Why were the Dems so ineffective in stopping the Bush tax cuts?

Great Debates
81

Well, I think every President wants a better America for everyone. However, the question is how they go about trying to achieve this, who they listen to for their advice and to figure out how to make things better for people, and who they end up siding with when the chips are down.

It sounds like you have got your view here and are now massaging the data to fit that view. I guess Reagan improved the economy by definition and the economy “survived” 8 years under Clinton in spite of him by definition.

By the way, you may want to check up on how much the world disliked us under Clinton as compared to now that we have done things like unilaterally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and said we will rush ahead with deploying NMD and abrogating the ABM treaty…And, in general, adopted an attitude of “We’ll do what we want and the rest of the world be damned.” (Although the Bush Administration does seem to be backing down from this position somewhat in face of the outcry from our allies.)

I think the fact is that Clinton was relatively popular for a U.S. President overseas; most of the rest of the world thought that the attempt to impeach him was just bizarre.

They are hardly “taxed to death”. Most entrepreneurs and armchair investors get a considerable amount of their income through capital gains which are currently taxed at 20%. If they are in the highest tax bracket, they pay 39.6% on their other income; unlike “Joe SixPack” they are not paying the 7-odd percent Social Security tax on that income because that cuts out after about $75,000.

Well, on the other hand, we might recommend that you move to a country that is more libertarian with lower tax rates than the U.S. Good luck finding one that is First World though!

82

B How exactly did you earn the money? You earned it through luck, you were lucky enough to have the opportunity to earn the money. If you never had the chance to earn as much as you did and worked just has hard for 1/5th of what you earn you would have still earned that through luck. The amount of money you get paid has nothing to do with the amount of work you do in a capatalist system. Its all about being in the right place at the right time. Not everyone has the same opportunities as you.

Also, you know what happens when the confidence of arm chair investors rises too high? You get a stock market crash. If Greenspan had tried to increase investor confidence instead of raising interest rates then the stock market would have kept on going up, and then it would have probably crashed a little later.

83

We couldn’t have withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol; we never ratified it. IIRC neither did any of our European allies. Clinton never even submitted the treaty to the Senate, which was sensible, since they had already passed a 95 to 0 resolution against it.

This is a straight-forward exposition of a POV. It fits a philosophy of “Life’s lottery,” which would justify income redistribution from the “lucky” to the “unlucky.”

My impression is that most people who make a lot of money have worked hard for it, and have made substantial contributions to society. I could provide many examples.

Sterra, what is your support for your position?

84

B: I don’t care about (OECD countries) I don’t live there

As a matter of fact, sweetcheeks, you do. The United States has been a member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development since its founding in 1961.

(:rolleyes: Man, did the level of this debate ever take a sudden plunge.)

85

december: We couldn’t have withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol; we never ratified it.

Well, that’s a rather oddly restricted interpretation of the term “withdrawal”, and one that I think would be kind of surprising to the dozens or hundreds of journalists and editors who have referred to the US “withdrawal” from the Protocol after Bush made his announcement (do a web search on it if you don’t believe me). Bill Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol in the name of the United States (following in the footsteps of GHW Bush, who signed the UN Rio de Janeiro Accord in 1992 that established the framework for the Protocol). Clinton’s successor has now stated that the United States will not consider itself bound by the provisions of the Protocol. This is called a “withdrawal”, which seems to me like a perfectly reasonable way of describing it. If you don’t like the term, please get those dozens or hundreds of editors and journalists to change their usage first, and then you can come scolding us about it.

(Don’t mind me, I’m just a fact-correction bitch tonight. :slight_smile: But sheesh folks, get it right, willya?)

86

I earn every dollar I make because I use my bare hands, technology, know how and the equipment provided custom fabricating Dental prosthetics. The market bares a price for this service and I am compensated through my hardwork. I spent the last 15 years honeing these skills to create a sellable product. I also can say that the Gov’t earned my portion of my taxes paid off my labor. I just working til April or May before I can start keeping my bread…Granted this is theoretical…

Doctor J,
I guess I wasn’t entirely forthcomming about my schoolastic studies. I haven’t entered Dental School yet, however, it is a state University I plan on attending. I still have a fewq more years until I get my undergrad.

jshore,
Of course every president wants a better America. Duh…I truly felt more secure about my future when Reagan was in office than I did when Bubba was, and I feel more secure now that Dubya is in opposed to Algore. And no I got my views elsewhere. And I’m not massaging the data to fit this view. I have a brain. I think. I chose my ideals on my own. Clinton IMHO was popular overseas because of the socialist bent view of our allies, plus he sucked ass like there was no tomorrow…I think SS is a scam in it’s own right and again we have been dupped into thinking how wonderful it is…What happened to the self-reliance this nation was founded on? No I have no desire to live anywhere but the good ole USA, I just don’t want the lefties thinking they can run my life and tell me how I should spend my money…If the Libertarians had a chance in hell of becomming a driving force in politics I’d switch but as of now I’ll still dance with the GOP as they best represent any views I have that will keep our country prosperous :slight_smile:

Sterra,
Give me a frikken break! How does learning and developing a skill equate to luck? hmmmm?

Kimstu,
You are right dearheart, I should have paid more attention :slight_smile: I stiil don’t like socialist ideals…

And again, thank the good Lord the Dems didn’t stop any tax cuts :slight_smile:

87

B Because work has little meaning in a capitalist society. If you want to claim you deserve the money “because of hard work” you would have to be a socalist. Hard work does not rule in capitalism, supply and demand does. If you really think that it does I suggest you look at Bill Gates. He worked hard for what he got, but I doubt he worked about a million times harder than you.

88

Well, I did do a web search, and found the “Ratification” provision of the Kyoto Treaty at: http://www.islandpress.org/global/climate/kyoto3.html

As I said, the US couldn’t withdraw from the Protocol because we hadn’t ratified it. Also, we couldn’t withdraw from it, because it hadn’t come into effect. IIRC only a couple of nations had ratified it, nowhere near 55 of them.

The fact that many journalists and editors referred to the “US withdrawal from the Protocol” is a case of media bias. I’m disappointed that you were taken in. Bush’s decision was almost a non-event, since the 95 to 0 Senate vote showed that they would never ratify the treaty. In order to dramatize Bush’s decision, some media sources used inaccurate terminology. Their exaggerated reporting helped Bush’s enemies unfairly bash him as anti-environment.

89

This is progress.

90

Sterra,
Are you serious!? You must have missed the part about about a sellable product…Gates created a sellable product and capitalized on it…I create a sellable product and I capitalize on it…Hence the free market…Socialism is from those that have to those that need against one’s will…I ain’t the smartest person here but this is how the American dream works…So Bill Gates is undeserving because he put forth and idea that made him a Billionaire? come on…There is no lottery for earning money in this country it’s all about marketable skills and ideas…

91

I never said you or Bill Gates were undeserving, I simply pointed out why you have what you have. People can only make what the market can stand. Not everyone can make 250k a year. Whoever has the least marketable skills and ideas gets stuck on the bottom. You can to some extent choose the most marketable skills and ideas you have, but that varies with the person.

December, maybe I should say “work means little in a capitalist system”? Marketable skills, ideas, and a healthy amount of random chance however mean so much more.

92

Apologies for continuing this hijack.

On the Kyoto treaty: I suppose we withdrew from negotiations, following our signing of the treaty. The underlying point was that we annoyed our allies.

B: With all due respect, it appears to me that your posts are long on assertion and short on substantiation. “Clinton and his gang tinkered with things and tinkered with things and what have we got…A world that dislikes us, and a real turndown in confidence…The economy which was set up by Reagan and his policies survived 8 years of Clinton…Go figure…”
Some facts: Productivity growth was faster during the last 5 years of the Clinton administration, reversing a 20 year trend. Potential damage: Reagan’s deficits redirected US and world savings away from private sector investment. The S&L crisis, prompted by the combination of Federal protection of insured deposits and a sharp downturn in regulation during the 1980s, led to billions of dollars of inefficient investments. That is, Reagan’s failure to follow conventional economic policies lowered US growth, notwithstanding how good he made you feel.

The point: Welcome to the Straight Dope message board. Here, we like to see assertions backed up with some either empirical facts or logic. You are welcome to your opinion of course. But if you don’t substantiate it, it is difficult to see why anyone should listen.

B appears to be an entrepreneur. So my “calling” remark doesn’t seem to apply, IMHO. Now frankly if I was starting up a large or small business, I’d probably be concerned / paranoid about any potential cost-items on my balance sheet, including federal taxes. Also, should your business prove successful, I believe you deserve our congratulations (although you’d probably prefer the extra 6.5% of income. :slight_smile: )

But B. We both know that any well-functioning business depends on 1) Infrastructure such as roads and the like, 2) a legal system that lets you enforce your agreements, 3) the absence of civil unrest, 4) a well-functioning capital market, etc. etc. Skilled, literate and numerate labor helps as well, either directly or through your suppliers. Countries which lack these elements, that is lack well-functioning governments, are typically pretty impoverished and, well, dangerous. African warzones, Afghanistan, Laos and Cambodia come to mind.

I’d venture to say that, if anything, business benefits disproportionately from the sorts of services provided above by Big Guvment.

