January 31, 2008

Talk about an Inconvenient Truth (Bill Clinton: Kowtowing to Globaloney Slows the Economy)

Filed under: Economy,Environment,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 1:54 pm

From Jake Tapper at ABC’s Political Punch Blog (via Drudge):

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”?

Hillary should spare us her whining about the slowing economy. Given what her husband just said, assuming she agrees with it (silence equals consent, ma’am), one would assume that she’s celebrating yesterday’s unimpressive GDP report.

In fact, I believe a case could be made that green initiatives flunking normal cost-benefit analysis already in place at companies, along with environmental regulations ranging from overbearing to nonsensical (and let’s throw in Sarbanes Oxley for good measure), more than likely contributed to an economy that did not grow as much as it could and should have during the past 4-1/2 years (at an annualized 3.0% in the 19 quarters ended 12/31/07) vs. prior prosperities’ 3.8% or more [see chart at end of linked post]).

Those impediments to growth are, if anything, becoming more powerful at a time when the economy least needs them.

And for what? A complete fiction, known around here as globaloney. “Global warming” stopped in 1998. The hot air expended on political stumps over it never stops.

Share

21 Comments

  1. McCain has signed onto the globaloney as well he just said so and will make it a top priority of his administration. Tom, is Mitt Romney looking so bad now???? LOL, crying, LOL, crying… I’m punch drunk.

    Comment by dscott — January 31, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

  2. Read Bill Clinton’s whole quote.

    “And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.

    But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.”

    Jake Tapper was either sloppy or intentionally misleading. How about you?

    Comment by Tom D. Bunker — January 31, 2008 @ 4:11 pm

  3. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.

    If there were any valid reason to engage in a “fight against global warming,” you might have a splitting-hairs point.

    But there isn’t any validity to global warming and the rest of the globaloney, so you don’t.

    And in case you care, US emissions went down in 2006, while the globaloney lecturers’ emissions in Western Europe and elsewhere went up.

    Comment by TBlumer — January 31, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

  4. #2, this is all liberal code for “subsidies”, you know money out of the taxpayers pocket to give to some corporation who all along has been making contributions to the politicians passing those subsidy bills. This corporate welfare plain and simple. By now you should be able to read “between” the lines.

    Comment by dscott — January 31, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

  5. I’ll take that as intentionally misleading!

    Comment by Tom D. Bunker — January 31, 2008 @ 5:18 pm

  6. I pointed out that your post is based on a quote truncated so as to completely reverse Clinton’s meaning. You acknowledged this, but left your misleading post unchanged.

    Is the truth at all relevant to what you do here, or just a “splitting-hairs point?”

    Comment by Tom D. Bunker — January 31, 2008 @ 11:42 pm

  7. #5 and #6, Tapper got it right and characterized it right. Clinton’s follow-up theoreticals don’t change that. There’s no lack of truth, just a lack of comprehension on your part.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 1, 2008 @ 12:16 am

  8. My word, Tom. You’ve grown so accustomed to defending the indefensible that now you’re even doing it for the MSM! Just so long as it suits your tale, right Tom?

    Clinton said just the opposite of what your post claims, and you know it.

    Comment by Tom D. Bunker — February 1, 2008 @ 12:32 am

  9. “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.”

    Clinton believes that, regardless of the context. That’s why Tapper got it right, and you’ve got it wrong. Period.

    Add: Taranto got it right, too — “Mrs. Clinton will slow down the economy–but don’t worry, she’ll make up for it by creating an energy trust fund! Does this make you feel less anxious about America’s economic prospects under a new Clinton presidency?”

    Comment by TBlumer — February 1, 2008 @ 12:36 am

  10. #8, I’m under no obligation to post repetitious comments.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 1, 2008 @ 1:28 am

  11. Obviously you are also under no obligation to post the truth. What’s that commandment about not bearing false witness? You know better, Tom.

    “Clinton believes that, regardless of the context.”

    So you cherry-pick a quote that flips his position 180 degrees. But according to you, he believes it even if he didn’t say it, so you’ll just let your smear stand. That’s dishonest and lazy.

    Afraid to post my comments?

    Comment by Tom D. Bunker — February 1, 2008 @ 2:33 pm

  12. One more time —

    Clinton has always believed that. The fact that it came out in the context it came out in is irrelevant.

    He, Al Gore, and the enviro movement in general have ALWAYS believed that economic growth needs to be partially or fully sacrificed in the name of environmental purity.

    I’m just glad he’s finally on the record as having said it, instead of pretending for all these years that it’s a have your cake and eat it too proposition.

    So there’s nothing to be afraid of. You’re the one afraid to face up to the truth, which Tapper captured nicely, that the enviro/global warming movement is, at bottom, about emasculating capitalism.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 1, 2008 @ 2:56 pm

  13. “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.” Plain english to me! Libs are amazing with words aren’t they? When you call them on what they say, the first thing out of their mouths is 1. I didn’t say that, you then when play it back or show them in writing what they said, it’s 2. that was taken out of context! When you play back the whole context then they say, 3. You misunderstood what I was saying. If you persist in questioning them, then 4. You get insulted or called dishonest (Projection IMO)

    Funny how every time when a Clinton is called on what they say, there is a predictable pattern of denial, drivers license for illegals would be another good example where they even do it with other liberals like the MSM and Obama.

    What did Humpty Dumpty say?

    `When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    `The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    `The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master — that’s all.’

    http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm

    Comment by dscott — February 1, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

  14. Tom wrote, “Clinton has always believed that.” Please share with us your source for this. Aren’t you forgetting the Clinton economy?

    dscott: Please read the two sentences immediately following the one you quoted. See the quote in context at #2. Even Tom acknowledged that I “might have a splitting-hairs point.” He just chose to ignore it because he knows what Clinton REALLY believes.

    For some reason, you two believe that it is not dishonest to claim that the Clinton called for shrinking our economy, when he most certainly didn’t and hasn’t. Is it Clinton derangement syndrome?

    Comment by Tom D. Bunker — February 1, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

  15. #14, I said “He’s always believed that.” I never said he’s had the courage of his convictions to carry out his beliefs. Far from it.

    Remember the 1993-1994 attempts at a BTU tax? That embodied his admin’s beliefs that production should be taxed, creating less of it, and slowing growth — but that’s OK, because Mother Earth would be better off.

    When he saw that the BTU tax, and nationalized health care, would doom him to being a one-termer, he did what too many politicians do when faced with a choice between political survival and sticking to one’s principles — he abandoned his principles.

    That’s all the evidence anyone with eyes and a memory needs that Clinton has always believed that slowing down economic growth in the name of environmental purity is desirable.

    You can whine away all you want, but I’ve just shown that he has believed that as long as he’s been on the national stage. He probably always will believe that — though I doubt he’ll drop his guard long enough to tell us again any time soon.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 1, 2008 @ 5:09 pm

  16. “I doubt he’ll drop his guard long enough to tell us again any time soon.”
    He didn’t tell you this time. That’s the whole point.

    Comment by Tom D. Bunker — February 1, 2008 @ 6:29 pm

  17. Tom, even Hot Air and the Corner called out Tapper’s garbage. Krauthamer, too. You can, too!

    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/31/billy-jeff-soothes-jitters-over-economic-slowdown-by-calling-for-economic-slowdown/

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2VhN2E4NzQ0ODYyMWE5N2QzMWQwNjA3MDI3MjBjNDk=

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14437.html

    Comment by Tom D. Bunker — February 1, 2008 @ 6:41 pm

  18. #16 and #17 — This is exactly what he told us, in three parts, in full context:

    Part 1 — We really should sacrifice economic growth (to save the planet for our grandkids).

    Part 2 — But the rest of the world won’t let us do what we should.

    Part 3 — So I’ll throw this crap out there about how we can do it anyway without stunting growth and you dummies will believe it.

    Bryan called out the Part 3 “pipe dream” but didn’t take it to the logical conclusion.

    The Corner concentrated on Parts 1 and 2 and ignored Part 3, leading to an incorrect conclusion.

    Krauthammer seems not to have elaborated. The problem is that many believe the lie that “we can prove it’s good economics.” Since “it” refers to radical steps like full-blown compliance with Kyoto-like protocols and other top-down strategies to cut emissions (and therefore cut production, and, doh, cut economic growth), it’s not possible.

    I notice you had no riposte to the BTU tax. Clinton, Gore, and enviros have always believed that stunting economic growth is necessary to save the planet. They just decided to put it off during their administration to save their sorry little skins when they saw that trying to do so, among other things, would end their political careers.

    Oh but they were good at posturing, saying things like “we’ll try to comply with Kyoto anyway” (and not meaning it) after a Senate advisory vote hooted it down 95-0.

    *******************

    Oh, and I DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE that you might have made a hair-splitting point, as you claimed to dscott. You didn’t, because there is no valid reason to engage in a “fight against global warming,” as I explained. So YOU’RE the one dishonestly mischaracterizing the argument.

    Given the intellectual dishonesty just detected (and in a response to another commenter, not to me — what a coward), I have absolutely no remorse in shutting down comments at this post. If you really want to waste your time commenting on this further, either find another post or start your own blog.

    U R A Clunker, and surely no Tom D Bunker.

    Comment by TBlumer — February 2, 2008 @ 12:32 am

  19. So which is it, Tom? Is it OK to lie about what he said because you think global warming doesn’t exist? Or is it OK to lie because you think he really believes what he didn’t say? You’ve made both arguments, equal in their moral bankruptcy.

    It’s always interesting to see what you “values” voters actually value.

    You’ve closed comments because you’ve been exposed.

    Comment by U-R A Clunker — February 2, 2008 @ 5:14 pm

  20. I neglected to add #5 to the other 4 things liberals do in their progression, winning the argument by wearing down the opponent with specious and non sequitur points which cause the opponent to throw up their hands as to the futile effort in reasoning with said person. In other words, claiming to win the argument based on their not agreeing to any amount of facts presented that contradict the arguer’s position.

    Comment by dscott — February 2, 2008 @ 5:32 pm

  21. zzzzz ……. what #20 said …… zzzzzz …… hermetic comment seal is now in place ….. zzzzz ……

    Comment by TBlumer — February 2, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.