I'm Beginning To Hate Bush ... - Page 3

Gatekeeper · February 1, 2003, 18:47

FrustratedPoet, Wernazuma III:

And here I am, fresh out of silver bullets, crosses and garlic.

Gatekeeper

GePap · February 1, 2003, 19:08

The Bush admin. is popular currently because they have a singular visions and they have constantly been moving forward to implement that vision: in times of uncertainty, beginning in 2000 at least (with the elction debacle) if not all the way back to 1989 (and the end of the 40 years of 'order') such leasdership is popular because at least people think someone is at the helm.

I completely abhor the Administrations vision, I think they are in almost all respects wrong, but sadly opposition is minimal and weak and the President has been very successful in his acts: While there have been, as gatekeeper points out, a string of unsettling events during his precidency, Bush has had immense success in all his policies and acts as if he expects nothing else, be it domestic or foreign.

I like what The NYTimes magazine said last saturday about Bush, to paraphrase :"he is a daring leader and if he succeed, his success will be great, and if he fails, his failure will be monumental". In 10 years we will all the dealing with the aftermaths of the coming March War in Iraq, his tax cuts, his changes to Medicare, Medicaid, SS, and so forth and so on. And as I said before, i am deeply pessimistic about it all.

DuncanK · February 1, 2003, 19:40

Would someone be kind enough to tell me which part of this to read so that I can participate?

GePap · February 1, 2003, 19:47

All of it, or none of it. There are wothwhile statements throughout.

DuncanK · February 1, 2003, 20:01

Thanks GePap,

I just skimmed through and read the last page or so.

Yes, Republicans can be scary. I was a little young, but I remember my parents being afraid of what Ronald Reagan was going to do. Looking back on history he did much better than rational people thought that he would. Sure people are poorer and a he could of done a lot better. Ronald Reagan talked like he was in control of everything, but informed people knew better. I believe that in reality that Reagan followed the advice of his advisors even when he didn't understand them. At times he didn't, like with the economy, but that actually turned out alright.

Damn, I'm going now where with this.

Point is I think Bush will not do too bad if he knows to listen to his advisors at the right time. With this tax cut the economy is likely to tank. I hope that he will admit he was wrong (to himself) and change course. If he doesn't we could be in real trouble. Interest rates are already too low, and the Fed will be powerless. Any lowering will cause a liquididty crisis.

DanS · February 1, 2003, 22:33

Bush's economics advisors are telling him that taxes on capital have negative optimal rates. That's why he's introducing these tax cuts.

DuncanK · February 1, 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Bush's economics advisors are telling him that taxes on capital have negative optimal rates. That's why he's introducing these tax cuts.

Are you talking about capital gains taxes or income taxes?

DanS · February 1, 2003, 22:50

Capital gains and dividend taxes.

DuncanK · February 1, 2003, 22:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Capital gains and dividend taxes.

Oh, I was talking about income tax cuts. I'm not against capital gains cuts.

DanS · February 1, 2003, 23:10

Have you even taken a look at the president's plan, and how much $ goes to each element?

GePap · February 1, 2003, 23:22

DanS:

Every body politic has decisions to make. Cutting taxes on capitol may, in 20 years, lead to a higher GDP: but personaly I prefer the services that that tax income provides more then I care to have a higher GDP. The wages of most Americas, figuring in inflation, have stagnated for a decade or more. And I don't buy trickle down supply side economics. I don't care if today we have less millionares than we could have, given how poor so many government, be they local or federal, are.

Use the money to help the states balance their budgets and avoid raising property and sales taxes and making cuts in state services.

And I remain deeply pessimistic about the near future.

DanS · February 1, 2003, 23:28

"The wages of most Americas, figuring in inflation, have stagnated for a decade or more."

This is not true.

but personaly I prefer the services that that tax income provides more then I care to have a higher GDP

Well, this is certainly your choice. But I would prefer a higher GDP.

orange · February 1, 2003, 23:33

'bout time

Imran Siddiqui · February 2, 2003, 00:02

Quote:

hear on the news every day, "Recession, recession, recession" so direct your insults to the American media.

So you admit that all your knowledge cames from the media?

Quote:

I believe that in reality that Reagan followed the advice of his advisors even when he didn't understand them. At times he didn't, like with the economy, but that actually turned out alright.

Probably true. I basically thing that every President does the same. They basically say, well I appointed these guys so they could tell me what to do, so why not listen to them.

Though Reagan didn't always listen to them. An interesting Reagan story is when most of his cabinet wanted a national ID card. Reagan said mostly nothing as just about everyone argued for it. Then Reagan quipped "Why not just stamp numbers of everyone's arm", but did so in a genial way (indictative of a joke). Everyone laughed, but the President got everyone to see the sanity of his position, even though his cabinet totally disagreed with thim initially.

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 00:11

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
"The wages of most Americas, figuring in inflation, have stagnated for a decade or more."

This is not true.

Oh, not that again?! DanS considers 3% growth in 20 years robust growth

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 00:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Have you even taken a look at the president's plan, and how much $ goes to each element?

No, I haven't. Just what I saw on the evening news.

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 00:16

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
DanS:

I prefer the services that that tax income provides

Can you clarify this Gepap? Are you talking about tax accounting jobs?

DanS · February 2, 2003, 00:27

Just what I saw on the evening news.

Then inform yourself.

And wrt to wage growth, you know full well that the last decade has had healthy wage gains for all involved, even those at the low end, and that this growth has continued in Bush II.

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Just what I saw on the evening news.

Then inform yourself.

I will do so immediately. It's the resposible thing to do, but I'm not expecting to be impressed by the details.

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
And wrt to wage growth, you know full well that the last decade has had healthy wage gains for all involved, even those at the low end, and that this growth has continued in Bush II.

Wages have done better in the last decade, but I wouldn't go braging about it. You are comparing it to the 80s and 70s when they were horrible. btw, why do you think wages have gone up recently.

edit: changed 90s to 70s in second to last sentence. Sorry for the error.

KrazyHorse · February 2, 2003, 00:36

DanS, you continue to ignore the fact that these "healthy wage gains" only occured after a decade of declines, and that the overall picture hasn't really improved since 1980.

Sava · February 2, 2003, 00:39

The wage gains you are refering to are taking from the average of all income. Take out the top 1% and do the average an I'm sure you'll find a very negligible wage growth. Translation: rich get richer...

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 00:43

Maybe you can tell me way I can't find the budget in plain terms on his web page. Only BS about how it helps everyone.

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 00:54

Ok DanS, I read what the office of the president says about the proposed budget. What a load of crap! Well at least I won't have to ask you what crap is in there. What did you expect me to see there? He's cutting taxes for the rich. He says it's going to improve propuctivity. It's supply side, trickle down BS. I've heard it before. Big problems with it this time; the current economic problems are caused by over supply and a lack of emerging industries. It's soooooo stupid!

DanS · February 2, 2003, 01:32

The wage gains you are refering to are taking from the average of all income.

Nope. They are not.

DK: About 1/2 of it is the capital tax eliminations that you just supported on the previous page. The other 1/2 is divided between demand-side stimulus and supply-side stimulus. IOW, you've got problems with only about 1/4 the plan.

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 01:43

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
The wage gains you are refering to are taking from the average of all income.

Nope. They are not.

DK: About 1/2 of it is the capital tax eliminations that you just supported on the previous page. The other 1/2 is divided between demand-side stimulus and supply-side stimulus. IOW, you've got problems with only about 1/4 the plan.

What are you calling demand side stimulus? The tax cuts? I don't expect those to stimulate demand much.

DanS · February 2, 2003, 01:46

Add'l unemployment benefits and moving up the tax cuts. And yes, those will stimulate demand this year. About .6% of the economy.

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 01:59

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Add'l unemployment benefits and moving up the tax cuts. And yes, those will stimulate demand this year. About .6% of the economy.

I think the additional spending is thrown in to make it look good, but it is something. It certainly wont be enough we go back into a recession. An increase in unemployment benefits will protect a little.

I still didn't find the speicific details on it, so I can't really say.

Willem · February 2, 2003, 02:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

1. End of Recession

With a 0.7% in your economy recently, I'd hardly say you're out of the recession. Things could very easily dip in to negative growth again, and it doesn't sound to me like Bush has any real plan that will actually improve the situation.

Maybe if the American people weren't so concerned about Bush's upcoming war, they might actually go out and spend money again. It's a little difficult thinking about buying that luxury you've always wanted if you're worried whether your son or daughter will come home in a body bag. Or wondering if there will be a reprisal terrorist attack.

Yep, Dubya sure knows how to run a country!

Willem · February 2, 2003, 02:34

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear
Before I get involved in this thread any deeper, is it to be a Bush-bashing (quite alright with me, but a bit repetitive)...

Is it our fault he's such an easy target?

DuncanK · February 2, 2003, 02:37

Willem,

I have to disagree with you there. Bush appear confident and determined to do something about the economy. This tends to help. The worst thing he could do is to get on TV and tell the American people that if they didn't start spending money we were going to go into a recession. Even if his policies are bad, its good if the American people believe in them.