I think you’re right.
On a different note, I watched MSNBC this evening, talking about Gore’s rise in the polls, particularly among women. The bubblehead anchor asks a female correspondent why. She actually says ‘Chicks dig him. He’s more handsome and fatherly’. I guess they’re saying men vote on the issues, women vote for the cutest butt. I wanted to puke.
I get better political coverage from ‘The Daily Show with John Stewart’.
Oh and yes…I have to agree with spooge…I do not like the school voucher plan. It will in my belief further widen the divide between the “haves” and “have nots”.
Needs2know
Needs2know said:
Well, then, I guess I’m pathetic and disgusting for hoping to be able to support my girlfriend through college and eventually buy a house where we can start a family. Bush is suggesting that I have more control of my own money to do those things with. Gore- and you- are suggesting that wanting to provide for my family is inherently selfish, and that I should be happy to give my money to the government, which can spend it much more wisely than I can. After all, I’m ‘pretty prosperous’ (I’m above the poverty line, that’s for sure), so it’s not like I “need” the money, right?
spooge
Actually its Gore blowing smoke my friend. Vouchers are only part of Bush’s program. He favors giving block grants to the local system and then requiring those local sysrems to be accountable (i.e. an increase in test scores, etc.)and show positive results. Then if no increases are shown, vouchers will be made available and NOT just to the rich/well-off.
The reason Gore is not against vouchers, is that it takes accountability to the local level. Bad teachers, even those with tenure, would have to go. Thus the teachers unions are vehemately (I can’t spell either, LOL) against this kind of program and they are huge Gore supporters.
After 8 years of the Clinton-Gore administration and billions of dollares of the taxpayers money, test scores (except for college SAT’s in the effluent areas) are low or lower than before. Especially in the poorer urban areas. In contrast, the Bush administration in Texas has seen the remarkable rise in test scores in the poorer areas that a program requiring local accountability can bring. Education is in fact the strongest part of what Bush brings to the table in this election and the fact that Gore wants to pour even more of my hard earned money down the drain of a failed program is very disturbing to me.
The ad (liar,liar) that you refered to was being brought by the RNC and it was BUSH who vetoed placing it on TV. I have noticed the latest ad where Bush is defending his position on the debates. Al origionaly agreed to the formats and is now backing out and blaming Bush. You might not be aware that the Gore camp is running an ad about a federal judge’s decision that blasts Texas in not providing health care for poor children. Mean nasty Bush hates/doesn’t care about poor kids!!! The ad certainly didn’t mention that the judge is a very liberal LBJ appointee and that the program in question was a holdover from Ann Richard’s democratic administration. The ad also doesn’t mention that the hospitals in Texas are required BY LAW to treat ANYONE regardless of their ability to pay (yes, its picked up by the state).
[soapbox]
My little note re: TAXES!! Bush told the people in Texas that he would reduce their taxes…he did. In '92, Clinton-Gore said they could provide programs and not have to raise taxes in doing so. It was vice-president Al Gore who cast the tie breaking vote to the last large tax increase. Gore is now promising a tax decrease. From early investigations, the criteria to qualify seem to be so stringent that in reality there will be very few who will actually benefit. Gore screams of Bush’s tax cut is just for the rich makes me nauseous. Do you know what the percentage is for the highest income bracket? (3%) Of course that means someone paying $100,000 a year in taxes is gonna get back more than someone making only $25,000 a year but if you are going to give a tax break why the hell not give to people that are actually PAYING the damn tax in the first place!!
[/soapbox]
Sorry, spooje!!! Like I admitted, I can’t spell either. 
John…are you so naive as to actually believe that what little bit of a tax cut you will be getting is going to help you put your lady through college or buy a house. Please tell me you aren’t that stupid. If you need money that bad, cut back on luxuries, pull some overtime or get a second job. Boy have you ever been bamboozled. People love to bitch about taxes and blame them for all their financial ills but that is just shifting the responsiblity to some entity that has a minor effect on your overall financial health.
