PDA

View Full Version : Bush Book on Economic Growth!



DiabloViejo
05-17-2012, 06:54 PM
Love it!

Bush Writes Book…On Economic GROWTH! (Not An Onion Article)
May 17, 2012
By Don Hamel
Addicting Info (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/17/bush-writes-book-on-economic-growth-not-an-onion-article/)

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bush_confused.jpg

Do you have a Major League Baseball franchise you’d like to bankrupt? Or maybe you’ve got a $128 billion dollar surplus, you’d like to turn into a $10.667 trillion debt ? Recently in ‘news that sounds like a joke, but isn’t,’ George W. Bush announced he’s writing a book on economic growth.

With a presidential economic record that ranks among the worst in U.S. history , a book on economic growth from W. should be about as useful as a Three Stooges instructional video on how to avoid pie fights .

On the other hand, if it’s your goal to waste some money the George Bush way, you can do it in one easy step:

1. Buy this book.

cushioncrawler
05-17-2012, 07:08 PM
Yeah, a book say on murder written by someone who haznt ever murdered wouldnt impress me az much az a book written by a murderer.
Wait a mo, Dubb iz a murderer.
Praps there iz a book out there on murder written by an ekonomist.
I will keep looking.
mac.

Qtec
05-18-2012, 12:48 AM
I bet its the world's shortest book!


Q

eg8r
05-18-2012, 01:05 AM
LOL, more talk about a non-existent surplus. LOL, these lefty idiots will never let a good lie go away.

eg8r

Qtec
05-18-2012, 01:24 AM
According to the CBO he had a surplus. I think it totalled out at 281 Billion.

This guy disagrees but he also says... It is NOT true that Bill Clinton created a “surplus” (http://state-of-the-nation.com/2610/true-bill-clinton-created-surplus-lot-expenses-books/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 <span style='font-size: 20pt'>was Clinton’s</span> </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif



Q

LWW
05-18-2012, 05:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, more talk about a non-existent surplus. LOL, these lefty idiots will never let a good lie go away.

eg8r </div></div>

It was the lie they wanted to hear.

I'll ask our leftist brain trust ...AGAIN ... if Clinton, in fact, ran a surplus ... why did the national debt rise for all 8 years of his regime?

Why did he state, when the dems held congress, that balancing the budget would wreck the economy?

Why did he oppose the republican congressional efforts to reduce the deficit?

Why did he promise in the 1996 campaign to reverse what the republican congress forced upon him?

Why is he now taking credit for things he fought against?

Why is te left crediting him for what they opposed?

Why is the left raising Obama for going in the opposite direction?

This is where a leftist jumps in with some doublethink Alinskyism and launches an ad hominem attack.

Gayle in MD
05-18-2012, 06:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DiabloViejo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Love it!

Bush Writes Book…On Economic GROWTH! (Not An Onion Article)
May 17, 2012
By Don Hamel
Addicting Info (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/17/bush-writes-book-on-economic-growth-not-an-onion-article/)

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/bush_confused.jpg

Do you have a Major League Baseball franchise you’d like to bankrupt? Or maybe you’ve got a $128 billion dollar surplus, you’d like to turn into a $10.667 trillion debt ? Recently in ‘news that sounds like a joke, but isn’t,’ George W. Bush announced he’s writing a book on economic growth.

With a presidential economic record that ranks among the worst in U.S. history , a book on economic growth from W. should be about as useful as a Three Stooges instructional video on how to avoid pie fights .

On the other hand, if it’s your goal to waste some money the George Bush way, you can do it in one easy step:

1. Buy this book. </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>BWA HA HA HA HA! I suppose there will be a follow up book about how Bush killed bin Laden?

There is a new book out by another top level CIA guy....can't recall his name right now...sorry.

At any rate, he confirms everything that Richard Clarke told us in Against All Enemies, about the gross incompetence of the Bush Administration in their outdated ideas about foreign policy, and how they ignored the threat of al Qaeda.

They were decades behind in their thinking, as many others have confirmed. Still focused on Russia, lol.

Trillions wasted in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed, and all to enhance the power and interests of Iran, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, the Cheney, Bush and bin Laden families... and Big Oil!

George W. Bush, the bin Laden's inside guy, who destroyed America's future. And the Repiglican Flyover Lemmings voted for him twice, even after all of the evidence of his lies and incompetence were painfully obvious, at least to thinking people, who READ BOOKS.

Now, they will run out and vote for another LIAR, the job killer,
Mitsey Romney, the man who saved the auto industry! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif Forty sevennth in the nation in job creation as Governor....LMAO! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Idiots~!

