Tag Archives: george w. bush

Chris Matthews Panel Sees Name ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ as ‘Net Plus’ in U.S. Relations w/ Muslim World

On Sunday’s syndicated Chris Matthews Show, after host Matthews asked if electing a President whose middle name was “Hussein” had “opened a door to better relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Or has it opened a door to more xenophobic American negativity?” the panel mostly agreed that Obama’s election was more of a “net plus” for America’s relations with the Muslim world. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius had a dissenting view that “President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous.” After former CBS News anchor Dan Rather contended that “I think it’s opened the door to both, but, on balance, and in the main, it’s still a net plus in terms of the country’s reputation,” the BBC’s Katty Kay agreed and implicated President Bush in damaging America’s relations with the Middle East. Kay: “I agree that it’s a net plus, particularly when you compare it with what came before and the invasion of Iraq and how much of a problem that was for America’s relations with the Middle East.” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell concurred: “: I agree because after the invasion of Iraq and with this President and his multicultural background, it is a net plus.” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius had a more negative take: There’s no question as I travel the Arab world that President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous. When expectations go up, the possibility of disappointment, of chronic disappointment – “but you told us that this would be different and it isn’t” – I think that’s a real danger for us going forward. I think Obama and his advisors understand that. That’s why they’re pushing so hard on the Israeli-Palestinian issue now. The discussion was framed around the liberal premise that President Bush had not only harmed relations with the Muslim world by being too aggressive in the war on terrorism, but that those negative relations outweighed such positive accomplishments as overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, September 12 syndicated Chris Matthews Show: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let’s get back to the question of our country. We, as a country, elected Barack Hussein Obama. We knew his name was Hussein. We knew of his background from his parentage going way back. The Arab world liked that. The Islamic world said, “Hey, this country’s interesting.” Overall, has the election of Barack Obama opened a door to better relations with the Arab and Islamic world. Or has it opened a door to more xenophobic American negativity? DAN RATHER: I think it’s opened the door to both, but, on balance, and in the main, it’s still a net plus in terms of the country’s reputation. MATTHEWS: Okay. Katty, you agree with that? KATTY KAY, BBC: I agree that it’s a net plus, particularly when you compare it with what came before and the invasion of Iraq and how much of a problem that was for America’s relations with the Middle East. ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS : I agree because after the invasion of Iraq and with this President and his multicultural background, it is a net plus. DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: There’s no question as I travel the Arab world that President Obama raised expectations that there would be a different kind of America. That in itself could be dangerous. When expectations go up, the possibility of disappointment, of chronic disappointment – “but you told us that this would be different and it isn’t” – I think that’s a real danger for us going forward. I think Obama and his advisors understand that. That’s why they’re pushing so hard on the Israeli-Palestinian issue now. MATTHEWS: I think a grown-up response and childish response are always going to be different. Grown-ups are going to say, “Well, it’s an interesting country. They elect a guy named Barack Hussein Obama.” … (INAUDIBLE) country. IGNATIUS: Don’t look for grown-up responses in America or anywhere else.

More here:
Chris Matthews Panel Sees Name ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ as ‘Net Plus’ in U.S. Relations w/ Muslim World

