 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 23 Jul 10 - 09:35 AM For a couple of years, it was the love that dared not speak his name. In 2008, Republican candidates hardly ever mentioned the president still sitting in the White House. After the election, the G.O.P. did its best to shout down all talk about how we got into the mess we're in, insisting that we needed to look forward, not back. And many in the news media played along, acting as if it was somehow uncouth for Democrats even to mention the Bush era and its legacy. Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times Paul Krugman Go to Columnist Page »Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal Related Times Topic: George W. BushReaders' Comments Readers shared their thoughts on this article. Read All Comments (28) » The truth, however, is that the only problem Republicans ever had with George W. Bush was his low approval rating. They always loved his policies and his governing style — and they want them back. In recent weeks, G.O.P. leaders have come out for a complete return to the Bush agenda, including tax breaks for the rich and financial deregulation. They've even resurrected the plan to cut future Social Security benefits. But they have a problem: how can they embrace President Bush's policies, given his record? After all, Mr. Bush's two signature initiatives were tax cuts and the invasion of Iraq; both, in the eyes of the public, were abject failures. Tax cuts never yielded the promised prosperity, but along with other policies — especially the unfunded war in Iraq — they converted a budget surplus into a persistent deficit. Meanwhile, the W.M.D. we invaded Iraq to eliminate turned out not to exist, and by 2008 a majority of the public believed not just that the invasion was a mistake but that the Bush administration deliberately misled the nation into war. What's a Republican to do? You know the answer. There's now a concerted effort under way to rehabilitate Mr. Bush's image on at least three fronts: the economy, the deficit and the war. On the economy: Last week Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, declared that "there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy." So now the word is that the Bush-era economy was characterized by "vibrancy." I guess it depends on the meaning of the word "vibrant." The actual record of the Bush years was (i) two and half years of declining employment, followed by (ii) four and a half years of modest job growth, at a pace significantly below the eight-year average under Bill Clinton, followed by (iii) a year of economic catastrophe. In 2007, at the height of the "Bush boom," such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000. But the Bush apologists hope that you won't remember all that. And they also have a theory, which I've been hearing more and more — namely, that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the 2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future policies, and that's what caused the economy to tank. Seriously. ... (NYT) More here. Good read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Bobert Date: 23 Jul 10 - 10:25 PM Well, yeah, Amos... For progressives everywhere we fully understand what the Repubs see as the answers to the nation's probels: tax cuts... Break yer leg??? Fix it with tax cuts... Yer dog died??? More tax buts... Yer wife just called an' someone backed into the car at the Farmers Grocery??? Tax cuts!!! I mean, yeah, the Dems oughtta make the November election 100% about Bush;'s failed policies: the tax cuts the rich and Iraq should be enough to at least keep majorities in both houses... They just gotta pick the timing right and then... ...pounce on Bush!!! It will work... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 05 Sep 10 - 10:16 AM "In recent polls, 60 percent of those surveyed thought the war in Iraq was a mistake, 70 percent thought it wasnÕt worth American lives, and only a quarter believed it made us safer from terrorism. This sour judgment is entirely reality-based. The war failed in all its stated missions except the toppling of Saddam Hussein. While we were distracted searching for IraqÕs nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Iran began revving up its actual nuclear program and Osama bin Laden and his fanatics ran free to regroup in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We handed Al Qaeda a propaganda coup by sacrificing AmericaÕs signature values on the waterboard. We disseminated untold billions of taxpayersÕ dollars from BaghdadÕs Green Zone, much of it cycled corruptly through well-connected American companies on no-bid contracts, yet Iraq still doesnÕt have reliable electricity or trustworthy security. IraqÕs Òexample of freedom,Ó as President Bush referred to his project in nation building and democracy promotion, did not inspire other states in the Middle East to emulate it. It only perpetuated the Israeli-Palestinian logjam it was supposed to help relieve. For this sad record, more than 4,400 Americans and some 100,000 Iraqis (a conservative estimate) paid with their lives. Some 32,000 Americans were wounded, and at least two million Iraqis, representing much of the nationÕs most valuable human capital, went into exile. The warÕs official cost to U.S. taxpayers is now at $750 billion. Of all the commentators on the debacle, few speak with more eloquence or credibility than Andrew Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University who as a West Point-trained officer served in Vietnam and the first gulf war and whose son, also an Army officer, was killed in Iraq in 2007. Writing in The New Republic after ObamaÕs speech, he decimated many of the warÕs lingering myths, starting with the fallacy, reignited by the hawks taking a preposterous victory lap last week, that Òthe surgeÓ did anything other than stanch the bleeding from the catastrophic American blundering that preceded it. As Bacevich concluded: ÒThe surge, now remembered as an epic feat of arms, functions chiefly as a smokescreen, obscuring a vast panorama of recklessness, miscalculation and waste that politicians, generals, and sundry warmongers are keen to forget.Ó Bacevich also wrote that Òcommon decency demands that we reflect on all that has occurred in bringing us to this moment.Ó AmericansÕ common future demands it too. The warÕs corrosive effect on the home front is no less egregious than its undermining of our image and national security interests abroad. As the Pentagon rebrands Operation Iraqi Freedom as Operation New Dawn Ñ a Òname suggesting a skin cream or dishwashing liquid,Ó Bacevich aptly writes Ñ the whitewashing of our recent history is well under way. The price will be to keep repeating it." (NYT columnist Frank Rich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Stringsinger Date: 05 Sep 10 - 08:35 PM The NY Times has been wrong about many things including attempting to sell the Iraq War. We will learn more in times to come thanks to whistle-blowers such as Julian Assange and Bradley. Bacevich, Paul Krugman and Frank Rich are brilliant and oases in a news-deprived desert. Bush years were just a continuation of policies put in place by Nixon and Reagan with a little help from Clinton as well. (Repeal of Glass-Steagal for example). The Bush years may turn out to show that Americans haven't learned much. Obama continues many of his policies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: GUEST,heric Date: 05 Sep 10 - 11:34 PM Obama's is the worst form of government, except for all others that have been tried in recent memory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:01 AM WTF? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: GUEST,heric Date: 06 Sep 10 - 02:11 AM oh, I had a few brews |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Sep 10 - 11:45 AM The Bush years in retrospect will be remembered as an almost-dicatorship. Bush got almost everything he wanted passed. (Not Obama, however). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: LadyJean Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:12 AM In March of 1993, I slipped on a concrete floor and smashed my left elbow. It is now held together by no less than nine screws. Following the surgery, I learned something about metal detectors. They have different levels of sensitivity. They can be turned up, or down, depending on how concerned security personnel are about threats to national security. After the Oklahoma City bombings, I had an interesting time getting past security for about six months. Happily the scar was still pretty large, so I had no trouble convincing people that my arm was full of hardware. After 9/11, I set off metal detectors for about six months. By the summer of 2002, I had no trouble, even during the terror alerts of 2004 I breezed through security. Then Obama was elected president. Christmas 2008, I had some problems with security. I was stopped again this summer, coming home from my sister's, during another orange alert. Conclusion: Most of Bush's orange alerts were phoney, and TSA knew it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Sep 10 - 02:25 AM So, he was a spoiled corrupt lying brat...what else is new??? Let me see....was that Bush? Clinton? Obama? Ford? Reagan? the 'other Bush? Carter? Johnson? Nixon?..Hmmm...I think singling out just one, from the 'Rogues Gallery', is a little discriminatory,..don't you??? (I guess it is how you define 'IS') GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Bobert Date: 07 Sep 10 - 08:26 AM Try learning a new song, GfinS... This one startin' to sound a whole lot like Bobby Goldsboro's "Honey"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 07 Sep 10 - 12:45 PM Bobert: "Try learning a new song, GfinS.." ....Try learning 'music theory'. Pretty soon, you can understand how it's written!...and how it works, and what DOESN'T work! THEN, you stop making stupid NOISE! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Bobert Date: 07 Sep 10 - 01:13 PM LOL, GfinS... Why would I want to learn music theory??? As fir makin' "stupid noise"??? That's purdy arrogant on yer part... Different styles of music for different folks... Me and you in a blues club doin' battle of the bands and you loose big time... But then again you probably think the blues is "stupid noise"... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 08 Sep 10 - 11:40 AM Well, in the case of politics, if you hum a few bars, they can fake it! Wink! GfS P.S. I'd jam with YA! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 08 Sep 10 - 05:29 PM "...But still we know two things: It has been nine years since Sept. 11, 2001, and the war goes on. "What happened was that an act of terrorism was allowed to redefine U.S. grand strategy. The United States operates with a grand strategy derived from the British strategy in Europe Ñ maintaining the balance of power. For the United Kingdom, maintaining the balance of power in Europe protected any one power from emerging that could unite Europe and build a fleet to invade the United Kingdom or block its access to its empire. British strategy was to help create coalitions to block emerging hegemons such as Spain, France or Germany. Using overt and covert means, the United Kingdom aimed to ensure that no hegemonic power could emerge. "The Americans inherited that grand strategy from the British but elevated it to a global rather than regional level. Having blocked the Soviet Union from hegemony over Europe and Asia, the United States proceeded with a strategy whose goal, like that of the United Kingdom, was to nip potential regional hegemons in the bud. The U.S. war with Iraq in 1990-91 and the war with Serbia/Yugoslavia in 1999 were examples of this strategy. It involved coalition warfare, shifting AmericaÕs weight from side to side and using minimal force to disrupt the plans of regional aspirants to gain power. This U.S. strategy also was cloaked in the ideology of global liberalism and human rights. ... The most significant effect of 9/11 was that it knocked the United States off its strategy. Rather than adapting its standing global strategy to better address the counterterrorism issue, the United States became obsessed with a single region, the area between the Mediterranean and the Hindu Kush. Within that region, the United States operated with a balance-of-power strategy. It played off all of the nations in the region against each other. It did the same with ethnic and religious groups throughout the region and particularly within Iraq and Afghanistan, the main theaters of the war. In both cases, the United States sought to take advantage of internal divisions, shifting its support in various directions to create a balance of power. That, in the end, was what the surge strategy was all about. The American obsession with this region in the wake of 9/11 is understandable. Nine years later, with no clear end in sight, the question is whether this continued focus is strategically rational for the United States. Given the uncertainties of the first few years, obsession and uncertainty are understandable, but as a long-term U.S. strategy Ñ the long war that the U.S. Department of Defense is preparing for Ñ it leaves the rest of the world uncovered. Consider that the Russians have used the American absorption in this region as a window of opportunity to work to reconstruct their geopolitical position. When Russia went to war with Georgia in 2008, an American ally, the United States did not have the forces with which to make a prudent intervention. Similarly, the Chinese have had a degree of freedom of action they could not have expected to enjoy prior to 9/11. The single most important result of 9/11 was that it shifted the United States from a global stance to a regional one, allowing other powers to take advantage of this focus to create significant potential challenges to the United States. One can make the case, as I have, that whatever the origin of the Iraq war, remaining in