About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox Nation falsely attributes entire FY09 deficit to Obama

October 09, 2009 12:29 pm ET — 23 Comments

The Fox Nation falsely attributed the entire fiscal year 2009 deficit to President Obama, using the headline "Obama Triples Budget Deficit to $1.4 Trillion" to link to an Associated Press article reporting on the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) most recent budget review estimate. In fact, only a small portion of the fiscal year 2009 deficit is due to Obama's policies; in January, before he took office or signed any legislation, CBO projected that, based on policies set under President Bush and economic conditions at the time, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 would reach $1.2 trillion.

Fox Nation headline falsely claims "Obama Triple[d] Budget Deficit to $1.4 Trillion"

Fox Nation: "Obama Triples Budget Deficit to $1.4 Trillion." The Fox Nation linked to an AP article posted on FoxNews.com that reported that "[t]he federal budget deficit tripled to a record $1.4 trillion for the 2009 fiscal year that ended last week." The article further reported: "The unprecedented flood of red ink flows from several factors, including a big drop in tax revenues due to the recession, $245 billion in emergency spending on the Wall Street bailout and the takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Then there is almost $200 billion in costs from President Obama's economic stimulus bill, as well as increases in programs such as unemployment benefits and food stamps."

fox nation clip

But in January, prior to Obama's inauguration, CBO projected $1.2 trillion deficit

$1.2 trillion projection based on legislation passed under Bush before Obama's inauguration. CBO projected on January 7 that, including spending authorized under the Bush administration for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) and government takeovers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the deficit would total $1.2 trillion. From CBO's January 2009 budget report, released on January 7:

The ongoing turmoil in the housing and financial markets has taken a major toll on the federal budget. CBO currently projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. That total, however, does not include the effects of any future legislation. Enactment of an economic stimulus package, for example, would add to the 2009 deficit. In any event, as a percentage of GDP, the deficit will most likely shatter the previous post-World War II record high of 6.0 percent posted in 1983.

A drop in tax revenues and increased federal spending (much of it related to the government's actions to address the crisis in the housing and financial markets) both contribute to the robust growth in this year's deficit. Compared with receipts last year, collections from corporate income taxes are anticipated to decline by 27 percent and individual income taxes by 8 percent; in normal economic conditions, they would both grow by several percentage points. In addition, the estimated deficit includes outlays of more than $180 billion to reflect the cost of transactions of the TARP.

The projected deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO's estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing the cost of the takeover adds about $200 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year, reflecting the long-term net cost of the more than $5 trillion in credit guarantees issued and loans held by those entities at the start of the fiscal year. In addition, the cost of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's new credit activity in 2009 will total $38 billion, CBO estimates.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Bad News (October 09, 2009 12:40 pm ET)
      3  
      "When Things Go Wrong We Blame Boma"
      That's right blame Obama for all of Gorge W. Bush's Failures & Drama.
      Fox Nation should be Congratulating The President for his Nobel Peace Award, but that would take some Class.
      I wonder how much longer will Fox Nation give Bush & Cheney & their Torture Administration a complete Pass?

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News

      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave (October 09, 2009 12:55 pm ET)
        2 10
        Why would you congratualte someone for spending 1.4 t that they don't have? Nevermind.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by pamom (October 09, 2009 1:02 pm ET)
          5  
          Please tell me that's snark.....

          Report Abuse
          • Author by John Paradox (October 09, 2009 8:47 pm ET)
            3  
            I suspect 'dave' is actually 'davy', all growed up (physically and chronologically), who I and a friend had a great time e-mailing with before blogs and comments were common. If it is the same person (now living in his parents' basement - or STILL living there), he actually referred to Barry Goldwater (real Conservative) as a librul....
            Report Abuse
        • Author by Kyle_Broflovski (October 09, 2009 1:12 pm ET)
          6  
          Hey! Leave Reagan out of this!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (October 10, 2009 12:54 am ET)
          4  
          Why would we congratulate someone for spending money to keep us from going into a depression, you mean? Because that's all the "money" that Obama has spent so far.

