I don’t know how Orly Taitz passed the citizenship test, much less the bar exam, given her complete ignorance of the Constitution. Yesterday Taitz wrote:
Obama was running deficit that is 3 times higher than the deficit that was incurred by Bush.
What’s wrong with this picture? Whether the number is right or wrong (I didn’t look it up), all federal spending is authorized by Congress. The President signs spending bills, but he doesn’t write them (he doesn’t write the ones that get passed).
Taitz goes on to say:
So in spite of additional 650 billion that he took from us in taxes this year, he managed to incur the same 1.2 trillion debt in 2013.
In fact, all revenue bills must begin in the House of Representatives, currently controlled by the Republican Party.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
— US Constitution, Article I, Section 7.
The lack of factual content makes the Orly Taitz blog less than worthless.
As usual, Taitz doesn’t get anything right. As of last month, the deficit for FY 2013 was at $750B for the first 11 months of the fiscal year and was projected to decrease in the last month of the FY. Of course, she also makes the common mistake of attributing all of the 2009 fiscal budget and deficit (the year deficits tripled) to Obama when it was actually passed under the outgoing Bush administration in 2008. Obama was responsible for maybe 10% of FY 2009 spending. The calamity that caused tax receipts to fall off the cliff happened entirely under Bush’s watch.
She also doesn’t know how to count. Also I noticed in previous posts she can’t tell the difference between a deficit and the debt. According to the CBO the current deficit is around 642 billion. For FY 2009 the deficit was around 1.4 trillion dollars so no it wasn’t “triple bush’s”
First of all, the deficit for FY 2013 last I saw was estimated to come in at roughly 800 billion. Budget deficits for FYs 2010-2012 were $1.3 trillion, $1.3 trillion and $1.1 trillion, respectively, But how about that record FY 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion?
A few facts that few people know:
1. The fiscal year starts on Oct. 1. So FY 2009 started Oct. 1, 2008. Who was president on that date? Fellow named George W. Bush, who proposed a budget with a $400 billion deficit. So did incoming President Barack Obama come in and monkey with the budget to add a trillion to the red ink?
Hardly.
Mr. Bush himself signed the TARP law to rescue $800 billion of troubled assets in Oct. 2008. This appears to be a very successful venture, with almost all of the outlay recouped. I believe lthat less than $600 billioin was actually put into TARP.
In early January 2009, a couple of weeks before Mr. Obama took office, the nonpartisan (as it’s always identified) Congressional Budget Office was already projecting a $1.2 trillion deficit for FY 2009, before the president-to-be had taken any action to affect that budget.
It’s true that Mr. Obama within a month of taking office signed into law a stimulus bill to spend $500 billioin and target $300 billioin (approximate figures) in tax breaks.
What is not true, but what many ideologues on the right try to make people believe, is that the bill blew an $800 billion hole in the budget.
Not even close.
The stimulus bill created a multiyear program. As it became law five months into the fiscal year. it was in effect only a bit more than half FY 2009. Because many of the projects to be funded were public works, which require planning, preparing bid specifications, taking bids and awarding contracts, and finally starting work, the stimulus bill actually had less than half a fiscal year to work its magic for that particular span of time. (facetious)
According (again) to the Congressional Budget Office (non partisan, remember) the actual contribution of the stimulus package to the FY 2009 deficit was $185 billion. Coincidentally, the budget ended up about $200 billion higher than the CBO projected in early January 2009, so here looks to be Mr. Obama’s contribution to the budget.
Actually, the factor that contributed most to FY 2009’s exploding deficit was a $600 billion shortfall in revenues, compared to projections. This, some will recall, was at the nadir of the Great Recession.
So lets do some math:
Obama’s contribution to the FY 2009 budget deficit: $200 billion.
FY 2010: $1.3 trillion deficit. He was president the whole year, so this was his baby.
FY 2011: $1.3 trillion budget deficit. All his own.
FY 2012: $1.1 trillion budget deficit. Also his own.
FY 2013: $800 billioin budget deficit. Ditto the above remarks.
