- A lot of right-wingers claim Obama promised that unemployment would not go above 8 percent if the stimulus was passed. Eric Cantor claimed: “We were promised. The president said we would keep unemployment under 8.5 percent (if the stimulus passed).”
Here are the facts: The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan report included a graph that projected unemployment rates without the stimulus would peak at 9% and with the stimulus at just under 8%. That is not a promise; it is a projection, an estimate, a prediction. Claiming it was a promise is crazy talk. It’s like claiming the weatherman lied when he got a forecast wrong.
Read more - Lie: Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in increased revenues.
Fact: Reagan’s tax cuts resulted in decreased revenues. His tax increases resulted in increased revenues.
1981 – the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The biggest tax cuts in U.S. history.
1982 – The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. Repealed much of the tax cuts of 1981, raised unemployment taxes, doubled taxes on cigarettes, tripled taxes on telephone service.
1982 – Highway Revenue Act of 1982 increased the gas tax through 1988
1983 – Social Security Amendments of 1983. Increased Social Security taxes.
1984 – Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. Increased taxes on exports and business expenses.
1986 – Tax Reform Act (TRA) of 1986. Decreased individual taxes but increased corporate taxes.
Source - Lie: Obama’s spending has resulted in a huge budget deficit.
Fact: Obama is responsible for only a small sliver of the deficit.
The recession resulted in reduced tax revenues and increased spending on safety-net programs. The federal debt was doubled during the Bush administration and now we’re paying almost 400 billion a year just on the interest on the debt. Obama has required Congress to pay for any new programs it passes in a restoration of the “pay as you go” system.Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
About 7 percent comes from the stimulus bill that Mr. Obama signed in February. And only 3 percent comes from Mr. Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas. - Lie: Republicans tried to regulated Fannie and Freddie but the Democrats blocked legislation from passing.
Fact: In January of 2005, McCain signed on as a cosponsor to a bill (Senate Bill S-190) aimed at reforming the government’s involvement in lending. McCain addressed the Senate on May 26th, 2006 in support of this bill but Bush threatened to veto it, so it never advanced.In 2007, Barney Frank introduced the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 3915) which would regulate predatory subprime mortgages. The bill passed in the House with all 227 Democrats voting for it.127 Republicans voted against it. The Senate never voted on it and it never became law.
Common Right-Wing Lies
26 Comments to “Common Right-Wing Lies”
-
I do agree with you on the unemployment fact. It is merely a projection but it was a projection heavily used in order to sell the bill. And with the numbers passing 8% as quickly as it did and over 10% doesnt look to good for their “projection”. Thats all.
I think its very clear now that Obama has much more involvement than a small sliver of responsibility in our deficits. Have you seen the spending numbers under the bills he has pushed and passed with his progressive buddies?
And what did you say about Fannie and Freddy? You can have your own views and opinions but I like to base mine on what actually happened. Not that McCain didnt do what you say he did in 2005, but there was so much more prior and after that proves Republicans pushed hard for regulations. Dont take my word, watch it yourself from their very mouths on video here:
and
I wonder if you will actually approve this comment. God Bless! Remember, we are Americans before party members.
-
Hey Nick, thanks for dropping by! All comments are automatically approved by default. I only edit or delete comments that are disrespectful to people who post here.
[Have you seen the spending numbers under the bills he has pushed and passed with his progressive buddies?]
I have. Here are the numbers:
2008 Bush $2.90 trillion
2009 Bush $3.10 trillion
2010 Obama $3.55 trillion
2011 Obama $3.83 trillionThere are increases in spending across the board, which is bad for our deficits, but somewhat justified by the high unemployment. There are increases in spending for the wars, which is odd since we’re pulling out of Iraq this year. And of course the $400 or so billion dollars that goes towards interest on the federal debt. A lot of that money goes to other countries.
[proves Republicans pushed hard for regulations. Dont take my word, watch it yourself from their very mouths on video here:]
They didn’t push hard for anything. They never even got a bill out of committee. When the Democrats gained control of congress in 2007, they at least got a bill through the House, although the Senate defeated it.
