April 15, 2013

“People ask me, ‘What about the economy?’”

“My answer is, ‘Why don’t you go hire an economist? Or hire five economists and get 15 different opinions?’”

From: "As his presidential library debuts, George W. Bush prepares to return to public stage on his own terms."

Also: More paintings!

142 comments:

Chip S. said...

“The best way for people to understand what I meant by ‘compassionate conservative’ is to look at the programs we implemented and look at the results,” [Bush] said.

Rarely speaking in public is one of his best ideas. Look what happens when he deviates from it.

Nonapod said...

I wish Bush didn't listen to those economists in 2008.

wyo sis said...

The best way to understand any policy is to look at the results.
Most don't stand up very well.
It almost makes you think it would be a good idea to hide the results or spin them if you want to fool people.
Things that make you go hmmmm.

Nonapod said...

Blogger wyo sis said...

The best way to understand any policy is to look at the results.


Problem is, while we know what happened, we don't know what could've happened if something else was done. Certain people will always argue that if hundreds of billions of dollars wasn't spent to bailout banks then things would be much worse. That argument of course is not falsifiable.

Irene said...

What I like about President Bush is his affable nature and his self-deprecating sense of humor: "'People are surprised,' he said. 'Of course, some people are surprised I can even read.'"

Imagine if President Obama said that. We'd be, like, whoa, aliens invaded his body.

G Joubert said...

He should have spent more time, energy, and resources explaining and defending himself and his policies while he was president. The Karl Rove strategerie of taking the high road was presidential hara kari.

phx said...

I think that's a good quote about the indetminacy of the economy and economists.

mccullough said...

A very bad idea to put a presidential library in Dallas.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger phx said...

I think that's a good quote about the indetminacy of the economy and economists.

4/15/13, 12:32 PM
______________________________

As Harry Truman said, "If you laid all the economists end-to-end they still wouldn't ever reach a conclusion."

Shana said...

Irene said: What I like about President Bush is his affable nature and his self-deprecating sense of humor: "'People are surprised,' he said. 'Of course, some people are surprised I can even read.'"

Yes, it is hard not to like him. I wish he would have been heavier on the conservative, and lighter on the compassionate part, but he is a good man.

Bender said...

I'm sure this will sink into an invitation to blame everything on Bush. The Establishment types especially like to do that.

Yes, it is Bush's fault that Congress, led by Republicans, spent so much. He should have vetoed what the Republicans did. It is his fault that he had to spend so much time appeasing the likes of McCain, Spector, the Maine sisters, and on and on.

CJinPA said...

[snooty European accent]

The painting of zee dog reveals a man with za inner demons, with each brushstroke symbolizing za flailing of zee sword at his own profound guilt.

The Drill SGT said...

I liked all the paintings :)

Dante said...

What is so compassionate about assigning the work of current and future generations for our views of morality/compassion today?

Unless involuntary servitude is making a comeback as a compassionate thing.

St. George said...

Looks a bit like Hockney.

john said...

Compassionate (spit) conservatism.
Compassionate (spit) conservatism.
Compassionate (spit) conservatism.

Continually wiping that off my face is really getting old.

Scott M said...

A very bad idea to put a presidential library in Dallas.

Just call it a book depository.

Chuck66 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chuck66 said...

The old joke is that economists have predicted 11 of the past 4 recessions.

LarsPorsena said...

Scott M said...

A very bad idea to put a presidential library in Dallas.

Just call it a book depository.

4/15/13, 1:02 PM
---------------------------

Thread winner and nominee for most sardonic comment of '13.

Chuck66 said...

Chip, I disagreed with him spending billions and billions of dollars in Africa to combat AIDS, but it did have good results.

Luke Lea said...

F*ck him.

Chuck66 said...

G J.....correct. Republicans don't have MSM and Big Entertainment to carry their water. You have to get out there to say what and why you are doing what you are doing.

Reagan....people disagreed with him, so he worked to change minds.

Clinton.....changed his policies based on what polling said would make him popular that week.

Bush....didn't care if people agreed with him or not. So didn't try to do anything about it.