A Bush book on Economic growth??? LMAO, sort of like Bristol Palin's self proclaimed expertise in abstinence? She's written her new book on abstinence, while she's living with her new lover! BWA HA HA HA....





</span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Soflasnapper
05-18-2012, 09:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, more talk about a non-existent surplus. LOL, these lefty idiots will never let a good lie go away.

eg8r </div></div>

Lefty idiots?

Gingrich touted his time in office as Speaker as yielding FOUR YEARS of surpluses.

Do you know what he was referring to?

Did no one on the Republican side, even those who were disputing the race with him, know what you think you know, and attack him over this statement? Or, was it true?

I already pushed back on DV when he mentioned the alleged $5 trillion dollar surplus (to come in over the next 10 years after Clinton's balanced budgets, allegedly), because that was a fanciful PROJECTION based on a half dozen factors that were highly unlikely to continue.

But that there was a surplus in the final Clinton year, and in a sense, the three years previously (under unified budget accounting), is actually true.

Soflasnapper
05-18-2012, 09:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, more talk about a non-existent surplus. LOL, these lefty idiots will never let a good lie go away.

eg8r </div></div>

It was the lie they wanted to hear.

I'll ask our leftist brain trust ...AGAIN ... if Clinton, in fact, ran a surplus ... why did the national debt rise for all 8 years of his regime?</div></div>

I've given you the answer before, at considerable length. What part of it do you dispute? (In case you've forgotten, it is the imputed interest owed in the future on the non-publicly held part of the debt that is owed to the trust funds-- the interest is not paid, but put in as extra debt.)

Why did he state, when the dems held congress, that balancing the budget would wreck the economy?

I doubt that is so. I have never heard that allegation. In fact, he came in with a campaign promise to cut the then-annual deficit level in half over his first term, so it was not deficit reduction itself he may have been cautioning against. But a too early move to balance would, by supply side lights, likely cause a recession. Just as the entire GOP predicted the Clinton tax hike deal would cause a recession, an immediate turndown of the economy, a growing deficit, and growing unemployment. Supply side ideas.


Why did he oppose the republican congressional efforts to reduce the deficit?

He didn't, or if he did, it was not for long. However, like House Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich (R-OH) (now governor of Ohio), he did question the wisdom of forcing all the balancing into an arbitrary 7-year timeline. Kasich objected to Gingrich's sole own invention of the idea of the 7 years, and asked him, where is that written into stone? Gingrich did it on the basis of numerology, apparently. But fairly early on, Clinton dismayed the Democratic Party by agreeing to both the 7-year time frame, AND to use the less inaccurate CBO numbers compared to the more optimistic (and proven more accurate) OMB numbers.

Why did he promise in the 1996 campaign to reverse what the republican congress forced upon him?


You're quite confused here. The reference was to the welfare reform, which had been a campaign pledge of Clinton's to begin with. He didn't like the GOP passed version(s), so he vetoed them twice. He wasn't forced to sign the 3rd version-- he could have vetoed that as well, just as he did the first 2 versions. He did it out of political calculation, because according to his then-aide Dick Morris' polling, whereas he would have won re-election even if he did veto it, he'd have a more comfortable margin of victory if he signed it. He promised that since their plan still had bad things in it, such as overly punitive treatment for some, he'd revisit it and fix some of its problems, and he did so.

Why is he now taking credit for things he fought against?

Because he actually supported them, either from the beginning as his own policy prescription, or was moved over from opposition to support on some of the others (the 7-year balancing timeframe, e.g.).

Why is te left crediting him for what they opposed?

Because it all worked out with a fine economy, the best in most of our lives, including a good enough situation that Clinton was re-elected, the first time an elected Democratic president was re-elected since FDR. Winning solves most issues.

Why is the left raising Obama for going in the opposite direction?

'THE LEFT' (tm) is crucifying Obama for not doing the right thing, and not going strongly enough at the big money guys, whom they suspect own him. Do you mean, instead, DEMOCRATS? Democrats are going to support a Democratic president, especially when his policies are completely within the mainstream of economic thought. As were Clinton's, in far different times. There is no contradiction.

This is where a leftist jumps in with some doublethink Alinskyism and launches an ad hominem attack.

You say that about any rebuttal, however factually based.

Soflasnapper
05-18-2012, 02:30 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/300px-USDebt.png

Here you go.

Don't look at the second graph, which shows debt to gdp ratios.

Look at the first one. You see the decline in total debt, right where the line(s) dip down.

The TOTAL debt may not actually go down (or it may), but the PUBLIC debt certainly does. The difference? The total debt includes the debt owed by the public to the trust funds, and as I mention, the interest due on those instruments (the bonds) each year is not paid, but added in as more bonds.