Right-wingers like to blame Fannie and Freddy for the collapse of the banking sector, but from everything I’ve read, the real blame goes back to the repeal of Glass-Steagall as part of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Glass-Steagall was put in place during the Great Depression to prevent banks from engaging in reckless investing, among other things.
-
-
Ben, you threw out there the “proposed budget” reguests by both Bush and Obama since 2008, but the actual spending is different. And yes, each year there are more and more demands on us to do more and an increase in budget is common every year. But to really evaluate how a Congress and President does every year, we have to compare it to GDP and deficit / surplus numbers. Clinton did an amazing job and though I disagree with many of his views, he was able to keep the books balanced. Bush did spin it to a deficit and there are things he did I disagree with as well. But compared to what the Democrats have done since taking Congress in 2006 and what Obama has pushed since becoming President (not to mention what he did as a Senator) the numbers under Bush were nothing. Yes, I know you like to put the Stimulus numbers under Bush which is the strangest thing I have ever heard, but the actual legislation passed under each congress and president dont lie and the deficit numbers speak for themselves. I cant debate facts with you.
By 2007, the Democrats had to finally do something an put regulations into place. Ofcourse this would be a Presidential campaign year as well that gives them more incentive to do so. Dont you get it? Do you really not see the games played with our interests? It is not about representing us (in a limited role as our Constitution defines) but it is about representing special interest needs and their quest for more power and control? Do you really think Government is the ANSWER to our problems? I think they are the PROBLEM! Both parties have been!
So you can bounce blame off of the democrats as hard as you want, but what they passed and added to legislation (like the Community Reinvestment Act) in 1999 in order for them to give support to the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and then defended for years is a huge factor in why we have an economic crisis on our hands.
-
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed way back in 1977. I don’t think it took 30 years for it to finally destroy our economy.
Our economic crisis was due, to a great extent, to deregulation of the late 90s, including the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which led to reckless investing by all lenders including Fannie and Freddie. They became high-stakes gamblers and were playing with the house money since the taxpayers had to bail them out.
You can also throw in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which allowed oil to be traded by speculators who drove the prices up. High fuel prices caused inflation, hurt profits, and caused a lot of small businesses to go under.
When it was obvious that a crisis was looming, Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and Chairman Arthur Levitt — all Ayn Rand disciples — refused to take any action. They believed the economy was self-regulating. Greenspan later testified in front of Congress that his world view was wrong.
Then there were all the house flippers who drove up the price of houses. I’m not sure what deregulation allowed that to happen, but it definitely played a role.
There were also super low interest rates to encourage bank lending and little to no background checks for credit that helped fuel the crisis. And remember Bush’s push for an “ownership society” where people shouldn’t have to start off in a little house?
And of course, poor oversight by the SEC to catch things like Bernie Madoff’s giant ponzi scheme.
There may be some things I’m leaving out, but it comes down to deregulation and poor enforcement of existing regulation. Clinton was indeed partly to blame since he signed the deregulation, but it was Republican legislation. Deregulation is at the core of the GOP ideology.
-
The Community Reinvestment Act was first introduced in 1977, yes, you are correct. But it was reintroduced and used as voting leverage by the Dems in order for their support of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. Look it up! When you look it up, you will see what the original intent of the FSMA Act was and it had nothing to do with allowing the lenders to make these nightmare loans to folks who couldnt come close to affording them. Doesnt excuse the GOP voters who still ended up voting for this bill, but it is important to understand the truth. The Dems pushed the CRA Act in 1977 under Carter and brought it back under Clinton successfuly. This act itself is what allowed for all those bad loands. Makes sense then why they fought so hard to protect it and defend these bad loans as you saw in the video links I posted already here.
And please understand that the FSMA Act only repealed a part of Glass-Steagall, not all of it. Only the part that would allow the mergers, not any actual practices. Again, only the CRA Act did that.