Toast of the London Stage: Play With Laura Bush Reading to Dead Iraqi Children

George W. Bush may be almost two years removed from his White House tenure, but the haters are still at work. Gay Marxist playwright Tony Kushner is the toast of London theatre right now for his series of five small plays called “Tiny Kushner.” Included in the set is a reprise of his piece titled “Only We Who Guard the Mystery Shall Be Unhappy,” featuring Laura Bush reading Dostoyevsky to the ghosts of dead Iraqi children. (Byron York offered enough of a summary here .) In an interview with the leftist U.K. Guardian newspaper, Kushner demonstrated his hatred is undiminished: “I wrote it after I was arrested at the big anti-invasion rally outside the United Nations in 2003,” he says. “I left feeling immensely depressed because I knew we had left it too late to make a difference. And then a couple of days later, Bush said that he was grateful to us, because we had offered him a ‘focus group’ . I hate that motherf—er , but for once the man incapable of using the English language had hit on something apt: that’s what the progressive left in America was reduced to, a focus group.” By contrast, Kushner expressed patience with Barack Obama, even as he proclaimed that the insights of Karl Marx are proven in America daily: ” Marxism is alive ,” he says. “What happened under Stalin was horrendous, but in point of fact, Marx never really worked out a solution, it was not his doing. But he was an absolutely astonishing reader of history, and of class. His analysis of capitalism is being proved in America every day .” It takes a confident man to say such a thing in public in America, even today. And Kushner has become confident enough to blow his own horn. His latest stand is a refusal to go along with the disillusionment in Barack Obama; instead, he accuses his Democrat detractors of political narcissism. It is a bit surprising to hear Kushner declare himself “very happy” with Obama’s efforts. “The left is shooting itself in the foot,” he argues. “I don’t want to sound contemptuous, but there is a tendency to see politics as an expression of your own personal purity, a character test. It’s not. It’s about learning to advance a progressive agenda by under-standing the working of a democracy.” That pragmatic understanding is, after all, what got Obama elected. The thought that makes Kushner angry – and makes him talk even faster, more urgently – is of his “community” damaging the Democrats’ chances of fending off a rightwing resurrection in the form of Sarah Palin, or worse. That might send gay rights, his core issue, back to the Reagan era. Ambivalence isn’t really in Kushner’s toolbox when it comes to conservative leaders. Kushner told another interviewer (for the U.K. Prospect magazine ) about the Laura Bush piece: “I’ve always thought of it as a struggle between two characters for developing an internal tolerance of ambivalence. People who don’t have it, like George W. Bush, are very dangerous people.” That interviewer, John Nathan, praised him as a prophet, including how “Kushner’s first play A Bright Room Called Day (1984) made a comparison between Reagan and Hitler (he once told me he was being deliberately irresponsible)—and then what happens? The morning after the play opened, the papers carried pictures of Reagan in Germany placing a wreath at the graves of SS soldiers.” Nathan added that Kushner’s next project “is what he once described to me as his ‘next big gay play,'” titled  The Intelligent Homosexual’s Guide To Capitalism and Socialism With A Key To The Scriptures. The Guardian’s review delighted in the Laura Bush play as the best part of “Tiny Kushner,” which “reveals his gift for blending the hallucinatory and the political…even here Kushner’s polemical fury at the Iraq invasion is qualified by his residual sympathy for Mrs Bush. Having mouthed the conventional platitudes in defence of the war, she is shocked into a guilty awareness, telling the imagined children ‘we will pay for your deaths one way or another’.” Ian Shuttleworth in the Financial Times raved: “The strongest piece of all is Only We Who Guard The Mystery Shall Be Unhappy , in which First Lady Laura Bush in her literacy-campaigner guise prepares to read Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor episode to the ghosts of dead Iraqi children. As is typical of Kushner at his best, the piece’s attitudes may be obvious but their expression is richly complex and insightful.” Brent Bozell had a different take on Kushner’s work Angels in America : “the theatrical version of one of those crazy letters to the editor that never end and have too many capital letters.”

See more here:
Toast of the London Stage: Play With Laura Bush Reading to Dead Iraqi Children

Open Thread: George W. Bush Talks About Patriot Golf Day

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: George W. Bush talks about Patriot Golf Day: Thoughts?

Go here to read the rest:
Open Thread: George W. Bush Talks About Patriot Golf Day

USAToday.com Notes Poll Showing Bush Blamed for Economy, Skips One Showing Voters Favor GOP On Issues

