Blast from the past — Geo. Bush and how he’s going to create a surplus by 2010

President Bush argued in February 2001 that his fiscal policy “returns . . . the surplus to the American taxpayers”.

In his 2001 testimony to Congress, then Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan supported President Bush by offering projections of “an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion . . . in fiscal year 2010.” The National Debt would soon be retired and the Boomer’s retirements secure. Greenspan offered a projection of “an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.”

Mr Bush also said in February 2001: “After paying the bills, my plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we’re going to run out of debt to retire. That would be a good worry to have.”

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/09/…

What actually happened was this: Geo. Bush inherited a national debt of 5.7 TRILLION

and left us, after two wars, massive tax cuts for the rich, money in the mail (tax “rebates”), and practically no JOB GROWTH with a debt of about 11 TRILLION.

EPIC FAIL.

Bush and Obama Tax Plans

So how are the Republicans going to sell their plan to keep those Bush tax cuts for the 2% who are wealthiest?  What kind of spin will they put on this one?  It would be entertaining if it weren’t so desperately serious.

fnord

Bin Laden in Our Sights, But We Failed to Nab Him?

Do you suppose it is really true that if the first pictured Mullah had been on his toes, the second one might not have escaped from Afghanistan in 2001?  And further, Senator Levin contends, we might not now be fighting the war in Afghanistan if bin Laden had been captured in 2001.

Predicting the future is always a risky business, but will the number of books on the failed presidency of POTUS #43 be more than fifty by the year 2012?  Seems possible to me…  What do your divining rods say out there in the internets (you know, those bunch of tubes)?

I DON’T WANT THE TRUTH!

I envision the court room scene, Tom Cruise facing off against Jack Nicholson and saying,
“I DON’T’ WANT THE TRUTH!”
Nicholson’s response,
“YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!”

The exchange goes on and on till the scene fades to black.

Today on book TV there were two authors.  The first was  Lawrence Wright, author of “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11,” interviewed by James Zogby.

In “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11,” which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize, Lawrence Wright provides a detailed account of the events leading to the September 2001 attack on the United States. Mr. Wright discuses the book with James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute. Mr. Zogby serves as a guest interviewer and is not otherwise affiliated with C-SPAN.

Lawrence Wright is a staff writer for The New Yorker. He spent two years teaching at the American University in Cairo, Egypt and is a fellow at the Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law. James Zogby is founder and president of the Arab American Institute. He is also the host of the television program, “Viewpoint with James Zogby,” and the author of a weekly column, “Washington Watch,” which is published in 14 Arab countries.

The second author was Jane Mayer, author of “The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals” was interviewed by Dana Priest.

Jane Mayer, staff writer for The New Yorker, takes a critical look at the Bush administrations war on terror in her book, “The Dark Side.” She discusses her book with Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Dana Priest of The Washington Post. This interview was taped at Politics and Prose Bookstore in Washington, DC. The audience questioned Ms. Mayer and Ms. Priest after the taping.

I keep saying that there is really nothing being hidden, those behind many of these things allowed them to think there was no need to hide any of it. The best place to hide something is in plain sight.

Both authors books gave a basis for the current events and a understanding of how it happened. But both also presented evidence and information that is not part of what people want to believe. Wright has an interesting point, how tall is Bin Laden? It is said that we have been looking for someone who is 6’5”.  Interestingly of those interviewed who have seen OBL, say we should be looking for someone who is between 5’9” and 6’5”; the majority has him at 6’.  Why is that important you ask? Because if you do not know what and who you are looking for how can you find it?  He went on to explain several of the failings of both the U.S. Government and the people involved with Al-Qaeda, and casts a disputed light on the “War on Terrorism.”

Mayer paints a picture of a power play that is not about what is best for the country or about the fighting of terrorism.

When I have the time I will speak of what I see is the prevalence of selective reality.

tosmarttobegop

Obama vs. Bush on Fighting Terrorism

John O. Brennan outlined the differences between the Obama vs. Bush conceptualization of the fight against terrorism.  Not suprisingly, the Obama version is comprehensive, well thought out and adverse to simple slogans for a complex problem.  I think we are on the right track now.  See Brennan’s speech here.

iggy donnelly

“The Decider” Has Determined Obama’s Policies Lacking

In a speech in Erie, Pennsylvania, former president George W. Bush was critical of a number of decisions and approachs adopted by Obama.

* Waterboarding helped get information and protected American lives

*Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center is a bad idea

*Government should stay out of healthcare

*”You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money.”

I was starting to have my doubts about Obama, so thanks George for straightening me out.  Read the entire Washington Post article.

iggy donnelly

Bush . . . Obama and the fatcat bailouts.

Are the bailouts by both Bush and Obama the right thing to do? In my opinion, and in one word: NO

Let me explain: The logic behind the bailouts, that those institutions were too big to fail, is wrong, plain and simple. Why? Glad you asked. By seeming to make yourself too big a player to fail, you are attempting to create an entity that can claim itself to be not responsible for it’s own actions. Sound familiar? Isn’t that pretty much what the giants of industry claimed as they lined up at the public trough to feed off the taxpayers?

Peter Schiff was Jon Stewart’s guest last night. He was laughed at when he said the bubble was going to burst, and the financial house of cards would fall with it. It turned out he knew exactly what he was talking about. And he said last night nothing has changed, which it hasn’t, except for the fact we’re all in it for a total of well over a trillion dollars. The sad fact is these institutions should have been allowed to fail, and the CEOs, CFOs, COOs and the rest of the major principals involved should have been brought up on fraud charges and bunking with Bubba.

An example of how nothing’s changed: CDS . . . Credit Default Swaps. This is the financial industries way of bypassing  federal insurance regulations.  CDSs are insurance, make no mistake about that, but because they are not called insurance, they don’t have to be backed by an equal amount of real money. In other words, if you sell an insurance policy to someone for a million dollars, you have to have a million dollars of real money to backup that policy. That is a federal regulation. When you sell someone a CDS, you don’t have to back it with real money.

When the financial bubble burst, mainly due to unrealistically low interest rates, and the subsequent increase, which nobody could pay, those CDSs became due. When that happened, and there was no real money to back them, the cards started falling like week old fruit flies.

So how has that changed? It hasn’t. CDSs, part of the whole derivative scheme, are still legal, and still out there. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have failed miserably in dealing with this legal ponzi scheme. The very fact Obama’s asking for the American people to rely on more credit does nothing more than feed the financial beast. Remember over extended credit was part of the problem. While much of what Obama is doing is, in my opinion, the right thing to do, such as health care and open dialogue with both our friends and enemies, his handling of the financial nightmare we are still facing is just plain wrong. Business is still running Washington, and, sadly, that has not changed.

Limbaugh? His Truth is What, exactly???

In an incredibly weird thread, Rush compares his Oxycontin addiction to the dynamics of liberals.  Strange?  Without doubt…

Read more here:

In this photo, Rush says “I’m keeping my eyes on you, dems/libs …”

iggy donnelly

Who is Fibbing to Whom?

Is Nancy correct in asserting that the CIA were not honest with her?

More here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22550.html

iggy donnelly