I do agre with you on the gasoline price point and the CFMA of 2000. I dont agree on regulating everything out of the gate, but in last resort situations like this one, some forms of regulations would have made things a little easier.
Greenspan and other made those comments prior to and just as the markets began to come down. They did not see how the CFMA of 2000 would play its part in damaging our economy.
That is the first I heard someone accuse home flippers of driving up rates. Not arguing it here, just wanting to hear how.
Yes, the interest rates were put in place to give these recent home buyers a fighting chance to keep up with their mortgages that they should have never been allowed to have to begin with. But I still had some issues with how they kept playing with the interest rate. Was not a fan of that at all.
Deregulation is not at the core of GOP ideology. The party only wants to regulate as a last resort. They want to give the people a chance to fix what needs fixed first and only in the 11th hour should there be some forms of regulation. Again, like with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The GOP believes in the people, individual rights and freedoms, equality for everyone, small and responsible government (which they have lost their way on recently) and understand their limited role as our Constitution states. They believe that they are hear to serve the people and not the other way around. They believe in far tax rates that still force larger income earners to pay more in actual dollars but like to keep a more balanced and fair percentage or rate. 25% of 40k is much smaller than 25% of 400k but it would be fair and keep incentives in place to be more successful without being punished by tax rate hikes like the Dems love to do. How else will they pay for their super large government?
-
[The GOP believes in the people, individual rights and freedoms, equality for everyone, small and responsible government (which they have lost their way on recently) and understand their limited role as our Constitution states. They believe that they are hear to serve the people and not the other way around.]
Looking at their policies, it seems that the GOP is here to serve corporate interests above those of the people.
-
-
Until we address the major disconnect between what the parties claim to represent, and what they in fact DO- we won’t get anywhere.
Too many programs are designed to fail, to funnel public monies to waste and abuse, and of course to benefit the ever first-in-line: corporations who parasitize the rest of us.
Both parties bought into Globalism which destroyed our economy, Militarism which destroyed our humanity, and Greed which destroyed our ability to protest with a straight face.
-
[Both parties bought into Globalism which destroyed our economy]
That’s exactly right. NAFTA was Clinton’s screwup, and he signed deregulation that helped destroy our economy. What we need are some real progressives rather than conservative-lite.
-
-
-
It’s worthwhile looking up the definition of Neo-Liberalism, a term the world uses regularly but that hasn’t caught on much in the US.
Neo-Liberals are Globalists, include both Clintons, and if you’re not part of the Elite- they don’t want to know you.
-
Do you think George Bush or John Mccain want to know you? Seriously? The definetion of NeoLiberalism, is literally “New” (Neo) “Liberalism” (Liberalism).
Stop throwing suffixes on words and touting them around claiming they are evidence of some conspiracy by progressives to stifle the rights of Americans.
NAFTA did hurt the economy, but had to be done, and I’ll tell you why. The four fastest growing economies in the world right now are Brazil, India, Russia, and China. Together they form a tradegroup called BRIC (pronouced BRICK),in which they collaborate between each other in the interest of their economies.
In Ten years their combined financial power will be greater than that of the United States.
So, NAFTA adds The US, Mexico and Canada together in a trade group similiar to BRIC. True, the Candian and Mexican economies arent as powerful as ours, but both these countries are RICH in natural resources. Mexico has oil and Canada has wood, minerals, coal, etc. Natural resources equals MONEY which equals larger sustained economy. NAFTA will pay off in the future.
Its 2010, not 1990, Globalism is coming on, rather we want it to or not. It’s just that time in our history.
Do you think the Catholic church didn’t try to stop the Renisance at the dawn of the age of enlightenment?
Change displaces power, and we are in a time of great change, not just in our society, but in the societies of the world. Right now the power of the hard core conservatives is dimished, and they are squeeming and scheming, and spending HUGE amounts of taxpayer dollars to get back into power and assert their will over society. Power is poison, especially to the great men who seek it.
