Bush's successes

Politics International Politics
21

[quote=“fred smith”]Our Iraq and Afghanistan commitments make up about 1.5 percent of the total budget AND this involves a lot of shifting from costs formerly incurred from keeping two aircraft carriers in the region and maintaining the no-fly zones over Iraq (US$36 billion per year). So, I would say this is not the problem. The problem is social programs and here I would scream along with you. We did not elect Bush to spend more on failed educational programs to curry favor with Teddy Kennedy. Cut, cut Cut!

Everyone knows we need social security reform. Bush tried to step up to the plate to discuss it but … we saw how that worked. What are we going to do? Wait until we are Germany or France to deal with this?[/quote]

Can’t agree with the overall thrust of this. The politics aside, a fiscally responsible administration would have cut expenditure first, then reduce tax (or introduce both simultaneously in a revenue neutral package, whatever). Instead we have a ‘starve the beast’ strategy which has clocked-up about 4 trillion in debt so far. It doesn’t make sense according to any standard economic criteria.

It could be argued that front-ending the tax cuts was justifiable in light of the 2001 recession. This doesn’t fit the character of most of the tax cuts. Getting rid of the estate tax, for example, was simply a handout to the rich. What do the rich do in a recession when their income/wealth increases? They save it - no stimulus effect on aggregate demand at all. If the tax cuts were intended to produce growth, they would have been designed to place more cash in the hands of lower and middle-income Amercia. Clearly, they weren’t designed to do this.

More work on the tax side has to be a part of any further fiscal reform. Right now the US govt has a revenue base that looks like a diamond: low incidence on low and high income earners (and those with asset wealth), and a heavy burden on the middle class. Whether by design or default (why do blue collar workers and the rich both vote for Bush? - tax incidence explains a chunk of it in my opinion), it leaves much to be desired as a ‘fair’ distribution of the public burden.

But I do agree that cuts in expenditure are going to have to come (same goes for Oz). And when the US polity does get around to doing this, can I suggest you slash handouts to these guys first:

US farm subsidies hit Oz farmers hard. I grew up in a rural community in Australia, and the only thing most locals hated more than Ohio farmers paid not to grow alfalfa, was French farmers paid to dump goat’s cheese.

22

I agree with much of what you say there, guangtou. This has indeed been a very financially irresponsible administration.

I don’t think your understanding of the Bush tax cuts is quite correct, however, since in fact the largest cuts went to the poor, and since the rich ended up paying more relative to the middle class than they did before the cuts. (Before the cuts, for example, a $1 million a year couple paid 33 times as much as a $60,000 couple; today they pay more than 38 times as much – see source below).

Once you include changes to capital gains, dividends and the estate tax, the Bush cuts are no longer as heavily weighted in favour of the poor, but the one thing that they are certainly not is a cut primarily for the rich.

As this critic of the tax cuts put it in Slate (source of the above graph, as well):

[quote][color=darkred]Well, you might say, at least everyone got a tax cut. But that’s true only under a ridiculously literal interpretation of the term “tax cut.” In fact, federal spending has increased dramatically under President Bush (with only a small fraction of that spending attributable to the war). Sooner or later, somebody’s going to have to pay for all that spending, which means that just as the president’s been cutting the taxes of today, he’s been raising the taxes of tomorrow.

And who’s going to pay those taxes? The “cuts” of the past few years have established a precedent that in the future the rich will bear a larger share of the burden than they bore in the past. Thanks to the president, the tax code is more progressive now than it’s been in recent memory…[/color]

http://www.slate.com/id/2108201
[/quote]

Anyway, be that as it may, here is one place where I couldn’t agree with you more:

[quote=“guangtou”]And when the US polity does get around to doing this, can I suggest you slash handouts to these guys first:

[photo of some wholly unsympathetic, yet politically powerful individuals arguing that they should be given a few billion dollars more of other people’s money]

US farm subsidies hit Oz farmers hard. I grew up in a rural community in Australia, and the only thing most locals hated more than Ohio farmers paid not to grow alfalfa, was French farmers paid to dump goat’s cheese.[/quote]

Amen to that sir. :bravo: :notworthy:

23

Many thanks Hobbes; fascinating stuff. Looks like I need to do some more reading. Special apologies to our conservative participants; seems I was misinformed on the details of the tax cuts.

24

No worries guangtou. The “tax cuts for the rich” soundbite has been repeated so many times that I think even very well-meaning and well-educated people often just take it for granted.

Here’s the other thing though (and I add this thought going the other way because, personally, I look at these threads as [color=blue]discussions[/color] rather than [color=red]debates[/color]): there were a lot more dollars saved by the rich as a result of the tax cuts. There’s absolutely no question about that. The rich pay most of the taxes, so even a cut that is weighted in favor of the poor will end up cutting the rich’s tax bill by more dollars.

For example, imagine that I cut billionaire Monte Burn’s taxes by 1%, and cut Homer Simpson’s taxes by 100%. Say Mr. Burns is paying $10m in taxes on $50m a year in income (yes, we know that the old skinflint probably cheating but leave that aside for now), and Homer is paying $8000 a year of taxes on an income of $50,000.

Who is helped most by the tax cut? Well, Mr. Burns saves $100,000 per year, Homer only saves $8000.

“TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!” cry the writers of newspaper headlines. :wink: And of course that’s one way to characterize it. I just don’t think it is the most reasonable way, or even a very honest way. Not only is one a 100% cut, and one only 1% – but the extra $8000 probably has a much more dramatic effect on Homer’s life than the extra $100,000 does on Monte.

In the case of the Bush tax cuts it wasn’t a 100% cut vs. a 1% cut, of course. It was maybe closer to a 20% cut for the poor and a 10% cut for the rich (many figures possible depending on what years you look at, what you include, who is “poor” and “rich”, etc. – by some measures maybe it’s only 13% to 11%). But regardless, the bottom line is that the cuts, as a package, had the effect of transferring more of the tax burden to the rich (even though everyone’s current bill went down). :idunno: Anyway, it’s complicated subject.

As I said though – at the end of the day, none of this changes your basic point that Bush has been hugely financially irresponsible with his spending. And none of it changes the fact that farm subsidies would be a great place to start cutting the spending.

Cheers,
H

25

right-wing idiot america has made a living with that exact strategy…

they dismiss logic for “gut” feelings and repeat it so often eventually decent news outlets pick it up and america swallows it whole, regardless of it’s merits.

i.e. intelligent design.
richard clarke’s credentials.

intelligent design is utter lunacy and richard clarke knows more about the workings of al qaeda than anyone else on american soil, regardless of what the administration and the right-wing machine wants you to believe.

26

So what am I missing Hobbes? Many credible sources, such as the following, report that they are exactly that – cuts primarily for the rich.

[quote]The poorest 20 percent of workers, who earn on average $16,600 annually, will get a tax break of $250 this year [2004], which is less than 2 percent of their income. That amounts to about 68 cents a day.

By comparison, the richest 1 percent, with average incomes topping $1.1 million, will receive $78,460 in tax cuts this year. That is nearly 7 percent of their income. [/quote]

detnews.com/2004/specialrepo … 284666.htm

Do the math on the above figures yourself and you’ll see that the rich received a far greater percentage of their taxes cut than did the poor. How do you explain that?

Moreover,

[quote]For the poor, inequities of the Bush tax cuts are further exacerbated by the long-standing disparities in the Social Security tax, which has increased nine times since 1977.

Earnings are taxed for Social Security at a rate of 6.2 percent on income up to $87,900. But there is no Social Security tax on income above that amount. For America

27

I can’t wait to hear the dubya-defenders attempt to discredit statistics from the CBO…

lets see if we can head them off at the pass…

*bill clinton caused these figures to go out of wack because of something he did 10 years ago?

*is it possible that jimmy carter is secretly working for the CBO?

*michael moore must be inflating the numbers for his next movie?

wah, wah, wah…face it, your guy is putting the screws to joe six-pack.

28

He’s beaten the Dummicrats [i]twice[/i] and he’s [i]still[/i] President.

Suck on that!

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

29

[color=blue]Hondu Grease: [/color] With all due respect (certain other of your posts have given me somewhat more respect for you than your most recent ones in this thread), I have very little interest into engaging in a “dubya-defenders” vs. “dubya-oponents” debate. The reasons include not least of which that I am not a “dubya-defender” – I think he has been a rather poor president.

I am also not a proponent of intelligent design (although that is has, of course, nothing to do with this discussion). You are quite welcome to persist in whatever “us vs. them/good-guys vs. bad-guys” fairy tales you wish when it comes to political discussions. :idunno: I made an observation regarding a particular issue, and as far as I can tell you have shared no new insights which bear upon that issue. If you wish to start a new thread on intelligent design or gay marriage or any number of other issues, my guess is that you will find me very much in your corner (and certainly not in GW’s corner). Until then, I think there is little else I can say with respect to your observations.

[color=blue]MT: [/color]Very interesting points. My initial response to your [quite thoughtful and intelligent] post is that I agree with most of your points and sources indicating that wealthy people received the lion’s share of the dollar savings of the Bush tax cuts. As I mentioned in my example, even a “1% for the rich 100% for the poor” tax cut could easily result in a larger dollar value savings for the rich. That’s what happens when you cut taxes in a society in which the rich pay for almost everything (surely you don’t think my 1% cut for Mr. Burns/100% cut for Homer example is a tax cut for the rich?).

To take a middle ground example, imagine a 10% cut for Bill Gates, and a 50% cut for Joe Sixpack. Gates would receive a massively greater dollar value savings (a fact which I volunteered myself, and not in response to any outside objection.) Are you honestly telling me that such a tax cut would be primarily for the benefits of the Gateses of the world and not for the Sixpacks? Joe gets a far greater benefit, both in terms of percentage increase, and in terms of real difference in his ability to pay his bills and improve his life.

As far as your other points go, perhaps you are right. Perhaps I will have different opinion after I have time to read the linked articles and think about it.

The one thing I am sure of, however, is that it is the poor who are most vulnerable to the caprice of government avarice. The rich can always hire an expensive attorney like you or I to help them get around their problem. The rich can always move their money offshore, or find some other way to buy their way out of their troubles. The poor have no such luxuries. And it is they who suffer most from a general policy that has at its heart “Give us your cash – we’ll decide how to spend it in your best interest.” :idunno:

(Sidenote: Good to have you back on the boards MT – hope all is well in your new endeavors. :thumbsup:)

-H

30

[quote=“Hobbes”]. . .even a “1% for the rich 100% for the poor” tax cut could easily result in a larger dollar value savings for the rich. . .

To take a middle ground example, imagine a 10% cut for Bill Gates, and a 50% cut for Joe Sixpack. . . [/quote]

But both of your hypotheticals are seriously flawed, aren’t they, because they assume the poor receive a larger percentage reduction in their taxes, when in fact the opposite is true, right?

As my source quoted above indicates, in 2004 the poorest 20% of Americans receive tax cuts equal to 2% of their income, whereas the richest 1% received cuts equal to 7% of their income.

So it’s not just a matter of the extremely wealthy receiving a greater benefit in terms of number of dollars saved, but their tax cuts were also more than 3 times the size of the cuts received by the poorest Americans in terms of percent of income – the exact opposite of your examples.

Good point. Regardless of the tax laws (or other laws, as OJ Simpson taught us), the very rich will always find ways to circumvent them.

31

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]But both of your hypotheticals are seriously flawed, aren’t they, because they assume the poor receive a larger percentage reduction in their taxes, when in fact the opposite is true, right?

As my source quoted above indicates, in 2004 the poorest 20% of Americans receive tax cuts equal to 2% of their income, whereas the richest 1% received cuts equal to 7% of their income.[/quote]

Yeah, this was why I said I’d have to take a closer look at your links (and the articles I’d read as well). As you say, your sources say one thing, and what I had read (such as the Slate article I posted above) says another. :idunno:

You’d think determining the percentage cut would be pretty simple, but when I go to the raw CBO data and look at it I can see how different people come to different conclusions. It’s not just a matter of saying “Income A: Your taxes are now cut X%.” Rather, each year is a little different, each year has different exemptions and so forth allowed, which make a big difference, and all of these things added together give you the total cut. Maybe with a bit more reading one of us will be able to get a better handle on who’s sources are right. If that does happen, and it turns out the poor got a smaller percentage cut, then I would then agree with you that it could fairly be called a “tax cut for the rich”. Sounds like we both agree that it is pretty silly to just say “The rich got X dollars of savings and the poor only got Y dollars” – for the reasons I described.