Iraq to contain Iran is necessary. It is difficult to make a similar case for Afghanistan. Its strategic interest to the United States is minimal. The only justification for the war is that al Qaeda launched its attacks on the United States from Afghanistan. But that justification is no longer valid. Al Qaeda can launch attacks from Yemen or other countries. The fact that Afghanistan was the base from which the attacks were launched does not mean that al Qaeda depends on Afghanistan to launch attacks. And given that the apex leadership of al Qaeda has not launched attacks in a while, the question is whether al Qaeda is capable of launching such attacks any longer. In any case, managing al Qaeda today does not require nation building in Afghanistan. But let me state a more radical thesis: The threat of terrorism cannot become the singular focus of the United States. Let me push it further: The United States cannot subordinate its grand strategy to simply fighting terrorism even if there will be occasional terrorist attacks on the United States. Three thousand people died in the 9/11 attack. That is a tragedy, but in a nation of over 300 million, 3,000 deaths cannot be permitted to define the totality of national strategy. Certainly, resources must be devoted to combating the threat and, to the extent possible, disrupting it. But it must also be recognized that terrorism cannot always be blocked, that terrorist attacks will occur and that the worldÕs only global power cannot be captive to this single threat...." Read more: 9/11 and the 9-Year War | STRATFOR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Bobert Date: 08 Sep 10 - 08:13 PM 9/11 didn't knock US off our strategy... The neo-cons did... They were the happiest poeple on the planet on 9/11... They'd allready been thrown outta Bill Clinton's office with their geo-political theories... Bush should have done the sdame except Bush was allready brainwashed by them before the 2000 election (selection) and so he was ready and willin' to take anything (think Gulf of Tonkin here) that ruffled the waters as an excuse to turn loose the neo-cons... And turn them loose, he did... And, like they say, the rest is hostory... B~ p.s. Yo, GfinS... You wanta jam in my band then callin' then the music "stupid noise" kinda has to, ahhhhh, go... Wink back atcha... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 14 Sep 10 - 04:22 PM Group offers $100,000 for 'information leading to the arrest and conviction of Karl Rove' Amid the launch of a new campaign to encourage greater scrutiny of the right-wing "American Crossroads" groups known to many as the "shadow RNC," an activist organization declared that it would give $100,000 to any person who comes forward with "information leading to the arrest and conviction of Karl Rove." The campaign is being conducted by American Crossroads Watch, an offshoot of Velvet Revolution, which promotes issues key to many progressives activists and represents the political will of dozens of organizations and unions nation-wide. Their newly launched Web site declares: Karl Rove created American Crossroads to continue his 40-year history of unfairly manipulating elections on behalf of oligarchs. He joined with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a cabal of corporate barons, and other CEOs that want Big Business to control our elections and our government. In a request for an advisory opinion [PDF link] filed with the Federal Election Commission, an attorney for Protect Our Elections cites reporting by RAW STORY, Rolling Stone and The Huffington Post to build a case alleging that Rove and his groups have effectively replaced the official RNC, hence they should be subject to the same rules and not be allowed unlimited donations. A second request [PDF link], filed with the Department of Justice, urges the protection of the 2010 elections from wealthy individuals and groups who seek to win "by hook or crook." They further insist that the DOJ "[launch] a specific criminal investigation into American Crossroads/American Crossroads GPS for its coup d'etat of the RNC for the purpose of controlling the United States Government." Naturally, the offer of a reward for Rove's arrest and conviction was issued by way of an online wanted poster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: ollaimh Date: 14 Sep 10 - 09:33 PM the real tragedy of the bush years is if they had put all that deficit money inot alternative energyn they would energy independent by now--or very soon. however in the grey back rooms i think the theorists of the republicans are planning on bankruptcy as a weapon against the people who own american debt instruments. can you say china. of course these ideologs are playing dice with our lives. they had to know that the debt they were running up is crippling in conventional terms. spain defaulted with its debt twice. both times they were happy to destroy backers who they had to use but felt were against their strategy for a ubited europe. this kind of geo politics id madness i love that quote that facts have a very liberal bias |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Bobert Date: 14 Sep 10 - 09:58 PM Yeah, yer right, ollz... Purdy messed up... But hetre's the rub... I mean, think about this... China really doesn't much care about the dollars they are stashin' away... They have a fully employed, robust economy... I mean, they could have $5Gazzion US dollars locked up in their safes and guess what??? Who cares??? They are just collecting dust... Well, seems that dust-collectin' greenabacks sittin' unner Boss Hog's mattress and thems in in China me thinks there is a reason that banks ain't makin' no loans here in the good ol' US of A.... The money ain't in them banks... It's all in China and under Boss Hog's mattress... Can I get a "Duhhhhhh"?... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 21 Sep 10 - 09:04 PM Fearing a soaring deficit, many analysts favor letting Bush tax cuts expire y From foreclosure to food shortages, the recession set in motion by the financial crisis of 2008 is having a broad and deeply-felt global impact. Tax cuts enacted under former president George W. Bush are set to expire at year's end, and lawmakers are battling over whether to extend them before the November elections. By Lori Montgomery Washington Post Staff Writer The tax cuts at the heart of a fierce pre-election battle on Capitol Hill were designed when the economy was booming, the federal budget was in surplus and George W. Bush was campaigning for president on a promise to return the extra cash to taxpayers. Today, the economy is sluggish and the national debt is soaring to worrisome levels. As lawmakers bicker over whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, not just for the middle class but also for the wealthy, many economists and budget analysts say there's a simple way to curb borrowing: Let the tax cuts expire for everyone. Official and independent budget estimates show that letting tax rates