List Of Lies

Remember the days when Democrats ran in the midterm elections? They claimed they had a legit agenda. They claimed it was not all about Trump.

So many of the Democrats dismissed themselves from partisan politics. They just wanted to work for the people and get things done. So they said.

McCaskill said I’m not one of those crazy Democrats. Guess what? Call her MSNBC crazy just like the rest of the triggered Dem freaks.

They were not running on an impeachment agenda, they said. Guess what? It’s their only agenda. They did not want open borders. Guess what? That’s exactly what they want.

Remember these old lines in their greatest hits:

We don’t want socialism
We don’t want to take your guns
We don’t want to raise taxes on working families
We don’t want late term or partial birth abortions.
We don’t want to force government to pay for abortions.
We don’t want to destroy the economy.
We don’t want to raise taxes on working people.
We don’t want to eliminate jobs.
We don’t want to hurt the middle class.
We don’t want to eliminate fossil fuels.
We are not socialists.
We don’t want open borders.
We don’t want single-payer. we only want to fix Obamacare.
We don’t want to cut the military.
We believe in the rule of law.
We are not trying to do a coup.
We are defending democracy
We just want to work together.
We are not running on impeachment.
We don’t want to shut down government.
Democrats don’t want to eliminate private insurance.
There is no Deep State conspiracy against Trump.
We don’t support violence.
We will call out any hateful rhetoric, no matter which side.
We accept the results of elections.

Let’s just call it like it is, virtually everything they tell us is a lie. Dems supprt:

Open borders
Impeaching Trump
Medicare for All
Eliminating private insurance
Giving free healthcare to illegal aliens
Free College for illegals
Welfare for illegals
Socialism
Abolishing ICE
Sanctuary cities.
Lawlessness
Supporting Crime
Late term and partial birth abortion
Government funding of abortion
Expanding and stacking the Supreme Court
Judicial activism and judicial tyranny
No separation of powers
Destroying the economy
Eliminating private insurance
Undermining national security and the miliatary
Raising taxes
Restorative Justice (you know what that is)
Gun control
Confiscating guns
Destroying the 1st and 2nd amendments, stomping on the 5th and 14th
Abuse of power
Politicizing the DOJ and FBI
Mobocracy
Supporting domestic terrorists
Resisting democracy — or democratic results

Right Ring | Bullright

Media Vultures

In the good old days, Johny Carson might make a joke in his monologue something like “the media is so bad”. To which Ed McMahon would say “how bad is it, Johnny?” Carson would nail it saying “it’s so bad that ….” But those days are gone and so are most of the jokes. Now it’s sort of pathetic that media is the standing joke. But no one is laughing.

In those days the media might have taken a cue from the national criticism. Not today. Judging by their current reaction to criticism, they cannot be shamed or even insulted. However, they feel so offended that Trump called them the enemy of the people.

As the IG report on Comey came out, media took a pass for the most part. CNN didn’t really mention it. MSNBC looked for anything else to talk about, including the Dick Cheney hunting mishap. What happened was the IG was compelled to put out an 80 page report on what Comey did.

Last week, CNN foisted the bombshell canard about an asset in the Kremlin that had to be whisked out because Trump was about to out him. Except it didn’t happen. Well that storyline got dropped real quick. What asset, what story?

That story was probably meant to detract from the not so convenient news about the left’s coup and the investigation of it. Sure, no one needs to bother with that.

Then we have the big story about another Kavanaugh accusation. The witness does not remember the incident. NYT was forced to back peddle and said they inadvertently left that part of it out of the story. They had to delete tweets and edit it. The author of the column threw NYT under the buss for having the policy of not naming witnesses.

So naturally that part got left out because of their policy. Say what? You mean NYT cannot mention a witness doesn’t remember anything without naming her?

While over at CNN, they discussed the non-story. Paul Begala let it be known that Democrats will never stop on the Kavanaugh issue. He said they are going to keep it alive forever. It will never ever die. So truth or reality means nothing to those folks.

NYT committed another intentional error when it said in Tweeting a piece on 9-11 that 18 years ago planes took aim at the Twin Towers in NY. They went further than ILhan Omar saying said that the planes did it. Omar at least grumbled that some people did something — without saying who or what. See how the left works? Then NYT had to delete and edit that storyline, too. But it did fit with media ignoring the 9-11 commemoration.

This is not news. The lamestream media are in the narrative business. It isn’t news at all.

Some people did do something, all right. Well, it was not rogue keyboards conspiring.

Right Ring | Bullright

Credibility Crisis: the truth shutdown

Two terms come to mind with the ongoing government shutdown: lying and credibility.

What we have today is a National Credibility Crisis. Democrats will not talk now but claim if you just open government they will sit down and discuss it civilly.

But the problem is that we the people have been lied to for years and going back decades. It’s so bad some of us can’t remember a time when politicians were not lying to us.

Democrats are willing, no eager, to negotiate with Asaad, Iran, ayatollahs, Castro, Russia; but they cannot negotiate with the POTUS or Donald Trump. They cannot even negotiate on or talk about one of their first duties: to protect and defend the country.

What “ineffective remedies,” like a wall or barriers? But Chuck will not tell us what is ineffective about the wall? It works where it is used and has been proven effective. The border patrol and professionals all agree that it is necessary.

The same Democrats voted for it multiple times. Schumer owes the people an explanation since he is staking our security on it, and disrupting our Government over it.

The unfortunate and “unattainable position” is the chronic state of lying to the people. Chuck and Nancy managed to consistently maintain that schizophrenic position for years and years. It’s akin to negotiating with Kathy Bates or Hannibal Lecter.

But it really reminds me of Whimpy from Popeye claiming I’ll gladly discuss paying you tomorrow if you open the government today. People don’t buy it and it’s old.

If they cannot talk now, why should we think they would talk if government is opened? What person could believe that? And whenever they do “talk,” they lie anyway.

Why would they do so earnestly with any credibility in this case? Their main objective thus far has been to lie. They are professionals at it, practicing for years.

Deception is Democrats’ game. They never meant to secure the borders. They never intended to go along with the fence, barriers or anything else. They will promise this or that, if they have to, and then promptly refuse to ante up. So what good is their word?

This is a Credibility Crisis that is also a border crisis. Those who caused and encouraged it refuse to negotiate on a solution to it. Who is indeed holding this country hostage?

Even worse, Democrats care more for the plight of illegal aliens than they do about the government, which is their holy grail. They will put that Government on the line to serve and protect illegals and an open border agenda. It is Democrats’ credibility deficit.

Right Ring | Bullright

Speaking of FBI and penalties

Someone touched a nerve.

Matt Drudge zings Mueller probe: ‘What is the punishment when the FBI lies to us?’

by Daniel Chaitin | Dec 2, 2017 | Washington Examiner

Matt Drudge, editor and founder of the Internet news powerhouse Drudge Report, put the special counsel probe on notice Saturday.

In a flurry of tweets, stark against an otherwise empty Twitter page (Drudge has a habit of deleting his prior tweets), the influential but reclusive conservative figure painted Robert Mueller and his Russia inquiry team as a farce.

“Mueller’s secretive grand jury made up of residen[ts] from DC, where 91% voted for Hillary…,” he began, referring to the grand jury Mueller put together to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

His tweet came a day after Mike Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser, pleaded guilty in federal court to lying to the FBI about his talks with Russian officials. In the run-up to Friday’s bombshell, prosecutors had canceled scheduled grand jury testimony related to Flynn. The grand jury in Washington already had indicted former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and his former associate for crimes related to their lobbying work abroad…./

“We know what happens when one lies to the FBI,” Drudge said. “But what is the punishment when the FBI lies to us?”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/matt-drudge-zings-mueller-probe-what-is-the-punishment-when-the-fbi-lies-to-us/article/2642391

Well, that is the trillion -dollar question, isn’t it?  But I won’t wait for any answers. IOW, “we lie when we want to or need to, and we make a habit of not being accountable for it.” Penalty? Actually, I think it is rewarded. Why else would they need to?

A Tale Of Two Terms

Two terms I heard in the last week jumped out at me: ‘intellectual atheist’ and ‘intellectually honest.’ Both struck me as very odd.

The first was used in a Christian apologetic, the second was referring to Obama as “intellectually honest.” I think you can imagine why I had a problem with the second. Obama will give his farewell address in Chicago while his allies prematurely billed him as being “intellectually honest.” Really? Calling Obama honest is dishonest.

I thought the first was very strange way to say someone is an academic intellectual while also an atheist. A person who is an atheist has made a choice not to believe in God. The reasons for their decision may vary, but they made that choice.

If it was an intellectually based decision, then it sort of questions intellectual acumen itself. We know that God is the source of wisdom and good, so why would it be intellectual to deny the existence of a Creator? Solomon wrote a lot about his own extensive quandary in Ecclesiastes. He finally determined, after much deliberation, he held a reasoned and obvious belief in a Creator. Using intellectual capacity for the reason of disbelief seems dishonest. Could that person believe in evil?

As to Obama being intellectually honest, I find that illogical and laughable. He has not been honest. That Obama, in his elite arrogance which taints everything he does, is intellectually honest is ludicrous. When radical political ideology determines one’s actions, is that honest? If one is as bitter as Obama when not getting his way, how honest is that? I guess he is true to his arrogance and narcissism, first.

He spewed out so many twisted lies about Trump in making a case for Hillary that he can not stand on honesty. He strategically lied to pass his agenda. Gruber admitted they could only get ACA past the people by lying. Their arguments were intellectually dishonest.

Of course, they don’t want to call him intellectually dishonest. But why try to call Obama “intellectually honest;” a man who sought out the most Marxist of professors in school, and used racism as the basis for any opposition to him? (it’s a lifelong pattern)

So the common denominator in both terms is “intellectual.” Is Obama now going to make the case that the reason for all his arrogance and shortfalls is his intellectual ability? (his intellectual ability to lie) When intellectual ability is used to deceive and undermine truth, is that an honest use of intellectuality? A person can still be an academic intellectual, but if it is used in that way it certainly cannot be honest.

I don’t know if anyone else sees a little similarity between those terms? Just a thought.

RightRing | Bullright

What Difference At This Point Does It Make? — Plenty and she’s not done

Below are two informative videos. First one is the abbreviated biography background on Huma Abedin. The bottom one is like a dossier of Hillary’s scandalous record: from cattle futures to her Senate, to her term as Secretary of State. Scandal should be the Queen of Corruption’s middle name. Consider the first only a primer, and a partner in crime.

Any Senate campaign that is kicked off by Peter Paul and Hsu is probably not going in the right direction. From there it only got worse. She was brought in front of the ethics committee on various things. She then took her national bid for president in 2008 in much the same spirit. Then on to scheming her server to avoid FOIA as Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton is running on her record of running from her record.

Think up a scandal and it’s probably in her dossier because that’s just how Hillary rolls.

Even William Safire, in his 1996 “Blizzard of Lies” essay in NY Times, branded Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar”. Now she is running on her record of “fighting for kids” and families as the heart of her focus. Give me a break. As Bill Clinton said, “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Or as Hillary could admit — if she actually had a shred of conscience — that she “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”

As Safire put it in ’96:

“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”

Does all that sound familiar? Pack on top of Safire’s list everything she has done since, adding a mountain of new lies to the old. How about pulling 900 FBI files on her enemies for an appetizer? Smell that abusive power. It eventually comes to her real record, even if you could put aside her trail of scandals, which basically leads to a long Legacy of Lies.

H/T to see Political Insider

Obama’s lying machine

So we knew it all the time, we were being lied to. It was always obvious. But now Obama adviser Ben Rhodes comes out to publicly rub the media’s nose in it, much the same way that Jonathan Gruber delighted in our gullibility as the reason for passing Obamacare.

Everyone knows that Rhodes is basically a fiction writer, a talent that really has come in handy for the Obama administration. When you have your own in-house fiction writer, it makes lots of things easier than they would be — like lying.

How Obama plays his adoring fans in the press

By Washington Examiner • 5/7/16 | Washington Examiner

An extraordinary profile of senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes, published in the New York Times on Thursday, was very revealing about President Obama. It told a complicated story of how an administration that the president promised would be the most transparent in history prides itself on successful manipulation of journalists.

The critical insight of the story is about the Obama administration’s dishonesty in selling the Iran nuclear deal to the public. It turns out, for example, that the story carried by the press about the Iran deal being possible because of the election of a more moderate government in Tehran, was made up. It was a fiction, as various actual experts on the subject warned at the time. That is, in real terms, it was a lie. The deal was in fact already in the works in 2012, a year earlier than anyone knew. /…

How does someone like Rhodes manipulate the press? It’s like taking candy from a baby.

Read more: Washington Examiner

And take it they will…as often as they can.

What good is lying and deceiving people if, in the end, you cannot publicly rub it in their faces? Rhodes is a pretty dumb banana himself, but that doesn’t prevent him from fooling others to claim how intelligent he and they are. So… “It’s the stupid media, people.”

How the truth became politically incorrect to Obama

The story here is not only that truth became politically incorrect to Obama but also, more importantly, that anyone endorsing or trafficking in truth became the opposition to Obama. Imagine that, just by aligning oneself with the truth turns one into an enemy of Obama. And by extension, considering his position, it thereby turns one into an enemy of the state. We see how all this works. In effect, truth has become Obama’s chief enemy, and thereby an enemy of the state.

Of course it would be a difficult thing for media to accept. Fortunately, they don’t have to worry about such a thing. That would admit being played or hoodwinked by Obama.

The Iran deal reveals a chunk of this truism about Bary Soetoro. Go back to his campaign days where, asked about Iran, he always favored talking to Iran. His supporters loved it. Conservatives took issue with that for exactly the reasons we witnessed, of “negotiation” with the talks. Of course we were told we were wrong that talks do not equal negotiating. But they do and did. Now we also see how that negotiation turned out .

So they made it so complex, attaching side deals, which no one will see between Iran and IAEA, that it would be purposefully hard to understand. Trust us, they said, it is a good deal. (a good deal of BS) See it would require trust. However, trust does not make it a good deal. But “trust” is the fallacy that Obama has peddled all along, since his early days as Senator, to his first campaign to today. We are always to just trust him, with little or no basis for it, and then we get screwed in the end. Trust though is a central ingredient in his modus operandi and agenda. It’s the top necessary ingredient with Obama. Which is why I called his a faith-based campaign: “Hope and change” and “change you can believe in.”

The side deals, as they are referred to, are unknown to Kerry and even Obama. By law, all materials of the deal must be given to Congress. So how can they sign off on something they don’t know the details of, and cannot see? But that is what Obama is asking of Congress. It’s a good deal, trust us, “peace in our time.” Trust is the operative word.

Remember Reagan’s maxim of trust and verify?

We always verify after the fact that he lied to us. But it always shows in the end our trust was without merit. We always get a raw deal or royally screwed. He is not happy enough to screw us in the present, he wants to stick to future generations too. There are normally multiple layers of screwage. He also sets it up where future negotiations with Iran will be necessary. Then the future administration(s) will have to deal with Tehran. We really made Iran some kind of a partner.

Every step along the way on issues Obama abused our trust and destroyed the grounds for it. I can’t say he actually destroyed our trust because people cannot accept that their trust was shot through, because that would be admitting they were taken, lied to, or hoodwinked. Who wants to admit being a mark? But they continue to trust him.

It is a serial abuse relationship Obama has with even many of his voters and base. (they aren’t all communists though they endorse Marxist people, which is another subject) To admit it is more than they can take. Each step Obama requires people to just trust him.

Seeing is believing, or not.

We know it is not the transparency he promised, another lie. So behind their backs he is abusing their trust in him. A few, and I don’t know how many, are probably privy to this whole charade Obama plays but who also believe in the destination anyway, so it is acceptable. Remember the professor of Obamcare, Jonathan Gruber, and his repeated statements that they had to lie to us. Which is more profound, that they believed they had to lie to us or that lying is such a necessary tactic in their agenda?

Well, it was the same premise in the Iran deal, they had to lie to the American people. From the beginning they said we would have anytime anywhere access and that would be in any agreement. Now we see we don’t have anywhere anytime access. Then Kerry said that anywhere anytime was not promised, or part of the plan. He denied that there were any side deals and, low and behold, there are side deals. They denied that sanctions were working though they claim that sanctions, in fact — ones congress not Obama imposed — were the pressure that brought them to the negotiation table. Then they condemned any talk of new sanctions or reinstatement of the previous ones, which Obama lifted. They claimed eliminating the prospect of a nuclear Iran was the objective, while they in effect enshrined their nuclear ability. They also denied that containment was their strategy, but voila theirs is a strategy of containment.

Furthermore, let’s back up again to the campaign trail. Obama claimed his mission was to stop proliferation. In fact he wants to eliminate all nuclear weapons. We now see he has proliferated them starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. He said he would do these things with, he assured us, the purest of motives. Now we look at what really motivated him.

The political strategy, lie a lot — early and often.

Probably the biggest parallel theme to things though is the lies. Its a tactic and an overall strategy of his. Tell us anything in order to get his way, pass legislation, accomplish his mission or goal — preferably the opposite of what he is doing. Obamacare was built on lies and illusion. He sold the initial idea that it would only affect those who didn’t have insurance or medical coverage. Hello, it affected everyone. He said if you liked your plan you could keep your plan. Wrong, you couldn’t. He said if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor. Wrong. He said it would lower the cost of your insurance, saving average family 2500 per/yr. In fact, it increased the cost and for some families by 2500 a year. He said it would lower our debt while it added to it.

