Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Bruce Bartlett, Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Under Bush 1 and Ronald Reagan

  1. #1
    Havakasha is offline

    Bruce Bartlett, Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Under Bush 1 and Ronald Reagan

    BB: Yeah, i think a good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards, who are desperately afraid of the tea party people, and rightly so


    Bruce Bartlett >> no, i think the dirty secret is that Obama is a moderate conservative. if i were a liberal democrat, i probably would be upset.


    Transcript.
    .

    CM: Bruce Bartlett is former Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary under the first George Bush and a policy adviser to Ronald Reagan. Bottom line, let's look at the numbers right now. We've got a chart coming up. This shows the Bush tax cuts were responsible for increasing the debts. Now, we have about a $14 trillion debt right now, half came out since the turn of the century, and more than 40% of that has been from tax cuts.

    BB: That's right. When Bush took office, we had a debt of about $6 trillion. The projections from the CBO were that we were going to run a $6 trillion surplus. By this point, if we had done nothing, we would have paid off the dead debt, but we added about $3 trillion of tax cuts. We lost about $3 trillion of revenue because of the slower economy and added about $6 trillion of spending, largely due to two unfinished wars and a Medicare drug benefits and a lot of other things. So, instead of getting -- paying off the debt--we ended up with about a $14 trillion debt.

    CM: Some of these clowns, not all of them, running around saying Barack Obama is a Socialist, he drove up the national debt to $14 trillion and dance around in a circle and congratulate each other. That's not true.

    BB: No, i think the dirty secret is that Obama is a moderate conservative. If I were a liberal democrat, I probably would be upset.

    CM: The point is a $1 trillion debt, and another poring (?) is from the prescription drug bill. The whole rest of that is from a lousy economy under Bush and these two wars he came up with.

    BB: That's right. The Republicans keep saying the tax cuts are the key to prosperity. The 2000s are evidence that that is not true. We had booming economies in the 1980s and '90s. If we went back to those taxes, we would be better off.

  2. #2
    Havakasha is offline
    CM: What is the argument against the kind of tax policy-- let's just say it again. It seems like a heck of a great economy with the tax rate of about 39.6, as opposed to 35?

    BB: Right.

    CM: That's the ones the rich bitch about, to use a crude term. That helped balance the budget.

    BB: That's right. Don't forget that Ronald Reagan raised the capital gains rate, and now it's only 15%, and of course the wealthier you are, the more of your income comes from capital gains.

    CM: We showed the 400 richest people in the country. They pay about the same as a poor person pays, about 18%.

    BB: That's right, of income taxes, that's right.

    CM: Whereas the middle class, who think they are the majority of the country, they're paying a higher rate.

    BB: That's right. I don't see think any question we would have positive economic effects if we went back to the tax rates.

    CM: How come I need to drag you on the show -- the fact is, just a simple math, we have a $14 trillion debt, half came from the Bush era, almost, and the rest came from the prescription drug bill, and with a terrible economy and the two wars that he promulgated. That's simple math there.

    BB: That's right, but in the Republican playbook, of course, the deficit is never caused by tax cuts--

    CM: or wars.

    BB: They go around saying they did not lose any revenue. A number of prominent officials, Mitch McConnell included, have said this. It's just mathematically ridiculous.

    CM: And it's not Socialism, but if a Democrat says it, you can't go into the ER anymore for free, you have to kick in something, which to me is pretty conservative. The Republicans call it socialism, they would rather you go to the ER and get treated free. That's what's going on now.

    BB: The Obama plan, the Affordable Health Care Act was essentially the same thing as the Reps themselves --

    CM: Richard Nixon pushed an employer mandate. He wanted the individual not to pay any costs, all bosses had to pay the health care cost. That would have been the Nixon rule.

    BB: The Heritage Foundation, much more recently than that, proposed an individual mandate, now all of a sudden --

    CM: I feel like sanity has just walked into the door. Bruce, so great, now that I realize you're smart and have the numbers, give me two seconds. Any way to solve this kerfuffle?

    BB: I think at this point, there's nothing that can pass the House of Representatives.

    CM: Because it's too much of a zoo?

    BB: Yeah, i think a good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards, who are desperately afraid of the tea party people, and rightly so.

    CM: I love it. Thank you. i can't add to that. Bruce Barlett. You use tougher words than I use. I just say a zoo.