          And yeah, unnecessary deficit spending is bad, but the fact that your side wasn't marching in the streets complaining about Bush not vetoing a single spending bill in his first 7 years, or about his pushing a second round of tax cuts after our nation went into a recession, or about the lack of job creation during most of his administration, etc, etc is very telling.

          Why didn't you complain during the Bush Administration, and don't you dare tell us that you did, because you didn't.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Diosnomeama (October 11, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
               
            No he spent money to save a bunch of irresponsible rich people on Wall Street, and a bunch of irresponsible mortgage institutions. What, exactly, has he done for anybody not worth millions of dollars? Health care? Nope. Gay rights? Nada. Any kind of truly meaningful measure to benefit the working people this country supposedly belongs to? Again, no. He is, quite simply, all talk. Don't take me for some kind of nutzo conservative either, I voted for the guy, but he has the testicular fortitude of a eunuch. Republicans aren't going to stop yelling and start singing kumbayah with Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank. If he doesn't wake up to that cold, hard reality and shove some progress down conservative throats, we've got another 4 years down the toilet.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by the Grey Path (October 09, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
        1 4
        This is actually the standard math: Who was president in ...

        1980? Reagan
        1988? Bush
        1992? Clinton
        2000? Bush
        2008? Obama
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fantagor (October 10, 2009 3:56 pm ET)
          4  
          Then you failed math. Every president you list was inaugurated Jan 20 of the following year. Furthermore, fiscal year budgets are projected and allocated during the PREVIOUS year, meaning under George Bush in 2008, the budget for 2009 was drawn up.

          Randy
          Report Abuse
      • Author by stefiz (October 09, 2009 2:30 pm ET)
        2  
        their pass will never be revoked by Fox News!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by serg99 (October 09, 2009 12:47 pm ET)
      5  
      I wonder if the Brilliant minds making this claim realize 200-Billion + 1.2-Trillion are in fact 1.4-Trillion so while most of that was to try to fix the conservative financial plans aftermath it is sti1l a tiny fraction by comparison. I think in the hope of saving the nation 200-Billion is a small price to pay as apposed to say a fake war
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Craig (October 09, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
      8  
      This pie chart, courtesy of Matt Yglesias, is a few months old, but still on point.

      [http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/deficit.jpg]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (October 09, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
      4 1
      I was not one of the people who blamed George Bush for either the Tech Bubble Crash of 2001 or the 9/11 Attack. Both of these would have occurred under Gore, had he been sworn in as President in 2001. Any President comes into office with his predecessor's budget and economy for the first year he is in office. Preident Obama has submitted a budget, but so far, it hasn't been passed for Fiscal Year 2010, which started nine days ago. The Federal Government is being funded by continuous resolutions at this point. However, such subtle facts are lost on many of these Constitution waving Conservatives, whose sum knowledge of the Constitution comes down to one clause of the Second Amendment "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Everything is Obama's fault, and his failure to fix everything, includind cutting all taxes, and offering more services with less government is a failure of his Presidency deserving impeachment.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fantagor (October 10, 2009 4:08 pm ET)
        6 1
        The tech bubble burst in 2000, under Clinton, so no, Bush had nothing to do with it. But 9/11 occurring under Gore...absolutely not. In Feb. 2001, the investigation of the USS Cole bombing culminated in a report by Hart and Rudman. Here is the summary of that report:

        http://www.emergency.com/2001/21stcentury_rpt.htm

        An excerpt:

        The panel...recommended folding the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Customs Service, Border Patrol and Coast Guard into the new "Homeland Security Agency."

        It was Bush's complete myopia on terrorism that led to 9/11. A Gore presidency would have been a natural continuation of the Clinton years in that Gore was aware of terrorism and would have started the process of shoring up inter-agency communication problems unlike Bush, who was too busy giving tax breaks to the rich and issuing gag orders on mentioning abortion in overseas clinics.