Grand total: $4.7 trillion. A huge sum, certainly. But not as bad as some, such as Speaker Boehner assert. (I saw a newspaper photo of Mr. Boehner touting a placard that says Mr. Obama’s contribution to the public debt is $6 trillion “and counting.”
Evidence would show that even if she ever did read it, she’d never be able to understand it.
Her goal is not to share information, have a conversation, or make logical arguments that will win over converts.
Her punditry is like her Birtherism — nothing but a continual flow of silly smears.
/quote
Can you believe there are U.S. senators who are openly touting that they’ll oppose raising the debt limit? Can you believe that they would play politics with this, and so recklessly disregard the consequences of hitting the debt ceiling? Don’t they care about the economy? Don’t they care about the dire ramifications for the entire global economy?
Get a load of this rhetoric:
We must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.
Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grand- children. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.
That Tea Party extremist is… is… wait, wait, that’s then-Senator Barack Obama, back in 2006.
Back then, raising the debt ceiling passed 52 to 48, with ALL Democrats voting against.
/unquote
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/360532/senator-announces-opposition-raising-debt-ceiling-jim-geraghty?utm_medium=App.net&utm_source=PourOver
(no trolling intended, but sometimes you can find an acorn even at NR)
Yes that’s true but the big difference is that’s as far as it went. It was a symbolic vote (backed up by some foolish rhetoric) but with no threat or effort to really stop the increase.
Today the situation is much different with a minority of the minority essentially holding the process hostage to its demands for changes they cannot secure through the normal legislative process.
The difference is that the vote in 2006 was symbolic, because there was no chance that the debt ceiling would not be raised. The Democrats were objecting to the fact that Bush was playing games with the budget (e.g., not including the costs of the Iraq War) and was signing into law unfunded programs such as the Social Security drug benefit.
Now the Republicans are seriously considering allowing the U.S. to default on its debt.
Surely you can appreciate the false equivalence.
Carl, I know that. It’s a little funny though how your foolish rhetoric or acts come and bite you in your ass some years later. Can happen even to a man like BHO.
And with “foolish” I do not mean the things he says about our children and grand-children. He is right there. And BHO – now that he is POTUS – is committed to reduce our children’s burden. Still it was wrong how he spoke and voted.
But irrelevant to the situation today. That’s the problem with all of these silly efforts to deflect attention from the problem at hand.
Carl, I don’t want to drag this out. But it surely is not completely irrelevant that BHO as a Senator followed the party line and voted against the increase of the DC and now tells everybody – and he is right there – that Congress and Senate are obliged to vote for the increase. You know, goose and gander …..
I appreciate you bringing this up. I dimly remember the debt ceiling debate from 2006, and I had no idea who Barack Obama was, but I do remember I supported what the Democrats were doing because I was opposed to Bush, against the war in Iraq, and appalled by what had happened there since the 2003 invasion. I felt that the Democrats opposition to raising the debt ceiling was a stand against Bush and his policies, and I imagine the way I felt about things back in 2006 is similar to the way some people feel about Obama and the ACA in 2013.
In the context of what is on the line today (as opposed to 2006) it is completely irrelevant….with or without the rhetoric.
Here’s a good piece from The Daily Beast that provides some perspective:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/07/here-are-three-debt-ceiling-lies-you-ll-hear-from-the-gop-this-week.html
I liked very much BHO’s answer to the “inhaling question”. It showed intellectual honesty. If asked about his vote on the DC the only answer can be “it was a mistake” and then it would be really irrelevant.
False equivalent. As has others have mentioned, it was purely a symbolic vote. There wasn’t even an attempt to use it as “leverage.” Did the Dems may any demands of the President? Nope, not a one. Did they even threaten to filibuster the vote, which they could have very successfully? Nope, not even an attempt. This is only the second time in our nation’s history that there has been an attempt to hold the nation’s (and world’s) economy hostage if one party’s ransom demands aren’t met. We all remember the first time as it happened just a couple of years ago, and President Obama made the mistake of negotiating with Republicans holding the nation hostage.
So no, it’s not the same
No, this isn’t just Washington grid lock
No, both sides don’t need to just come together and each compromise
No, both sides aren’t to blame
No, both sides aren’t being unreasonable
Wow, didn’t realize the President personally “takes” taxes from us. I must keep missing him?