-
I didn’t mean to imply that Globalists are limited to the Democratic Party. In fact Globalists own both parties.
And if you think the Feudal Oligarchy is the future, more peon you.
-
-
-
[[They (Republicans) believe that they are hear to serve the people and not the other way around. ___Nick Wukosan]]
From EVERYTHING I have ever seen or heard form the Republicans in Washington, the exact opposite seems to be the case. They exist to serve first the interests of the wealthy elites and corporatists who pay to have them elected, while placing the needs and desires of *the People* far down their list of priorities.
[[They (Republicans) believe in far tax rates that still force larger income earners to pay more in actual dollars but like to keep a more balanced and fair percentage or rate. 25% of 40k is much smaller than 25% of 400k but it would be fair and keep incentives in place to be more successful without being punished by tax rate hikes like the Dems love to do. How else will they pay for their super large government?]]
Sir, the fact that you would, in the course of steadfastly defending any and all Republican policies, try to insinuate that it is the Democrats who are the purveyors of and lovers of **big Government** tells me that you are either seriously misinformed, or delusional.
Certainly, both political Parties are guilty of massive overspending, but to imply that it is only the Democrats –and not the Republicans– who have spawned *big government* is asinine in the extreme.
Just ten years ago in 2001, we saw what was then the creation of the most massive govenent ever known on this planet.
It was the Republican Bush Administration who brought into being the biggest government in the 200+ year history of this nation………the SAME administration that set into motion the events that have led to what we are now in the midst of; the serious (economic) decline and near downfall of this country.
-
“which led to reckless investing by all lenders including Fannie and Freddie”
No the fact that the GSE’s were operating on the government dime and were buying up the securitized mortgages, and directed to do so, caused the problem. Glass-Steagall had little or nothing to do with it. The GSE’s had the implicit (and as it turned out De Facto) guarantee that they would be bailed out. The problem with the ‘Glass-Steagall’ theory is no one can explain why that had any effect.
The GSE’s were buying up all the debt. If they had NOT, the banks would have had to find a real market buyer. That would have impeded the bubble right there, because people aren’t stupid. But they CAN ‘safely’ invest in GSE’s because there’s no risk. The GSE’s caused the bubble proximally. The fed caused it generally which is *exactly* what Paul Krugman called for btw. CRA did have a negative impact, and will continue to do so, but it’s minor. (It still needs to die)
Generally when looking at spending you need to look at who controls congress. Not that the president can’t veto legislation, unfortunately they rarely do.
What I find odd is the Tu Quoque from progressives. Even if we ignore the fact that Bush and Reagan had to deal with opposite party congresses, they like to say “Bush spent too! Reagan Spent too!” and they are correct. But if that was bad, then why should we care what party is doing the bad? JUST STOP IT. I don’t care if your dem, gop, tea party, green, or whatever. Just stop the spending and redistribution. From the rich (entitlements) or from the poor (inflation, currency devaluation, tarrifs, subsidies), just stop it.
-
Just wanted to say excellent post. Well thought out and researched.
-
Ben, love the article. It’s an interesting take and examination of numbers. I have one comment I’d like to make.
[Both parties bought into Globalism which destroyed our economy]
Now I’m going to take globalism in the most common context of meaning an integrated society. If it was meant in any other way I apologize. How in the world can someone say globalism destroyed our economy?That is a bold claim to make without any backing. Increases in trade and finding partners who can make products for a better deal (weighing quality and price) can hardly be seen at detrimental to an entire society. If people from outside the US didn’t produce better deals, we wouldn’t buy the stuff. However, it turns out they do in some sectors. Other sectors, like technology and services are often done in the US because we can do it better.
Also, who is the government to ban or even hinder me from trading with people across border lines? The freedom to engage in commerce is a fundamental right and should rarely be limited to within borders. Beyond the statistics you didn’t provide, which could be skewed in any way a person wants, the debate comes down to freedom. Should I as an individual have the ability to trade freely with another person in Mexico or should the government FORCE me to deal only with Americans?