Now if you want to find some “evil institution” that is holding your finanical growth back why not look at insurance companies. That would be a little more like it. Health insurance, car insurance, homeowners, death insurance, now that’s an evil institution. And for most of us it sucks as much or more from our monthly income as taxes. At least with my taxes I recieve a benefit every day. Insurance on the other hand, is no good to me unless something actually does go wrong. I get sick or wreck my car or whatever. There are other things besides taxes and social security that cost us pretty dearly. My girlfriend says she’d be rich if she didn’t have to eat. Every bought any groceries? Well they’ve gone up and so will fuel oil this year and then groceries will go up some more…see what I mean?
You are definately “buying swamp land” if you believe that a tax cut is going to make a very big difference in your income. A strong economy is what makes all of us better able to prosper. Do we really want to run the risk of getting into another federal deficit situation? Damn! I got sick of hearing about how the government was broke. And while that was going on I really resented it because I was broke all the time back then too. I don’t know what relationship the two really have but something tells me there is a connection. I’m just not for giving money back. Even if it means I’ll get a little extra on my check. It’s chump change. The government is doing good and I’m doing pretty good. I don’t live high on the hog, never did, but I can pay my bills. Back then I couldn’t even pay my phone bill half the time.
I like things as they are. I just don’t believe that anything Bush plans to do will help someone like me, a single mother in an under 40,000 a year income bracket. It isn’t his style. It’s not part of his adgenda. I don’t rate with a fellow like him. I don’t rate with him or any of his cronies. But as it is now I can live off of what I have and not worry every night. I can also go out and suppliment my income with another job if I need too. Because there are jobs to be had out there now, which is more than can be said for 10 years ago.
Needs2know
Let’s see.
Current Federal taxes deducted from bi-weekly paycheck- $160.00
Current insurance amount deducted from bi-weekly paycheck- $65.00
Yep, being real squeezed by those insurance payments. And if I fall into the “no-tax” bracket- which is what W is promising- that’ll be an extra $320 a month.
I’m not blaming taxes for all of my ills; I’m just recognizing that W’s plan will put more money in my pocket, and Gore’s plan won’t. I also recognize that Bush has shown no inclanation to raise taxes during his political career, while Gore has shown an inclanation to raise taxes.
That “something” is a complete lack of understand of economics.
Hi Needs2Know.
Your name is certainly appropriate in this case. For it is you that has been “bamboozled” in this matter.
You’d be surprised to learn just how quickly a small investment can turn into quite a sum. The miracle of compound interest will turn a steady $100/month investment into a 6 figure sum in considerably less that one career. $100 may not change your lifestyle – but I’ll bet $100,000 (or mroe) WILL change your outlook on retirement.
According to virtually every analysis that I’ve found of Mr. Gore’s economic plan, the entire projected 2 TRILLION dollars surplus that has been projected for the next 10 years, is spent. Gone. Disappeared. Taxes will have to be RAISED to fund his promises. So you’ll not only NOT get a smaller tax bite, you’ll get a larger one. And in your income bracket you’ll be eligible for almost none of the new programs.
Oh, and the tax break for the “rich”? Would this be the guy that’s spending $100,000/year to employ YOU? How would raising his taxes so that he has less to spend on salaries affect YOU?
Being American, I feel the same.
I don’t cry about taxes because I usually get quite a bit of it back. When it comes to taxes there is a benefit to being “head of household” with a couple of kids. As for not understanding economics you are absolutely right. I just don’t trust very many of these “projections”. Especially from anyone in that upper income bracket that would usually benefit the most from anything someone like Bush would propose. Sorry but I don’t trust him or others of his stripe to give a damn about someone like me. And my fears are not based on logic they are based on perception. I admit it. I don’t have much else to go on. I might be able to educate myself on this subject a little further but I still don’t think it would change my perception about Bush or his party’s politics.
Guess I really shouldn’t be chiming in on any of these “debates” with so many of you being so well educated on this subject, and I so uninformed. But politics do effect me no matter how subtly and I do have a right to my opinion based on logic or otherwise. Frankly I’ve found that most subjects that are closely linked to politics i.e.; gun control, abortion, economics, foriegn policy, etc. are all subject to interpretation. I find it in most cases extremely difficult to get unbiased information on any of these subjects. So I go with my gut. And my gut says that Bush is not the man I’d want for president. I don’t care for him and I don’t care for his friends and I don’t care for his policies.
Needs2know
Nope. This wasn’t Bush’s doing. I live in Texas. The reason our schools are doing better is because of previous administrations doing things like cutting class size, investing in school buildings, stuff like that.
As for the person who thinks that Bush has some business sense…take a good long look at what Bush has actually done. Sure, he’s run a business and a ball team. Or rather, he’s bought such things, and hired other people to run them for him. And this hasn’t always worked very well.
I think that Bush is perfectly content to slide through all of life with a gentleman’s C.
As for how I’d be affected personally…I have a daughter who is 21. I HOPE that she’ll never need an abortion, but if she does need one, I hope that she’ll have access to a safe and legal procedure, or even access to a morning after pill.
There is no 2 trillion dollar surplus. Rather, there is a projection of a surplus totalling that amount over 10 years if 1)expenditures for existing programs increase no faster than inflation, 2)no new massively funded programs are enabled and 3)the economy continues to perform just as it has under Clinton/Gore/Rubin/Greenspan, with low inflation, high employment, high productivity gains.
I would estimate the chances of 1), 2) and 3) occurring as 0%,0% and 0%, no matter who is elected president.
IMO we should be more concerned with the short-term surplus. We have a windfall now; it seems prudent to me to use a large portion of that to pay down the national debt and secure the solvency of our social programs as Gore has suggested rather than bet the whole boodle on moonbeams. Once these goals are achieved it will be time to see about dropping tax-rates.
I’d just as soon see my taxes drop or even disappear. I just don’t think Bush’s plan is a realistic means of doing so.
Tretiak wrote:
Either this has really slipped under the public radar screen, or I’ve been living in a cave for the last year. (I suspect the latter.)
Is Gore against private biomedical research? In what way?
Phil_15 says:
In order, Phil.
You don’t like the ad. That’s too bad. Dems can run any ad they want, of course within the bounds of civilized conduct.
Even a judge who is a “very liberal LBJ appointee” must be obeyed. Or are you suggesting Texans just blow him off?
And what’s this “very liberal” tag about anyway? William Wayne Justice is this judge’s name (yep, Judge Justice) and this Dallas Morning News overview credits him with previous rulings that led to major changes in Texas desegregation, public education and prison conditions. Without some research I can’t say how those rulings are “very liberal”? Can you?
I’m afraid the Ann Richards/Democrats argument doesn’t fly either. The current fuss concerns an agreement made in 1996 where the state of Texas said it would take steps to improve access to Medicaid funds for more than 1 million poor children. After more than 4 years the judge said the state had not lived up to its commitments. While Richards was governor when the original suit was filed in 1993, your man Bush was governor when the agreement was made and he’s been governor since.
Now I don’t believe Bush advocates ignoring poor children. In fact I believe he does possess compassion. It’s his lack of other attributes that I feel disqualify him to be POTUS. But this mess took place on his watch, under his leadership, and I don’t think it is out of place to ask him why, and what he intends to do about it.
Needs2know, I guess I’m similarly situated to you. I am one of the few folk I know who don’t complain about paying too much in taxes. To the contrary, I’m glad I’m making enough to be paying as much as I do. And as I sit in my comfortable home, see that my family has all their needs cared for, and am able to spend on just about anything I wish with some economizing in other areas, I find it hard to complain.
And I question the extent to which the amounts being discussed will change my life/savings style. SouthernStyle mentions the value over time of investing 100 a month. Of course that depends on people having the discipline to invest the , instead of pissing it away. Yeah, I’d pick up $1200 if I saw it lying in the street (hell, this cheap polack still picks up pennies!) but I can’t say $1200 a year would significantly change my lifestyle/retirement plans.
And someone (Necros? John?) observed that the impact of either depends largely on Congress. The idea of Bush w/ a Dem Congress is not all that troubling to me.
The President is really pretty limited in what he can do unilaterally. I know Clinton signed his name a couple of times on his 1st day in office, concerning abortion, that made me pretty pleased with my vote.
I know I think Reagan was a complete boob, and I criticize the military spending and debt piled up during his tenure, but IIRC there was a Dem Congress passing all of his budgets.
I think Clinton has continued a policy begun under Bush the elder, of using the military for non-military missions with no clear measure for victory/termination. My understanding is that Dubya at least says he disfavors this practice. Not sure what Gore says on this.
Re: vouchers, my understanding was that Bush proposed actually a pretty limited system, where vouchers would be available to people whose kids attended poor performing schools. Not necessarily a benefit to rich folk sending Buffy to a private academy or religious school.
To the folk who think they will personally be affected b/c Bush will be good for the economy and Gore bad, what specific policies do you have in mind? Why will Gore be any worse for the economy than Clinton has been?
Reading all of the responses, it still seems to me that people anticipate certain emotional benefits from an administration that favors certain policies, than direct personal benefits. Which makes me question whether it is appropriate to criticize folk for voting on image/personality.
This is a dangerous thought process, and the cornerstone of the left’s desire that the government be all things to all people. Are you saying that you’re happier if you make $1000 and the government leaves you $100 and later gives you “some” of it back than if you’d just made $100 (or $200) to start with and the government took none of it leaving YOU to decide how to spend/invest it?
Going back to my example, if you invest $100/month into a portfolio that returns 12%/year (a reasonable and modest return) in 20 years (half a working career) you’ll have a portfolio worth $112,740. If you continue investing for 30 years you’ll have $395,089. And if you can do it for 40 years you’ll have accumulated $1,326,952. (Of course, if you can invest twice as much money, you’ll accumulate twice the wealth.)
This is one of the cornerstone’s of the GWB economic package. Tax cuts that affect virtually everyone that pays income taxes and the ability to invest at least part of your Social Security taxes in private accounts.
Do you really prefer the current system (which Gore supports) that allows you to get $500 of your money back at the end of the year in the form of a tax refund than the tax cut and investment plans that will allow you virtually the same disposable income as you have today PLUS a vehicle to have more than $100,000 “in the bank” at the end of 20 years?
An excellent point and I agree with your assessment of the likelihood that it will actually materialize.
What confuses me is how, having made the above statement, you then (indirectly) support Gore’s spending proposals that will again leave us with 100 billion dollar deficits.
I do not favor any tax cut. It is a shame Gore felt the need to propose one to compete with Bush’s. And I do not believe personal investment of SS is appropriate. How do you propose monitoring/rescuing folk who invest badly, or have to withdraw at times of market downturn? I believe it is being proposed as a solution to a nonexistent problem.
Dinsdale is able to articulate my beliefs much better than I.
Needs2know
Dinsdale,
A non-existant problem? The sheer numbers of the baby boomers that are approaching retirement age will overwhelm the Social Security system. (Anyone with a cite please post.) Allowing partial privatization will offload part of the burden. Even Mr. Gore endorsed (and was a leading spokesman for) partial privatization until he saw the political leverage in opposing the plan.
The debt will never be paid off. Period. Anyone that truly believes this is delusional. As such tax cuts “for the rich” make good sense. For it is the rich that build businesses and create jobs. Without “the rich” very vew of us would HAVE jobs.