Tom Brokaw: Obama Is Going To Have To Answer For His Out-Of Control Deficit. And HOW He Is.

When even doctrinaire liberal statesmen start saying stuff like this, Obama is in trouble:

Brokaw: ‘Obama Is Going to Have to Answer For’ Exploding Budget Deficit ‘On His Watch’
By Noel Sheppard | October 14, 2012 | 13:00

Criticism of Barack Obama came from a surprising source Sunday.

Appearing on Meet the Press, former NBC Nightly News anchor  Tom Brokaw said the President “is going to have to answer for” the explosion in  the federal budget deficit that “happened on his watch” (video follows with  transcript and commentary):

[See embedded video at Newsbusters for Brokaw saying the following on video]

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: The issue of the debt, the issue of  taxes. I think it’s important to get to one of the big issues here. We have got  to in these final few weeks try to reach some resolution about this revenue  issue, whether we raise revenue to deal with the debt, because whether it’s  Medicare or whether it’s dealing with the debt level at the level that it’s at,  without agreement on both sides, we’re not going to be able to tackle some of  the more difficult issues, Tom.

TOM BROKAW: You know, I think that both campaigns have  failed to say to the American public, “This is going to be hard. This is a real  crisis in America.” You look at the IMF projections about where the global  economy is now. They’re saying you have to get your act together. We could be in  another recession next year at this time. They’ve got to level with the American  people about everyone’s going to have to give something. And there is going to  have to be some revenue raised at some point as well. I do think that the  governor is right, and we’ll expect to hear Governor Romney go after President  Obama this time about, “I want more details about your plan. You keep harping on  me. I haven’t heard the details in your plan as well.”

I looked at that  debate we that talked about a moment ago, it was playing last night on C-SPAN,  and governor [sic], now President Obama was saying, “Look, we’ve got a deficit  of half a trillion dollars. I’m going to get that under control.” Well, this  week, that deficit is $1.1 trillion and it happened on his watch. He is going to  have to answer for that.

Imagine that – Obama is going to have to answer for something.

Of course, the question is whether this is going to happen or if his media  will continue to allow him to not speak to this issue as they press Romney for  answers right through Election Day.

Stay tuned.

I’ve said it over and over and over.  All you have to do is use my blog’s search engine and type in “deficit” or “debt” to find that out.  Conservatives have been saying it.  Republicans have been saying it.  Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and the entire Romney campaign have been saying it.

But up to now, the elite media have refused to say it.  Until now.

The fact that it has been the brazen truth for four miserable years is completely beside the point, of course.

Look, the last budget under George W. Bush had a deficit of $455 billion:

Federal deficit hits record $455 billion
The shortfall for fiscal 2008 is larger than was feared. It is likely to be a key issue in the last weeks of the campaign.
October 15, 2008|Richard Simon | Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Compounding terrible economic news, budget officials announced Tuesday that the federal deficit has soared to a record $455 billion, injecting new urgency into the closing days of the presidential campaign about spending in Washington, including efforts to stem the financial disaster.

The final accounting for fiscal 2008 produced a larger shortfall than had been projected, reflecting the start of federal efforts to address the economic emergency. It is certain to become a significant issue in the campaign, confronting the candidates with new questions about their growing slate of proposals for new spending and tax cuts at a time when red ink is surging.

[...]

Democrats blamed Bush and his Republican allies in Congress for wiping out a budget surplus inherited from the Clinton administration through tax cuts that have been criticized for favoring the wealthy and through other spending.

Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, said the deficit was a “warning sign of the immense fiscal challenges just beginning to arise with the retirement of the baby boomers” and should be viewed as a call for Congress to control spending.

Now, I want you to notice that ending: Democrats demonized the other side and blamed them for everything (ignoring the fact that Democrats had controlled both the House of Representatives AND the US Senate for the previous two years, while Paul Ryan said we need to do something to fix our spending crisis or we will be in huge trouble soon.  One side focused on blame and demagoguery, the other side tried to get something done to fix the problem.

Democrats have lied and deceived about the Bush tax cut creating deficits for years, and they are dishonest.  Do you know which year produced the highest federal income tax revenue in American history, kids?  Was it in 1962 when the top marginal rate was over ninety damn percent?  No.  Was it back when we’re told that Bill Clinton paved every street in America with gold?  Nope.  It was the year 2007 thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts that encouraged people to start businesses and increase their investments.  That year, the United States raised a record $1,163,472 in individual income tax revenue and an also-record $370-plus billion in corporate income tax revenue.

That increase in tax revenues began almost IMMEDIATELY because of the Bush tax cut, for the official historic record.  Because Bush’s 2003 tax cut:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have been so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Even the New York Freaking Liberal TIMES was forced to acknowledge that the Bush tax cut had INCREASED FEDERAL TAX REVENUES:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.” The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

If you claim that the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit and blame Bush for the whopping deficit and stunning debt, you are therefore, henceforth, ergo sum and ipso facto a documented LIAR.  Because the fact is that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue and revenues have since PLUNGED because Barack Obama has spent the last four years demonizing the wealthy and threatening every single year to attack them with punitive tax rates.

