Everything is the fault of cutting taxes. Come on. Get a new song and dance.
For fairness sake ABC should run a caption below George everytime he is on TV that says "Democrat Strategist"
To paraphrase what mad53PA said yesterday about David Gregory as it applies to Steffie: George has made the leap from Obama flak to Obama hack.
George Bush's fault???
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 11:56am.
You don't say!!
Gee Wally,
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:04pm.
What happened in 2007 to change the graph?
Oh yeah, DEMOCRATS gained control over the nations purse strings in the CONGRESS.
Noel, your case holds, but please do not rest it. Do please continue to make it over and over again.
What I have posted below may
Submitted by jdhawk on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:07pm.
What I have posted below may seem off topic, but it really gets to the heart of the matter. The problem in large part to the many ills of our nation, including the outrageous spending spree of government at all levels, is that we have created monsters and those monsters are our elected representatives. The fix below may go a long way to eleviating this problem:
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I'm asking each reader to forward this to a minimum of twenty people and in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms
2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/11.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
What about medicaid? Farm-aid? Eco-aid?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:10pm.
"Yes, you do need to cut Medicare and -- and get control of Medicare and get control of social security to get control of the debt in the long run."
What about cutting Medicaid? Why isn't that ever offered as a remedy? And how about cutting subsidies? Cutting Entitlements? Cutting Pensions? Cutting "Stimulus's?" Cutting "Investments" in select science and technology? Cutting redundant and superfluous government offices? Cutting State aid programs? Cutting Student Loan programs? Why aren't they ever offered as a remedy? That is where the bulk of the problem lays, not with the senior citizens and the two programs that help them to survive. THOSE programs will be self sustaining, thanks to how we pay into them our entire working lives, but only IF if government stops using those funds to pay for everything else that isn't needed, like the ever increasing number of alphabet soup departments, the ever increasing number of "investments," the ever-increasing number of subsidies, ect.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Stephanopoulos Lack of Integrity
Submitted by Boil It Down on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:21pm.
Wow, that's some lack of a backbone to deny the last two years spending spree as a major contributor to our deficit. Who exactly has Stephanopoulos sold his soul to? How can he justify going on O'Reilly's show and displaying himself such a fool?
The Clinton Toadie and the 8 PMer
Submitted by Kuso Jiji on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:23pm.
One is a Democratic operative posing as a newsman the other is a know it all who knows very little about anything.
Break out the rotten tomatoes...
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:30pm.
...because I've got a feeling you're going to want to use them with me as a target after saying this, but...
I saw that interview with BOR last night, and my take was that GS was not blaming the CURRENT deficit levels on bush, but the deficit situation in general. The graph above does show that GWB is responsible for increase in spending combined with tax cuts resulting in a deficit... it's just that his deficit is not nearly as big as BHO's -- which is really frightening.
I know good ol' George is a Clinton-ite, but I'm just trying to be fair.
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
Actually, the line for 2011 is incorrect
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:00pm.
It's showing the 2011 deficit at 1.45T, rather than Obama's submitted budget of 1.65T.
The line should be hanging under the bottom of the graph, all the way below the "0" in "2010".
I love simple graphs. They convey so much meaning if done properly. An even better one would be to segment the bars with spending types, entitlements vs. discretionary. That would really tell the story.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
JJ
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:30pm.
JJ,
OMB hasn't corrected their numbers yet. That's why.
Picky picky picky! :-) ns
Si senor, yo se
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:24pm.
Numbers don't lie. They mean very specific things.
I love numbers.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Speaking of Cool Graphs.....
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:44pm.
Here's an interactive one, for both revenues and expenditures, by category. When you click on the individual R/E box, you get an expanded graph that shows the change in time over the last 30 years, since the Reagan Administration. (Republican spending/revenues are red, Democrats blue).
The one that absolutely gobsmacked me is how much the government is RELYING ON SOCIAL SECURITY RECEIPTS AS A REVENUE SOURCE! When they say "social security is going broke", what they mean is they are going to be spending every dollar and then some once SS expenditures exceed revenue....coming to a neighborhood near you, in like 2017.
No wonder they won't take SS "off-budget" and put it in a lock box, as Al Gore so inelegantly put it. Without SS counted as revenue, Obama would have a $2 1/2 trillion deficit this year.
As I said earlier, good graphs explain things very well, even to the numerically challenged. Oh yeah, and numbers don't lie, even if Obama does.
Check out these graphs, what else strikes you between the eyes?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Another visual representation of the budget
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 3:10pm.
From YouTube, this was done last year when Obama grandiosely proposed to cut a whole $100 million from the budget (and of course the budget was much smaller).
As you watch this, keep in mind, there are now 150 more piles of pennies on the deficit side of the table, representing an additional $7.50 cents...putting the whole "worth" of the pile of the pennies at about $100.
But Obama's BOLD spending cuts, in his current proposal, represent only 50 piles of pennies, or $2.50.
Now, since we're dealing with a pretty nice number right at about 100, representing overall spending....here it is in a nutshell.
Obama wants to add about 7.5% to spending, and cut 2.5%, for a NET INCREASE (who was surpised...raise your hands!) of 5%. Oh hell yeah, let's hear it for the economic genius of Obama.
BTW, he didn't manage to move the line at all....meaning more and more borrowing (you knew that was coming, yes?).
I think it's time to change my tag again...."He has failed".
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Rush just referenced this article, NS
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:29pm.
12:25 pm EST.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
JJ
Submitted by Noel Sheppard on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:42pm.
JJ,
Actually, it was this one - but it's all good! ns
NS, he didn't say WHICH one
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:27pm.
Just "NS from NB"...and started reading, including $1.65T. You are just too prolific for me to keep up with any more. :)
I remember the first time I heard him say that, I was driving back from Miami, and was on I-95, I almost swerved into the other lane I was so excited!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
George shows himself
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:37pm.
He shows himself to be a real slut. Not ignorant like Jane, but a slut fot the Dems.
-Jon
Aint it a little light out
Submitted by Hologram5 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:17pm.
Aint it a little light out for this moonbat to be flying around? This guy's smoking some grade "A" high quality crack. He needs to get an education on economics 101.
Stephanopoulos has gone off
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 3:16pm.
Stephanopoulos has gone off the deep end, still blaming Bush for everything.
Any chance NS can get to O'Reilly and wise him up a bit?
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 3:21pm.
Seriously Noel, O'Reilly needs some basic econ 101 help. Bless him for trying, but.
As NS pointed out, the 2001 recession occurred prior to 9/11 (not after). In fact, the economy was in free-fall when President Bush took over the reigns. Certainly however, 9/11 added to our economic grief, and as well the response to 9/11 created much additional spending.
Apparently unrealized by Steph and/or O'Reilly, is that much of the reason that we were able to achieve a relative period of budget balances and a bit of surplus, during the Clinton era, was because of the very hot (and dangerous) dot.com bubble, a lot of good luck, as well as a brief period of spending restraint. Spending restraint is a lot easier to pull off, when one is not in the midst of a economic downturn and/or reeling from a horrific attack like 9/11.
Clinton, of course, came into office during an economic recovery - not the case for many others, including Reagan, Bush II, and Obama.
In describing that the Clinton claim to economic greatness was not as claimed, the leftist/progressive economist Dean Baker wrote of Clinton's good luck in High Priests of the Bubble Economy:
It is important to separate Clinton-era mythology from the real economic record. [..]
Clinton had the good fortune to be sitting in the White House at the point where the economy finally enjoyed the long-predicted dividend from the information technology revolution.
Rather than investment driving growth during the Clinton boom, the main source of demand growth was consumption. Consumption soared during the Clinton years because the stock market bubble created $10tn of wealth. Stockholders consumed based on their bubble wealth, pushing the saving rate to record lows, and the consumption share of GDP to a record high.
Both O'Reilly and Stephanopoulos need to discover the myth. As well, all need to reflect on the cyclic nature of economies; a president does not have God-like control over how it's going to work out, although can provide direction.
I'd also note, that it might serve the public well if they would describe Bush's tax cuts (2001 & 2003) as "stimulus," as they describe Obama's efforts in running up massive deficits as stimulus. Same, of course, goes for Reagan's tax cuts in the early '80's. He inherited a crisis - and pushed stimulus to pull us out of it. It has a cost.
Bush's efforts had a cost. Obama's efforts have a cost.
Reagan's was highly successful - and, we were left with large increases in debt.
Bush's efforts were also quite successful (note that federal tax revenue soared some 44% following the 2003 tax cuts thru 2007 making a serious dent in annual deficits) though all was lost when the housing bubble collapsed. Debt increased greatly.
Under Obama, the increase in debt is, well - beyond historic description.
How to judge Obama's efforts? Let Obama be judged against his two predecessors who also inherited economic trauma - and put their plan for recovery on the table. Without a doubt, the verdict on the creation of debt is already written; the question is, if we have a sustainable economic recovery, will it really be about what Obama did - or do these underlying cycles simply occur, and perhaps are only slightly nudged by Washington's meddling?
(;~/ gary
There have been a number of occasions of late when BOR...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:11pm.
has made some major factual errors in his commentary, this being one of them, and it's huge. Either O'Reilly is uninformed to the point of being stupid, or his staff is giving him some bad info...Whatever is true, he needs to "wise up" as he is fond of saying, and either get his facts straight, or fire his researchers.
As for "Boy George," what else should we expect from an inveterate libnut liar and shameless Clinton and Obama apologist like him?
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
PrairieSky. on BOR
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:35pm.
"..some major factual errors in his commentary?"
I think that you're being a wee bit generous. If only someone would educate him, I do expect that he'd make an attempt to get it straight , and perhaps, that's more than we can say about the MSM.
(;~> gary
I wouldn't be too sure
Submitted by ckc1227 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 5:07pm.
This is the same guy who told people over and over during the Bush administration that there was one guy deciding what the price of oil/gas would be every day, despite being educated on the issue by several people.
ckc---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 8:33pm.
A very good point, that.
MD
Our boy Georgie is coping remarkably well with the
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 3:32pm.
absence of Rahm from his highly touted daily early morning conference calls with all the Dem insiders and operatives.
He's really been ramping it up lately, and he apparently doesn't care who notices it.
Or maybe Rahm is still participating?
Nice!
Submitted by Toesies on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 7:50pm.
The chart credited Bush's 2009 budget to Obama, when in actuality the 2009 fiscal year began in October '08, nearly 4 months prior to Obama taking office. Upon further comprehension of the materials provided one can conclude that Obama's 2010 FY budget deficit decreased from Bush's FY '09.
Toesies
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 8:29pm.
Then again, if you consider that approx. $200 billion of the 2009 spending was for Obama's failed stimulus bill.. then perhaps not.
(;~/ gary
Clarify
Submitted by Rush to Judgement on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 8:50pm.
Wasn't the 2009 stim-bill $800B? Or was your $200B number reflecting the wasted/failed portion of the initial $800B?
R to J
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 9:42pm.
That was the estimate of how much of it was going to be spent ($185b actually is the last number I remember) in 2009. More of it was to be wasted in 2010.
(;~/ gary
They are saving the 185 bil
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 10:04pm.
For a re-election slush fund. Obama's stash, so-to-speak.
It is not far fetched to blame Bush
Submitted by hayate1 on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 2:12am.
He inherited a surplus which immediately turned into a deficit as soon as he cut taxes. it got much worse once we invaded a few countries and more than doubled the national debt. debt which is the cumulative total of all the annual budgets. Cumulative being the key word. to say that adding 5 trillion to the national debt has no impact is to lack understanding of basic economics. As to Bush's annual deficits, the numbers used above are the fudged numbers used by the Bush admin. those numbers didnt include the costs of the wars. obama just eliminated that gimmick and, when combined with the dramatic dropoff of revenues resulting from the recession he inherited, created the deficit. his first budget was only marginally larger than Bush's last but it was at least an honest figure.
btw, the president creates the budget proposal and submits it to congress. what new spending program did the democrats in congress add in the last 4 years of the bush admin? i mean do the math. the bush term added 5triillion to the debt. how do you think that happened if he had those small deficits? or how do you think congress snuck in an extra five tillion off the books?
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
But it would stretch credence to---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 3:50am.
the breaking point to believe that "the bush term added 5triillion to the debt.", unless, of course, you are a liberal pulling numbers out of your wazoo. Which term? For that matter, which "bush"? What "5triillion"? Or is the amount "an extra five tillion"? Which is it, a triillion or a tillion? Make up your mind. How many countries did we invade? For someone squawking out numbers left and right, your accuracy is highly questionable. You sound more like a liberal parrot than an economist; more like a liberal schooled short-bus rider than an accountant; and much more like a troll than you do a mathemetician. "Not far fetched" is as ridiculous as the arrows you are shooting; they are not properly fletched and are so wobbly in flight they not only can't hit the target, they can't even reach it.