But probably the central, critical lie he used from the onset was that, since there was a majority of people already covered, it would not affect them. That made it very palatable. It basically was only going to help those who had no coverage. So people went along because they believed it would not affect them personally, least not negatively. And many of those are the very ones it affects the most, and in the worst way. Now they have soaring premiums and deductibles. It was a pack of lies, actually built on a foundation of lies. Sound familiar? Then came Professor Gruber who said just that. Well, then it was the lie that he was nothing and not connected with drafting the law. Actually he was an architect of the law. See?

So now we have an Iran deal following the same formula. Tell the people anything at the beginning, lie and promise them anything. Whatever means to the ends. Then deny what you said and did. But then Gruber’s admission was even worse than admitting they lied. It was, yes we lied to the stupid American people. But it even went a step deeper than that.

Daily Caller

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.

Catch that? First he told us they had to lie to the stupid people. Then he suggested they had to lie to us because we are stupid. In effect, we are the cause for their lying. It’s our fault they lied.(that’s something like the ultimate lie) Like: I’ll admit I lied but the reason was because you made it so necessary. It’s all our fault and we’re stupid, so we probably can’t even understand that. Geesh. Maybe one day we’ll come up to their level and be able to understand — surely it won’t be soon. By then they will be even smarter. It’s not even that government knows best, it is that the progressives know better than all.

Then there was Senator Hillary CLinton’s statement to General Petraeus that his report “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.” Take that from the Liars Club. Ironically, that is exactly what Obama and his administration, including Hillary, requires from us — “suspension of disbelief.” We know he’s lying to us, but let’s not pay much attention to that detail. Instead, let’s accept what he says as the truth. Most places would call deceit on that level fraud. Just like the kind that ushered Obama into office. But in his campaign, at the time, he was busy pointing out Hillary’s lies. Round and round it goes, where it stops only Obama knows. But it never will stop because he cannot allow the lies to end.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s Biggest Lie

You might wonder, “which one?”. Well, there are many to choose from like ObamaCare, “if you like your plan you can keep it”. Notice Harry Reid can call all the victims liars, but yet can’t defend the central lie to Obama’s signature issue of his residency.

Or maybe the one about “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period.

Or maybe it is one of the related lies that ObamaCare is going to reduce the debt. Or maybe it is where he said we will save 2500 a year per family on healthcare.

Or maybe it was that string of yarns about Benghazi, claiming he called it terrorism before blaming an obscure video.

Or the recent declaration of not a smidgeon of corruption in IRS.

No, even those whoppers and others still do not rise the level of the biggest lie. But it is not even well hidden. It’s blatantly obvious in front of the public every day.

His oath is the big lie. To “faithfully execute the office“… and “to the best of my ability“. He he has broken both parts, which is the central premise of it. It makes the oath his biggest lie yet. Oh, maybe we will find something to rival it, but it will be tough to find something that central and important.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

To the best of his ability, he defies the Constitution. The only thing he is willing to defend is himself and his political interests. He stood in front of a joint Congress in the SOTU and boldly declared he would circumvent Congress to a standing ovation. How much more defiant can one be? Since he had done exactly that countless times already, there was all the more reason to take him seriously.

Even Georgetown’s Jonathon Turley took issue with his conduct, in a hearing(3hr) in December.

“In fairness of Milbank, I was indeed arguing that President Obama had violated the Take Care Clause and was placing himself above the law in these instances.” – Turley said of his Decemnber testimony.

Five years into his residency, he announces to the nation that Congress is irrelevant. They applaud him. Turley later also expressed his reaction to that.

I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.

TURLEY: I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.

But what we’re seeing now is the usurpation of authority that’s unprecedented in this country. “

O-jump suit
So you would think this biggest lie would be taken pretty seriously, getting quite a reaction. But it seems to be ignored. The one lie that needs addressed and ties to the other things he’s done, all the scandals, to the office and public, to the job itself. But the one everyone in Washington seems to willfully ignore.

To believe Obama now “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.
“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

Rogue tyrants and dictators get resolutions and sanctions for their behavior. What response has Obama’s central lie gotten? If they are just waiting for the next one, we’ve already seen the biggest lie, upon which others are built.

If this isn’t the biggest one yet, then what is?

JAMES MONROE, MARCH 4, 1817, INAUGURAL ADDRESS:
“It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty.
Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found.
The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin.”
[- Bill Federer — www.americanminute.com ]

RightRing | Bullright

Obama lie or memorex ?