Cheers,
H

32

[quote=“comrade Stalin”]He’s beaten the Dummicrats twice and he’s still President.

Suck on that!

[/quote]

I think this about sums it up. Apart from Fred Smith’s view that Bush is leading the world towards a future of freedom, democracy and capitalism all cooperating with the US, no one on these boards seems to have offered up any substantive improvements Bush has offered the American people aside from

1)Tax cuts
2)The war on Terror (and with that an increase in Military spending)
3)John Roberts

For a president who campaigned on focusing on America (rather than nation building) he appears to have failed all round.

Education, health care and social security have not improved. The budget is a mess. The military is in a mess. Foreign relations are at an all time low. Added to that, the man who promised to be “a uniter not a divider” has created a nation more divided than any time since the Vietnam war.

I’ve been trying to broaden my outlook of late and view things from the perspectives of others who have different ideological positions than my own. But it ain’t working. To me Bush seems to be the worst president since…well, well before I was born.

I don’t think he’s been necessarily a deceptive person, just one who’s made many bad choices and decisions. I hope that the rest of his term is an example of lame duckness. Then hopefully someone else can come along and start to repair the damage this administration has done.

33

and for those who have trouble with that, just print one of these out, it worked once upon a time…lol

34

Methinks you folks are missing one of the key great things that Bush has done: clearly stated that Taiwan should not be overrun by the mainland hordes.

Did you forget his statement back in mid-2001 that the U.S. would not stand idly by while the mainland used force to “reintegrate” Taiwan?

Were you completely oblivious two or three days ago when Bush called Taiwan a model of democracy and freedom that China should emulate, in a headline speech in Japan?

Do you think that none of this bears any relevance to your meaningless little existences on Taiwan?

Then again, I guess a lot of you are just here to get a few bucks from babysitting. And almost all of you (excluding three regulars here, none of whom ever seem to run around pissing on the U.S. in the IP forum) can always run back home if the fit hits the Shan, maybe dragging your (immediate) families – although you might have to leave behind quite a few of your noncash assets, and if you don’t move your money out in time, the exchange rate will probably suck.

I figure you’ve got a little less than four more years to enjoy the ride, 'cause if Hillary or Kerry or another weak-kneed wanker gets into office, Taiwan is toast.

35

what a silly statement…

do you honestly think ANY president is going to step in and defend taiwan if the mainland decided they want to make a move???

i can’t imagine a more foolish move…

36

Yes, any good president would step in. The only thing foolisher would be to ignore it, which would certainly not promote “regional stability.”

Taiwan has real strategic importance. Which is, incidentally, a big reason why China is so interested in Taiwan. Not only because of its propaganda value.

37

I’d trust George Bush to pull the trigger in Taiwan’s defense but no likely Democratic presidential contender.

Bush is a unique American politician in that he sticks by what he believes and doesn’t let political opportunism or popularity sway him.

38

[quote=“spook”]I’d trust George Bush to pull the trigger in Taiwan’s defense but no likely Democratic presidential contender.

Bush is a unique American politician in that he sticks by what he believes and doesn’t let political opportunism or popularity sway him.[/quote]

Please clarify.

39

nope, popularity doesn’t dictate his moves…

multi-national corporations, religious nuts, and rich, angry white guys do.

screw what the rest of the country thinks, the above folks are who pull his strings.

40

[quote=“mightyChip”][quote=“spook”]I’d trust George Bush to pull the trigger in Taiwan’s defense but no likely Democratic presidential contender.

Bush is a unique American politician in that he sticks by what he believes and doesn’t let political opportunism or popularity sway him.[/quote]

Please clarify.[/quote]

I think George Bush genuinely believes in Taiwan’s democracy and the importance of defending it. I think that belief would dictate his response to any crisis in this part of the world and not some wishy-washy political calculus which typifies liberal Democrats, in my view.

Since this topic is an examination of George Bush’s strengths and successes, that’s all I’m focusing on.