        Randy
        Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (October 11, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
            7
          So why didn’t Clinton after the first Trade Center and USS Cole Bombing take Bin Laden when he was offered to him. 9/11 Was financed, Planned, Trained all under Clinton but in your mind it was Bushes fault because he didn’t stop it his first 9 months in office.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by fantagor (October 11, 2009 4:24 pm ET)
            4  
            The first bombers were CAPTURED, tried and put in jail. There was no deal for bin Laden, that's pure made-up right wing baloney. The USS Cole bombing was in Oct. 2000, less than a month from the election. Clinton was advised to wait till the investigation of the bombing was finished. That happened in late Jan. 2001, when Bush was president and culminated in the Hart Rudman report, which Bush completely ignored.

            And lastly, do I really need to tell you how SILLY the "planned under Clinton" argument is. I don't care if it was planned under Eisenhower. The operation happened on Bush's watch. Think of him as a security guard who just got the job. On his first day, a robber happens. It's realistic to assume the PLAN for the robbery happened BEFORE the guard took over. So, the new guard is absolved of his responsibilities, is what you're arguing, but even worse. The new guard had been on duty for EIGHT MONTHS.

            Randy
            Report Abuse
            • Author by highliter (October 12, 2009 11:06 am ET)
                5
              There was no deal for bin Laden, that's pure made-up right wing baloney


              Really here is a LA Times article from one of the diplomats that tried to broker the deal with Clinton. To quote the article
              The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening
              . You can stick your fingers in your ears s go bah bah it didn’t happen all you want but the evidence says it did. The article speaks for itself.

              You security guard argument is simplistic at best. A security guard is only responsible for the building itself. Which is only one phase of a bank robbery. The president responsibility are much more vast in scope.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (October 11, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
            5
          So why didn’t Clinton after the first Trade Center and USS Cole Bombing take Bin Laden when he was offered to him. 9/11 Was financed, Planned, Trained all under Clinton but in your mind it was Bushes fault because he didn’t stop it his first 9 months in office.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by highliter (October 11, 2009 1:40 pm ET)
            5
          So why didn’t Clinton after the first Trade Center and USS Cole Bombing take Bin Laden when he was offered to him. 9/11 Was financed, Planned, Trained all under Clinton but in your mind it was Bushes fault because he didn’t stop it his first 9 months in office.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by 110_pct (October 09, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
      2  
      Ha ha! What a bunch of dummies - but consider from where they're getting their operating beliefs.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Gfulmore (October 10, 2009 2:00 am ET)
         
      When President Obama took office on January 20, 2009, the federal debt stood at $10.626 trillion. As of the end of September, which is the end of a 2008/2009 federal fiscal year, the debt was $11.909 trillion, or an increase of about $1.28 trillion. Before President Obama took office, about $500 billion had been spent in the 2008/2009 federal fiscal year. Thus, nearly 30% of the debt for this latest fiscal year belonged to the no-contest winner of the federal-deficit Presidents: George W. Bush.
      You see, over his eight-year reign, George W. watched the total deficit go from about $5.7 trillion to $10.625 trillion, an increase of almost $5 trillion! And, in his last full fiscal year (2007/2008), which ended September 30, 2008, there was an increase of almost $1 trillion ($0.962 trillion) for just one year!
      TV pendants say that President Obama has “doubled the deficit in one year, quadrupled the debt”. None of this is true.
      In fact, the biggest contributors to the total federal debt, by far, are Republicans, starting with President Ronald Reagan, who doubled the debt during his eight years, from about $1.6 trillion to over $3.0 trillion, and George H.W. Bush, who added another $1.5 trillion in just four years, before George W. added nearly $5 trillion, as discussed above.
      The assertions that President Obama is a big spender who has increased our federal debt substantially since taking office eight months ago are simply not true. No, let’s give credit where credit is due, to President George W. Bush, who is responsible, alone, for about 42% of the current national debt.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by teabaggers ♥ [wing]NUTS (October 10, 2009 7:47 pm ET)
      2  
      im currently watching the dodgers-cards game on tbs, and as they did a side shot of vincente padilla of the dodgers, i saw a FOXnation.com billboard on the outfield wall (left-center, i believe). i was so ashamed to see that... actually allowing advertisements for that disgusting site. and i bet more than half of the people at busch stadium are either already regular members of the site, or will go check it out tonight. you certainly wouldnt see that sign at dodger stadium... fox is obviously trying to attract middle america people, where majority of the teabaggers come from.
      Report Abuse