Yesterday the Gallup organization released a poll showing that Americans trust Republicans over Democrats on most major issues heading into the general election season. Today the same polling outfit released a poll that found a large number of Americans blame George W. Bush for the faltering economy.  Guess which one Gallup partner USA Today hyped? Here’s how USA Today staffer Susan Page began her September 2 online story (filed at noon today): Nearly two years after Barack Obama was elected president, Americans still are inclined to blame his predecessor for the nation’s current economic problems. In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, more than a third of those surveyed said George W. Bush deserved a great deal of the blame for economic woes and a third said he should get a moderate amount of it. Not quite another third called that unfair, saying Bush warranted not much or none of the responsibility. The 71% saying Bush should get blamed was a modest decline from the 80% who felt that way about a year ago, in July 2009. A search of the USAToday.com website failed to turn up a story specifically devoted to the September 1 Gallup poll that gauged voter preferences for the parties based on the issues. Staffer Susan Page did make a brief reference to the poll in a September 1 “analysis” article regarding President Obama’s Oval Office speech about the end of combat operations in Iraq, but that occurred in paragraphs 17 and 18 of her 20-paragraph story: But the Iraq war is no longer the driving issue for Americans facing job layoffs and home foreclosures. In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,021 adults Friday through Sunday, those surveyed rated the economy, jobs, government corruption and federal spending as the top issues shaping their vote in November’s congressional elections — and preferred congressional Republicans over Democrats on handling the economy by double digits. The war in Afghanistan ranked eighth in a list of nine issues. Here’s an excerpt from Gallup.com’s website regarding the top issues poll: PRINCETON, NJ — A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds Americans saying the Republicans in Congress would do a better job than the Democrats in Congress of handling seven of nine key election issues. The parties are essentially tied on healthcare, with the environment being the lone Democratic strength. The Republicans’ advantage on most issues is an indication of the currently favorable political environment for the party. Of particular note is the parity between the two parties on healthcare, an issue on which Americans historically have viewed the Democrats as superior . A similar USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in October 2006, just prior to Democrats’ major gains in that fall’s elections, highlights the potential implications of these findings. That poll, which includes several issues measured in the current survey, found the Democrats leading on all eight issues tested at that time , including some usual Republican strengths like terrorism and moral values. In more bad news for liberal Democrats, Gallup.com released another poll today that shows that “Republicans Hold Wide Lead in Key Voter Turnout Measure” : PRINCETON, NJ — Two months before this year’s midterm congressional elections, Gallup finds 54% of Republicans, compared with 30% of Democrats, already saying they have given “quite a lot of” or “some” thought to the contests. This “thought” measure is an important variable in Gallup’s well-established classification of “likely voters,” which is put into use closer to Election Day. The current gulf in thought between the parties mirrors the partisan gap in Gallup’s voter enthusiasm measure that is tracked weekly. We’ll have to see how USA Today covers this later today or tomorrow, but I’m not holding my breath for the paper giving it much attention, if any.

Link:
USAToday.com Notes Poll Showing Bush Blamed for Economy, Skips One Showing Voters Favor GOP On Issues

Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

Defenders of controversial imam Feisal Abdul Rauf have been touting his past efforts in offering counterterrorism advice to the FBI as a way to illustrate his bridge-building intentions.  Much like other reports, they tend to gloss over the more controversial aspects of Rauf’s statements.  But, as is typical with the Ground Zero mosque imam, it can be demonstrated that he is frequently speaking with a forked tongue. There is no doubt that Rauf has made some questionable and incendiary comments regarding America and her role in the Muslim world.  Perhaps these statements fit the imam’s overall rhetoric involving U.S. complicity in the attacks of 9/11.  As does the following statement to the FBI , which is conveniently omitted from media reports defending Rauf. Bridge-building imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was giving a crash course in Islam for FBI agents in March of 2003 .  When asked to clarify such terminology as ‘jihad’ and ‘fatwa’, Rauf stated (emphasis mine throughout): “Jihad can mean holy war to extremists, but it means struggle to the average Muslim. Fatwah has been interpreted to mean a religious mandate approving violence, but is merely a recommendation by a religious leader.  Rauf noted that the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks could be considered a jihad , and pointed out that a renowned Islamic scholar had issued a fatwah advising Muslims in the U.S. military it was okay to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.” Well, wait a minute.  Which version of the word jihad is he referring to when he speaks of the U.S. response itself?  Is it the struggle he speaks of for the average Muslim, or is it the holy war?  Getting very little run in the media is an analysis of Rauf’s FBI days in the New York Post .  Contained within Paul Sperry’s column is a question of whether Rauf actually knows the definition of jihad, or if he simply presents things ambiguously to make things more difficult on the agents he is trying to teach.  While Rauf passes jihad off as nothing more than a struggle, Koranic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali disagrees, insisting that jihad ‘means advancing Islam, including by physically fighting Islam’s enemies.’ Sperry then questions, ‘If he (Rauf) believes jihad is really just an internal struggle, then why does he refuse to condemn Hamas? (Why, for that matter, did he in late 2001 suggest that “US policies were an accessory to the crime” of 9/11?).’ And speaking of the fatwa advising Muslims in the U.S. military that it was okay to fight the Taliban … The renowned Islamic scholar that Rauf is referring to is Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  In a New York Times article one month after 9/11, Rauf was quoted as saying: “This fatwa is very significant. Yusuf Qaradawi is probably the most well-known legal authority in the whole Muslim world today.” Question is, was that hollow fatwa (a hotwa as it were) more significant than Qaradawi’s proclamation on Al Jazeera two weeks earlier?  Qaradawi stated: “A Muslim is forbidden from entering into an alliance with a non-Muslim against another Muslim.”  He called on Muslims to “fight the American military if we can, and if we cannot, we should fight the U.S. economically and politically.” Qaradawi elaborated on that non-fatwa fatwa in 2004 when he said of American troops : “…all of the Americans in Iraq are combatants, there is no difference between civilians and soldiers , and one should fight them, since the American civilians came to Iraq in order to serve the occupation. The abduction and killing of Americans in Iraq is a [religious] obligation so as to cause them to leave Iraq immediately. The mutilation of corpses [however] is forbidden in Islam.” Abduction and killing is an obligation, but he draws the line at corpse mutilation.  Very classy. Perhaps the media should not be relying so heavily on the imam’s efforts within the FBI anyway.  Lest we forget, the FBI doesn’t exactly have a great track record in spotting red flags being raised by a radical imam.  Families of the victims at Fort Hood can attest to that.  In their defense, the FBI was constantly compromised by over-sensitivity training when it came to Muslims.  But when Nidal Hasan was chatting it up with Anwar al-Awlaki, they suspected it was nothing more than a simple case of psychiatric research. Is all this nothing more than parsing the double talk of a ‘moderate’ imam, or is it something more alarming? Rusty can be contacted through his website:  The Mental Recession .

Original post:
Imam to FBI (2003): ‘U.S. Response to 9/11 Could Be Considered Jihad’

National Reviewer Schools Chris Matthews and Joe Klein on Beck, Limbaugh, Tea Party and Islamophobia

Chris Matthews this weekend actually invited a real conservative on to the syndicated program bearing his name, and what transpired was a thing of beauty. National Review’s Rehain Salam did such a fabulous job of educating Matthews and his guests – especially Time’s Joe Klein – that I imagine him quickly becoming a NewsBusters favorite. The initial topic of discussion was Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally scheduled to occur after this was taped. Between Matthews’ disrespectful introduction, and Klein calling the conservative talk show host “a paranoid lunatic,” one had the feeling this would have devolved into a full on hate-fest if not for Salam’s presence. Fortunately, the National Reviewer was there to set the record straight (videos follow with transcripts and commentary):  JOE KLEIN, TIME: Newt Gingrich should be embarrassed by the way. He’s much smarter than this. Glenn Beck something different. The guy’s obviously a paranoid lunatic who is a great entertainer. And He is exploiting something that always happens in our country when the economy is bad and when we’re at war. During World War I, if people were caught speaking German in the street, other people would beat them up. During World War II, we interned the Japanese. And now there, the combination of bad, bad economic times over the last couple of years and, and, you know. the terrorism, has, has led to this wave that Glenn Beck and his puppet master Rupert Murdoch are exploiting. Amazing. So geniuses like Klein actually think folks going to Tea Party rallies are akin to people that beat up Germans during World War I or had anti-Japanese tendencies during World War II. Is this really what qualifies as enlightened thinking from so-called journalists today? Regardless of the answer, after opinions from the BBC’s Katty Kay and NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, Matthews turned to his lone conservative guest (readers are strongly encouraged to watch the videos to see just how well Salam takes control of the panel and the discussion): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Reihan Salam, this, this whole thing I think it gets ethnic, I think it gets tribal. I listened to Rush Limbaugh this week saying, you know, “We’re not Islamophobic. We elected Barack Obama. That proves we’re not Islamophobic.” That’s saying he’s Islamic again when the guy’s a Christian. REIHAN SALAM, NATIONAL REVIEW: I don’t that’s quite what it’s saying. MATTHEWS: What is it saying? SALAM: I think what it’s saying is that Barack Obama is someone who comes from a very different kind of background and America has embraced him in large numbers. I also think the idea, respectfully, that Glenn Beck is being controlled by Rupert Murdoch as a puppet master gets things wrong. KLEIN: He hired him. He hired him. SALAM: When you look at Glenn Beck, when you see someone, for example, remember Louis Farrakhan the Million Man March? What was the Million Man March about? A lot of people were terrified about it. It caused a lot of consternation from liberals and conservatives. But ultimately what you saw was an event where tons of African-American men got together and it was really about identity and pride. And I think that when you’re looking at our politics right now, it’s true that in an economic downturn, you see a lot of confusion. You see a lot of uncertainty. And there is a decent number of people who feel not like have-nots, but they feel like are-knots. They feel that they’re not being respected in their public life and they want to assert themselves. For those interested, Salam wrote an article about this on Sunday. But I digress:   MATTHEWS: Who are the Glenn Beck constituency? SALAM: I think that it’s a lot of folks. It’s a lot of people from smaller cities, rural areas, small towns, tend to be white, tend to be Christian-identified. MATTHEWS: Okay, who is their villain? SALAM: I don’t think they necessarily have a villain so much as there’s a lot of confusion… KLEIN: Oh, come on. SALAM: …and anger and resentment. KLEIN: No, listen, the anger is the key here. The one thing that the Million Man March has in common with the Glenn Beck march is anger. And, this is the greatest Democracy and the most prosperous country in the history of the world. Sooner