“That was just an example of a new senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country,” Obama said. “And I’m the first one to acknowledge it.”
See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-says-his-senate-vote-against-debt-ceiling-was-mistake#sthash.Unhw9Vbu.dpuf
Obama “thinks it was a mistake,” presidential spokesman Jay Carney told reporters. “He realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration’s policies, you can play around with.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42538740/ns/politics-white_house/t/white-house-president-regrets-vote-against-raising-debt-limit/
I am very proud that President Obama followed my advice.
Yes, he is an intellectual honest person (and otherwise as well, as far as I can see).
JD ReedJD Reed: So lets do some math:
Republican Leaders Voted for Debt Drivers They Blame on Obama
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html
While it is beyond question that Orly Taitz knows very little about American law and civics and the Constitution, her characterization of the federal deficit and debt being primarily caused by the President is pretty common. I don’t think I have ever thought of the decreasing deficits in the 1990s as being the achievement of Newt Gingrich or Denny Hastert. I think of them as Clinton’s economic success.
Attributing the TARP-related debt to Obama is dishonest, but I don’t think that attributing the rest of the debt accumulated during Obama’s presidency to the President is necessarily dishonest.
How about disingenuous?
Presidents aren’t responsible for the decisions that determine how much money the government takes in or spends. All that happens down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
To the extent that the bully pulpit gives them leverage they are involved in the process, especially when it comes to big programs like the New Deal, The Great Society and The Affordable Care Act. Dealing with a Congress controlled by his (someday hers) party helps but often not as much as he’d like.
That photograph of Senator Cruz is remarkable, from the way the photographer framed Cruz’s head to create a perfect halo, to the sardonic Mike Lee lurking in the background, to the look of disingenuous empathy oozing from Cruz’s face – hand on heart, of course.
And oh, my heart, my beating heart, is that a PRINCETON ring I see on his right hand? I might have missed it if he hadn’t waved it at the camera. With this guy in charge, what could possibly go wrong?
Since it is applicable, I shall repeat a comment I made at FB.
“It is obvious that she has no idea what she is saying nor does she actually remember what she said. She is babbling just to babble. What she says is unimportant, even to her. Her one and only point…. LOOK AT ME!!!”
Also, that $650 billion in taxes that she claims Obama “took from us”? Aside from the fact that it was Congress that passed the tax hike, that $650 billion figure represents new tax revenues over 10 years. Moreover, the tax hike affects only the most wealthy — those with taxable incomes over $1 million. I don’t know about you, but I am not one of the “us” that Congress is taking this from.
I got curious about how previous presidents compared to Obama on the deficit, so I looked at the numbers. Assuming that the president is only really responsible for the change in the deficit due to budgets written while they are in office and based on the Treasury Department’s figures as to total receipts and payments (including projections through the rest of President Obama’s term), it turns out that, since Jimmy Carter took office the Republicans have raised the deficit by over $1.7 trillion while the Democrats, once President Obama’s term is up, will have lowered the deficit by almost $1.3 trillion. The idea that the Republican party is the one of fiscal responsibility is ridiculous on its face.
In 2007 and 2008 the Democratic Congress voted three times to raise the debt limit. Senator Obama did not vote the first two times, and voted yes the third time. They 2006 vote was symbolic. When they actually had the power the Democrats voted to raise the limit without holding the Bush administration hostage. Big difference from now.
Here’s link to dta that provide a clearer picture of the situation since Jimmy Carter.
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
The percentage change during each Presidency tells the tale:
Carter 42.3% – 4 years
Reagan 188.6% – 8 years (Yes, three digits.)
Bush 1 55.6% – 4 years
Clinton 35.6% – 8 years
Bush 89.0% – 8 years
Obama 53.6% – 4 years thru 2012
Thanks for the additional info. I like focusing on the change in the deficit because that is what I feel the president can control. The debt that is being run up on President Obama’s watch is mainly due to the Bush tax cuts, Medicare part D, the wars, and the economic downturn, things he had no control over before he took office. My accounting also puts the stimulus on President Bush’s account, but I believe that to be fair since, prior to 1960, the only reasons that the US would run a deficit were due to wars or economic downturns and the stimulus was a very weak response to the Great Recession, historically speaking.
Also, remember that during the two W Bush Administrations the deficit was artificially understated. The cost of seven years in Iraq and Afghanistan was financed through supplemental spending that was not part of the appropriations process, thus it was kept off the books until Obama took office and announced the end of this deceptive book-cooking.
You’re welcome but I have to disagree about the President being able to control the deficit. Both income and expenditures are beyond his control and income is really beyond anyone’s control depending on how the economy is doing.
Right now the economy is picking up and so is income which is shrinking the deficit.
The truth of the matter, as you note, is that Congress did nothing to pay for the Bush tax cuts or Medicare part D.
I saw a story recently (I’ll look for it) that made the case that absent the Bush tax cuts we would have had balanced budgets for a number of years.
Yes, I have a recollection that the wars were kind of kept in another drawer at Treasury.
Bottom line is that we entered into two wars on the other side of the globe without raising taxes one dime.
There is no free lunch…..or war, as the case may be.
It wasn’t a problem to raise the debt ceiling any of the 44 times it’s been done since the Reagan administration.
Given the history of the filibuster, I think that we’re in serious trouble if the Teahaddi get any kind of victory here. Looking at the use of the filibuster since LBJ was running the Senate, all of the significant jumps seem to come when the Republicans were in the minority, however, usage continued near the new level when the Democrats became the minority. If this sort of government by terrorism becomes the new “normal” then we are well and truly screwed.
I didn’t say that the president could control the deficit, I said that he could control (to the extent that he has any control at all) the change in the deficit. In other words, you start with last year’s budget and get to decide (or at least influence) what changes are made to it. Even my metric understates the true responsibility for the costs of things like Medicare part D, the Afghanistan war, the Great Recession and ObamaCare (which will generate revenue after President Obama leaves office). If people truly understood where all of our money was going and why, I think we would be a lot better off.
It has always bugged me that because President Obama ended that practice early on in his administration the entire right wing smeared him for the so-called “biggest increase in the deficit evah”. Which, as propaganda goes, is both effective and vile.
If everyone in the country took the time to truly understand all that they wouldn’t have time to do anything else.
The whole process is byzantine and bears absolutely no resemblance to anything real people are familiar with in their personal or business finances.
As far as controlling the change, yes, that’s possible but the budget is just a great big guess. All it takes is a hurricane, little war, burp in the economy, etc., and it all goes out the window.
People can understand pictures easier than words:
National Debt Graph by President
Notice the difference in the graph in the above link “Debt as a % of GDP” and the graphs in this link: Why Are these National Debt Graphs Are Wrong?
And here’s how GW pulled the wool over America’s eyes: Did Bush “cut the deficit in half”?
Finally, since YouTube videos are unimpeachably 100% guaranteed accurate, I offer you: What They Won’t Tell You about the National Debt
The entire zFact site is brilliant. I encourage you to explore it thoroughly.
I agree that all those factors (and good ones like economic growth as well) can effect the final deficit numbers, but I wouldn’t say it all goes out the window—the budget determines how the funding of the various agencies changes from year to year (and you could include changes in revenue collection as a way to influence the deficit as well) so, assuming that the vagaries of chance more or less even out, I think the president can control the long-term trend of whether the deficit is increasing or decreasing.
Whatever the cause, it is clear that the deficit increases in years where the budget was written during a Republican administration and decreases in years when it was written during a Democratic administration.
Orly Taitz knows how to read? Who would have thought?
Will do. Thanks.
Just a slight clarification: The President doesn’t write the budget. As the saying goes in Washington: The President Proposes and Congress disposes.
Here’s a quick primer on how the process works…or is supposed to work. This is from Senator Harkins website and is dated 2005. Things have changed a bit since then but the roles haven’t:
http://www.harkin.senate.gov/press/column.cfm?i=237366
In my experience in Washington and observing Washington from the real world most Presidential budgets are pronounced DOA as they leave the printing office.
That was the point I was trying to make by referring to “the budget written during the xxx administration”. Thank you for clarifying. My statistic is factually true, but does not necessarily imply causality (although I do think that there is some causality here).