    I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me.”

They should have known I was lying. Where have they been for last five or six years?

Those people will be better off for it. If they knew! Dumb people to actually believe what I said. Now I can’t be responsible for the stupid ignorance of American people.

His loyal base doesn’t care one bit that millions of people are losing their medical coverage. They just don’t care! They care about destroying the coal industry, the Koch brothers, or statements in Rand Paul’s book, but not this.

What Obama hoped is that this would be like any of his campaign promises he broke. Actually, that is expected. Everyone knows he doesn’t keep promises. He’s been clear.

He assumed it would be treated as another broken promise rather than the calculated big, fat lie it always was. He thought it would get lumped in with that pile of other broken promises. So not only do those people have crappy plans, but they have crappy sense to let themselves believe something he says.

Obama’s phony falling deficit claim

Deficits Falling (From Way Up)

Factcheck -Robert Farley- Posted on August 1, 2013

In recent speeches, President Obama has repeatedly claimed that “our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.” The White House says he’s referring to the decline in the deficit as a percentage of the nation’s economy from 2009 to 2012. But that’s not the “fastest rate” of deficit reduction in 60 years. It fell at a faster rate from 2004 to 2007.

Obama has dropped the talking point into no fewer than five speeches focused on “Jobs for the Middle Class” during the course of a week.

July 30 in Tennessee: Our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.
July 24, in Illinois: And our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.
July 25, in Missouri: And our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.
July 25, in Florida: And our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.
July 27, weekly address: Our deficits are falling at the fastest rate in 60 years.

It sounds like an impressive accomplishment to bolster the president’s case that the economy is getting better. And if the official White House transcripts are any indication, it is a reliable applause line.

To back it up, the White House press office points to historical data showing that deficits, as a percentage of gross domestic product, fell from 10.1 percent in 2009 to 7 percent in 2012. (See Table 1.2.) That’s a 3.1 percentage point drop, and the last time the U.S. saw a larger drop over an equivalent period of time was 1946 to 1949, when the deficit went from 7.2 percent of GDP to a surplus of 0.2 percent of GDP (a change of 7.4 percentage points), White House spokesman Bobby Whithorne wrote to us in an email.

To be sure, that is a marked drop in the deficit. But it’s not the “fastest rate” of deficit reduction — which speaks to relative speed.  That may sound like a mathematical technicality, but it reveals a large contextual difference.

Due to the recession, the deficit as a percentage of GDP spiked in 2009 to a level not seen since the mid-1940s. So it had further to fall than usual.

When Obama took office in 2009, he inherited a projected deficit of $1.2 trillion. He added another $200 billion in deficit spending to that. As a percentage of GDP, the deficit in fiscal year 2009 came to 10.1 percent. That’s by far the highest percentage over the last 60 years (you have to go back to the World War II years between 1942 to 1945 to see higher figures). Over the last 60 years, deficits as a percentage of the GDP have averaged 2.4 percent. The deficit was 3.2 percent in 2008, the year before Obama took office; and it was 1.2 percent the year before that. In other words, it had a long way to drop from 2009.

“Think about it this way,” Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense wrote to us in an email. “I like to compare budget numbers to diets. Bob weighs 400 pounds and loses 60 pounds in a year. Ralph is 210 pounds and loses 40 pounds in a year. Bob has lost more weight than Ralph, but Ralph is losing it faster, at a 19% rate versus a 15% rate.”

Ellis noted, correctly, that the deficit as a percentage of GDP fell 31 percent from fiscal 2009 to fiscal 2012. But he pointed to two other four-year periods when the deficit fell at a faster rate — in fact, more than twice as fast:

  • The rate of deficit reduction was 64 percent from fiscal 1993 to fiscal 1996, when the deficit fell from 3.9 percent of GDP to 1.4 percent.
  • Similarly, the rate dropped 66 percent from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2007, when the deficit went from 3.5 percent of GDP to 1.2 percent.

“So anyone can play with the numbers,” Ellis said. “Obviously, it’s a significant reduction. But let’s face it there was a lot to reduce. The deficit was morbidly obese.”

Indeed, the numbers can be sliced many different ways. The White House chose a four-year window for its comparison, but the deficit as a percentage of GDP has fallen more over shorter periods of time. For example, it fell 3.2 percentage points in 1969 (from a deficit of 2.9 percent in 1968 to a surplus of 0.3 percent of GDP in 1969).

[…] – More at: Factcheck.org

– Robert Farley