Log in or Sign up

Cheney Felt Bush 'Had Gone Soft on Him'

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by red55, Aug 14, 2009.

Page 1 of 5

red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

tirk will love that title . . .

Report: Cheney Felt Bush 'Had Gone Soft on Him'

FOXNews WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney believes his old boss, President George W. Bush, gradually turned away from his advice during their second term in the White House, showing a surprising independence as he started taking more flexible positions on a range of issues, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Cheney, often described as the most influential vice president in U.S. history, has been discussing his years in office in informal talks with authors, diplomats, policy experts and past colleagues, the Post said, as he works on a memoir due out in 2011 from Simon & Schuster's Threshold Editions.

Robert Barnett, who negotiated Cheney's book contract, passed word to potential publishers that the memoir would be packed with news, said the article published on the Post Web site, and Cheney himself has said, without explanation, that "the statute of limitations has expired" on many of his secrets.
Click to expand...

red55, Aug 14, 2009

#1
shaqazoolu Concentrated Awesome

Joined:

Sep 6, 2003

Messages:

2,386

Likes Received:

121

I love "news" stories about things that happened already.

So does this mean Democrats like Bush more since he started to lean towards independent views at the end of his term? Sounds more like short-termers disease to me.

shaqazoolu, Aug 14, 2009

#2
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

This report came out yesterday.

If you feel that way, I have something you are going to hate...
lol. just to start shyt.

from a fellow republican and conservative..

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-12/the-gops-misplaced-rage/full/

Leading conservative economist Bruce Bartlett writes that the Obama-hating town-hall mobs have it wrong—the person they should be angry with left the White House seven months ago.

Where is the evidence that everything would be better if Republicans were in charge? Does anyone believe the economy would be growing faster or that unemployment would be lower today if John McCain had won the election? I know of no economist who holds that view. The economy is like an ocean liner that turns only very slowly. The gross domestic product and the level of employment would be pretty much the same today under any conceivable set of policies enacted since Barack Obama’s inauguration.

Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office projected a deficit this year of $1.2 trillion before Obama took office, with no estimate for actions he might take. To a large extent, the CBO’s estimate simply represented the $482 billion deficit projected by the Bush administration in last summer’s budget review, plus the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which George W. Bush rammed through Congress in September over strenuous conservative objections. Thus the vast bulk of this year’s currently estimated $1.8 trillion deficit was determined by Bush’s policies, not Obama’s.

I think conservative anger is misplaced. To a large extent, Obama is only cleaning up messes created by Bush. This is not to say Obama hasn’t made mistakes himself, but even they can be blamed on Bush insofar as Bush’s incompetence led to the election of a Democrat. If he had done half as good a job as most Republicans have talked themselves into believing he did, McCain would have won easily.

Conservative protesters should remember that the recession, which led to so many of the policies they oppose, is almost entirely the result of Bush’s policies. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007—long before Obama was even nominated. And the previous recession ended in November 2001, so the current recession cannot be blamed on cyclical forces that Bush inherited.

Indeed, Bush’s responsibility for the recession is implicit in every conservative analysis of its origins. The most thorough has been done by John Taylor, a respected economist from Stanford University who served during most of the Bush administration as the No. 3 official at the Treasury Department. In his book, Getting Off Track, he puts most of the blame on the Federal Reserve for holding interest rates down too low for too long.

While the Fed does bear much responsibility for sowing the seeds of recession, it’s commonly treated as an institution independent of politics and even the government itself. But the Federal Reserve Board consists of governors appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Click to expand...

Finally, conservatives have an absurdly unjustified view that Republicans have a better record on federal finances. It is well-known that Clinton left office with a budget surplus and Bush left with the largest deficit in history. Less well-known is Clinton’s cutting of spending on his watch, reducing federal outlays from 22.1 percent of GDP to 18.4 percent of GDP. Bush, by contrast, increased spending to 20.9 percent of GDP. Clinton abolished a federal entitlement program, Welfare, for the first time in American history, while Bush established a new one for prescription drugs.

Conservatives delude themselves that the Bush tax cuts worked and that the best medicine for America’s economic woes is more tax cuts; at a minimum, any tax increase would be economic poison. They forget that Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year. Indeed, one could easily argue that the enactment of that legislation was a critical prerequisite to recovery because it led to a decline in interest rates. The same could be said of Clinton’s 1993 tax increase, which many conservatives predicted would cause a recession but led to one of the biggest economic booms in history.

According to the CBO, federal taxes will amount to just 15.5 percent of GDP this year. That’s 2.2 percent of GDP less than last year, 3.3 percent less than in 2007, and 1.8 percent less than the lowest percentage recorded during the Reagan years. If conservatives really believe their own rhetoric, they should be congratulating Obama for being one of the greatest tax cutters in history.

Conservatives will respond that some tax cuts are good while others are not. Determining which is which is based on something called supply-side economics. Because I was among those who developed it, I think I can speak authoritatively on the subject. According to the supply-side view, temporary tax cuts and tax credits are economically valueless. Only permanent cuts in marginal tax rates will significantly raise growth.

On this basis, we see that Bush’s tax cuts were pretty much the opposite of what supply-side economics would recommend. The vast bulk of his tax cuts involved tax rebates—which failed in 2001 and again in 2008, because the vast bulk of the money was saved—or tax credits that had no incentive effects. While marginal rates were cut slightly—the top rate fell from 39.6 percent to 35 percent—it was phased in slowly and never made permanent. Neither were Bush’s cuts in capital gains and dividend taxes.

I could go on to discuss other Bush mistakes that had negative economic consequences, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed a massive regulatory burden on corporations without doing anything to prevent corporate misconduct, and starting unnecessary wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which will burden the economy for decades to come in the form of veterans’ benefits.
Click to expand...

With conservatives like this, who needs democrats.

Sabanfan melt down to follow.

LSUMASTERMIND, Aug 14, 2009

#3
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

shaqazoolu said: ↑

So does this mean Democrats like Bush more since he started to lean towards independent views at the end of his term?
Click to expand...

No, democrats didn't like Bush any more. Independents didn't think he had become a moderate either, but they did notice a flexibility in the second term that he did not display in the first. Bush didn't let Cheney bully Condi Rice like he had done Colin Powell. He started listening to his generals over Rusmsfeld/Cheney on Iraq, He established the largest marine sanctuary in the world, and he did not pardon Scooter Libby, over Cheney's protests.

Cheney's advice led Bush to all of the wrong places and Dub may have finally figured it out. At least they are starting to speak of it . . .

Bush's memoirs may be a doozy.

red55, Aug 14, 2009

#4
LaSalleAve when in doubt, mumble

Joined:

Jun 8, 2008

Messages:

44,037

Likes Received:

18,027

The thing that is frightening about this is where in the hell did Cheney want to take this whole thing? All i can see if Cheney would have been in charge is some Orwellian police state. The sad thing is, i bet G Dubya is a really cool cat, out of all of the presidents, i think he would be the one i would want to hang out with the most. Maybe thats because all i can picture now is the impersonator that was in Harold and Kumar.

LaSalleAve, Aug 14, 2009

#5
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

LaSalleAve said: ↑

The thing that is frightening about this is where in the hell did Cheney want to take this whole thing? All i can see if Cheney would have been in charge is some Orwellian police state. The sad thing is, i bet G Dubya is a really cool cat, out of all of the presidents, i think he would be the one i would want to hang out with the most. Maybe thats because all i can picture now is the impersonator that was in Harold and Kumar.
Click to expand...

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veOfWtDhPYg[/media]

red55, Aug 14, 2009

#6
shaqazoolu Concentrated Awesome

Joined:

Sep 6, 2003

Messages:

2,386

Likes Received:

121

I don't really care about who was following who's advice at whatever point in someone's term and I don't really understand why anyone else cares either. This story does nothing for the present. All it does is create irrelevant drama that doesn't do anyone any good. You will never get both sides of the story to mesh on stuff like this so what's the point?

As far as MM's article goes, all I have to say is just because Bush sucked doesn't give Obama the right to suck. Sure he inherited a lot of the financial mess he has but he's not making it any better by giving away healthcare, bailing out undeserving corporate jerks and manufacturing new and terrible ideas to wreck the value of the dollar.

shaqazoolu, Aug 14, 2009

#7

1 person likes this.
SabanFan The voice of reason

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

26,080

Likes Received:

1,247

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

Sabanfan melt down to follow.
Click to expand...

I didn't read any further than:

Obama-hating town-hall mobs
Click to expand...

Dems will rue the day they chose to ignore and malign the real Americans.

SabanFan, Aug 14, 2009

#8
LSUMASTERMIND Founding Member

Joined:

Nov 15, 2007

Messages:

12,992

Likes Received:

2,461

shaqazoolu said: ↑

I don't really care about who was following who's advice at whatever point in someone's term and I don't really understand why anyone else cares either. This story does nothing for the present. All it does is create irrelevant drama that doesn't do anyone any good. You will never get both sides of the story to mesh on stuff like this so what's the point?

As far as MM's article goes, all I have to say is just because Bush sucked doesn't give Obama the right to suck. Sure he inherited a lot of the financial mess he has but he's not making it any better by giving away healthcare, bailing out undeserving corporate jerks and manufacturing new and terrible ideas to wreck the value of the dollar.
Click to expand...

In the words of Marshall Mathers, he has a right to suck less:hihi:

LSUMASTERMIND, Aug 14, 2009

#9
mobius481 Registered Member

Joined:

Jan 20, 2006

Messages:

7,731

Likes Received:

1,350

LSUMASTERMIND said: ↑

This report came out yesterday.

If you feel that way, I have something you are going to hate...
lol. just to start shyt.

from a fellow republican and conservative..

The GOP's Misplaced Rage - The Daily Beast

With conservatives like this, who needs democrats.

Sabanfan melt down to follow.
Click to expand...

The townhall mobs have nothing to do with the economy. That article doesn't even make sense.

mobius481, Aug 14, 2009

#10

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 1 of 5

Share This Page