spring back to pre-Bush levels for all taxpayers would bring the country within striking distance of meeting President Obama's goal of balancing the budget, excluding interest payments on the debt, by 2015. "If we actually ended the Bush-era tax cuts, that would pretty much do it," Obama's recently departed budget director, Peter Orszag, said in an interview last week with CNN's Fareed Zakaria. "If you do a bit on the spending side and then end the tax cuts, you pretty much get there." But for all the election-year hand-wringing about deficits, no one in Washington is talking about letting the tax cuts lapse on schedule in January. Instead, Senate Republicans have offered a measure that would extend all the cuts, adding nearly $4 trillion to the debt over the next decade. This week, Senate Democrats say they plan to unveil a bill that would preserve most of the cuts for most Americans. That would add nearly $2 trillion to deficits by 2020. Obama argues that allowing the cuts to expire for the wealthiest 3 million taxpayers - one of the chief differences between the two Senate proposals - is more fiscally responsible than the GOP's position. "The first thing you do when you're in a hole is not dig it deeper," he said at a town hall meeting Monday in Washington. But the Democrats' plan also represents a pretty big shovel, budget analysts said. "Both parties are being disingenuous here," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonprofit Concord Coalition, which advocates balanced budgets. "When I hear the Democrats saying Republicans are willing to add to the deficit, well, the Democrats are willing to add $2 trillion to the deficit themselves. The Democrats are doing almost as much damage to the deficit as the Republicans are." Although the down economy might offer good reason to keep tax rates low for another year or two, putting more money in the hands of consumers, Bixby and other budget experts say it makes no sense to maintain that level of taxation permanently when the government is borrowing more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy would be stronger with the cuts, but only through 2012, when the extra borrowing they require "would reduce or 'crowd out' investment in productive capital." Even former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, an early advocate of the cuts, now says Congress should let them expire. "I am very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money," Greenspan said in an interview last month. The budget outlook was far rosier when Bush conceived the cuts, which were one of the biggest tax reductions since World War II. Thanks to tax increases and robust economic growth, the Clinton administration had balanced the budget for the first time since the 1960s and was starting to pay down the national debt. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 10 - 08:57 AM Yeah, Amos... I read that story... Too bad you couldn't import the graphs, too... But it does seem that at least the Seante Repubs and alot of the House Repubs, as well, are in a pickle on this one... The reality is that the tax cuts have controbuted heavily to the deficit... And continuing them while saying you want to cut the deficit is, ahhhhhhh, insane... No, really... It is insanity... I mean, people try to make economics difficult... It isn't... It so simple that even a caveman can figure it out... Behind on yer bills??? Get a 2nd job (more income, stupid...)... Ain't rocket surgery here... Can we get a big ol' "Duhhhhhhh"??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Sawzaw Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:00 PM "a dollar of tax cuts raises the G.D.P. by about $3" "each dollar of government spending increases the G.D.P. by $1.40" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Bobert Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:11 PM That pure bull, Sawz... The reality is that the Fortune 500 CEOs admit that their corpo0artions are sitting on atleast $1.8T that is not invested in squat... This has been reported in several reputable news sources included the right of center NBC... So, maybe you'd like to tell the good folks how sitting money adds anything to the GNP... It doesn't... Not even flat=earth economists would argue that obviously wrong point... Try again, Sawz... The dog not only don't hunt but it ain't even a dog... It's a stuffed animal... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Sawzaw Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:17 PM Again the "facts" put forth by some Democrats are characterized as "pure bull" by other Democrats. All three Stooges must have been Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 22 Sep 10 - 02:33 PM Sawz: Where did you get those statements offered as quotes? Under what conditions are they true, do you think (if you do)? A dollar of tax cuts does nothing to the economy unless the cuttee uses the dollar. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Sawzaw Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:03 PM I am not an economist Amos. Are you? "a dollar of tax cuts raises the G.D.P. by about $3" "each dollar of government spending increases the G.D.P. by $1.40" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Sawzaw Date: 22 Sep 10 - 11:20 PM Here's a good one Amos. In 2004 the top 20% of households got an 8.56% tax break while the bottom 20% got a 13.65% tax break. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Bobert Date: 23 Sep 10 - 10:22 AM Still waiting for an answer, Sawz, on how money sitting (uninvested) adds to the GNP??? Purdy important question these days, too... Seems that the Repubs won't answer it... They run from that question like pigs from a gun... Why???... Because they are 100% wrong and so are you... You don't have to be an economist to know that sitting money doesn't help the GNP... Read Paul Klugman's article... He's not only an economist but has won international acclaim for what he knows and has contributed... Yeah, go read him... It's one thing to be ignorant ("I'm not an economist") but quite another, when facts are made available to you, to ignore them... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 23 Sep 10 - 11:40 AM Sawz: You might have mentioned that the FULL excerpt on tax cut returns says: "The evidence, however, is hard to square with the theory. A recent study by Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer, then economists at the University of California, Berkeley, finds that a dollar of tax cuts raises the G.D.P. by about $3. According to the Romers, the multiplier for tax cuts is more than twice what Professor Ramey finds for spending increases. Why this is so remains a puzzle. One can easily conjecture about what the textbook theory leaves out, but it will take more research to sort things out. And whether these results based on historical data apply to our current extraordinary circumstances is open to debate. " So the source of this profound insight--which you have offered as a concrete, ironclad conclusion--is one recent study without an explanation, and the guy you got it from says it needs more research to sort out, and he doesn't know if this applies to the present situation or not. A little less absolute than you implied, no? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Sep 10 - 11:26 AM "So, maybe you'd like to tell the good folks how sitting money adds anything to the GNP" No it doesn't and when did I say it did? Perhaps you could explain why an absurd question means anything because someone did not answer it. I put forth two quotes. You can determine if they are correct or not. But your method of determining facts consists of ad hominem attacks rather than studying the actual facts. You won't answer questions about statements you make but you demand that I answer about a statement I did not make. Mr Amos: You read implications into things. I did nothing but present two quotes. It is you that must put some sort of rhetorical spin on your posts as if it adds to the validity or invalidity of the statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 11 Oct 10 - 02:45 PM "...Ever wonder why Goldman-Sachs CEO Henry Paulson took that low-paying government job as Dubya's Treasury Secretary? Think it was to nobly serve his country? Gary Gordon of McClatchy News: while Goldman CEO, "Paulson had presided over the firm's plunge into the business of buying up subprime mortgages ... and then repackaging them into securities.... During Paulson's first 15 months as the treasury secretary..., Goldman unloaded more than $30 billion in dicey residential mortgage securities ... and became the only major Wall Street firm to dramatically cut its losses and exit the housing market safely. Goldman also racked up billions of dollars in profits by secretly betting on a downturn in home mortgage securities." Experts say it's obvious Paulson's inaction at Treasury was designed to maximize Goldman profits despite the disastrous consequences for the markets & the American economy. CW: and Paulson will never suffer any consequences...." (Realitychex.com) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:44 AM Conflict of interest claims It has been pointed out that Paulson's plan could potentially have some conflicts of interest, since Paulson was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a firm that may benefit largely from the plan. Economic columnists called for more scrutiny of his actions. Questions remain about Paulson's interest, despite the fact that he had no direct financial interest in Goldman, since he had sold his entire stake in the firm prior to becoming Treasury Secretary, pursuant to ethics law. The Goldman Sachs benefit from AIG bailout was recently estimated as USD 12.9 billion and GS was the largest recipient of the public funds from AIG. Creating the collateralized debt obligations (CDO's) forming the basis of the current crisis was an active part of Goldman Sach's business during Paulson's tenure as CEO. Opponents[ argued that Paulson remained a Wall Street insider who maintained close friendships with higher-ups of the bailout beneficiaries. If passed into law as originally written, the proposed bill would have given the United States Treasury Secretary unprecedented powers over the economic and financial life of the U.S. Section 8 of Paulson's original plan stated: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Some time after the passage of a rewritten bill, the press reported that the Treasury was now proposing to use these funds ($700 billion) in ways other than what was originally intended in the bill. Career after public service Since leaving his role as Treasury Secretary, Paulson has joined the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University as a distinguished visiting fellow, and a fellow at the university's Bernard Schwartz Forum on Constructive Capitalism. His memoir, On the Brink: Inside the Race to Stop the Collapse of the Global Financial System, was published by Hachette Book Group on February 1, 2010. Civic activities Paulson has been described as an avid nature lover. He has been a member of The Nature Conservancy for decades and was the organization's board chairman and co-chair of its Asia-Pacific Council. In that capacity, Paulson worked with former President of the People's Republic of China Jiang Zemin to preserve the Tiger Leaping Gorge in Yunnan province. Paulson is also on the Board of Directors of the Peregrine Fund; was the founding Chairman of the Advisory Board of the School of Economics and Management of Tsinghua University in Beijing; and, previously served as chairman of the influential trade group, the Financial Services Forum. Notable among the members of Bush's cabinet, Paulson has said he is a strong believer in the effect of human activity on global warming and advocates immediate action to decrease this effect. During his tenure as CEO of Goldman Sachs, Paulson oversaw the corporate donation of 680,000 acres (2,800 km2) on the forested Chilean side of Tierra del Fuego, bringing criticism from Goldman shareholder groups. He further donated to conservancy causes US$100 million of assets from his wealth, and has pledged his entire fortune for the same purpose upon his death. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Donuel Date: 12 Oct 10 - 09:38 PM Having read virtually all of sawz writings and copy pastes, it is clear to methat he is in the closet. The closet of right wing conservative radicals who carry on a pretense of centrism while quoting Rovian party lines and Beckian distortions of history which the rest of us know as lies. "yeah buddy I'm one of you" Sure sawz, just like Christine O'Donnel is "you" ------------------- All the wrongs that I warned about going back 10 years, that have since come to pass, are the very same issues that sawz, Doug R BB and their like, celebrated as being right. They went even further and engaged in horrible accusations and ad hominum attacks as they rode the wave of the Bush administration. The triumph they celeprated that are now known to be mistakes are deep and systemic enough that they too shall suffer deeply and for a long time to come. This is not lost to them but they are unable to own their mistakes. Instead all associations and personalities respondsible for the systemic collapse, they merely blamed on Obama. The mistakes I announced over the years did not take a brain surgeon to notice. Some were as simple as obeying the rule "Never wage a war in Asia, Never wage a war on 2 seperate fronts. Never bankrupt the middle class to the point that they can not afford purchasing power of any kind, since 72% of our economy is domestic consumer based buying." Whether people are paid to hold views which enable to destroy this nation over time or simply hold these views to please a father or emplyer, the result is the same. What saved the USA the last time we had a serious depression is that right wing demogogery and left wing solidarity both shut up long enough to