That’s what former President Bush said today in explaining why he signed off on the bailout for Wall Street…calling the decision “one of the most difficult of his presidency.”
“I went against my free-market instincts and approved a temporary government intervention to unfreeze the credit markets so that we could avoid a major global depression,” Bush said.
And without mentioning President Obama by name the former President did have some rather pointed comments for the current Administration claiming that generally “history shows that the greater threat to prosperity is not too little government involvement, but too much.”
Bush, who as President also signed off on massive aid to the auto industry, warned against a government takeover of the economy fearing it would eliminate free-market enterprise. “As the world recovers, we are going to face the temptation to replace the risk and reward model of the private sector with the blunt instruments of government spending and control.”
Bush also signaled that he has been reflecting on his time in office and on some of the “toughest decisions” he had to make as president.
“There were some good days and there were some tough days, but every day I was honored to represent the nation I have loved,” he said. “I gave the job my all, I always did what I believed was in the best interest of our country and I came home to Texas with my values intact.”
Those values – which Bush called “timeless” and ones that defined his presidency – are the basis for the institute’s work at SMU. Bush said it will research and advance public policy proposals to strengthen freedom, opportunity, responsibility and compassion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Crazy Rich says:
Timeless? Maybe “W” forgot to mention that the SMU library was donated…$35,000,000.. by the Hunt family in return for exclusive oil rights to Kurdistan. Jim, the man pissed on America for 8 years and you expect the ship of state to make a 90 degree turn and fix all those mistakes….there is a reason he was voted to 43rd place on the list of worst presidents
RM
OK, but...
his deficit was lower, unemployment was lower, and HE CAN ADMIT HIS MISTAKES.
So, Crazy Rich:
Supporter of Socialism are you?
Really think we went to war for personal financial gain of our President?
Pissing on us how? By protecting us against another terrorist attacki?
Jim:
Dubya is the father of the current deficit and unemployment. You can't leave office they way he did and blame his successor for the economy 10 months later. When you make silly points like that, you ruin your already thin credibility.
I think GWB's best six months were his last. I think Paulson did a terrific job. I shudder to think of the damage that could have been done had Bush stuck to his instincts. Fortunately, he did not want to preside over GDII. He no longer had the luxury of implementing reckless and irresponsible economic policy with the crisis staring him in the face.
Rich you are sniffing way too much glue these days. Your comments are not even worth this much time.
The post is "I went against my free market instincts".
He did, perhaps at the time a reasonable decision but the overwhelming concern of all Conservatives and many others would be that it would end being used as an excuse to march towards Socialism.
His finest moments were his best? You mean the months when the economy cratered? When the bills for the Welfare State finally came due?
President Bush was an honest man who conducted himself with honor and integrity. His biggest failing was not standing as firm on the Welfare State as he did on the War on Terror.
Your sanctimonious hero finds no limits in the need to lecture us on our inadequately and apparently you agree.
Largest deficit ever! Most of it from the Democratic payoff bill known as the stimulus.
Your last line is factually inaccurate. Its not even close. If you want to make a forceful point, you really need to stick to the facts.
$700 Bil stimulus
$1.4 Tril deficit
Bout right I would say.
except...I guess you are right, things are worse that anticipated.
Because the fool is directly targeting prosperity (high taxes, spreading the wealth) the recovery is anemic and the deficit is going to hyper-explode.
Had he cut taxes and established a pro-business enviroment the economy would have recovered.
Unfortunaley a Terry Mini Me (the "O") with his hostility to business is running our country (into the ground).
Say what you wish, folks are figuring this out.
The deficit was $1.3T BEFORE the Stimpack. Unfortunately, said stimulus is being spread over several fiscal years - as usual your math didn't add up. It didn't even come close.
Your incessant call for tax cuts - no matter the economic environment - is particularly wrong headed here. It is "pushing on a string." There are many Republicans that do not advocate tax cuts in this situation. It is not stimulative ($.30/$1) and it adds to the already gaping deficit.
Again - your point is ruined when your facts are all screwed up. Perhaps, if you used correct facts you would find yourself agreeing with me.
Or...I could be correct.
The economic impact of the Porkulus has passed. The deficit is as result of decreased tax revenues from decreased activity directly caused by his using capital to pay off his supporters, THE PORKULUS, rather than allowing people to keep and invest their money.
Note the suscess of the cash for clunkers, limited by its limited duration. Imagine if he has let us keep our money in the first place. We would be pulling out of this depression for which currently there is no end in sight.
Jim said, "President Bush was an honest man who conducted himself with honor and integrity. His biggest failing was not standing as firm on the Welfare State as he did on the War on Terror."
Huh? You are confusing a perpetrator with a victim. The budget was fine when he arrived. The economy was headed into a mild business cycle recession. You see what he wrought over eight years and now you suggest he was a victim? Puhleeze!
Post a Comment