Obama's SOTU: Stuck On Stupid Lies

[BeAChooser]

Everyone can see just what BaC thinks about the CBO in this thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152037&highlight=forcast

Want to retract your support now? After all, they're supposed to be incompetent or in bed with Obama.

LOL! What is it with you, joobz and Obama (and many of the other liberals who posted in the thread you linked)? Do you all have the same problem with reading comprehension? Or is dishonesty just second nature to each of you? We can't tell which of my comments in that thread you refer to (notice, folks, how vague tyr's response is) but they certainly don't prove that I think the CBO is incompetent or in bed with Obama.

The OP article of that thread just points out that even Obama would have to admit his $2.2 trillion savings claim is untrue because the administration had to revise it's own 10 year budget deficit projection from the $7.1 trillion that Obama cited in the May press conference to a $9 trillion figure that's almost in line with the CBO's original estimate.

As I said to Shalamar in post #8 of that link, "I'm giving you the choice of deciding whether Obama and his staff are liars or incompetents. The facts suggest it has to be one of the two." There's not a hint of suggestion that the CBO is incompetent or in bed with Obama. Nor is there in any of my other posts on that thread.

In fact, in post #22 I spelled my position out out as clearly as possible.

I'm not calling Obama a liar for a faulty forecast.

I'm calling him a liar (or totally incompetent) because he claimed his programs reduced a predicted 10 year additional debt from $9.3 trillion to $7.1 trillion, when the facts clearly show that the $9.3 trillion figure he cited came from a CBO estimate of added debt that included the effect of his programs and from a CBO report which clearly stated that had Obama done nothing (i.e., left things "under current law") the additional debt would have only been $4.4 trillion dollars, not $9.3 trillion.

In short, the facts clearly show that Obama (and his staff) knew or should have known when he made that speech that his programs didn't reduce the predicted debt by $2.2 trillion as claimed, but rather increased the predicted debt by about $5 trillion dollars. In order to claim what he did and not be a liar, he would also have had to not read much of the mainstream media which did indeed report what the CBO said. And if you add in other of his spending programs not included in the CBO's March estimate, his programs have actually increased the predicted 10 year debt by about $6.5 trillion dollars (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123871911466984927.html ) ... a whopping $8.5 trillion dollar mistake or lie.

Why is this so hard for you folks to understand? Even a fourth grader should be able to read and understand the CBO report I linked, and see the dishonesty or incompetence in what Obama claimed in his health-care press conference speech in that regard.

And then add in the fact that his administration has had to admit they underestimated the 10 year debt by $2 trillion, and you really do have to wonder about the overall competency of this administration where fiscal matters are concerned ... or their honesty.

Then I pointed out in that same post that the CBO has revised it's estimate of the projected 10 year deficit upward (from $9.3 trillion to $12 trillion), making the new White House estimate of the debt still way to low. And pointed out that the CBO director stated "about half of that revision is attributable to legislation enacted since march". Again, there is not a hint of complaint from me about CBO's estimates or the CBO being in collusion with the White House. Not one reference to the CBO being a "political entity". So where did you get that perception? From reading joobz's post on that thread, rather than mine?

As I said to Juniversal in that thread, "Really ... I don't see why this is so difficult for you to comprehend. I spelled it out clearly ... in black and white ... with links to the original sources ... in posts #8 and #22 (BAC - of the thread you linked, tyr) . Now unless I'm to conclude you (BAC - tyr) are as incompetent as Obama, I can only conclude you are deliberately trying to obfuscate this issue."

We get it, you hate Obama

I dislike liars. I dislike communists. And I dislike folks who willingly allow themselves to be taken in by liars and communists.

 

[Lurker]

I called Obama a liar in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135124 because at the time he made the claim, on February 5th, that "all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression", numerous indicators (unemployment rate, inflation rate, the delta in real GDP, the delta in industrial production, the 30 year mortgage rate, and the "misery index") actually were far less severe than during the recession in the early 1980's. And you didn't contest any of those figures in that thread, joobz. And haven't since.

Um, you are forgetting the federal interest rate. Big difference between the 80's and today. What is the #1 way for the govt to fight a recession - lower interest rates. This happened under Reagan but cannot today because interest rates are essentially ZERO. Thus, the prime weapon against a recession has been taken out of Obama's arsenal.

Do you contest that, BAC?

 

[BeAChooser]

Although one of *them* thinks he has.

So, fishbob, do YOU think Obama was accurate in his SOTU address when he claimed he inherited an $8 trillion 10 year projected cumulative deficit? If so, show us your source for that belief?

Do YOU think Obama was accurate when he claimed the Supreme Court decision "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."? If so, show us your source for that belief?

