Sadly, so many in the press think that if it's not zero for both sides, then they are supposed to be "even handed" and grossly mislead the public by saying both sides are equally at fault.

To so many in the press 1,200 and 200 are equal because they're both not zero.

Or at most, so many will say "it's more" misleading the public into thinking there's a small or moderate difference, when actually there's a great difference, or in some cases a ridiculous difference.

Sadly, so many in the press think it's their goal to be equally nice to bath sides rather than to convey important truths in a non-misleading way.

Most of the "press" is television talking heads. Very few of them have real journalistic credentials.
And the pressure on TV personalities, even those at a specialty cable channel like CNBC, is overwhelmingly to tout the advertisers and the industries they cover.

As for the print media, particularly the major print media, they've done a much better job. Unfortunately, print's on the financial ropes and the day is long gone where a talented, eperienced journalist can take a sabbatical to get the real story told.

So it's up to blogworld to draw dot connections.

i readily acknowledge that i set fire to the house. but i posit that the greater crime is the irresponsible public burden of buying diesel fuel for the fire trucks!

and i think i speak for all americans. it's concerning, in these combustible times, to bring vehicles loaded with such large amounts of potentially explosive liquid so close to live flames, when everyone knows that fires always burn themselves out naturally.

The Congress has the power of the purse. The Democrats control the Congress. In addition, the Democrats passed the bailout bill in the Congress with little Republican supports. Hence, the deficit is Bush's fault. Right.

Tom,

Did not W and Comrade Paulson ask for said bailout?

Did not George of Iraq, hand-CRAFT a lie to justify some seriously expensive, off-budget, no-bid $3T profiteering in the sand?

Did not W sign a ridiculously stupid tax cut leading to the current state of affairs with respect to both debt and deficit?

So, yes. It's Bush's fault.

You only show numbers for 2009? What about 2010, 20111, etc.?

BTW, you haven't lambasted Obama's phony baloney projections for economic growth in 2009 (down slightly), and 2010 and beyond (up gangbusters). Why?

What do Obama's deficits look like if you take more realistic growth projections? Why haven't you lambasted Obama's deficit projections in later years?

To give you your due, I haven't seen you pretend to be even-handed, so if you simply like to point out hypocrisy on one side of the debate only (and you do a good job of that), that's fine. Just say so. Nothing particularly wrong with that.

Terry,

I have said and continue to say that Obama's growth projections are likely to be overly optimistic. However, they were pretty much in the center of projections for private forecasters, so I would say that they were wrong, but not "phony baloney."

The focus on 2009 follows the Republicans who have been talking about how much debt Obama has run up since he has been in office. The point is that this is Bush debt, not Obama debt.

As far as longer-term, yes, I think that the economy is likely to be weaker in 2011 and 2012 than projected. That means that people who care about employment, economic growth, and our children, should want LARGER deficits, since that will help boost the economy.

My criticism of Obama is that he thus far has not called for deficits that are large enough to get the economy back on a stable growth path.

I demand to see numbers for 20111 too.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Dean.

Below are the numbers for projected GDP beginning in 2009 from (1) Obama's budget, (2) the CBO, and (3) the Blue Chip Consensus Forecast. (From Mankiw's blog.)

Through 2013 (after which they pretty much converge) Obama is projecting 15% growth, CBO is projecting 12% growth, and the Blue Chip consensus is projecting 9% growth. Doesn't sound like Obama's are "in the center of projections for private forecasters." Even Christina Romer says they are optimistic. (It would help your argument if you could show that a significant number of the Blue Chip forecasts project 15% growth.)

The question, then, is how much difference the 15% versus 9% forecasts makes in projections of future deficits. If the difference is minor, than you would have a good argument for saying the Obama forecasts are only modestly overoptimistic. I suspect, though, that a 6% difference makes a difference.

Also, you argue that (1) deficits are good right now, and (2) most of the deficit this year is due to Bush. So, the logical conclusion of your argument is that the benefits from the current budget should be credited mostly to Bush, not Obama. Quite a courageous stance.

2010 Budget -1.2% +3.2% +4% +4.6% +4.2% +2.9% +2.6% +2.6% +2.6% +2.6% +2.6%
CBO (Jan 2009) -2.2% +1.5% +4.2% +4.4% +4.1% +3.5% +2.8% +2.5% +2.3% +2.2% +2.2%
Blue Chip Consensus -1.9% +2.1% +2.9% +2.9% +2.8% +2.7% +2.7% +2.7% +2.7% +2.7% +2.7%

Terry,

There is an issue of timing here. The Obama projections were made a month and a half ago. I gather this Blue Chip consensus is very recent. Just two months ago, the Consensus growth projection for 2009 was 0.7 percent.

The comparison that overlaps in time comes from CBO. If you adjust the CBO baseline that that you have shown, by the middle estimates of the impact of the stimulus, CBO would have a more optimistic projection than Obama [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10008/03-02-Macro_Effects_of_ARRA.pdf]Again, i always said the projections were optimistic, but they were very much in-line with the consensus.

As far as most of the deficit being due to Bush being a point of credit for him --absolutely. If he had tried something idiotic like cutting spending and raising taxes to restrain the deficit, he sould have been chased out of town even before he was.

It's appalling to see that there is still somebody convinced that present situation is not Bush's fault. Those people are still in the "denial of shit" phase (from Milan Kundera writing)...You can bring the evidence you want, you will never convince them. One of Bush's economic adviser recently posted that during his appointment the GDP grew up by x% (actually without considering any lag of policies effects sic!), thus his performance as economist was a good one. It's like the bonuses awarded for sort term results, no mater if your action or policies, ill-advised, then screw up the global economy...It's not only a matter of lies is intellectual dishonesty.

Dean:

I stand corrected. Thanks.

Terry writes:

"Also, you argue that (1) deficits are good right now, and (2) most of the deficit this year is due to Bush. So, the logical conclusion of your argument is that the benefits from the current budget should be credited mostly to Bush, not Obama. Quite a courageous stance.

But the key cause of Bush's deficits is trillions of dollars in long term tax cuts massively weighted towards the rich, mostly in years when we weren't in a demand crunch recession.

Plus tax cuts for the wealthy are far less of a demand stimulus than government spending on high social return projects like alternative energy, other infrastructure, education, basic scientific and medical research, etc.

Moreover these investments are crucial to high long term productivity and growth relative to tax cuts for the rich for more yachts, $5,000 suits, and $500 meals, that add little or nothing to long-term productivity and growth.

Sorry, the above comment was from me.

The Republicans simply never have grasped the fact-checking ability given via the Internet. It is telling that they have embraced Twitter which from what I see is a pretty fine way of distributing talking points but pretty piss-poor at delivering policy analysis, and still less historical context.

We are in a world where people clearly remember how the Republicans ran Congress and can bring up relevant citations on demand. Yet here they go weeping about transparency and bi-partisanship. As if Newt didn't deliver up 1000 page bills marked up in Conferences that conveniently were not announced to Democrats. As if Hastert didn't enforce a 'Majority of the Majority' policy that forbade even a vote on any legislation it a majority of his own caucus didn't support it.

Because not only do I remember some guy stating outright that 'Bi-partisanship equals date rape' I can do two seconds of Google and link you a Nation article called exactly that: 'Bipartisanship Equals Date Rape'

The days of just using constant repetition on Talk Radio and Fox News to shove all inconvenient facts down the Memory Hole are just so 2004.

(I don't exactly welcome our future Google overlords, but I don't mind using the tools they supply in the meantime.)

I've never seen a lamer attempt to lie.

Did you really think everyone would forget that the Democrat Congress delayed passage of the 2009 budget until after Obama was elected? That they are just now getting it passed? That the Democrats have controlled Congress and thus the budgets for the past two years?

The budget for 2009 and the deficit is 100% Democrat(ic)! Reality trumps your furious handwaving.

Debt as a fraction of GDP has grown since 1980 when Republicans were in the White House:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Republicans claimed that cutting taxes for the rich would increase government revenue but the opposite occurred. Increasing federal debt is clearly tied to Republican tax-cutting policy. Democrats in Congress have usually gone along along with this policy, so they share the blame.

"That the Democrats have controlled Congress and thus the budgets for the past two years?"

Really...so the ridiculous amendments that Republicans were tacking onto the omnibus from Aug-Nov last year were Dem proposals?

"Meanwhile, one effort that seems to have failed to gather support is a proposal by Rep. Michael T. McCaul (R-Texas) to prohibit federal money from being spent on projects named after members of Congress."

"Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), meanwhile, is taking on the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act, which requires that workers on public works projects be paid the local “prevailing wage.” A former contractor, King has repeatedly tried to gut the act. It’s a giveaway to unions, he argues, estimating that it raises public construction costs by $8.6 billion a year."

" Republican Reps. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Sue Myrick of North Carolina are trying to undo Democratic language they say would limit the scope of a program that allows local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration laws against undocumented immigrants."

Nope. No pointless obstructionism from your side of the aisle. No siree.

Pot. Kettle. Do the math.

Last time I checked, our budgets, and the deficits which result, are generated by Congress. Deficits don't belong to Bush, Obama, or any other US President until we get a line-item veto ammendment. As such, if you want to discuss who the deficits "belong" to, the date in question is not January 2009, but January 2007. That is the date when power over the budget changed hands.

I can't stand the Republicans, but to claim that, after over two years of Democratic control of Congress, the insane deficits are anything but their responsibility is just absurd. This is just more of the liberals' categorical refusal to ever accept responsibility for anything they do. Criticizing these ridiculous deficits isn't a left or right thing, it's just basic common sense. You have to pay your bills. Anyone who tells you can run endless deficits and borrow endlessly without any serious repercussions in the future is lying to you. Always. You have to pay your bills.

mike wrote, I can't stand the Republicans, but to claim that, after over two years of Democratic control of Congress, the insane deficits are anything but their responsibility is just absurd.

Huh? They barely control the Senate, and they certainly didn't control the WH.

This is just more of the liberals' categorical refusal to ever accept responsibility for anything they do. Criticizing these ridiculous deficits isn't a left or right thing, it's just basic common sense. You have to pay your bills.

Nonsense. The source of the deficit was the Bush tax cuts and the Bush expansion of Pentagon spending, plus the Bush invasion of Iraq.

" This is just more of the liberals' categorical refusal to ever accept responsibility for anything they do. "

From 1986 to 2006, Republicans controlled Congress. From 2000 to 2006, Republicans controlled both WH and Congress.

The quoted statement is emblematic of the Republicans' desire to point the finger anywhere but where it belongs - at themselves.

The deficits are your responsibility, the wars are your responsibility, the multiple failures in foreign policy are your responsibility. In short, Republicans have added zero value to the US since Reagan took office.

"You have to pay your bills."

Thank you for removing all justification for Bush's tax cuts and Bush's increases in spending. None of those bills were ever paid.

It's amazing that so many people forget the federal government fiscal year overlaps the calendar year, and what that means.

When the Democrats gained control of the Congress in the November '06 election, taking office as the majority in January '07, the federal budget for most of that calendar year was already set in place. Because the fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 to Sep. 30. Effectively, they had no say on the federal budget for the first 9 months of the year they are claimed to have been 'in control.'

Then, to try to do anything with the budget starting Oct. 1, 2007, they had to kow-tow to the GOP in Congress, since the GOP had far more seats than the 40 needed to filibuster any bill they didn't like, a tactic they used with unprecedented frequency, backed up by the president's veto power.

No, the Democrats did not have the budget power for two years, in the real world, in any real meaning of power.

It is "an" inherited economy.

mike wrote, I can't stand the Republicans, but to claim that, after over two years of Democratic control of Congress, the insane deficits are anything but their responsibility is just absurd.

Mike: It was Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, who asked for an emergency meeting with Nancy Pelosi one Friday evening in which he told her (and other Congressional leaders) that Wall Street was about to implode and they needed to announce an emergency bailout measure by early the next week in order to avert a panic that could lead us into the next Great Depression. That's what lead to that infamous 3-page Treasury memo that asked for $700 billion, right away, no strings attached. While Congress did attach a few more terms and conditions before passing that bailout package, I don't think you can blame that $700 billion primarily on the Democrats. (Source: a talk by Pelosi I attended last fall, in which she talked about the sequence of events leading up to the bailout.)

This seems to be a link to the talk I mentioned above:
http://br.truveo.com/Policy-TalksGoogle-Nancy-Pelosi/id/4005565967

Like you have no reason,As to not doing the needful and not reading the writing on the wall, that will have catastrophic consequences. Already the press is full of stories about changes
in weather patterns. I do not know which part of the world you live in but here in India and all over the world there is a perceptible change in the weather patterns and the change is for the worse and not the better.

rolex replica rolex replica

If you don't know about jewelry knowledge, but want to action you can see jewelry fashion review,then maybe you can save your money!

Thank you!

It doesn't so much as matter who is right, the fact is, is that whoever truly isn't will never accept it and realize the truth, and thus we will never have a truly good president for he/she will be too arrogant to accept good ideas from the other party. Ultimately, political parties have caused way too much trouble in this nation and we would be far better off without them.

Btw - For those of you who criticize Obama for his money spending, by spending more money he has a better chance of getting us out of this national debt that you idiotic republicans got us in, in the first place.