wage a war against a common enemy. This time around we have even less domestic industry left in this country but the idea of coming together is as likely as Fox News giving Obama a million dollars to run in 2012. The 400 wealthiest Greedonauts will simply not allow it. Its time all of you ask why. Why do foreign banks and individuals give money to the Republican Parety to run commercials against Democrats? They know that the Republican Party has always delivered when it came to outsourcing American jobs to their country to the great benefit of foreign nations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Bobert Date: 12 Oct 10 - 09:54 PM That scariest part of the equation, Donuel, is that the Goldman-Sachs have been able to rally the dumbest among us and those who have and will be the hurt the most by the Goldman-Sachs "ideal world" to shill for them??? I mean, one day historians will look back upon these times as if the Jews were shilling for Hitler... I mean, this is complete insanity on Redneck Nation's part.... They are voting to screw themselves... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 21 Oct 10 - 10:46 PM ÒI loved being your president,Ó George W. Bush said, speaking to an audience at a university fundraiser in Alabama earlier this month. ÒBut frankly,Ó he added, ÒIÕm having the time of my life not being your president.Ó Last night, Bush told a sold out crowd in Texas why he loved being president so much: Bush said he misses certain aspects of the presidency. ÒI miss being pampered; I miss Air Force One; I miss being commander in chief of an awesome group of (people),Ó he said. Showing 116 comments Random_Chaos Yesterday 02:17 PM Im'e sorry, is this newsworthy? WGAF? (Edited by author 1 day ago) 4 people liked this. Like Reply SVrob Yesterday 02:32 PM in reply to Random_Chaos What do you have against clown stories? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:49 PM .US. military officials failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and murders, according to classified documents examined by the Guardian, a British newspaper. The documents cited by the Guardian said that as recently as December 2009, U.S. authorities were passed a video of Iraqi soldiers executing a bound detainee. The documents, given to the Guardian and the New York Times by WikiLeaks, also indicate that as far back as 2005, Iran armed and trained squads to kill senior Iraqi politicians and undermine U.S. and British military operations, the Guardian reported. Der Spiegel of Germany and France's Le Monde also were given advance copies of almost 400,000 documents generated between 2003 and 2010 by U.S. military units. WikiLeaks.org receives confidential material that governments and businesses want to keep secret and posts the information on the Internet. The group plans a news conference in London tomorrow. The U.S. Defense Department "strongly" condemns the unauthorized release of the documents, spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an e-mailed statement. Morrell declined to comment on the documents themselves, other than to call them initial, raw observations by tactical units. The documents indicate that the number of Iraqi civilians killed was greater than the U.S. revealed during the Bush administration, according to the New York Times. While the documents don't give a precise count, they list more than 100,000 deaths over five years ending in 2009, with some incidents counted twice or inconsistently, the newspaper said. Mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by their own forces appeared to be even more graphic than the accounts of abuse by the U.S. military at the Abu Ghraib prison, the Times said. The documents contain references to at least six prisoners who died in Iraqi custody during the six years covered as well as hundreds of accounts of beatings, burnings and lashings. A Pentagon spokesman said international practice makes Iraqi authorities responsible for investigating abuses by their own forces, the Times said. Release of the information poses a risk to U.S. national security and relations with Iraq, Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan told reporters earlier today. He said the documents might identify Iraqis who worked closely with the U.S. ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:13 AM "...You can't have a coherent conversation about deficit reduction if tax increases are off the table and the country is still at war. This is fantasyland economics, the equivalent of believing that John Boehner can fly. People traveling in the real world understand that the federal budget deficits are sky high because of the Bush-era tax cuts, the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the spending that was needed to keep the Great Recession from spiraling into another Great Depression. Even if deficit reduction right now were a good idea — which it is not, given the sorry state of the economy and the vast legions of the unemployed — the deficit zealots have no viable plan for getting their misguided mission accomplished. What's needed now is the same thing that has been needed for the past two years and more, a bold plan to put millions of Americans back to work and paying taxes, and a careful, thoughtful, strategic but unequivocal withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. If we don't engage these two issues effectively, there is little hope of getting to the other enormous challenges facing the country, including the metastasizing presence of poverty, the worsening problems facing already chronically underperforming public schools, and the deteriorating economic and social conditions that have drained the vitality of so many cities, rust-belt communities and rural areas. The golden doors of opportunity are closing on America's young. The United States, once the world's leader in the percentage of young people with college degrees, is now a sorry 12th among 36 developed nations, according to the College Board. As a society, we've lost our way, and there is no chance of getting reoriented if we can't find the courage to make some really tough decisions about warfare, taxes, public investment, the crying need to educate all young people, and the paramount importance of gainful employment as the cornerstone of a revitalized America. Great sacrifices will have to be made if the U.S. is to get its act together, and those sacrifices will have to be shared. We can start now, or we can wait and continue to fantasize about an eventual triumph in Afghanistan, or about cutting budgets with some magic cleaver until they're finally balanced and all's right with the world, or whatever other impossible dream is floated by the chronically dissembling political class to blind us to the real world. " NYT Columnist Bob Herbert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Donuel Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:13 PM The new Bush memoir has been good for the economy. Vast hoardes of Bush interpretors