Do you think Obama was accurate when he claimed his stimulus has saved 2 million jobs? If so, show us your source for that belief?

Do you think the fee Obama proposed for the banks is not a tax … a tax that will find it's way back to the American people? Do you think Obama was honest in presenting that *fee* as just a repayment for America bailing them out of financial difficulties … when in fact most of the banks that *fee* would be levied against did not accept (or need) any help from the government?

Do you think that the $163,000 in future taxes (each) that Obama's debt increases imply don't count, when Obama makes the claim that he hasn't raised income taxes on a single person a single dime? Or isn't that just him being plain dishonest to the American public?

Do you really think that Obama gets it, when it comes to Massachusetts and the War on Terror? Or are you deluding yourself as much as joobz, tyr_13 and the others? Let me guess … you voted for Obama.

 

[joobz]

LOL! What is it with you, joobz and Obama (and many of the other liberals who posted in the thread you linked)? Do you all have the same problem with reading comprehension? Or is dishonesty just second nature to each of you?

Physician, Heal Thyself!

In particular, unemployment, which seems to be the parameter of most concern, was at the time far less than the peak (over 10%) that occurred in the 80's recession. In fact, I linked you a February 27th issue of the leftist New York Times that supported my assertion. It stated (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/business/economy/28recession.html?_r=1) "Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent". So I hate to bust your balloon (AGAIN), but Obama clearly lied. And you'd have to be SOS not to see it.

Why not give a full quote to that article???

"Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent, though many experts assert this downturn is on track to be significantly worse."

They were right, as was Obama.

And you were wrong. As you tend to be...

Since I just proved you to be a quote miner, who is completely divorced from reality, I don't really need to go any farther.

Invoking Dr. Adequate:
I know you are lying. You know you are lying. I know that you know that you are lying. What I don't know is why you Lie when I know that you know that you are lying. Why are you lying?


ETA:
I understand now!

I dislike liars.

It's self-loathing.

 

[Snide]

I called Obama a liar in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135124 because at the time he made the claim, on February 5th, that "all of the indicators show that we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression", numerous indicators (unemployment rate, inflation rate, the delta in real GDP, the delta in industrial production, the 30 year mortgage rate, and the "misery index") actually were far less severe than during the recession in the early 1980's. And you didn't contest any of those figures in that thread, joobz. And haven't since.

No, you called him a liar in that thread for saying this:

PRESIDENT Obama, writing in The Washington Post, said, "By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression."

You got the quote right in that thread, and when someone called you on the fact that what he said is a judgment call, you tried to spin it away.

 

[Drysdale]

No, you called him a liar in that thread for saying this: You got the quote right in that thread, and when someone called you on the fact that what he said is a judgment call, you tried to spin it away.

Judgement call? How is that a judgement call?

You dont get much more empahatic than that.

 

[BeAChooser]

Um, you are forgetting the federal interest rate. Big difference between the 80's and today. What is the #1 way for the govt to fight a recession - lower interest rates. This happened under Reagan but cannot today because interest rates are essentially ZERO. Thus, the prime weapon against a recession has been taken out of Obama's arsenal.

Do you contest that, BAC?

LOL! If this isn't yet another attempt to derail this thread from the topic in the OP, what does what you claim have to do with Obama's claim back in February that the recession was the worst since the Great Depression? If you think Obama said that we are in a deep recession because interests rates are low, prove it. If low interest rates factored into his decision to label this in January and February of last year the worst recession since the Great Depression, why didn't he mention that point any of the times he made his claim? Can you post a speech where he did? Can you post anything that shows the reason Obama claimed he inherited $8 trillion in projected debt is related to a low interest rate? Hmmmmmmmm?

 

[BeAChooser]

So Snide, do you think Obama inherited an $8 trillion 10 year projected debt increase? Can you supply a source for this belief ... other that Obama's SOTU claim? Or are you going to duck this question ... like almost all the others? (I'll give joobz credit for at least honestly answering the question, even if it does show how much koolaid he's swallowed.)

 

[joobz]

So Snide, do you think Obama inherited an $8 trillion 10 year projected debt increase? Can you supply a source for this belief ... other that Obama's SOTU claim? Or are you going to duck this question ... like almost all the others? (I'll give joobz credit for at least honestly answering the question, even if it does show how much koolaid he's swallowed.)

Maybe we both drank the Koolaide, because I don't remember answering the question and I can't seem to find the post where you read that I did.


But, I my not answering the questions was because of my lack of desire to answer questions from one who ignores reality. But, I'll be generous and answer the question now.


He based his arguments from a most exaggerated evaluation of the budget projection spectrum. Considering the voodoo involved in such projections, it is far from a lie. One can evaluate the methodology (And people have), but to claim the projection is a lie is simply political punditry.

