Friday, November 26, 2010

THE TRUTH – BUSH TAX CUTS GREW THE ECONOMY

How refreshing it was to see and hear George W. Bush during his interview with Bill O'Reilly tonight. Gateway Pundit has two posts up about it:

George Bush: By the Way… Most of the TARP Money Passed Under My Watch Has Been Repaid (Video)
posted by Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit - 2 hours ago
Former President George W. Bush told Bill O’Reilly tonight that, for the record, most of the TARP money loaned under his watch has been repaid. He’s correct, of course. The money loaned to banks back in Se...

President George W. Bush Defends Tax Cuts for American Small Business Owners (Video)
posted by Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit - 2 hours ago
President George W. Bush defended tax cuts for American small business owners tonight during his interview with Bill O’Reilly. The Bush tax cuts implemented in 2003 helped create millions of new US jobs an...

Don't you just hate the fact that Obama keeps blaming Bush for the huge increase in the deficit when the truth is, most of the TARP money loaned under Bush's watch has been repaid?

It was so nice to hear how much our former president loves America. After two years of America-hating-and-bashing Obamafraud, I find myself longing for a president who genuinely DOES love our nation.

Sigh...despite the fact that I didn't agree with everything that President Bush did in his 8 years in office, he was light years ahead, beyond, and above ObaMARXIST on the greatness scale.

Although Bush refrains from criticizing his successor, at least he did take some time to defend what he did with TARP, in Iraq, and other decisions that he made while in office. It was good to hear him share the fact that tax cuts for small business owners created millions of jobs on his watch.

Seeing Bush as the likable guy that he is made me yearn for the good ole' days, when we could be sure that our president loved America and was on the side of WE THE PEOPLE.

Hat tip:

GateWay Pundit

7 comments:

GMpilot said...

Still longing for the “good old days”, I see...except they weren't really so good:

“Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections.
Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1).
Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.”
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036

Gary Baker said...

Hi GM,

Tried to follow the link, but there was nothing there. Rather appropriate, since the same thing can be said of the argument made.

No, in all fairness, there is some truth to what you recorded. The prescription drug benefit was a definite drag on the budget and deficit builder. Of course, a lot can be hidden by certain nuanced phrasing, such as "dating from the Bush administration." Yep, Bush was for it and so were a lot of Republicans, and so were a lot of Dems. So it's not as though it was all Bush or Republicans. Likewise with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Though they try their best to deny it, the wars would not have proceeded without Democrat assent.

As for the $7 trillion figure you mention, and the $500 billion in 2009, those are pure crap. Oh, I can't deny that there were war expenditures every year, but they are far below that $500 billion, and thus below the roughly 1.3 trillion added to the deficit by Obama's first year of governance. Those figures are hugely inflated by only accounting for tax cuts as costs, when historically it has been shown that they spur economic growth. Tax cuts cost $0. Government spending costs money. That's a fact that libs can't seem to get their heads around.

It's also revealing that both Bush and Obama faced huge shocks to the economy early in their presidency. Bush responded by cutting taxes and encouraging business, and the economy grew. Obama responded by attacking business, passing programs guaranteed to raise taxes, and increasing government control. As it is, we have had sustained high unemployment and low economic growth.

Liberals like to point out at what they perceive as past failures of conservatism. It helps to distract from the fact that the policies they advocate inevitably lead to poverty and failure.

GMpilot said...

Try again, Mr. Baker. If the link doesn't work, the fault is mine; but the page still exists, and the figures are harder to smarm away.

You might also beware of that 'distract from the fact' phrasing; conservatives don't exactly have a clean record in such matters.

Try again. In all respects, try again.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

I tried again, and failed again at the link. Kind of an allegory for the liberals. They keep trying the same things over and over again, and they keep failing. They refuse to accept that their philosophy simply does not work.

If you say the figures are harder to smarm away, then give me some. I love talking figures and I love talking context. Bring up as much as you dare.

Gary Baker said...

As examples:

"Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade."

Crap. Contrary to what was claimed, there were never any surpluses from the Clinton years. The surpluses were purely projections based on unrealistic assumptions. It's ridiculous to say that Bush killed them. On the other hand, years of Democrats establishing and increasing benefits (Social Security, for one) have a very traceable history of increasing expenditures over decades.

"Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration,..."

This clause pretty much is the entire liberal extent of accepting responsibility. They never accept responsibility for any of their actions. It is always the fault of others, whether an unpredictable downturn or problems inherited. No mention of the mounting debt they began and continued through expanding entitlements and killing initiative by rewarding laziness and punishing achievement.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Gary,

I have been a bit absent from my blog the past three days so I appreciate your efforts in attempting to set the record (and ObamaBOT GMpilot) straight on the economic downturn and the fiscal policy issues that have caused our economy to not only worsen but to be downright destructive!

Your last paragraph is so good and so accurate, it bears repeating:

This clause pretty much is the entire liberal extent of accepting responsibility. They never accept responsibility for any of their actions. It is always the fault of others, whether an unpredictable downturn or problems inherited. No mention of the mounting debt they began and continued through expanding entitlements and killing initiative by rewarding laziness and punishing achievement.

That describes liberal, progressive policies to a T!

"Rewards laziness and punishes achievement."

I couldn't have described it better!

What a great title that would be for a blog post on the liberal, progressive agenda. An additional question we might ask is "why?" I think you and I know the answer.

ObaMarxist's puppet regime via the evil marketer - George Soros - has the goal of destroying America as we know it. Fortunately, their goals will be thwarted by the new Congress coming in; and further stifled (and halted) when Obama is removed from office. I just hope and pray that the damage Obama has already done will be reversed and that we won't have to wait until 2012 to accomplish the usurper's removal from office.

Gary Baker said...

Hi Christine,

I don't know what is in the mind of anyone else, so anything I say on motives is reasoned speculation. That said, I honestly don't believe that Soros or Obama have a desire to intentionally destroy America. I think they actually believe that they are doing what is best for the country, that the "common people" are so pitiful that they would be much better off letting others, such as Obama and Soros, make the decisions affecting their lives for them. In their pride and arrogance, they can't accept that they just aren't wise enough to do it.

I remember when Obama was asked about abortion and when life began, and he demurred to answer, claiming that knowledge was "several levels above his pay grade." A cowardly evasion cloaked as humility. I recall a story in the New Testament when a man came to Jesus and asked him to make his brother share his inheritance with him. Christ responded by asking "Who made me a judge of such things?" So there we have a case where Christ does not wish to play judge, yet Obama has no trouble deciding who should make more, who should make less, and who should make enough. It reveals a great deal, wouldn't you say?