got a job to go back on FOX to justify all the alleged crimes as family values at their best or innocent high jinx at the worst. "When I asked myself if water boarding was torture, I didn't have to ask the Lord or my conscience, I asked my lawyers" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 09 Nov 10 - 07:12 PM IRAQ -- 'I WAS A DISSENTING VOICE': Bush doubles down on the disastrous war in Iraq, writing, "Saddam Hussein didn't just pursue weapons of mass destruction. He had used them." "He deployed mustard gas and nerve agents against the Iranians and massacred more than five thousand innocent civilians," Bush said, adding that he believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was stunned to find out that he didn't. It was "unbelievably frustrating," Bush told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "Of course, it was frustrating. It -- everybody thought he had WMD. Everybody being every intelligence service, everybody in the administration ." "No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn't find the weapons. I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do," Bush writes in his book. When asked by NBC's Matt Lauer if he filtered out dissenting voices against the war, Bush retorted, "I was a dissenting voice. I didn't want to use force. I mean force is the last option for a president. And I think it's clear in the book that I gave diplomacy every chance to work. And I will also tell you the world's better off without Saddam in power. And so are 25 million Iraqis." Recently declassified documents and press accounts, however, contradict Bush's version of events and reveal that his administration was looking for a way to "decapitate" the Iraqi government since 2001. As Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul OÕNeill -- who Bush fired for "disagreeing too many times" with him -- puts it, Bush was "all about finding a way to [go to war]. That was the tone of it. The President saying 'Go find me a way to do this.'" In 2002, Bush also reportedly told then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while she was in a meeting with three U.S. Senators on how to approach Iraq diplomatically, "F--- Saddam. We're taking him out." In "talking about why we needed this war," Bush also later referenced an alleged Iraqi assassination plot against Bush's father: "We need to get Saddam Hussein...that Mother F----- tried to take out my Dad." Asked by Lauer if he ever considered apologizing to the American people over the war and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, Bush replied, "I mean, apologizing would basically say the decision was a wrong decision," Bush replied. "And I don't believe it was the wrong decision." (The Progress Report) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:09 PM Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder said Tuesday that former President George W. Bush "is not telling the truth" in his new memoir "Decision Points," according to the German magazine Der Spiegel. Schroder, who lost power in 2005, takes issue with a passage in the book in which Mr. Bush describes a 2002 meeting between the two men. The former president writes that when he said he was considering the use of force in Iraq, Schroder said, "'What is true of Afghanistan is true of Iraq. Nations that sponsor terror must face consequences. If you make it fast and make it decisive, I will be with you.'" Mr. Bush writes that he "took that as a statement of support. But when the German election arrived later that year, Schroder had a different take. He denounced the possibility of force against Iraq." Schroder says Mr. Bush's description of the exchange is false. He said in that meeting and in others he told Mr. Bush that Germany would stand by the United States if Iraq is shown "to have provided protection and hospitality to al-Qaida fighters." He added, however, that it became clear in 2002 that the alleged connection between Iraq and al-Qaida "was false and constructed." Schroder ultimately opposed the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Bush writes in "Decision Points" that though he continued to work with the German leader on some issues, "as someone who valued personal diplomacy, I put a high premium on trust. Once that trust was violated, it was hard to have a constructive relationship again." He also writes that he was "shocked and furious" that a German official (then-Justice Minister Herta Daubler-Gmelin) compared him to Hitler for what she cast as trying "to distract people from his domestic difficulties" through war. (Daubler-Gmelin ultimately lost her job for the comment.) As Der Spiegel notes, Mr. Bush and Schroder's relationship was seriously strained by the Iraq war, which Schroder has called "the mother of all misjudgments." (The former president did offer kind words for Schroder in his memoir for "his leadership on Afghanistan.") In his memoir "Decisions: My Life in Politics," Schroder wrote that Mr. Bush spoke in "almost Biblical semantics" and gave off the impression "that political decisions are a result of this conversation with God." Fom CBS News That's two people calling him a liar on specifics... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: gnu Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM I know I shouldn't, but.... There WERE WMDs. WERE!!! The west sold them to Saddam so he DID have them. They were spirited Libya in the dark of night before the invasion. Next thing ya know, Tony and Quackdaffy are the best of buddies. Imagine that shit! And BP is now in Libya setting up ops for drilling. Who could have guessed? Bush? At least a fall guy (which is inane). At best, a good old boy from Texas that played the part of a well paid rootin tootin shootin cowboy.... = a pawn of the British Empire. Yes, a pawn of a member of the rulers of this earth. And, that shite about Tony being his bitch... stop that... it's just plain silly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 10 Nov 10 - 04:17 PM "According to an item published on the Financial Times's website, this happened when a group of British dignitaries visited George W. Bush in the White House in the middle of the 2008 presidential election: Trying to be even-handed and polite, the Brits said something diplomatic about McCain's campaign, expecting Bush to express some warm words of support for the Republican candidate. Not a chance. "I probably won't even vote for the guy," Bush told the group, according to two people present. "I had to endorse him. But I'd have endorsed Obama if they'd asked me." Endorse Obama? Cue dumbfounded look from British officials, followed by some awkward remarks about the Washington weather. Even Gordon Brown's poker face gave way to a flash of astonishment. Over at AOL News, David Knowles suggests that there may be evidence in Bush's new book that the then-president favored Obama over McCain. "In 'Decision Points,' Bush's newly released memoir, the former president makes no bones about the fact that of the two candidates, he much preferred the way Obama handled the news of the financial sector meltdown." Of course, if the report is true, it's worth pointing out that even if Bush would have wanted to endorse Obama, it's doubtful that Obama would have even wanted it. There's a reason he didn't ask. " Hmmmm. Maybe there was a reason... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 17 Nov 10 - 12:20 PM Giving the Lie to Bush's Memoirs is an eye opening piece that shows the underhanded indifference to truth in stark highlight. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 18 Nov 10 - 11:12 AM ""The documents indicate that the number of Iraqi civilians killed was greater than the U.S. revealed during the Bush administration, according to the New York Times. While the documents don't give a precise count, they list more than 100,000 deaths over five years ending in 2009, with some incidents counted twice or inconsistently, the newspaper said."" Attributed to Confucius (I'm not sure I believe that, but the wisdom of the quote is inescapable). "War does not determine who is right, War only determines who is LEFT!" Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 24 Nov 10 - 06:36 PM ay McGovern, Consortium News: "Why should George W. Bush have been 'angry' to learn in late 2007 of the unanimous judgment of all 16 US intelligence agencies that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon four years earlier? Seems to me he might have said 'Hot Dog!' rather than curse under his breath. Nowhere in his memoir, Decision Points, is Bush's bizarre relationship to truth so manifest as when he describes his dismay at learning that the intelligence community had redeemed itself for its lies about Iraq by preparing an honest Estimate that stuck a rod in the wheels of the juggernaut rolling toward war with Iran." Read the Article (Warning: slow server). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 24 Nov 10 - 06:41 PM "But someone should ask Bush why he was not relieved, rather than angered, to learn from a National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had had no active nuclear weapons program since 2003. Also, one might ask why Bush thought Israel should have been Òfurious with the United States over the NIE.Ó It seems likely that Bush actually dictated this part of the book himself. For, in setting down his reaction to the NIE on Iran, he confirmed the insight that Dr. Justin Frank, M.D., who teaches psychiatry at George Washington University Hospital, gave us veteran intelligence officers into how Bush comes at reality Ñ or doesnÕt. ÒHis pathology is a patchwork of false beliefs and incomplete information woven into what he asserts is the whole truth... He lies Ñ not just to us, but to himself as well... What makes lying so easy for Bush is his contempt Ñ for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him.... So his words mean nothing. That is very important for people to understand.Ó" Ibid |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Donuel Date: 24 Nov 10 - 07:12 PM Amos, according the the new Bush book Decision Points, most or all your criticisms of Bush and his administration are either wrong or outright lies. When Bush speaks of Saddam's WMD program he employs the conditional future pluperfect tense. Wow Bush is a much better writer than a speaker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Greg F. Date: 25 Nov 10 - 08:35 AM Amos, according the the new Bush book Decision Points, most or all your criticisms of Bush and his administration are either wrong or outright lies. I don't think you copuld ask for better proof that the book is merely a tributary of the Republican River Of Bullshit. P.S.: two words: ghost writer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 14 Dec 10 - 06:50 PM Halliburton Offers Nigeria $250 Million in Exchange for Dropping Charges Against Cheney, Company Jason Leopold, Truthout: "Nigerian authorities said Tuesday they may drop bribery and corruption charges against Halliburton and former Vice President Dick Cheney over bribes company executives paid to government officials in Nigeria during Cheney's tenure at the oil services firm in exchange for securing contracts to build a liquefied natural gas facility in the country. Last week, Nigeria's anti-corruption unit, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), met with representatives for Halliburton and Cheney in London in an attempt to hammer out a deal. Halliburton reportedly offered to pay $250 million in fines to settle the case." (truthout.org) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bush Years In Retrospect From: Amos Date: 25 Dec 10 - 05:40 PM Bush Deception Points Former President George W. BushÕs book Decision Points is apparently selling quite well. The book includes a defense of the presidentÕs fiscal record, and a table on page 447 compares Bush to prior presidents on spending and debt (you can see the table on AmazonÕs search inside feature). One problem with the table is that Bush claims credit for the low spending and debt of President ClintonÕs last year, fiscal 2001. The first budget Bush crafted was for fiscal 2002. Here are the data reported by Bush, and data recalculated to better reflect the budgets that each president had some control over. Figures are averages over the fiscal year periods, measured as a share of GDP: Decision Points Comparison: Clinton (1993-2000) 19.8%, Bush (2001-2008) 19.6%. More Accurate Comparison: Clinton (1994-2001) 19.4%, Bush (2002-2009) 20.4%. The book makes Bush look better on spending, but a more accurate comparison shows Clinton to have a better record. ItÕs true that Bush was not responsible for some of fiscal 2009 spending, and if we take that year out Bush would have average spending of 19.8%. But consider the direction of spending under the two presidentsÐspending fell under Clinton from 21.4% to 18.2%, but it increased under Bush from 18.2% to 20.7% by fiscal 2008 (and even higher in fiscal 2009). (Spending data are here). The table in Decision Points also shows Bush looking better than Clinton on public debt as a share of GDP, averaged over each presidentÕs tenure. But the debt data has the same time period problem as the spending data. More importantly, Clinton delivered surpluses his last four years in office, which handed Bush a budget with very low debt and low interest costs. The low interest costs helped mask the spending-increase policies of Bush for a number of years. But BushÕs profligacy eventually became clear to analysts and the public alike, and this autobiography cannot undo his record as the biggest spender since LBJ. Final note: yes, I understand that Congress plays a large role in federal budgeting, but so do presidents. Presidents propose annual budgets, they twist arms and use the bully pulpit to increase or cut programs, they support legislation to expand or contract entitlement programs, and they sign or veto appropriation and authorization bills. (Cato Institute blog) |