Note I’m not trying to establish that “Libertaria” would be a G*d-awful place. I’m merely asserting that to vilify the US government (Big brother indeed) is inappropriate, at least for those who would prefer not to run their business under third world conditions. (Responses from my colleague Sam Stone are thereby preempted :wink: )

93

Flowbark,
You inadvertantly made my point on taxation…

I’ll add one more…National defence…

IMHO…any and all social programs ought to come from the state and local levels. This way we as the citizenry have more choice in how our earned money is spent and “Big Brother” is less intrusive in our lives. I for one dissagree with Hamilton’s Federalist ideas he put forth that seem to have become the staple in our politics…And Yes the beloved Lincoln brought those ideals to fruition…

Forgive me for not having figures at my finger tips…I will do better in the future :slight_smile:

Here is what I see…anyone including myself can skew figures to make their point, but I will do my research and provide these substanitive figures to firther my point instead of trying to recall them from memory.

94

december: *“Any nation can withdraw from the agreement for three years after it comes into effect.”

As I said, the US couldn’t withdraw from the Protocol because we hadn’t ratified it.*

As I said, you’re welcome to have your own preferences, however idiosyncratic, about the usage of the word “withdrawal”, but the language you cited doesn’t mandate them. Just because it is correct to speak of “withdrawing” from the Protocol after it goes into effect doesn’t mean that it’s incorrect to use the same word for ceasing participation before ratification but after signature. We signed the treaty, and then decided not to pursue its ratification or implementation: i.e., we withdrew. As flowbark pointed out, it may be more precise to describe this as “withdrawal from the negotiations for the Protocol”, but “withdrawal from the Protocol” does not seem to me at all misleading or unfair as a description of the situation. If we were talking about using the word “withdrawal” before the treaty had even been signed, or using the term “treaty violation” to describe Bush’s decision to cease participating, I’d agree with you that it was not an appropriate or accurate description. As it is, though, I think you’re being way too, er, PC about language use here. :slight_smile:

(And what on earth do you see as “biased” in the term “withdrawal”, anyway? I know you are strongly sensitive to indications of liberal media bias, but it’s hard for me to think of a more neutral and non-inflammatory term than “withdrawal” to describe the US stance with regard to the Protocol. I would have thought that you would be more upset about the connotations of the other term frequently used to describe the same action, “abandonment” of the Protocol.)

Thank you B, and I join the others here in welcoming you to the Straight Dope and to Great Debates; sorry I snapped at you in the previous message. We had just got a nice factual debate going about the details of the tax cut plan and the underlying mechanisms and effects of different forms of wealth redistribution, and it was sort of exasperating to get that swamped by bouncy dittohead slogans to the effect of “Taxes SUCK and the government SUCKS and anyone who doesn’t think so is a pathetic liberal LOSER!” :rolleyes: But if you’re willing to hang around and talk facts and details, we’re very glad to have you! :slight_smile:

95

B: *IMHO…any and all social programs ought to come from the state and local levels. This way we as the citizenry have more choice in how our earned money is spent and “Big Brother” is less intrusive in our lives. *

Two questions:

  • Why do you think that state and local governments are automatically superior to the federal government when it comes to social programs? What evidence do you have that “devolved” versions of Medicare and Social Security, for example, would be more effective than the current federal programs?

  • As you probably know, there are tremendous differences among states and communities in the amounts of revenue they can or will collect from citizens, and in the amounts of help they get from the federal government. (Lots of information about state-by-state comparisons in the current “devolution” environment is available at the Urban Institute’s Assessing the New Federalism site.) What is your suggested plan for keeping “poor states” such as Mississippi from sinking much further into poverty in the absence of federal funds? Or if you have no such plan, can you explain why you think such scenarios are either unlikely to happen or not a cause for concern?

96

There are good reasons for retaining more control at the state level. First, it makes your society more free - it’s much easier to move out of a state that doesn’t represent your desires than to move out of a country. For this reason, I’ll tolerate much more activist government from a city, and even more from a community or zoning board. I have progressively less freedom to opt out of a system I don’t believe in as its scope grows.

Second, state government is more connected to the needs of its constituents than is the federal government. The individual voters also have much more say in how the government should be run, since their representatives come from a smaller area with a smaller voting base.

Then there is the 10th amendment, which reserves all powers of not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution for the people or the states.

The only real advantage of a federal government over state government is that it adds another level of progressivity to society, in which the richer states can be taxed to support the poorer ones. If this is your primary value, then that’s what you’ll support. But there are many drawbacks, not the least of which it helps to rob the people of their own self-determination.

97

Good post, Sam. A fourth reason is that the states can be “laboratories” to experiment with various approaches. When I was young, I thought this was a hypothetical argument. Now, having seen laws in my business over a period of decades, I have realized that:

  1. It’s very difficult to write and to enact laws that will effectively solve a problem, even though such laws may exist in principle.

  2. Once a law is in place, it’s almost impossible to change the basic approach.

As a result, we have many well-intentioned federal laws, which are deeply flawed, but are unlikely to ever be fixed. On the other hand, a state has a better shot at correcting their first approach if the see more effectrive laws working in other states.

98

Sam Stone: The only real advantage of a federal government over state government is that it adds another level of progressivity to society, in which the richer states can be taxed to support the poorer ones.

Hmm. While I tend to agree with what you (and december) said about the specific advantages of state government, I’m not sure I buy the attempt to extend it to the idea that the federal government has no advantages other than extra progressivity. (I presume, btw, that your complaint that such progressivity “robs people of their self-determination” was in response to my question to B about redressing inequalities between rich states and poor ones, and that it means that you don’t think anything should be done about such inequalities on the federal level?)

Do you really think that state and local governments always make better decisions than federal ones—e.g., should there have been no federal mandates about racial integration, housing discrimination, education, etc.? Isn’t it reasonable for the federal government to mandate some policies that apply to all its citizens? Otherwise, why have a single nation at all instead of fifty separate affiliated nations, something on the order of the OAS? And if the federal government can reasonably mandate some nationwide policies, doesn’t it have a responsibility to help fund them as well? And there we are back at federal funding for social programs again. If not, then why not extend it further? What is the rationale for managing any social programs at the state level (which after all is more distant and less representative) rather than the local?

I’d really like to hear some very specific arguments why you think the federal government doesn’t have a role in creating and implementing social policy for its citizens, and why you don’t apply that reasoning to the tasks of defense, infrastructure, justice systems, etc., that were acknowledged as legitimate federal spheres. After all, we could operate a lot of that on the lower levels too.

See, I suspect you guys have just seized on the anti-federalism tack out of a general conservative/libertarian principle in favor of smaller national government (and this finally brings us more or less back in line with the original topic again, whew), and are saying “Big Brother out of our communities!” because it sounds nice in theory. But I think the issues involved, both of principle and practice, are actually a whole lot more complicated than your rather generalized remarks indicate.

99

Interesting questions. I will not respond to the rhetorical question of how a federal role in defence or infrastructure differs from a federal role in social policy. There are obvious similarities and obvious differences, which any of us could list.

More interesting to me is Kimstu’s apparent contrast between the US’s original limited federal structure with the current one. (Using “federal” as “1. Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government.”) Could the USA of 2001 function at all if it had only a weak central government? We’ll never get an opportunity to find out, so this is a great topic to debate endlessly.

My own field of property-casualty insurance is regulated at the state level. According to a 1944 US Supreme Court decision, the federal governement has the right to take over the regulation, but they have chosen not to do so.

So, how well does the state regulation work? My answer is, fair. There’s a certain amount of duplication in dealing with 50 insurance departments. Some are a lot more professional than others. On the other hand, they’ve never screwed up as badly as federal regulators did in the Savings and Loan crisis.

One interesting aspect is the the state regulators have their own organization, the National Assn of Insurance Comissioners. They have a forum to exchange knowledge and ideas and make joint plans. The NAIC helps the states to maintain a reasonable degree of uniformity, which is good for those of us doing inter-state business.

If there were no federal EPA, say, there might be 50 state EPA’s with a Mational Assn. of EPAs to share experiecne, make joint plans, etc. I guess that sort of setup would work, but don’t know whether it would be better or worse than the current system.

100

Sam Stone & december,
You two make great commentaries on the State run gov’t vs. the Fed run gov’t…

I’d like to address Kimstu’s question about the poorer states…I see it this way, In order for the poorer states to become prosperous they need to do things to entice revenue into their states…Be it through tax exemptions or providing a finer place to vacation, hell there a tons of things an area or region can do to promote itself…In my mind it goes back to the real reason the Confederate states succeeded in the first place…There was a very northern slant in the Houe of Representatives that severely put the South at a dissadvantage due to the population at the time. This caused unfair policies towards those states that had less representation. This is another can of worms I care not to open on this thread. But my point being Mississippi is still at a dissadvantage. I’d like to think that if the Fed had less control over how states run, then Mississippi might be able do some unconventional and radical things to make their state more wealthy. If you read your History books you will see that Mississippi, South Carolina and Alabama were some of the wealthier per capita states…If I have to I will did out my textbook with the exact figures.

So that kind of wipes out the poor states theory, at least in my mind :slight_smile:

The way I understand the intent of our Constitution, the combined states were to decide how the Fed would operate through the representative process. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union but the two Houses wanted to take power and control the States and we now have an all powerful ever encroching Federal Government.

Maybe a new thread to debate States rights and self-government…