  3. #3
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    I'm not sure he can be trusted given his resume. Seems to flip flop - like you.

    From 1993 to 2005, Bartlett was affiliated with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market think tank based in Dallas, Texas. The NCPA fired him in 2005 for his outspoken criticism of President George W. Bush.[3]

    Since 1995, he has written a newspaper column for Creators Syndicate, based in Los Angeles, and written extensively for many newspapers and magazines, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune magazine, and Commentary magazine. He currently blogs at Capital Gains and Games.

    In 2006, he published Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy (ISBN 0-385-51827-7), which is critical of the Bush Administration's economic policies as departing from traditional conservative principles. He compared the second Bush to Richard M. Nixon as "two superficially conservative presidents who enacted liberal programs to buy votes for reelection."[4]

    In an August 2007 The Wall Street Journal op-ed, Bartlett criticized the FairTax proposal as misleading and unlikely to simplify taxpaying.[5] Bartlett was especially critical of what he states are FairTax's accounting tricks in rate calculation and proponent claims that "real investment spending would rise 76%" if their plan were adopted.[5] A sponsor of the plan, Representative John Linder acknowledged Bartlett's point that the Church of Scientology had proposed a national sales tax, but said that the FairTax movement was independent of the Church of Scientology and Bartlett had confused them with the Scientology-affiliated Citizens for an Alternative Tax System.[6] Other sponsors of the plan were critical of Bartlett's article claiming he used "red herrings" and provided false information on the plan and research.[7][8] In September 2007, Bartlett wrote an article for The New Republic,[9] where he continued his criticism of the FairTax, including his claim that the FairTax/national sales tax has its origins with the Church of Scientology. Bartlett restated information about the bill ("prebate" distribution method, i.e., rebate in advance) and what is included in the rate studies (prebate and government) that the plan's proponents have disputed and claim are false.[10]

    In August 2009, Bartlett wrote a piece for the Daily Beast in which he attributed the recession of 2009 to George Bush and Republicans, whose policies he claimed resulted in an inferior record of economic performance to those of President Clinton.[11] In the same editorial, Bartlett wrote that instead of enacting meaningful healthcare reform, President Bush pushed through a costly Medicare drug plan by personally exerting pressure on reluctant conservatives to vote for the program. Bartlett claimed that because reforming Medicare is an important part of getting health costs under control generally, Bush could have used the opportunity to develop a comprehensive health-reform plan and that "[b]y not doing so, he left his party with nothing to offer as an alternative to the Obama plan."[11] Bartlett concluded:

    Until conservatives once again hold Republicans to the same standard they hold Democrats, they will have no credibility and deserve no respect. They can start building some by admitting to themselves that Bush caused many of the problems they are protesting."[11]
    In Bartlett's latest book, The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, he embraces Keynesian ideas, stating that while supply-side economics was appropriate for the 1970s and 1980s, supply side arguments do not fit contemporary conditions.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Bartlett

  4. #4
    Havakasha is offline
    What is wrong with criticizing Bush's policies for departing from traditional Conservative principles"?
    What he writes seems straight from the heart and truthful. The economy under Bush deteriorated tremendously.
    You can question Bruce Bartlett's positions (though i didnt know it was a bad thing to be able to criticize positions of your own party) but he is not the first Republican or Democrat to understand that Obama is more moderate than most Conservatives are willing to acknowledge.

    I would say that you pretend to be a moderate but somehow seem to be on the side of the Tea Party in many instances and Republicans in almost all. The fact that you are not even able to acknowledge that Obama was willing to negotiate a plan with Boehner that was very favorable to Republicans, and bring the Dems along to pass it is VERY strange.

    I really wonder if your representing your politics in a truthful way based on the positions you seem to take when it comes down to it.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 07-28-2011 at 12:33 PM.

  5. #5
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    I don't have a party Lloyd. I am free to pick and choose what I believe unbounded by "party" -- unlike you who apparently needs it red or blue or confusion seems to set in (maybe because you're off script at that point??) I believe in smaller government and a social safety net. I believe in public education and personal responsibilty to make sure my children get the most out of it.

  6. #6
    Havakasha is offline
    Interesting how you jump to try to malign Bruce Bartlett rather than deal with the facts that he puts forth.

    I can say and you can say " I dont have a party". Doesnt mean when it comes down to it that you dont end up lining up
    on almost every isssue FOR the Republican Party and AGAINST the Democratic Party.
    Just examine every debate on these threads and see where you come down. Its pretty obvious. I at least sometimes disagree and sometimes agree with Obama's position. From my point of view that is more honest.

