Nuff said.
Posted on 11/13/2009 12:28:22 PM PST by Ron Jeremy
The Hubris of the Trillion-Dollar Man
Posted by David Boaz
Former President George W. Bush
said Thursday that America must resist the “temptation” to allow the government to take over the private sector, taking a subtle shot at his Democratic successor by warning that too much state intervention and protectionism will squelch the economic recovery…
“As the world recovers, we will face a temptation to replace the risk-and-reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control. History shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too little government involvement, but too much,” said Mr. Bush.
Um, what? The president who expanded federal spending by more than a trillion dollars a year, before his disastrous last hundred days
federalized education
laid out “a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington.”
protected the steel, agriculture, and textile industries from foreign competition
backed farm bills with lavish subsidies for producers
created the biggest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson
bailed out Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, and dozens of other banks provided government support for mortgages, credit cards, auto loans and other consumer debt, and
bailed out Chrysler and General Motors in direct defiance of Congress’s refusal to do so
now says that his successor is about to “replace the risk-and-reward model of the private sector” with “too much government involvement”? Shouldn’t President Bush be doing penance in a monastery somewhere, rather than embarrass the free-market cause by pretending that he wasn’t the biggest-government president in decades?
At this point, I think we’d be better of if he just shut up.
Clownishly ignorant of even basic facts as usual.
But then the Libertines never allow the facts to get in the way of an excuse to scream their ignorant bile at Bush.
Funny how these clowns never ever manage to find any reason to attack the 0.
No instead they waste all their time whining at Bush even on this occasion when he is arguing what is supposedly THEIR political viewpoint.
They are the best PR agents for the Clown in Chief out there. And the really sick thing? They don't even ask to get paid to do it! Most whores at least expect to get paid, these whores give it away.
I am not sure about the exact details of that claim, but do you deny that he was the “biggest spender in decades”? Do you deny any of the other points?
I must agree that the Emporer has no clothes with this item. George W. was a big spending liberal when it came to domestic policy. TARP I, anyone?
Bush's last Deficit $500 billion
Seems you Libertarians are mis-tageting your fiscal angst.
I know, I know, don't confuse you Libertarians with facts for you are stuck on stupid and would rather be politically irrelevant, but dogmatically pure, the ever do anything to actually advance your purported political agenda.
Actually it appears that you are the one ignorant of basic facts:
First Bush Budget: 2.0 trillion.
Last Bush Budget: 3.1 trillion.
So, federal spending has been expanded so that at the end of his term it was a trillion dollars per year more than when he started his term.
But I will concede that the way Boaz makes his claim it could be misinterpreted.
The question for you is, why are you a proponent of massive government intervention into the economy?
I don’t recall Boaz making any sort of claim whatsoever about Obama’s performance in office. Nor did Boaz make any claim about deficits. So, your point it totally useless.
Unless that is you are trying to pick apart Boaz’s claim that Bush was the biggest spender in decades by pointing out that Obama is worse. Obama is worse, but that does not negate that Bush WAS the biggest spender in decades, given that Bush came before Obama and so what Obama did is irrelevant to that claim.
But you knew that.
This little PR slogan? Not even with shouting distance of a hint of a clue of a notion of being in the same universe as the facts. But then, you Libertarians have never let the facts get in away of a good Bush hater rant before, so why start now?
Factually Fraudulent.. All the bill did was marry up accountability standard to go with money the Feds have been handing out for decades to the States for "Education spending
laid out “a smorgasbord of handouts and subsidies for virtually every energy lobby in Washington.”
Factually Fraudulent. Allowing the Energy Companies tax breaks for producing more energy is not a subsidy. Writing checks to people drawing on the taxpayers check book, as Dear Reader is doing now, is a subsidy. CATO should understand the difference in the two but apparently does not
backed farm bills with lavish subsidies for producers
No Congress, not the President writes the Farm Bills.
created the biggest new entitlement since Lyndon Johnson
Hyperbolic ignorance. What Medicare D does is allow people to USE THEIR OWN MEDICARE Dollars to buy RX drug coverage. 1st bit of privatization in an Entiltement program EVER.
bailed out Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bank of America, Citigroup, and dozens of other banks provided government support for mortgages, credit cards, auto loans and other consumer debt, andDbailed out Chrysler and General Motors in direct defiance of Congress’s refusal to do so
Deliberately misleading but partially correct. The Democrat Congress did that. The claim by Cato the Democrat Congress DID not do it but Bush did is a out and out lie. However, Bush should of vetoed it but he did not. So that much they got right.
So once again the Libertines IGNORE the facts to cling to their usual mindless Bush hater dogmas.
Is your point that because Obama is by far the worst spender ever, that therefore Bush was a good spender? Or something like that? Were you happy that finally after the GOP taking total control of the government that spending was worse than it was under LBJ? This is true even if you just look at discretionary spending.
Has it occurred to you that maybe Obama is getting away with being such a bad spender because the GOP had lost all credibility on the issue?
Did he sign them? Will you blame Obama at all for Obamacare if it passes or will you say it's not his fault since congress passes legislation? Hyperbolic ignorance. What Medicare D does is allow people to USE THEIR OWN MEDICARE Dollars to buy RX drug coverage. 1st bit of privatization in an Entiltement program EVER.
So it is your contention then that Medicare D will in no way increase entitlement spending? Deliberately misleading but partially correct. The Democrat Congress did that. The claim by Cato the Democrat Congress DID not do it but Bush did is a out and out lie. However, Bush should of vetoed it but he did not. So that much they got right
You mean the administration, led by Paulson, did not come up with a plan and shove it off to Congress telling them that there was no time to debate it? So once again the Libertines IGNORE the facts to cling to their usual mindless Bush hater dogmas.
Once again you defend massive big government spending.
Congratulations, you finally took the time to READ a post for a change rather then response with a flaming knee jerk response.
Perhaps there is hope for you yet.
That being said, how could anyone write such an ugly article as this in the face of the crushing Leftism which is coming on to us now? At the very least, the article should be alluding to the apparent maturation of GWB's personal outlook, and maybe his personal realization of the tragedy of leftism/communism.
From the Suntrade Institute we will show anyone, who understands what conservatism is, what ugly and misinformed nonsense comes from the CATO Institute. It is a totally misguided institution, as is Libertarianism, in its genuine form. Certainly it is a reactionary institutionalized response to the sadness of Leftist authoritarianism; but conservatism, the dignity of the human being, is much much deeper than the idiotic reaction of libertarianism. We have repeatedly clarified what conservatism is here on FR, fundamentally the consciousness and responsibilities of the individual, and that is certainly not Libertarianism, nor Leftism.
In the public political forum however, until proven otherwise, we might have to agree with the above poster for GWB to keep quiet, because (although likable and well grounded) he has never lucidly carried the conservative message. Almost as if, with his patrician background, he himself cannot understand it. It is also possible of course that this article, and others like it, are planted moles to confuse a truly misguided (e.g. the Media) citizenry into reactionary simple-mindedness.
That is the reason for each of us to know, and be able to lucidly declare, what human dignity, freedom, and conservatism are. And that is the raison d'etre for the Suntrade Institute.
Johnny Suntrade
Remember a few years ago how posting this list would bring out the long knives?
GWB’s BIG GOVERNMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS
http://revolutionradio.org/?p=1638
A NEW REPUBLICAN BREED
A ‘Big Government Conservatism’
George Bush hasn’t put a name to his political philosophy, but we can.
by FRED BARNES
Friday, August 15, 2003 12:01 A.M. EDT
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003895
JANUARY 24, 2009
Bush Was a Big-Government Disaster
He expanded the state, and the sense that the state is incompetent.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123275512887811775.html
How Big Is Bush’s Big Government?
by Mark Brandly
[Posted on Tuesday, April 18, 2006]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/bush-big-govt.html
May 3, 2005
Policy Analysis no. 543
The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans Became Big Spenders
by Stephen Slivinski
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750
Bush’s big government
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/24/big-government/
It would seem the graphic is even clear enough for those of limited cognitive ability - but apparently not; so I will endeavor to type as slowly as possible and perhaps it will sink in.
1. There is a demonstrable and dramatic difference in the proportionality of spending by the two administrations.
2. The Bush administration deficits show a jump due to 9/11, Katrina, and Iraq - then follow a gradual reduction until the Financial bailouts of 2008.
3. The spending creep during the Bush administration was largely due to Congressional cronyism on the part of both parties who loaded pork projects into farm, highway, and even defense appropriations. The “spending” bills were largely approved with veto proof majorities in congress.
To contend that because the Bush administration outspent previous administrations; (as has every administration - Reagan way outspent Carter) means he has less credibility to criticize the spending of the current administration than does a poster on Free Republic, is either deliberately obtuse or frighteningly dense.
So it is your position then that W was a good, fiscally conservative Republican President?
While all Presidents have outspent previous Presidents, have you looked into the rate of increase in spending on purely discretionary spending? Would you be surprised if it was greater than that of LBJ, Carter, or Clinton?
Why would you post a graphic demonstrating things that have happened after W left office when no claims are made whatsoever about anything other than what happened before W was in office and then during his tenure in office?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.