Finally, the idea of protectionism is a flawed concept. The most logical argument dates all the way back to Bastiat and his essay “A Petition”. Why don’t we just force people to block out the sun during the day to protect candle makers (in modern day, your green light bulb friends)? It would increase demand for the bulbs which would support the bulb makers. These bulb makers would then turn around and spend money on other stuff and there goes the multiplier… Oh wait, the multiplier is bogus and so is protectionism.
Dump Um Out
-
Globalism? It’s not so much what as how…Neo-liberalism has allowed a select few Oligarchs to distort trade and empoverish and pillage nations- for profit. Now they are turning their focus onto the US where the process of displacing debt onto the public and then buying off public assets for peanuts is well underway. We will end up domesticated animals in a vast feudal wasteland if we don’t wake up!
-
It may very well be too late. Corporate power is spreading fast in our country with the support of a large percentage of our population. They’ve been brainwashed into thinking that anything remotely related to socialism is dreadful, but they don’t see the danger of the oligarchy.
-
-
Then we need to tell people that multinationals are the “New Soviet”- without any concern for freedom or civil rights, and determined to end national sovereignty. They might as well have adopted Stalin as their poster boy. You are right that they have already discarded accountability and the rule-of-law- that’s why we need to CALL THEM ON IT. It’s never too late- just look at Egypt.
-
Gee, I’m pretty sure the Dem’s refused to pass Bush’s ‘budget’ until after they loaded it up with Christmas ornaments for their buddies. To say it’s “Bush’s Budget” is kind of like believing anything Al Gore says.
And the hypocrisy of Obama not passing a budget while possessing super-majorities in both Congressional houses is not only unlawful, it’s an epic tragedy laid at the feet of the American voters that history will gaze upon with shame.
-
[And the hypocrisy of Obama not passing a budget while possessing super-majorities in both Congressional houses is not only unlawful, it’s an epic tragedy laid at the feet of the American voters that history will gaze upon with shame.]
Yep, that’s the opinion of the low information voters. Obama only had a super-majority in the Senate for a few months during his first year, and just barely. The Blue-Dog Democrats made it impossible to pass any good legislation during that time. Other than those few months, passing anything required watering down legislation in order to garner a few Republican votes to overcome the filibuster.
That said, Obama is a spineless wimp to allow himself to be pushed around like he has.
-
Blue dogs? Uh, no, the record for their alleged non-party line voting myth has been busted. They vote democrat almost in lockstep with the party… the myth they support the other side when convenient is not supported by facts.
In fact, an article believes the “Blue Dog” meme was introduced simply to deceive the media. I wouldn’t feel too ashamed, though. People less media-ignorant have made similar mistakes.
-
[In fact, an article believes the “Blue Dog” meme was introduced simply to deceive the media.]
How the hell can an article believe something? You’re dumb as a rock.
-
-
-
You have to want it bad enough.
-
Obama a wimp? More likley he’s a canny shill in collusion with the Corporate State. Most of the rest is charade and misdirection.
-
“Ben Hoffman
February 3, 2010 at 9:27 AM
Hey Nick, thanks for dropping by! All comments are automatically approved by default. I only edit or delete comments that are disrespectful to people who post here.”
Really? Then can you explain this?…
“Ben Hoffman
February 28, 2011 at 1:59 PM
[In fact, an article believes the “Blue Dog” meme was introduced simply to deceive the media.]
How the hell can an article believe something? You’re dumb as a rock.”
Typical of a Democrat, liberal, socialist,…whatever the hell you are. Say one thing, do another. You’ve flip-flopped so much with your posts whenever presented with a logical disagreement of your positions that it’s impossible to know where you actually stand. And while you are constructing your clever reply about Republicans, conservative, capitalist…whatever, know this…I’m none of those. I’m an independent moderate, you know, the group that will decide who wins the White House in 2012.
