Should Obama extend the Bush tax cuts? Bill Clinton says yes

If you look at the presidents who have left office and refused to comment on their successors, you find grace, and honor. If you look at the presidents who have left office and have commented on their successors, you find hubris and lack of manners. Go through the presidents since 1950 and put them in either category, and those lists are telling, very telling.

Good Old Bubba is a living, walking, talking id (like from Freud, Psychology), he just loves to butt in, and it is usually pretty damn funny for a number of reasons. First, the Clintons do not pay for their misdeeds, someone else always does, whether that is an individual, or a whole political party. They are two of the most toxic individuals, to other people, that there are on earth today, and yet, all the Dems continue to go running back to them. Second, Bubba just does not give a crap, and it is breath taking. He is a textbook sociopath, and yet all these elite, "intelligent" people think he is Mr. Wonderful, but would not leave their daughter, wife, mother, or grandmother alone in a room with the man. Those are both knee slappers right there if you ask me.

Oh, on keeping the Bush tax cuts for awhile, Clinton understands that a slow death to his targets, which are much the same as Obama's, by 1000 paper cuts (little legal rulings under most people's radar), while staying out of the way of the economy and letting it hum along, is much more effective than the battering ram of destruction of all things American that is Obama. Clinton is a sneaky little sh*t, Obama is a guy with a sign, yelling at the top of his lungs. Big difference, but same objective.

This parsing to attribute a president’s spending to past administrations is a relatively new game. I don’t recall, for example, anyone adjusting President Clinton’s fiscal numbers to reflect that the robust recovery he benefited from actually started under President George H.W. Bush. And President George W. Bush’s fiscal and economic record was undoubtedly affected by the performance of his predecessor: The dot-com boom that helped President Clinton run a surplus was ultimately exposed as a bubble — which burst on Bush’s watch. And if Clinton had had the nerve to take out Osama bin Laden when he had the chance, his successor might never have had to deal with the economic (and of course human) catastrophe of 9/11. Yet I never heard President Bush whine, as President Obama’s supporters constantly whine, that we must rearrange the fiscal record to reflect the mess he inherited from his predecessor.

The canard that President Obama is not a big spender is now old news, but Ann Coulter’s observation endures: Some liberals tend to confuse their skewed partisan talking points with indisputable truth. It’s “science”! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts? The charts “proving” Obama is a responsible spender were typically disseminated on Facebook and Twitter with assertions that Mitt Romney is a “liar” for claiming otherwise. In fact, President Obama himself called Romney’s recent speech about our debt crisis — and the charge that President Obama is a big spender — a “cow pie of distortion.” Now it’s one thing to peddle bogus partisan analysis such as those now-infamous charts. That’s mere dishonesty, and as we all know, dishonesty is well within the bounds of normal political discourse. But to call people “liars” for refusing to accept your dishonest nonsense? That takes real chutzpah!



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/0...