1.) He was right that in 2000, we had a budget surplus.
2.) He was right that he started in the white house with a 1 year deficit of 1 trillion dollars:

By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion...

The problem is that he claimed a $8 trillion dollar deficit.
Factcheck.org has a very nice analysis on this issue:
http://factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/

He said he inherited a projected 10-year deficit of $8 trillion. But at the time, CBO projected only a $3.1 trillion deficit over 10 years (Table 4, page 15).
In fairness, that CBO figure assumed that all of President Bush’s tax cuts would be allowed to expire on schedule. And in reality, Obama and congressional Democrats supported extending many of the cuts, while Republicans supported extending all of them. Extending all of the Bush tax cuts would add another $2.9 trillion to that (Table 7, page 22), for a total of $6 trillion — still short of Obama’s claim.
His figure is based on a "baseline" projection issued Feb. 20 by his own Office of Management and Budget (Table S-2, page 115). The OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $8.9 trillion, including the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama had just signed.
So it’s fair to say that Obama was facing an ocean of red ink when he took office, but it could have been anywhere between $3.1 trillion (CBO’s unrealistically low estimate) to a bit over $8 trillion (OMB’s estimate minus Obama’s stimulus bill).

In other words, No Obama didn't lie about the deficit. Coupled with the fact that he had accurately stated (if anything, understated) the severity of the recession in 2000, It is clear that his understanding of the economy is superior to your's.

 

[Lurker]

LOL! If this isn't yet another attempt to derail this thread from the topic in the OP, what does what you claim have to do with Obama's claim back in February that the recession was the worst since the Great Depression?

Well, since a recession is defined by GDP contraction you seem to be "derailing" by bringing in all the other definitions such as unemployment, inflation and whatnot.

So clearly you are agreeing that when gauging the severity of a recession that one must take into account other factors besides the strict definition of a recession - GDP contraction. I decided that a major factor of the severity of a recession, beyond what you had already mentioned, was the availability of the commonly accepted antidote. If you disagree with me that is all right, I just thought it an important distinction when comparing recessions.

I don't need Obama to explicitly define this. I am fairly confident that he has economic advisors that are up to the task far better than you or I.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So Snide, do you think Obama inherited an $8 trillion 10 year projected debt increase? Can you supply a source for this belief ... other that Obama's SOTU claim? Or are you going to duck this question ... like almost all the others? (I'll give joobz credit for at least honestly answering the question, even if it does show how much koolaid he's swallowed.)

Maybe we both drank the Koolaide, because I don't remember answering the question and I can't seem to find the post where you read that I did.

I apologize. That was leftyseargeant who answered the question (post #37). I guess I gave you more credit than you deserved.

Factcheck.org has a very nice analysis on this issue:
http://factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/

Quote:
He said he inherited a projected 10-year deficit of $8 trillion. But at the time, CBO projected only a $3.1 trillion deficit over 10 years (Table 4, page 15).

Thanks, you just confirmed what I previously noted and proved my point once again. Obama got this wrong. He lied.

In fairness, that CBO figure assumed that all of President Bush’s tax cuts would be allowed to expire on schedule.

Well, wasn't that the law at the time Obama took office? Wouldn't that then be the projected deficit that Obama inherited, not one where Obama's administration and the democrats in Congress would elect to extend those tax cuts? It is dishonest for Obama (and FactCheck … which, by the way, tends to lean left) to blame Bush for extensions of the tax cuts that would be signed into law well after Bush left office … by Obama. It's nothing less than dishonest spinning to try and excuse Obama's clear LIES.

So it’s fair to say that Obama was facing an ocean of red ink when he took office, but it could have been anywhere between $3.1 trillion (CBO’s unrealistically low estimate) to a bit over $8 trillion (OMB’s estimate minus Obama’s stimulus bill).

This is what I mean about FactCheck being a dishonest leftist mouthpiece. They have totally misrepresent the facts in this statement in order to spin an excuse for Obama. The CBO's analysis in January 2009, predicting a $3.1 trillion 10 year cumulative deficit, was under then current laws (i.e., laws that Bush enacted). It wasn't an "unrealistically low estimate", but just an estimate under the laws and future spending programs that were in place at that time. In March 2009, when the Whitehouse's OMB finally predicted a $7.1 trillion 10 year cumulative deficit, the OMB was accounting for the effect of legislation enacted after Obama took office (not the same groundrules as the CBO's $3.1 trillion estimate). In other words, Factcheck is dishonestly comparing apples to oranges. The CBO in March, using the same OBM starting point, estimated the cumulative deficit would be $9.3 trillion (including Obama's stimulus). At that time they also revised the estimate of what the deficit would have increased to under the laws in effect when Obama first took office. They said $4.4 trillion, a far cry from the $9.3 trillion Obama originally claimed and the $8 trillion he now claims. Then, later the OMB revised it's estimate of the 10 year deficit upwards to $9 trillion dollars ($8 trillion plus the stimulus) while the CBO revised their comparable estimate even higher than $9.3 trillion (upwards of $12 trillion). None of these facts explain why Obama claimed he inherited an $8 trillion or a $9.3 trillion dollar 10 year projected deficit. Because he didn't. He either has entirely misunderstood what the CBO and OBM have been telling him ... or he lied. I think he lied because he is, after all, a Haaaavard grad.

In other words, No Obama didn't lie about the deficit.

No. Factcheck is biased and you are so gullible you believe them.

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't need Obama to explicitly define this. I am fairly confident that he has economic advisors that are up to the task far better than you or I.

LOL! Again, can you post ANYTHING that shows the reason Obama claimed he inherited $8 trillion in projected debt is related to a low interest rate? Thought not.

 

[joobz]

Thanks, you just confirmed what I previously noted and proved my point once again. Obama got this wrong. He lied.

Just so that I understand, You mean lie, as is lie? Right?

Like how you lied about Obama supposedly lying about the recession? Or are you using some new definition of Lie, which means "you really hate Obama because he's smarter than you?"

Well, wasn't that the law at the time Obama took office? Wouldn't that then be the projected deficit that Obama inherited, not one where Obama's administration and the democrats in Congress would elect to extend those tax cuts?

It was Bush's Policy and goal to make those cuts Permanent. If you really mean to say that the cuts were nothing more than political theater to gain temporary advantage and shovel off the burden on the next guy, well....

It is dishonest for Obama (and FactCheck … which, by the way, tends to lean left) to blame Bush for extensions of the tax cuts that would be signed into law well after Bush left office … by Obama.

I know. truth has a liberal bias.

This is what I mean about FactCheck being a dishonest leftist mouthpiece. They have totally misrepresent the facts in this statement in order to spin an excuse for Obama. The CBO's analysis in January 2009, predicting a $3.1 trillion 10 year cumulative deficit, was under then current laws (i.e., laws that Bush enacted). It wasn't an "unrealistically low estimate", but just an estimate under the laws and future spending programs that were in place at that time.

It's funny how you are a "letter of the law" kind of guy, but when it comes to matters of constitutionality(e.g., torture) you tend to be a little more flexible.
I wonder whose biased.

Factcheck is biased and you are so gullible you believe them.

Biased towards reality.

 

[BeAChooser]

Your almost becoming as easy to ignore as lefty.

 

[Snide]

Judgement call? How is that a judgement call?

You dont get much more empahatic than that.

You misunderstand. Judgment as to what is a crisis (the word Obama actually used) v. recession.

 

[Snide]

So Snide, do you think Obama inherited an $8 trillion 10 year projected debt increase? Can you supply a source for this belief ... other that Obama's SOTU claim? Or are you going to duck this question ... like almost all the others? (I'll give joobz credit for at least honestly answering the question, even if it does show how much koolaid he's swallowed.)

I see you went straight to that instead of addressing the correction I posted. For that, you deserve no response (yet).

 

[joobz]

Your almost becoming as easy to ignore as lefty.

I've given an honest reply to your question and included facts to support it. If you believe that is ignorable, than I think it speaks more about your politics than it does about me.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/riedl-obama-misdiagnoses-source-of-deficits/

During his State of the Union Address, the president asserted: "At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription-drug program."

In other words, it's President George W. Bush's fault.

This can't be true. Mr. Bush implemented the three policies mentioned by Mr. Obama in the early 2000s. Yet by 2007 — the last year before the recession — the budget deficit stood at only $161 billion. So how could those policies cause trillion-dollar deficits from 2009 through 2020?

Veeerrrrrry Good Question.

 

[joobz]

Veeerrrrrry Good Question.

Actually, it's a rather stupid question.
The real answer is because "The recession hit". Such is the case with budget predictions and all.



eta: and lets not forget the lapsing tax cuts that bush worked in....

 

[Darth Rotor]

Um, you are forgetting the federal interest rate. Big difference between the 80's and today. What is the #1 way for the govt to fight a recession - lower interest rates. This happened under Reagan but cannot today because interest rates are essentially ZERO. Thus, the prime weapon against a recession has been taken out of Obama's arsenal.

Do you contest that, BAC?

Ding! Something the Federal Reserve (and IMO Bush, with his "war on a credit card" fiscal policy) seems to have forgotten for about a decade.

DR