By the way, I mentioned the top rate being over ninety percent in the 1960s; do you know that under Obama and his constant demagoguery of higher taxes for the rich, under Obama we’ve suffered the biggest drop in revenues SINCE the 1960s when the top marginal tax rate was over ninety percent and the wealthy were sheltering their money rather than using it to create jobs and increase investment?

Interestingly, in spite of the DotCom recession that Clinton created and handed to George Bush – which vaporized $7.1 trillion in American wealth and which annihilated 78% of the Nasdaq stock index valuation - George Bush that year produced over $160 billion more dollars in revenue than Bill Clinton EVER did in his very best year.  So how the hell is a tax cut plan that INCREASES tax revenues to blame for increasing the deficit other than the fact that being a Democrat is tantamount to being a pathologically dishonest and deranged weasel???

I have documented that every single time we have EVER cut tax rates in American history – EVERY SINGLE TIME – America has increased its federal income tax revenues.  That is what happened when Calvin Coolidge tried it; that is what happened when John F. Kennedy tried it; that is what happened when Ronald Reagan tried it; and that is what the hell happened when George W. Bush tried it.

Barack Obama is a pathologically dishonest liar.  What he did was pile up a massive, enormous load of debt and then blame it on Bush.  Let’s review that Obama spending:

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who passed the $862 billion stimulus on February 17, 2009.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who did that $79 billion bailout for Government Motors and their union Democrats in 2009.  Obama claimed the credit but stuck Bush with the bill because Obama did it in 2009.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who signed that $410 billion Omnibus bill in March of 2009.  Again, Bush’s fiscal year, therefore it must have been Bush who spent that money.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who left $350 billion in TARP money to President Damn Bush who spent it in early 2009.  Because according to actual reality Bush spent half of the $700 billion TARP fund and left the other half for Obama to spend.

It is Obama’s assertion that it was President Damn Bush who rammed that damned $2.6 trillion ObamaCare - Ooh, I’m sorry, BusheyCare bill – down our collectivist throats at the end of 2009.

Obama made some other incredibly deceitful and frankly demonic assertions in his budget math, too.  Obama asserted that the Iraq War would have gone on FOREVER unless he, the messiah, had ended it.  It didn’t matter that Bush won the Iraq War in spite of Obama’s demagoguery or that Bush negotiated the final status of forces agreement that the US followed when we pulled out our troops to “give Obama his great achievement.”  But Obama claimed that in “ending” the Iraq War on Bush’s timetable, Obama somehow saved $700 billion over Bush.  And of course Obama MASSIVELY increased the war in Afghanistan (something which Bush wisely avoided) such that more than 70% of all the American soldiers killed in Afghanistan were killed under Obama’s four years with fewer than 30% being killed over Bush’s eight years in Afghanistan.  But in Obama’s math, he inherited the war in Afghanistan and it doesn’t matter one wit if he’s the fool who massively escalated that war or not.  Bush gets the blame, regardless of what the subject is, and Obama gets the credit.

So of course by Obama’s logic Bush is somehow responsible for ALL the SPENDING of the two wars (including the nearly twelve-year-long war in Afghanistan that Obama massively escalated before cutting and losing), and Obama is responsible for all the SAVINGS from the same wars.

In any event, Obama managed to turn an actual Bush $455 billion budget deficit that Bush left him into an imaginary trillion-dollar deficit and then promised categorically that he would cut that deficit he “inherited” in half by the end of his first term.

And of course the problem is that Obama is a liar by EVEN HIS OWN INCREDIBLY DISHONEST METRICHis promise to cut the deficit in half was just one more among all the other major promises that he broke.

And now Obama is going to make a whole bunch of the same sort of promises he made before and he’ll be just as dishonest about keeping them as he was the last damn time we believed his lies.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Tom Brokaw: Obama Is Going To Have To Answer For His Out-Of Control Deficit. And HOW He Is.”

  1. Dog Walker Says:

    I hate Democrats. I have a relative who hates Republicans. Go figure. This relative, back at the turn of the century, used to work for a mortgage bank. Her job was to find or connect investors to the mortgages her company wrote, underwrote, whatever. She admits that she regularly misrepresented the character or quality of that mortgage paper. She was forced to do it though. Her bosses made her and hundreds just like her do it. In her mind those bosses were Republicans.

    In other words if she refused or declined to do something immoral or unethical she would be disconnected from the teat. Any of you guys been in that boat? I have. Guess what? I quit with a resounding [bleep] you!

    My relative was making big bucks misrepresenting that mortgage paper. Of course all “good” things must come to an end we lament.

    Guess where she is working now. … The IRS.

    These are the very people that are telling us that the economy failed because of tax cuts for the rich.

    For all of you Christians, I just had a shooter of Scotch and a 25 ounce Foster’s Ale. Guys that know me, and even you guys that don’t know me say… you probably shouldn’t be drinking.

    I been to 12 step recovery meetings. You want to know what is weird about that? There is a high preponderance of “47 percenters” in there. There are all these guys in there that are kind of like “oh, I got caught drinking and driving, eh, at work… but I got this really cool government job, and I am vested in a really cool retirement… so, you know, I can’t be fired. See, it is a disease, I can’t be held responsible for that. And well you know since I am a victim of a disease maybe I should be putting in for some disability. You know, to enhance my retirement”

    So guys, here is my discovery. The recovery movement has a political preponderance.

    hmm, This is a little too personal. Maybe I will change my name after this.

  2. Billy Karedes Says:

    Not one thing right on this page. Obama was taliking about the 2007 deficit when he said 500 million. The federal deficit was over 1 trillion before obama took office. That is fiscal 2008. I hope brokaw has the guts to correct himself. Perhaps fact checking your articles might improve your journalism. It is the deficit of george bush.

  3. Billy Karedes Says:

    CORRECTION ; i mean 500 billion at the end of fiscal year
    2007.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Billy Karedes,

    Holy crap, Billy, I provide fact after fact to support what I am saying and then you proceed to offer false assertion after assertion without bothering to try to substantiate ANY of your crap.

    It always amazes me how often you damn liberals worship your own opinions and seem to think whatever your opinion is must be true and there’s no reason to bother to offer any evidence for it.

    You begin to spout total bullcrap in your very first sentence. But it is your second sentence’s idiocy that I want to point out: you say “Obama was taliking [sic] about the 2007 deficit when he said 500 million.” Well, kudos for you for correction your million to billion. But other than that you are still completely wrong. This isn’t Obama speaking; it is TOM BROKAW who is speaking and he’s telling us that Obama has a real problem:

    I looked at that debate we that talked about a moment ago, it was playing last night on C-SPAN, and governor [sic], now President Obama was saying, “Look, we’ve got a deficit of half a trillion dollars. I’m going to get that under control.” Well, this week, that deficit is $1.1 trillion and it happened on his watch. He is going to have to answer for that.

    Tom Brokaw most definitely does NOT say that Obama is talking about 2007. You are WRONG. Tom Brokaw says that when Obama came to office, this was the state of affairs and Obama promised that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Tom Brokaw flat-out states that the deficit was “half a trillion dollars” as Obama assumed office and Obama promised to cut it when instead he damn near quadrulpled it one year. And four years later Brokaw is pointing out that Obama turned that half trillion deficit into $1.1 trillion. I’m the one who is right on understanding what Brokaw said and you are the one who is wrong.

    You are further wrong because I proceed to DOCUMENT that the deficit was $455 billion ACCORDING TO THE LIBERAL LOS ANGELES TIMES in late 2008. I quote the title of that Oct 15 article – “Federal deficit hits record $455 billion” – as well as four full paragraphs to prove what the deficit actually was as Obama was entering office. On October 15, 2008 – just a few months before Bush was GONE – the deficit was $455 billion. Not “over $1 trillion.” By the time October 15, 208 turned into January 20, 2009, Tom Brokaw is pointing out that deficit had grown from “$455 billion” to Brokaw’s “half a trillion dollars” (i.e., $500 billion).

    I furthermore document and provide links to that documentation all of the OBAMA SPENDING that Obama added in to that “Bush deficit” to make it skyrocket. Add all that 2009 Obama spending UP, you dumbass.

    You end by telling me “Perhaps fact checking your articles might improve your journalism” which is really pretty damn funny given that I have specific facts and cite those facts from major sources while you literally don’t do any fact checking of your own bullcrap. That makes you a hypocrite, and hypocrites piss me off to no end.

    It also makes you somebody who just isn’t worth bothering to have a conversation with.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    In 2008, Obama took GIANT money from your idiot liberal relative’s bosses.

    The evilest mortgage bank of all – Goldman Sachs – was Obama’s SECOND LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR. And THREE of the top ten largest Obama donors are your banks owned by your idiot liberal friend’s bosses at mortgage banks.

    When Obama came into office, his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had made MILLIONS pimping himself out for Goldman Sachs.

    So your relative’s problem is that her soul swims in a sea of lies.

    But I mean like other than that I’m sure she’s swell.

  6. FMC Says:

    Right, Michael, Obama received record campaign contributions From Wall St. To quote Charlie Gasporino, Obama was bought and paid for.

    On a side note, Limbaugh was right that Obama would win the debate as declared by the lame-stream media, regardless of whether he really won it or not. Of course, such a prediction does not take a genius.

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    FMC,

    What is amazing is that even the CNN poll shows that Romney clearly won the night:

    Still, Romney won in other key areas:
    *On who would better handle the economy: 58 percent Romney; 40 percent Obama.
    *On who would better handle health care: 49 percent Romney; 46 percent Obama
    *On taxes: 51 percent Romney; 44 percent Obama
    *On who is a stronger leader: 49 percent Romney; 46 percent Obama
    *On who is more likeable: 47 percent Obama: 41 percent Romney
    *On who cares more about your life: 44 percent Obama; 40 percent Romney
    *On who answered more directly: 45 percent Romney; 43 percent Obama

    Look, if the economy IS the number one issue as basically everybody says it is, then who are people going to vote for: Obama because he wasn’t as miserable of a jackass in his second debate or Romney for having an eighteen point lead over Obama on the economy??? I’m guessing the second one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers

%d bloggers like this: