What amazes me is how many "progressives" on this site call the most successful Democratic president in years (albeit not 100%), a "republican" president, thus giving the republicans credit for his work.

..get this information out to the general public where they can see for themselves the lies the right will spew to delegitimize the President. I'm grateful to Jon Perr for this report but until more MSM does this kind of reporting and the public at large has a chance to decide for themselves whether republican'ts like hensarling are lying or not, well, is it going to matter?
Lie, repeat the lie, repeat the lie louder - that's how the republican'ts roll!

Does this surprise anyone?

The truth and the facts are irrelevant to these A holes and their supporters , they literally make up their own facts and " truth " . I ran into one of these Fox / Limbaugh listening morons yesterday , I was bidding a job . The clown asked me how things were going work wise , I said " dead to say the least " and that " I don't see any light at the end of the tunnel either " , the moron replied " and you won't under this administration " . Some of you see my posts , I'm just a little " passionate " shall we say , I want to land this job so I really had to bite my tongue , trust me . I drove off totally bewildered , these dumb fucks actually believe it when they blame Obama and the Dems for this economy , the deficit , literally everything ! Bush , the Repugs had nothing to do with it , the Dems caused it , it all happened the last couple of years after the Dems evened things up in Congress. It just boggles the mind . Probably best I didn't and don't say anything , these F'ers are totally brainwashed and are as dumb as a box of rocks so there's little point , never the less it was verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry hard to keep my mouth shut .

Joe Scarborough still claims that while he was in congress during the Clinton years that it was the republicans who forced Clinton to balance the budget therefore they are responsible for the surplus.

It was clear during the primary and election, Obama is not a progressive, he is a centrist. Not completely a bad thing, but still not what I would want in a great president.

I think it's true we on the left definitely read too much into what Obama promised and said during his campaign , on the other hand he played us too . Unless there is an end to his rope and he stops being a patsy for the Repugnants he'll be a one term President . Stays center / moves right and he is finished ( and we are screwed ) , the MSM is as usual ... full of crap . My humble opinion .

Until the Senate's UnConstitutional "60 vote rule" is overturned the Senate will continue in gridlock.

Dems!! Grow A Pair! Overturn the Senate's "60 vote rule" ..

Nowhere in the Constitution does it require a super majority in either the House OR the Senate.

And it only requires a SIMPLE MAJORITY to overturn the "60 vote rule."

DO IT !!

Newt Gingrich and plenty of other conservatives have been making the claim that it was the Republican Congress, not Clinton, that brought about the surpluses in the '90s. Just remind ANY conservative who makes this claim that if that were true, it would've been amplified when Republicans had Congress and the White House during the early part of this last decade. Rest assured, 9/11 will come up, so when that happens, ask them how 9/11 prevented Republicans in Congress and President Bush from balancing the budget. They're whole world will fall apart and they will try to find the right talking point from Rush, Hannity, etc. to explain away or make you seem crazy.

... but would it be conceivable that this could be a right-wing conspiracy to sink Pres. Obama?

I find it difficult to believe that out of a group of 41 they all 'think' exactly the same.

Wow, they are claiming credit for something the claimed never existed for 9 years.

Stay classy repubs

...for either balancing the budget or running up huge deficits.

Ronald Reagan's proposed budgets, although they had different priorities than those of Congress, ran up debt at virtually the same rate as those that were finally passed by Congress and signed by the Gipper. It's possible that there would have been marginally smaller deficits if Reagan had been the sole arbiter of national priorities -- he would have gutted every social program that he thought he could gut without risking re-election. Since Reagan knew only too well how stupid the American electorate is generally, that means he probably could have done an unbelievable amount of damage before most Americans woke up.

In the case of Clinton, it makes no sense to claim that the surpluses were due to Republican restraint. We saw what Republicans do when they control Congress and the White House simultaneously. Clinton, no favorite of mine, deserves the lion's share of credit for the budgetary restraint that emerged in the late nineties. But it was not irrelevant that the combination of a Democratic president and Republican Congress resulted in reduced deficits. Had the Democrats controlled both houses, it is still possible that we would have had deficit reduction, but I doubt if it would have been as much as we saw with the GOP in control.

The latter day claims of Republicans that the deficit reduction of the late nineties was due to Republican's responsible behavior is pure bunk. If there had been a Republican in the White House, we'd have seen the same kind of grotesquely irresponsible tax cutting (for the wealthy) and unpaid for new programs (Medicare drug bill) that we saw during Bush's tenure, unless the president himself had wanted to cut, in which case I imagine he could have gotten a majority in both houses to support him. The problem with the Republicans is they are insane (as well as dishonest). All they care about is power and getting elected and re-elected. Passing the drug bill was designed to attract votes, otherwise they would have figured out a way to pay for the bill -- a slight oversight on their part with serious budgetary implications.

If Republicans controlled both houses now, I'm quite sure we would have smaller short term deficits. There probably wouldn't have been any stimulus package beyond more tax cuts. In the short run, the numbers might have looked better, but we'd probably have much higher unemployment now, not to mention the disaster that would befall all those who had exhausted their unemployment benefits. With both houses controlled by Republicans, a global depression would certainly have been possible. Just think what that would have done for budget deficits.

The "Lost Years" (2001-2009) were a disaster for this country. Instead of taking the budget surpluses they were handed from the Clinton years and building on them, they chose to wreck our fiscal house with idiotic tax cuts, which incidentally, despite all the ideological tripe we're constantly fed by the Right, did not result in substantial economic gains. Rather we relied on reckless and corrupt fiscal policies to dig ourselves a hole so deep we may never get out. Had Bush and Congress used the surpluses and prevailing tax structure to pay for the drug benefit, it seems likely we could have continued to generate surpluses (if Greenspan didn't freak out too much) while giving even better prescription coverage than the actual bill provided.

I've felt for some time that contrary to Bush's assertion that he will be vindicated by history, it's much more likely that his two terms in office will be seen as the turning point in American history -- a time from which we never recovered.