Tim said...

Chip S. said...

“The best way for people to understand what I meant by ‘compassionate conservative’ is to look at the programs we implemented and look at the results,” [Bush] said.

Rarely speaking in public is one of his best ideas. Look what happens when he deviates from it.


I don't doubt that, with the benefit of hindsight, Bush would do much differently than he did. I also don't doubt that he believes, even to now, that he did the best he could at the time, with what he knew at the time.

On another note, isn't it ironic that the term "hubris" is so much more appropriate for Obama than Bush? Especially since Bush's "hubris" animated so much of the Left's hatred for him?

phx said...

Bush's big failure IMHO was giving the neocons the keys to the war.

AllenS said...

fucks --

Who has those keys now?

ricpic said...

The painting titled Crawford Breezeway could be a Hockney. Well, a subdued Hockney.

chrisnavin.com said...

If he keeps churning out paintings like that, he won't be too compassionate to the other amateur dog-portrait artists.

I think I saw Barney's soul.

Shanna said...

Yay more pictures! They are kind of lovely. Way better than I would be in a year, although I took a drawing class once and it's amazing how much better you can get in a short amount of time.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

And he didn't throw a baseball like a girl.

edutcher said...

A much more sensible answer than we'd get from I-am-not-a-Dictator Zero, who'd try to impress everyone with his Awesomeness and make an ass of himself.

Again.

phx said...

Bush's big failure IMHO was giving the neocons the keys to the war.

No, Bush's big failure was not telling Pelosi Galore and Choom and the Dick from IL and the media and people like phx to shut their mouths because they couldn't make their case without lying.

Shanna said...

A very bad idea to put a presidential library in Dallas.

Hey, i might actually visit it if it's in Dallas! I'll be interested to see how it differs from Clinton's (which is the only other I've seen).

rcocean said...

Bush = the Wizard of Oz. A very good man, just a very bad President.

Colonel Angus said...

Bush = the Wizard of Oz. A very good man, just a very bad President.

That's about right.

TosaGuy said...

For all of his failings, Bush is still light years better than Al Gore or John Kerry.

TosaGuy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ricpic said...

Choom He Ain't

They called him a demented cowboy, they called him worse,
But he didn't frequent gay bathhouses, he didn't have that curse;
Turns out he's a homebody, the near and dear he paints,
Not a druggie nor a grifter, free of jive ass turkey taints.

SteveR said...

Well at least he didn't spend the peace dividend getting his dick sucked by an intern. Of course what difference, at this point does it make?

Colonel Angus said...

For all of his failings, Bush is still light years better than Al Gore or John Kerry.

Which says more about the sad state of our political leadership than anything else.

Lem said...

Explosion at the Boston Marathon!

chrisnavin.com said...

I don't know wyo sis, Cash 4 Clunkers is the work of a master policy artist.

Ages and Ages hence the progeny of Ezra Klein, living off the money of Obamacare like termites will write blogs of their own extolling the virtues of Cash 4 Clunkers

phx said...

Who has those keys now?

Grownups.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Off topic, but something happened at the Marathon today. Sirens everywhere. Most of the local news sites are down, probably people all going there at the same time.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/04/two_huge_blasts_rock_boston_marathon_finish_line

Nonapod said...

Saying a couple bombs went off?

edutcher said...

phx said...

Who has those keys now?

Grownups.


No, traitors and idiots.

Not to mention traitors & idiots.

Steve Koch said...

I think the wars were enormously expensive, counter productive, and simply not the best way to fight terrorism. Using a stealthier approach that is aimed at capturing or decapitating terrorist leadership is much cheaper and alienates the muslims and the American public much less (so it is a more sustainable "war" that can be waged as long as it takes). Clearly efficient interrogation plays a huge role in fighting terrorism.

Bush certainly wasn't a conservative, seemed to believe in the imperial presidency, and was not a fan of small government. So while he was clearly better than Gore or Kerry, he was pretty disappointing to conservatives.

Bush II seemed pretty stupid and he was extremely unpopular in the country by the end of his presidency so it would be best if he just shuts his mouth and does good works.

Freeman Hunt said...

I miss that guy.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

I can see helicopters over Copley square out my window. Early reports are bad. Deadspin has pictures, I won't link though. They are gory.

This is not good.

Mitch H. said...

Many tyrants were failed artists. Bush the Younger seems to be an argument that at least some artists were failed politicians?

Jay said...

phx said...
Grownups.


Hilarious.

How are the "grownups" doing in Libya (1st Dead Ambassador since 1980), North Korea, Syria (do you even know how many people are dying there?), and Egypt?

I Callahan said...

Grownups

Uh, who might that be?

AReasonableMan said...

Tim said...
I don't doubt that, with the benefit of hindsight, Bush would do much differently than he did.


Let's hope this is not true. Other than bumbling into a nuclear holocaust it is hard to imagine how things could have gone much worse.

Colonel Angus said...

Who has those keys now?

Grownups.


Translation: Now that my side is in the drivers seat, I really don't care that we are doing the same thing we criticized you guys for doing.

Being a partisan hack means never having to do the hard things like being consistent with ones principles.

Colonel Angus said...

Other than bumbling into a nuclear holocaust it is hard to imagine how things could have gone much worse.

You obviously have a very narrow frame of reference.

AReasonableMan said...

Jay said...
How are the "grownups" doing in Libya (1st Dead Ambassador since 1980), North Korea, Syria (do you even know how many people are dying there?), and Egypt?


Well, they aren't costing us a fortune that we don't actually have.

Jay said...

phx said...
Grownups.


DHS & FBI have already mobilized according to CBS reports because of explosions at the Boston Marathon, and 3 people are dead.

As always, the timing of dipshit assertions by you ignorant leftists is always impeccable.

I Callahan said...

Bush II seemed pretty stupid and he was extremely unpopular in the country by the end of his presidency so it would be best if he just shuts his mouth and does good works.

What bullshit.

Look, it's OK if you think the issue of terrorism could have been handled differently. But to denigrate a president because you disagree is nonsensical.

I may even agree with you about your views on the wars, but at least be honest that it's a luxury to know this after the fact. The idea was to get an America-friendly regime in the heart of the mess, to keep an eye on Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. That was a good idea at the time. The fact that it didn't work CERTAINLY doesn't make the former president stupid.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
Well, they aren't costing us a fortune that we don't actually have.


You have an obvious detachment from reality.

I Callahan said...

Well, they aren't costing us a fortune that we don't actually have.

I see, so money is more important that people to ARM. Nice. At least he's honest about it.

Nathan Alexander said...

The war in Iraq was a mistake?

Sure, freeing 26 million people from an evil despot is always a mistake.

Why do you want people enslaved and terrorized, phx?

...I guess it is the history of the Left in the US: loving murderous regimes and hating those who stop/oppose them.

Colonel Angus said...

Well, they aren't costing us a fortune that we don't actually have.

Good point. Obama is just spending an extra trillion a year we don't actually have on...well who knows what.

Original Mike said...

"Well, they aren't costing us a fortune that we don't actually have."

What?!?!?!?!

AllenS said...

How soon until the Tea Party is blamed for the explosions?

Jay said...

Egypt gets the most U.S. foreign aid of any country except for Israel. The exact amount varies from year to year and there are many different funding streams, but U.S. foreign assistance to Egypt has averaged about $2 billion a year since 1979.

The money were are giving to Egypt (and Syria) is all borrowed.

Every penny.

Nathan Alexander said...

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under President Bush totaled less than one year of President Obama's deficit spending.

26 million freed at an amazingly low cost of loss of life: priceless.

The moral bankruptcy of the Left in the US and these comments is saddening.

Nathan Alexander said...

If you wanted the US to be strong, prosperous, and the world largely at peace, President Bush was one of the best Presidents in modern history.

If you don't like those things, then, sure, I guess you could consider him a bad President.

phx said...

Being a partisan hack means never having to do the hard things like being consistent with ones principles.

Just for kicks I'd like to hear your definition of "partisan hack" and how it excludes yourself.

Lem said...

Saying a couple bombs went off?

It doesn't look too bad.

I mean, compared to 9/11.

Colonel Angus said...

The war in Iraq was a mistake?

Sure, freeing 26 million people from an evil despot is always a mistake.


Well I will say it was a mistake because I don't think American lives are worth freeing people who turn around and launch an insurrection against their liberators. Maybe if they put in half the effort in overthrowing Saddam than they did against us, they'd have succeeded without us.



phx said...

How soon until the Tea Party is blamed for the explosions?

They didn't do that. They fucked up the Republican Party but they didn't do the explosions.

Lem said...

Drudge has a live feed.

Chip Ahoy said...

I love those paintings.

Art students: Perspective.

It's passable. In the Breezeway painting, the table forms a trapezoid. So do the floor panels on each side of the table. All trapezoids must be larger closest to the viewer or else there is misalignment in the room. The lines for the bottom of the wall should conform with the lines of the table so the all aim at the same invisible point. So the very short line that defines the wall on the left is wrong. It makes the left side floor trapezoid more narrow closest to the viewer and throws off the perspective for the wall.

The painting of the outside house is also very good. But. All of the lines for all of the windows must converge the exact same way as if arrows aiming at the same dot. They must be drafted. They cannot vary. These do. Unless the windows actually do go a bit wonky.

The dogs are wonderful.

They Egyptians did much better with animals, I think, than with people. They were not bound to strict conformity of canon so their paintings of animals are expressed much more freely.

And your eye does go straight to the thing that is alive. You can paint a tiny kitty with a few careless brushstrokes in an oversized painting of exquisitely rendered architectural detail and your eye finds the kitty right off every time. (Now, watch someone dig up a confounding painting of camouflaged cat.)

Jay said...

I wonder if it ever occurs to ARM how much it costs the US to give South Korea and Japan an military umbrella because the little kid running North Korea is a freakin' loon.

Whatever the cost is, I'm sure thankfully it isn't a 'fortune'

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
The war in Iraq was a mistake?

Sure, freeing 26 million people from an evil despot is always a mistake.


So what was the issue with helping remove Gaddafi? An even worse tyrant who was an established sponsor of terrorism. He was removed at almost no cost to the US.

Colonel Angus said...

Just for kicks I'd like to hear your definition of "partisan hack" and how it excludes yourself.

Sure. I'm consistent in my principles and don't suddenly switch once 'my guy' is in power.

phx said...

The war in Iraq was a mistake?


I supported the war when it began. I believe now that the way the war was conducted was a big mistake. It probably was a mistake altogether but I'm not adamant on that point.

phx said...

Sure. I'm consistent in my principles and don't suddenly switch once 'my guy' is in power.


So you have evidence I did/do that or do you think Dems or liberals by definition do that?

Marshal said...

phx said...
How soon until the Tea Party is blamed for the explosions?

They didn't do that. They fucked up the Republican Party but they didn't do the explosions.


Leftists who pose as moderates used to lament that if only the fiscal side of the Republican Party was more powerful compared to the social cons reasonable agreements might be possible. Then the Tea Party formed giving them exactly what they claimed they wanted, so naturally they demonized them.

Predictable. If you didn't know this was coming you don't know anything about the left.

Colonel Angus said...

So you have evidence I did/do that or do you think Dems or liberals by definition do that?

Yes. You said grownups have the keys now, the same grownups who are following the same Bush war policies and even doubled down on some more regime change. Clearly you are ok with this as evidenced by your quip about grownups.

Ad Hominem said...

"How soon until the Tea Party is blamed for the explosions?"

Tax Day. Patriot's Day. Home of the original Tea Party.

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under President Bush totaled less than one year of President Obama's deficit spending.


Reality check: Study by Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies finds that the Iraq war has cost $1.7 trillion so far, with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans.

Those costs could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next 40 years, the report concluded.

We spent $550 billion on Medicare last year. Six trillion would fund healthcare for roughly a decade.

Colonel Angus said...

Those costs could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next 40 years, the report concluded.

That's funny. Obama will have racked that much in additional debt by the end of his second term.

Jay said...

Those costs could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next 40 years, t

And then what?

Could is not an incurred cost.

phx said...

Yes. You said grownups have the keys now, the same grownups who are following the same Bush war policies and even doubled down on some more regime change. Clearly you are ok with this as evidenced by your quip about grownups.

As indicated I didn't have a problem with taking on Iraq. It was the incredibly arrogant and reckless way the neocons conducted that war and the diplomacy around it that made them screw it up so badly IMO.

Jay said...

phx said...

They didn't do that. They fucked up the Republican Party but they didn't do the explosions.


I think you should as (ex) Senator Feingold how badly the Tea Party "fucked up" the Republican party.

Your comments are parody.

Big Mike said...

So what was the issue with helping remove Gaddafi? An even worse tyrant who was an established sponsor of terrorism. He was removed at almost no cost to the US.

Ah, but was he really worse? Did he allow his sons to abduct and rape brides from their weddings and girls as young as 13? (Usay's behavior is pretty well documented.) Did he execute people by pushing them slowly into a tree shredder?

And here's the real point. Following the successful overthrow of Saddam Hussein Qaddafi renounced his weapons of mass destruction and cleaned up his act. Don't we want to reward that sort of behavior? The Obama administration's actions towards Libya will make it that much harder for the present and any future administration to pressure tinpot dictators into reforming. We're seeing this already with North Korea and Iran, are we not? Why should Kim Jong-Un behave himself if the result might be that he becomes the next Qaddafi? Why should the mullahs of Iran renounce nuclear weapons if it leaves them as vulnerable as Qaddafi's renunciation?

Jay said...

It was the incredibly arrogant and reckless way the neocons conducted that war and the diplomacy around it that made them screw it up so badly IMO

You couldn't provide a factual, coherent example of "recklessness" if your life depended on it.

You're a silly, ignorant person saying silly, ignorant things on the Internet.

Jay said...

I love it when people express concern about war spending but ignore the yearly costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (yearly expenditures of over $1.1 trillion).

How much are liable for in that spending over the next 40 years?

Oh, that is "good" spending.

Never mind.

phx said...

You're a silly, ignorant person saying silly, ignorant things on the Internet.

We haven't heard that a million times from you when you don't have an answer.

Please, at least get a thesaurus.

Colonel Angus said...

As indicated I didn't have a problem with taking on Iraq. It was the incredibly arrogant and reckless way the neocons conducted that war and the diplomacy around it that made them screw it up so badly IMO.

Screwing it implies we lost. Last time I checked, we defeated the Iraqi army and then the insurgents as an effective force.



Jay said...

phx said...

We haven't heard that a million times from you when you don't have an answer.


Um, you haven't posed a question, idiot.

Jay said...

you don't have an answer.

Your drivel is self-refuting.

For example, if the Tea Party "fucked up" the Republicans, why are there 30 Republican governors in America today?

Why do Republicans hold the US house?

Why do Republicans fully control 26 (that would be a majority, simpleton) state legislatures?

Oh, "no answer"

Never mind.

phx said...

For example, if the Tea Party "fucked up" the Republicans, why are there 30 Republican governors in America today?


You're right, Repubs are in great shape and it's thanks to the Tea Party. The November elections were just the fault of....the voters.

phx said...

Screwing it implies we lost. Last time I checked, we defeated the Iraqi army and then the insurgents as an effective force.


We did defeat the Iraqi army - if that settled everything we would have been in clover a few weeks after the war started. Unfortunately, there were other milestones and goals that weren't accomplished. It's really not a functioning democracy in Iraq, and I thought that was a key reason we fought.

Okay you see Iraq as a win for the US and for democracy. That's not worth arguing against.

edutcher said...

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

The war in Iraq was a mistake?

Sure, freeing 26 million people from an evil despot is always a mistake.


So what was the issue with helping remove Gaddafi? An even worse tyrant who was an established sponsor of terrorism. He was removed at almost no cost to the US.


Quadaffy was in his box and not going anyplace. Dubya had seen to that. Choom was extending the work of the Arab Spring and installing more Islamic crazies.

And, on the subject of Iraq, here's the Iraqi PM.

phx said...

For example, if the Tea Party
"fucked up" the Republicans, why are there 30 Republican governors in America today?


You're right, Repubs are in great shape and it's thanks to the Tea Party. The November elections were just the fault of....the voters.


The November "elections" were riddled with vote fraud.

phx said...

The November "elections" were riddled with vote fraud.

: D

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Was that :D because you think it's funny or because you think it's a good thing they stole it?

If it's because you think it doesn't exist, you have no right calling anybody names.

Particularly since even you thought Choomie was going to lose.

Colonel Angus said...

Okay you see Iraq as a win for the US and for democracy.

It was a military victory. Thinking Iraq was ever going to be a democracy that we could recognize was a fool's errand. I thought going there was a mistaken.

Jay said...

I'm sure if you got your legs or head blown off in today's terrorist attack in Boston you're glad the adults are in charge. Right, phx?

damikesc said...

Let's hope this is not true. Other than bumbling into a nuclear holocaust it is hard to imagine how things could have gone much worse.

He could've decided to REALLY use the Espionage Act of 1917 on domestic critics.

He could've decided to expand drone usage to unimagined levels.

He could've been the most closed administration in history.

He could've had departments openly ignore court orders.

He could've passed an insurance act that seeks to kill insurance.

He could've overspent by ONE TRILLION DOLLARS every year he was in office.

He could've sought about $2 TRILLION in tax hikes when the economy was in the shitter.

He could've demanded policies that lowered the unemployment rate by fucking people over so badly they can't get jobs at all.

He could've sent troops to Libya without Congressional approval.

He could've covered up an attack on an embassy.

He could've done way, way worse.

Well, they aren't costing us a fortune that we don't actually have.

You're aware Obama's overspent far more than Bush in about half of the time, right?

Nathan Alexander said...

ARM,
What was wrong with Libya?
The way it was done.

Unlike you, I'm not knee-jerk against anything the other side does.

President Obama never explained to the US why Aliya was necessary, like Bush did.
Obama never got authorization from Congress, like Bush did.
And Obama campaigned on the idea that adventurism like Libya was always wrong.

Nathan Alexander said...

ARM,
You apparently lack reasoning skills along with a lack of reading comprehension.
If Iraq/Afghanistan just now total 1.7T, and Obama's one-year deficit was $1.6T at worst and $1.2T in the best year, how does the math work in your favor for this?

It doesn't.

Alex said...

We miss ya W.

Alex said...

phx - there are GOP governors of blue states(Wisconsin, Michigan), so you can't try to pass this off as a red-state thing. The GOP is winning.

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
ARM,
What was wrong with Libya?
The way it was done.


You mean the fact that it didn't cost anything and we had the minimum loss of life. And, the final result may end up being better.

AReasonableMan said...

Nathan Alexander said...
ARM,
You apparently lack reasoning skills along with a lack of reading comprehension.
If Iraq/Afghanistan just now total 1.7T, and Obama's one-year deficit was $1.6T at worst and $1.2T in the best year, how does the math work in your favor for this?


Well, the war was a completely unnecessary cost and the deficit is driven by the costs associated with Bush's recession, his tax cuts and the interest payments on his unpaid bills.

No sane person thinks that Bush was anything other than an unmitigated disaster for this country's finances.

Nathan Alexander said...

Col Angus,
You aren't being discriminating enough in target recognition.

The insurgency in Iraq was an alliance of 3 groups:
Remnants of the Saddam regime
Foreign Islamists
Iranian puppets

phx said...

We'll see Alex. Repubs DID pick up ONE governorship in 2012.

phx said...

I'm sure if you got your legs or head blown off in today's terrorist attack in Boston you're glad the adults are in charge. Right, phx?

Jay, you're such a crazy fanatic you can't even wait for the body count or the blood to be stanched before you start enlisting the dead and injured into the Republican voter roles.

I don't get offended by much but damn, you give me the creeps.

tiger said...

An uncle graduated from Madison with degree in Economics and I asked once why things were so bad - this was in the late 70s.

He said 'If economists knew what they were doing we wouldn't be in this mess.'

Words to the wise.

Colonel Angus said...

No sane person thinks that Bush was anything other than an unmitigated disaster for this country's finances

Can't disagree. Went from disaster to apocalypse under Obama.

Original Mike said...

"Well, the war was a completely unnecessary cost and the deficit is driven by the costs associated with Bush's recession, his tax cuts and the interest payments on his unpaid bills."

Please itemize the costs associated with each item on your list.

Colonel Angus said...

You mean the fact that it didn't cost anything and we had the minimum loss of life. And, the final result may end up being better.

Oh yeah its working out swimmingly.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...



Well, the war was a completely unnecessary cost and the deficit is driven by the costs associated with Bush's recession, his tax cuts and the interest payments on his unpaid bills


Perhaps you could then explain why the deficit was $248 billion (and in a 3 year decline) when Harry & Nancy took over Congress?

Jay said...

he deficit is driven by the costs associated with Bush's recession,

Bush did not cause a recession.

Where do you get this misinformation?

his tax cuts and the interest payments on his unpaid bills

Complete and utter bullshit.

You clearly have no connection with reality.

anuary 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.

At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

As to your comments about the deficit:

FY 2008 — $460 billion
FY 2009 — $1,410 billion ($1.4 trillion)
FY 2010 — $1,300 billion ($1.3 trillion)
FY 2011 — $1,600 (estimated) ($1.6 trillion)

Of the $14.5 trillion national debt, nearly $4.8 trillion–one-third of the total–was incurred during that four-year period when the Congress was exclusively controlled by the Democrats.

Just stop the madness.

Jay said...

phx said...



Jay, you're such a crazy fanatic you can't even wait for the body count or the blood to be stanched before you start enlisting the dead and injured into the Republican voter roles


No stupid shit, I'm pointing out the absurdity of your comments.

ken in sc said...

Many Northeasterners hated Bush because of the way he talked. These same people hated Clinton for the same reason, even though they agreed with his ideas. It's pure prejudice and you see it over and over again. It's like those people who say with a Jersey/Philly accent that those Southerners sound so stoopid!

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...

Well, the war was a completely unnecessary cost and the deficit is driven by the costs associated with Bush's recession, his tax cuts and the interest payments on his unpaid bills


Funny:

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.


In trollsville, a nearly 3x increase in corporate tax receipts is a "cost"

AReasonableMan said...

Jay said...
Just stop the madness.


The madness is attempting to defend Bush's economic record. Worst since Hoover on the economic front.

Worst since Johnson/Nixon on the foreign war front, although the Iraq war was even dumber. There were at least some communists in Vietnam.

galdosiana said...

Very interesting to see his paintings. I was amused by the way he signed all of them: "43".

galdosiana said...

Very interesting to see his paintings. I was amused by the way he signed all of them: "43".

phx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

"The madness is attempting to defend Bush's economic record. Worst since Hoover on the economic front."

Actually, he had a pretty good record until the housing bubble burst. Please explain how the bubble was Bush's fault.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...

The madness is attempting to defend Bush's economic record.


Notice when presented with actual data you respond with talking points.

Want to guess why that is?

Jay said...

Worst since Hoover on the economic front."

Complete and utter bullshit.

But since under Bush we had actual GDP growth and 52 straight months of job growth one wonders what words you would use to describe the Obama economic record.

Marshal said...

AReasonableMan said...
No sane person thinks that Bush was anything other than an unmitigated disaster for this country's finances.


No reasonable person believes Bush was even half as bad as Obama.

Dante said...

The madness is attempting to defend Bush's economic record. Worst since Hoover on the economic front.

I tend to agree with this assessment. He failed to fix Social Security, and now it is being raided by those on Social Security Disability.

He increased medical costs, though I do think not as much as the Democrats thought (they hated his plan: let's see how ObamaCare works out, though few will know the truth).

Yes, the war.

But most importantly, he didn't stop the stupid, stupid idea that if only banks would loan money to people they normally wouldn't, everything would be OK. And some big corporations took advantage of that in what appear to be unethical ways at the least.

And everybody loved the bubble. Property taxes went up, so state and local governments were ecstatic. And people loved that their home was Worth More (something I've never been able to figure out: you want to move up, do it when prices are low). And Mortgage people were happy.

Even the Entertainment industry was happy, with shows like "Flip This."

Of course, the next generations are stuck with the tab, but that's OK, isn't it?

Dante said...

fucks:

I don't get offended by much but damn, you give me the creeps.

I think Hitchens made a compelling case that Clinton ought to be tried as a war criminal for blowing up that Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, in order to get Monica off the front page.

Does Clinton give you the creeps? Clinton, Clinton, and Pelosi give me the creeps. So does Harry Reid, for that matter.

But MO, BO, and JO merely make me angry, with their smugness.

Original Mike said...

"But most importantly, he didn't stop the stupid, stupid idea that if only banks would loan money to people they normally wouldn't, everything would be OK."

He tried. But he did not try hard enough. You can pin that on him.

AReasonableMan said...

Original Mike said...
"But most importantly, he didn't stop the stupid, stupid idea that if only banks would loan money to people they normally wouldn't, everything would be OK."

He tried. But he did not try hard enough. You can pin that on him.


No evidence that he tried. He was largely beholden to Greenspan, who was ideologically opposed to Fed interference in the markets. The only person whose reputation was hurt more by the financial collapse than Bush was Greenspan, but he had a lot further to fall at that point.

Original Mike said...

"No evidence that he tried."

Yeah there is. The Bush Administration tried to rein in Fanny and Freddie and the ridiculous lending standards but was blocked by a threatened Senate filibuster. They should have forced a vote anyways, just to get it on the record, but they backed down.

EMD said...

From NY Times - September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ‘‘The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

”I don’t see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,” Mr. Watt said.

So, instead, they weakened EVERYONE’s buying power. I guess that’s what makes it fair. I’m sure glad they’re looking out for all of us.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...

No evidence that he tried.


Really?

So why then did the Bush Administration introduce a proposal for the largest reform of Fannie & Freddie's oversight in 50 years, in 2003?

Perhaps you could explain that, troll?

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...


No evidence that he tried.


Do silly, easily debunked lies like this make you "reasonable", clown?

Twice, Bush tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and twice Democrats (Obama included) moved in to stop him.

That is a fact.

Also a fact: you are by no means "reasonable"

You're kind of dumb.

AReasonableMan said...

All these posts assume that Fannie and Freddie were the sole causes of the bubble. No sane person believes this. It is ideologically driven nonsense. The main failings were with the Fed and Wall Street.

CEO-MMP said...

phx said...

Who has those keys now?

Grownups.



LOL. And what's changed? Barry sent more troops to A-stan, while handcuffing them with ROE so more of them get to die.

The world is less safe, more people hate America, and all the people who were supposed to love us after the first Barry apology tour are burning Barry in effigy. And of course there was a little terrorist attack yesterday.

Fuck me you're dumb.

CEO-MMP said...

phx said...

You're a silly, ignorant person saying silly, ignorant things on the Internet.

We haven't heard that a million times from you when you don't have an answer.

Please, at least get a thesaurus.



You never change the song you bleat, why should anyone else?

The grownups are in charge now. LMAO.

Jay said...

AReasonableMan said...
All these posts assume that Fannie and Freddie were the sole causes of the bubble


Notice how you've gone from saying Bush didn't try anything to this utter nonsense.

Do you think your posting of easily debunked lies followed up by moving goal posts make you "reasonable"?

Jay said...

The main failings were with the Fed and Wall Street.

No sane person believes this.

AReasonableMan said...

Jay said...
The main failings were with the Fed and Wall Street.

No sane person believes this.


Jay, you are just embarrassing yourself with these posts. It's clear you know nothing about what lead to the economic meltdown beyond what you heard on Rush and Hannity.

Original Mike said...

"Jay, you are just embarrassing yourself with these posts. It's clear you know nothing about what lead to the economic meltdown beyond what you heard on Rush and Hannity."

You're not rising above the tired lefty talking points, yourself.