or later you got to ask people, “What are you so damned angry about?” Stop the tape! Isn’t that what Republicans could have asked unhappy voters in 2006? The economy was still booming. Unemployment was under five percent. Yet Democrats had an historic midterm election transfer of power. Now, with unemployment at 9.5 percent and likelihood heading higher, this pathetic liberal “journalist” doesn’t understand what people are “so damned angry about”: SALAM: Anger is what united those men who gathered during the Million Man march. I think it goes back to… KLEIN: Anger at white people, yes! Yes, that’s not an error in transcription. Klein really said the Million Man March was about African-Americans angry at white people:  SALAM: I’m pretty sure that’s not true. KATTY KAY, BBC: When you say, when you say that they’re not have-nots, they feel they are-nots, they are not what? They are not what they see represented in Washington? SALAM: That’s, that’s certainly a part of it. Also, a lot of these people felt disaffected during the Bush years as well. There’s a large number of voters… KAY: But they weren’t angry and they weren’t speaking out against Washington. SALAM: Oh, they certainly were angry, but that anger, that anger wasn’t part of the narrative. Right now that anger fits a media narrative, if I may, that’s very compelling and exciting for people to talk about, and it fits a lot of preconceived notions. KLEIN: And where is that coming narrative coming from? SALAM: It’s coming from a lot of folks, including some of the folks around this roundtable not intentionally, but I think it’s the prism through which we see the world. Ouch! Talk about your shot to the heart! Of course, what Salam was saying was 100 percent true. The disaffected conservative voters have been showing their displeasure since Ross Perot began educating people about the perils of fiscal indiscipline in 1992.  More recently, this anger manifested itself when conservatives didn’t show up to vote in 2006 due to their disgust with the out of control spending by a Republican-controlled Congress. Not that shills like Klein would ever want to admit it, but conservative anger at Republicans had just as much to do with the Democrats’ victory in 2006 as did liberal anger at Republicans. But this lesson wasn’t over, for Matthews asked Salam another great question: MATTHEWS: Here’s my question: There’s a big differential between Republicans attitudes towards Islam and Democratic attitudes. There’s some animus from both parties. But only 27 percent of Democrats say they have a problem with Islam. 54 percent of Republicans do. Explain the differential. As a little background, Matthews has been harping on this issue since the Pew Research Center released these numbers on August 19. Now, the liberal host was finally going to understand the data:  SALAM: I will happily explain it. 25 percent of Americans identify as Republicans. 42 percent identify as conservatives. When you look at those conservatives who don’t identify with the Republican Party, they have different views on a whole host of issues including gay marriage and what have you. And I think that when you’re looking at that 25 percent, that smaller group, then it stands to reason that they’re going to have somewhat different views. Another thing is… MATTHEWS: Why are they anti-islamic. SALAM: One way of saying “I have an unfavorable view of Islam” is to say that “I devoutly believe my own religious views, and I do not accept those views as true.” The view that a lot of Americans have, you know, Buddhists and Hindus and Christians are all going toward the same God, that is the eccentric view in the history of Abrahamic religion. MATTHEWS: Right. SALAM: And I think that, you know, if you asked this several years ago, you would have gotten a pretty similar answer. It’s just that it didn’t connect with the political narrative. Exactly, for the narrative today is that anyone that doesn’t agree with Barack Obama is racist and anybody that doesn’t support the Ground Zero mosque is anti-Islamic. As such, people like Matthews, Klein, and all the Left’s media minions are using any polling data that arises to further this narrative in the hopes the electorate will buy into it before Election Day. Nicely played, Reihan. Bravo!  Readers are encouraged to also review Brad Wilmouth’s ” Joe Klein & Matthews Link Anti-Muslim ‘Attitude’ to ‘Deranged Muslim’ Violence, Small-Town Whites Miss ‘Ethnic Purity’ of Past .”

Follow this link:
National Reviewer Schools Chris Matthews and Joe Klein on Beck, Limbaugh, Tea Party and Islamophobia

Lauer to Laura Bush: Is It ‘Painful’ to Be in New Orleans, Since So Much Blame Is Laid At Your Husband’s Feet?

Today co-anchor Matt Lauer traveled to New Orleans, on Friday, to mark the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and interviewed the likes of former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, former FEMA Director Mike Brown, current Democratic Mayor Mitch Landrieu and Louisiana  Governor Bobby Jindal, but saved any sort of direct shots at George W. Bush for his interview with Laura Bush. At the very end of his August 27 interview about her charitable work in the region, Lauer laid the following guilt trip on the former First Lady: [ audio available here ] MATT LAUER: There’s no easy way to ask this question, I’m just gonna ask it. Is it ever painful for you to come back to this region, because in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it seems so much of the blame for what happened or didn’t happen here was laid at the feet of your husband? LAURA BUSH: No, not really. I mean I feel very close to the people on the Gulf Coast and always have. And, and I know what the circumstances were. And of course the President takes the blame in any situation, as we can see now with the new president. But I also knew what George really thought and how he felt about the, the Gulf Coast. We gave unprecedented support. The United States Congress passed large bills. I think $180 billion that George signed and has come to the Gulf Coast. And what we’ve seen really is so inspirational. The people here, the school people are the ones that I’ve been with the most. And they came back, when they were in FEMA trailers or living with relatives and did everything they could to rebuild their schools so kids could come back. LAUER: I know the people of the region are thankful for the work you and your foundation are doing here. Mrs. Bush thanks for joining us this morning. I appreciate it.

Read more from the original source:
Lauer to Laura Bush: Is It ‘Painful’ to Be in New Orleans, Since So Much Blame Is Laid At Your Husband’s Feet?

NYT: ‘More Americans – Not Just the Rich – Will Have to Pay More Taxes’

The New York Times on Tuesday declared what most conservatives knew would happen if Democrats took control of both Congress and the White House: “more Americans – and not just the rich – are going to have to pay more taxes.” In its editorial comically titled ” A Real Debate on Taxes ,” the Times predictably argued for a total elimination of the Bush tax cuts, although it favored some partial delay to this given the precarious state of the economy. That in itself was humorous as the Times clearly seems to get that raising taxes is indeed economically damaging. Yet maybe more telling was how this “real debate” didn’t once involve the spending side of the budget: President Obama is right when he says the country cannot afford to extend all of the tax cuts. He wants to let the tax cuts expire on the top 2 to 3 percent of American households (couples making more than $250,000 a year, individuals making more than $200,000) and permanently extend them for everyone else. The problem is that a permanent extension of the so-called middle-class tax cuts is also unaffordable. It makes sense to extend them temporarily, because the weak economy needs the boost. But more revenue will be needed in years to come to keep rebuilding the economy and meet health care and other obligations to retiring baby boomers. That means more Americans – and not just the rich – are going to have to pay more taxes. For all the politicians’ talk about deficits, no one is saying that. Hmmm. So, tax cuts for low, middle, and upper-middle income wage earners boosts the economy? But more “revenue” is needed to “keep rebuilding the economy and meet health care and other obligations to retiring baby boomers?” Why not just continue to allow Americans to keep more of their own money to give the economy a “boost” while working on ways for the federal government to exist on less revenue? How about exploring avenues to reduce the “obligations to retiring baby boomers” for example? As is typical from left-leaning publications, such logic was never broached. In fact, the words “spending,” “expenditures,” and “outlays” were nowhere to be found in this “real debate”: An honest debate needs to start with the numbers. The tax cut packages of 2001 and 2003 – heavily skewed to high earners – cut taxes by $1.65 trillion. In 2001, supporters argued that with the budget in surplus, the cuts were affordable. In 2003, they argued that the cuts would spur investment and growth and pay for themselves.   How does one have an “honest debate” by completely misrepresenting who benefited from the Bush tax cuts? As NewsBusters reported on August 11, the liberal think tank the Brookings Institution has concluded that 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts would go to low, middle, and upper-middle income wage earners in the next ten years if they were extended. Only 18 percent goes to couples making over $250,000 a year and singles over $200,000. With this in mind, it is certainly not “honest” of the Times to depict the Bush tax cuts as “heavily skewed to higher earners.” In fact, it’s an out and out lie! But there’s more: Since 2002, the federal budget has been chronically short of revenue. According to calculations by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if the tax cuts of the Bush years had never been enacted, publicly held debt at the end of 2009 would have been about $5.2 trillion, or 37 percent of gross domestic product. Instead, it was $7.5 trillion, or 53 percent of G.D.P. (it now stands at 60 percent).   Don’t you love that phrase “short of revenue?” Let’s examine just how “short of revenue” our government has been since 2002. Total unified tax collections that year were $1.853 trillion with outlays of $2.011 trillion.  By 2007 just prior to the beginning of the recession, revenues grew to $2.568 trillion, a 39 percent jump in only five years. Does that sound “short of revenue” to you? After all, if spending during this period had only grown at the rate of inflation, we would have had a $250 billion surplus! Heck, spending could have increased by five percent per year during this period and we still would have had a balanced budget! Yet, according to the Times, the problem was that we were “short of revenue.” BUT, there was even more fun to come: Tax cuts for low-, middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers should be temporarily extended because those taxpayers tend to spend most of their income and the economy needs consumer spending. That would cost roughly $140 billion next year, but the spur to the economy is more important than the budgetary impact. Tax cuts for the rich can safely be allowed to expire because wealthy taxpayers tend to save rather than spend their tax savings. The revenue from letting these expire – nearly $40 billion next year – would be better spent on job-creating measures. Remember how the Times earlier said the Bush tax cuts were “heavily skewed to high earners?” If this were true, then how coming extending these cuts to low, middle, and upper-income taxpayers would cost roughly $140 billion next year while extending those for “the rich” would cost nearly $40 billion? Using the Times’ own numbers, these combined cuts would cost about $180 billion next year with only $40 billion – or 22 percent – going to “the rich!” Doesn’t that mean that 78 percent goes to low, middle, and upper-middle income taxpayers? So exactly how were the Bush tax cuts “heavily skewed to high earners?” Unfortunately, that’s a question the shills at the Times will likely never answer!

Read the original:
NYT: ‘More Americans – Not Just the Rich – Will Have to Pay More Taxes’

George W. Bush in the Market for a New Mountain Bike

Image: C.A. Smith, casmithphotography.com During his time as President of the United States, George W. Bush’s love of mountain biking was no secret. Bush still rides with his training team cum security staff, known as Peleton 1, which includes Brandon Gillard, owner of the Kennebunkport Bicycle Company. The power of networking got the former President onto a Niner Jet 9. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more:
George W. Bush in the Market for a New Mountain Bike

On Martha’s Vineyard, ‘Miss Me Yet?’ Bush T-Shirts Outselling ‘I Vacationed with Obama’ Ones

Picking up on a nugget ( my tweet ) surprisingly included in a Wednesday Boston Globe article, on Thursday night FNC’s Bret Baier reported in his “Grapevine” segment: “President Bush is apparently more popular than President Obama on Martha’s Vineyard – at least when it comes to clothing.” Baier relayed the day the First Family arrived on the Massachusetts island: When the First Family vacationed there last year, Obama-themed trinkets were flying off the shelves. Now, the owner of a store called the Locker Room says this summer’s best-selling shirt features Mr. Bush. And even Democrats are buying it. It reads: “Miss Me Yet? How’s that Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out for Ya?” In an August 18 Globe story, “ Vineyard buzzes less for Obamas’ second visit ,” Milton J. Valencia reported on the Oak Bluffs store: …One barometer of the plunge in excitement has been the sale of Obama-themed T-shirts, which designers had been banking on after the craze of last year. Clothing labeled with the president’s name sold by the thousands, helping to salvage a tough economic year for the island. But this year’s T-shirt sales are much less brisk, merchants say. “Last year, Obama gave you goose bumps, but I don’t think you’re going to see that this year,’’ said Alex McCluskey, co-owner of the Locker Room, who sold more than 4,000 “I vacationed with Obama’’ T-shirts last year. But so far this year, he said, his hot item is T-shirts of former President Bush asking, “Miss me yet?’’…

See the original post:
On Martha’s Vineyard, ‘Miss Me Yet?’ Bush T-Shirts Outselling ‘I Vacationed with Obama’ Ones