  7. #7
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Granted - I do identify with free enterprise, limited government, fiscal and personal responsibility, individual liberty....

    I also identify with a social safety net, checks and balances on corporations, safety, environmental responsibility...

    Enough is enough though. Spending is out of control, and I think you know it.

  8. #8
    Havakasha is offline
    I would say that you pretend to be a moderate but seem to be on the side of the Tea Party in many instances and Republicans in almost all. The fact that you are not even able to acknowledge that Obama was willing to negotiate a plan with Boehner that was very favorable to Republicans, and that the Dems were going to pass, is VERY strange. The fact that SL doesnt acknowledge that the deficit plan that Obama was for lowered tax rates in all income brackets is one more example of either a lack of knowledge or a demonstraton of completely dishonesty.

    I really wonder if your representing your politics in a truthful way based on the positions you seem to take when it comes down to it.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 07-28-2011 at 05:15 PM.

  9. #9
    SiriuslyLong is offline
    Guru
    SiriuslyLong's Avatar
    Joined: Jan 2009 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 3,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Havakasha View Post
    I would say that you pretend to be a moderate but seem to be on the side of the Tea Party in many instances and Republicans in almost all. The fact that you are not even able to acknowledge that Obama was willing to negotiate a plan with Boehner that was very favorable to Republicans, and that the Dems were going to pass, is VERY strange. The fact that SL doesnt acknowledge that the deficit plan that Obama was for lowered tax rates in all income brackets is one more example of either a lack of knowledge or a demonstraton of completely dishonesty.

    I really wonder if your representing your politics in a truthful way based on the positions you seem to take when it comes down to it.
    That's great debate there Lloyd - I'm dishonest; I don't represent myself truthfully. You are a genuine prize. Never stray from your tactics - when in doubt - try to discredit. LMFAO. It is so............. you. How do you look in the mirror in the morning knowing when all else fails, try to discredit. A contrary position - try to discredit. A different opinion - try to discredit.

    And to make matters worse - you helped me recognize that Obama did indeed lower taxes as part of the stimulus bill months ago, yet directly above you note that,

    " The fact that SL doesnt acknowledge that the deficit plan that Obama was for lowered tax rates in all income brackets is one more example of either a lack of knowledge or a demonstraton of completely dishonesty."

    MONTHS AGO. That would make you a liar, and perhaps an intentional one.

    Why must I acknowledge that Obama was willing to negotiate? What does that have to do with anything? You don't write the rules. Sorry. You might want to, but, nope. You don't.

    You are a closed minded, highly partisan liberal democrat who will go do any length to try to discredit anyone even remotely challenging your core beliefs. Shame on you.

    Spending is the problem. Here is the evidence.

    Clinton spent $547 Million per day.

    Bush spent $1.6 Billion per day.

    Obama has spent $4.1 Billion per day

  10. #10
    Havakasha is offline
    Yikes! Wow! Crazy!
    What we have here is a failure to communicate. I think its best to cease and desist.

    I am not close minded. Anyone who knows me would laugh at that characterization. I have strong opinions but i love open debate
    and i have argued with many liberals about Obama. What you are saying about me is false. Sorry.

    Spending is NOT the only problem. Almost all economic experts say that you need a combination of revenues and tax reduction to reduce the deficit. I find your insistence on spending only, to be in line with tea pary dogma and therefore extreme. Sorry.

    I wasnt talking about the stimulus plan when i was referring today to your lack of acknowledgement about the deficit plan lowering taxes. You had just gotten done saying you were concerned about your taxes going up. That is not something you needed to worry about if Obama's wishes became reality. The plan that Obama tried to get Boehner and the tea party members to support lowered tax rates for all incomes. Can you acknowledge that?

    I cant help it if you wont acknowledge the centrism of Obama. This thread is all about that. You chose to spend your time somehow implying that Bartlett really wasnt a Republican to be trusted about his opinion.
    I said that many, not just Bartlett are aware that Obama is fairly moderate in his politics. Hence the reason that liberals/progressives rail against him all the time.

    I find you extreme, you find me extreme. Thats what makes the world go round. Enjoy your evening.
    Last edited by Havakasha; 07-28-2011 at 07:05 PM.

  11. Ad Fairy Senior Member
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •