In reply to Susanann and those who agree with her, who think Bush is toast in 2004…why did the Democrats do so poorly in 2002? Did you also think, prior to those elections, that the Democrats would do much better than they ultimately did?
I take your opinion seriously, Susanann, especially as you are not a Dem. Polls are making similar point – Bush’s popularity has been sinking.
I agree that Bush’s involvement in Iraq was not a good political move. He invaded because, rightly or wrongly, he thought it was the best thing for the country.
Bush’s tax cuts and deficit spending are pretty normal approaches for dealing with a recessions. Cutting taxes, reducing regulation, and tort reform would be good ways to save manufacturing jobs and create American jobs. They’re more effective than tariffs. However, the voting public may not understand enough economics to equate tort reform with job creation.
In summary, if the election were Nov. 2003, I agree that Bush would have a problem with the unfinished war in Iraq and the not-yet-recovered economy. However, he has a year for these issues to improve. I think they will improve.
I was not surprised about 2002.
There were so many very close races that no one could call, the votes just fell the way they fell.
Senate and house elections in an off year, dont mean that much as far as being a reflection on the president or how bad things are out there. House and senate elections have more to do with local politics in off years. Furthermore, we still had some hope in 2002 that things would get better. But 2003 is almost over now and bush still shows no signs of paying any attention to the real concerns of americans and their dwindling jobs.
One of the main reasons bush got the presidency is because so many anti-clinton(a vote against gore is a vote against clinton) voters showed up. Half of bush’s vote was from people who were tired of clinton-gore gun control and all the sex scandals in the white house. These will not be a factor in 2004 which will also help any democrat.
If bush is soundly defeated in 2004, I imagine many repubicans in the house and senate will go down with him.
What matters most is how many democrat and how many republican seats are going to be in the 2004 election. I dont know how many democrats and republicans are up for re-election in 2004 - that has a lot to do with it.
Well that’s entirely open to debate. But I don’t feel like debating it here or now. I’m more interested in this:
What is it exactly that Bush should be doing that he’s failing to do right now, that is so hurting his re-election chances? I’m looking for something a little more specific here than “paying attention to the real concerns of Americans”.
Bush can end the H1-B and L-1 visa programs, employing over 1 million americans almost over night. Bush can order the immigration department to capture and deport up to 10 million illegals in this country, opening up many more jobs. Bush can end the tax breaks for american companies which close factories here and reopen them up in foreign lands, and instead propose tax breaks for companines that open up new factories here in america. Bush can propose new legislation lowering income taxes and replacing the revenue with money recieved from tarrifs on goods that can be made here. Bush can propose that american companies which employ foreign workers that they still must contribute to the social security fund even if they dont employ american workers, ending the advantage of employers hireing people so they dont have to contribute into the social security fund, not only ending a $10,000 advantage in using foreign labor, but strengthening the social security system. Bush can propose massive government works projects like FDR did in the 1930’s(Hoover dam wont last forever). Bush can order that no foreign company or foreign laborer is to work on or supply parts for anything that is in the national security - no foreign workers or companies supplying us with plane parts, or government computer programs.
I dont know , I am not the president, this list is just for starters, he is supposed to think up some good/better ideas for gettting americans back to work, and in getting new factories to open up.
The simple fact is, that bush is not throwing out any ideas.
The ideas I listed may not be all good, but no one is even discussing them, or anything else. Bush is acting like Herbert Hoover, and ignoring our economy completely.
Bush should be proposing all kinds of ideas of getting america to be a manufacturing nation once again with americans having lots of jobs. I dont expect all of my ideas to get passed, or all of bushs ideas to all get passed, but bush is not proposing anything.
Certainly getting rid of 10 million illegals and having our army partol our mexican border instead of iraq is certainly well within his current powers and would make a huge difference in our labor market immediately, and so is ending the H1-
B and L-1 visa programs.
FDR did not get everything he wanted either, nor was all of his projects successfull, but he kept trying to do something.
I am not criticising bush for having bad ideas about getting the american economy growing again, I am criticising him for not having ANY!!! ideas.
If bush was tryhing as hard as he could to help america but yet was not succeeding, it would be one thing we could forgive, but to not even try(Hoover), is unforgivable.
Coincidentally, I was just reading a report from a professional money management firm in NYC. They say.
Whether or not these tax cuts are the right medicine, Bush has certainly taken steps to try to stimulate an economic recovery.
We already went over this.
Tax cuts dont work in a global economy, they only work in a closed economy.
The tax cuts bush got thru will not creat american jobs, nor will they force amerian companies to close their foreign factories and reopen them back here, nor will they make american companies oursource less to India.
(In the old days, eg. the Kennedy tax cuts, in a closed economy which we used to have when we did not depend on foreign made products, tax cuts meant that more people had more money to spend on american products which meant that more american companies hired more americans to produce more american goods. It worked great in the 1960’s, but it doesnt work that way anymore.)
We are now a global economy.
The goods we buy/consume are made in asia.
The tax cuts that bush got thru, enable more cheap chinese/japanese/korean/Indian/vietnamese/etc imports to be sold, employing more chinese/asian workers, and gives american companies more money to enable them to close more american factories and reopen them in china. The bush tax cuts will not get any amerian to get his job back at his closed factory or at his companies IT deparment.
3 years of bush tax cuts has only helped the asian economies tremendously, asian imports are up substantially, asian job growth has been surging, and this has also resulted in more and more american jobs lost, more outsourcing, and more american factories and offices closing.
Interesting. And what kind of murder rate / gun crime rate does Vermont have? I don’t have the impression that it’s the murder / gun crime capitol of the US. If Vermonters can handle guns with a reasonable degreee of safety and sanity, isn’t it likely that the people of the other 49 states could do so as well?
I think that attempting to ban pvt ownership of all or most guns (which seems to be what the most committed gun control people really want) would work about as well as Prohibition did; about as well as the current war on (some) drugs is working; about as well as the ongoing wars vs. gambling and prostition are working. That is, not at all. It’s futile.
It’s possible that Dean really does favor the Vermont approach to guns. It’s possible to be a liberal on most issues, and yet be in favor of the right to bear arms. I’m liberal on most issues, yet am in favor of the right to bear arms. An aspect of my libertarian leanings, I guess. All I’d do is make people get a license to bear arms. They’d have to pass a test to get a license. The real pro-gun rights people would count me as an enemy, I supose. They’d say (correctly) that licensing constitutes infringment. But I’m willing to accept a little infringment. And licencing seems pretty minor, compared to the gun laws we have now.
After the botched 2000 election, a common comment was that if Gore had just manage to win his own home state, he’d have won the election. I remember reading an article that speculated that he lost a significant number of votes in his own state – Tennessee – on the gun issue. A lot of Tennesseeans chose between Bush and Gore on the basis of which one they saw as being more favorable to gun rights.
It’s a bit ironic. The Bush administration seems determined to disarm all Swiss Army Knife totting Americans, all embroidery sissors totting Americans, all nail clipper totting Americans, etc. But they’re still seen as the pro gun rights people? This Republican administation won’t let me bring a teeny little mini jackknife into a govt building, yet the Repubs are still supposed to be the pro gun party?
Bush’s tax cuts went almost entirely to the wealthy. How can cutting the taxes of the wealthy do anything to boost the economy? They’re already spending as much as they want; a tax cut for them isn’t going to result in more buying of ordinary goods and services. To boost the economy, don’t we need to take measures that will get extra money into the hands of the working class and lower middle class? They’re the ones who will spend it immediately, on basic stuff: food, shelter, clothing, furnature, etc.
A tax cut for the rich gives them more to invest – but will they invest in anything that produces more jobs for Americans? I doubt it.
Actually, Bush’s tax cuts went almost entirely to people who pay federal income taxes. What’s wrong with that?
Save for burying the money in coffee cans in the backyard, practically ANYTHING the “wealthy” invest in helps stimulate the economy.
Heck, even if the “wealthy” invested their money in first-class jaunts to Las Vegas, complete with luxury suites, high stakes table games, booze, and hookers, it would stimulate the economy. Just think about who would benefit in a splurge of Las Vegas spending: Airline reservationists, taxicab drivers, parking lot attendants, skycaps, ticket counter employees, security guards, maintainence workers, restaurant and gift shop employees, baggage handlers, mechanics, ground crews, air traffic controllers, food service companies, cleaning companies, flight attendants, pilots, and people who sell stuff in magazines located in the seat pocket in front of you. And that’s just for the flight to get you to Vegas. We can go through the same exercise for who would benefit at the hotels, casinos, restuarants, bars, shops, etc., after that.
“Save for burying the money in coffee cans in the backyard, practically ANYTHING the “wealthy” invest in helps stimulate the economy.”
So does increased government spending or increased spending by poor or middle class people. Spending by anyone helps stimulate the economy. A dollar of GDP is a dollar of GDP. The notion that you have to have tax cuts tilted towards the wealthy to stimulate the economy is nonsense.
Of course all this ignores the main point that the bulk of the tax cuts for the wealthy will come at the end of the decade long after the present recession will be a memory. There won’t be any particular need for any kind of a stimulus at that point.
“Actually, Bush’s tax cuts went almost entirely to people who pay federal income taxes”
Even if you take federal income tax payers a disproportionate amount goes to those in the top 1%. That’s because a huge chunk of the tax cut is the estate-tax repeal and the divident tax cut which is disproportionately payed by the wealthy. The figures are quite amazing: by 2010 when all the tax cuts are in place: the top 1% will get more than half the tax cut ie. more than the entire rest of the US population.
** Agreed, but I would add that spending by individuals, wealthy, middle-class, or poor, is more effecient in stimulating the economy that government spending, due to the bureaucracy of it all.
I never said that. I was arguing against Hazel’s notion that tax cuts for the wealthy don’t stimulate the economy.
And what percentage of taxes do the top 1% pay? I would say that since they pay the most taxes, they should get the biggest tax cuts. Why not?
“effecient in stimulating the economy that government spending, due to the bureaucracy of it all.”
Not really. See there is a difference between general economic efficiency and short-term stimulus. Even if you think all government spending is inherently ineffiicent (something which is obviously disputed) it’s still very effective in stimulating the economy. This is because government spending is directly a part of GDP (which is consumption+ investment+government spending). Whereas tax cuts stimulate the economy after they are spent which may take some time or may never happen.
So for example if the government increases spending on public construction even if the projects are inefficient they will be effective in pumping money into the economy.
“And what percentage of taxes do the top 1% pay?”
Roughly a third of federal income taxes. So they are getting a bigger tax cut than their share in the later years of the Bush tax cut.
Oh and if you look at total federal taxes the top 1% pay about 25% of the total which makes the Bush tax cuts even more tilted towards them.
I do think govt spending is inherently inefficent. IRL example: My company sells a commodity product to state & local govt entities. So I received this phone call this week. "This is so-and-so from the City of _______ Purchasing. We would like to know if you would renew our contract for a 25% discount or we have to put it out for bid. My answer: “Of course we will renew. What paperwork will we need to sign?” Purchasing: “Well we have to get it approved by the City Council. Then we will send you a notice of award.” Great. Which will have to be reviewed by both our contracts dept., and our legal dept., before being signed and sent back to the City.
Compare that to the sale of the very same commodity to a private customer. “Hello, this is Company X, or Mr. Y. Last year, you gave me a 25% discount. Can I get the same discount next year?” Me: “Sure, thank you for your business.” The entire govt bidding/contracting/compliance scenario is non-value-added, to say the least.
OK, so the top 1% pay 33% of the taxes. And you don’t see anything, well, disproportionate about that?
I don’t want to get distracted by a general argument about government efficiency or inefficiency. FTR I agree that the government can sometimes be more inefficient than the private sector. However you need more than anecdotes; there are many inefficient corporations out there as well. The point is that is that even inefficient government spending stimulates the economy. Even if the government spends the money on more paper-pushers the paper-pushers will spend the money and increase consumption. From the narrow pov. of macroeconomic stimulus “efficient” and “inefficient” spending is the same.
"And you don't see anything, well, disproportionate about that?"
No because the top 1% pay earn about 20% of national income and pay about 25% of federal taxes. It's only mildly progressive and I have no problem with that.Yes, the pencilpusher will spend money and increase consumption, just not as efficiently as a private transaction would, i.e., I have money, and you have a good or service that I desire. Transaction complete.
Well, I think that people earning 20% of national income should pay 20% of federal taxes, not more. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one. 
Part of my point was that this is just what the wealthy would not do. They already have enough money to take a lavish, expensive vacation any time they want. Their response to a tax cut will not be go out and buy things; it will not be to take expensive vacations. They can already buy pretty much any luxury item they want; they can already take any vacation they want, any time. Extra money will not result in any new spending on such things. Extra money will not result in a “wow, this is great! what should I spend this on!?” reaction, the way it would for people less well off. They already have more money than they need; more isn’t going to make any real difference in their lives.
They’re already investing in things. The extra money will presumably mean the amont they invest will be higher. This might help the economy – if they carefully chose investments that were actually likely to help the economy; investments that would bring more business to US firms, and cause those firms to expand. The expansion would probably include at least some hiring of new workers, but would not be limited to that. Some firms would respond to the increased income in other ways. Some would increase their automation, and would thus be able to let some of their workers go. Maybe the company they buy the automation equipment from will hire some new workers. It’s hard to predict. Basically, this would be the trickle down theory. I don’t think it works all that well. The decisions made by the investors, and the decisions made by the firms being invested in, and by the management of the firms making more sales, all are unpredictable. What you can predict is that only some of these decision will result in putting more Americans to work.
Now, back to those rich people who have extra money to invest, due to a tax cut. Won’t many of those investments actually result in fewer jobs for Americans? Some of the investment money will be spent to build new factories overseas where labor is cheap, with the result that US factories are shut down.
Oh, and most of the tax cut is going to the top 1%. Some is going to people below the top 1%. Perhaps some small portion of it is going to people far enough below the top 1% that the extra money will have an actual impact on their lives. Perhaps some of these folks will decide to go on a vacation they might otherwise not have taken. Will this vacation be to Las Vegas? Or to any other US destination? Couldn’t it just as easily be to France? Or Burmuda? Or some other non-US destination?
I really disagree with this. I’m in favor of a graduated income tax. I think the very rich should be taxed at a higher rate than the less rich, who should be taxed at a higher rate than the upper middle class, who should be taxed at a higher rate than the lower middle class, who should be taxed at a higher rate than the working class. And I’d like to find a way to basically just plain exempt the really poor from taxes. If their entire income is just barely enough to live on, or actaully falls short of being enough to live on, how can we justify taking any of that income?
As I understand it, the income tax does include people in the working poor catagory. They’re not exempt from it. Their income taxes are fairly low, so the biggest hit they take is withholding taxes. There’s a program that’s supposed to help offset the withholding taxes paid by the working poor (the earned income tax credit? I think that’s the name). But the Bush administration is trying to find ways to spend less on this program by setting up bureaucratic hurdles the recipients will have trouble leaping; making it more difficult for them to get the credit.
IMO a better endeavor would have been to try to find ways to make it more difficult for the wealthy to avoid taxes, ways to plug some of the loopholes. This would, I should think, do a lot more to increase tax revenues than nickle and diming the poor.
Dont feel bad, you are in the mainstream, as far as how people thought when the income tax ammendment was originally passed.
Actually, I think when they passed the income tax ammendment, what you are saying, is exactly what our leaders promised us, and what was intended by everyone.
For the first 40 years after the income tax was created, virtually no lower, or middle class people paid anything in income taxes. It wasnt until the 1950’s that some higher paid middle class people started paying some income tax, and even then, it was a very small amount, percentage of the family income. NO wonder why women did not need to work back then! The income of todays working wife, just about equals todays american family tax bill.
Today, the average american pays more for taxes, then he does for food, clothing, and housing COMBINED! That is a recent phenomena, and not at all what our government promised when they wanted us to approve the income tax ammendment.
There is no reason why anyone except the very rich should pay any income tax at all.
The way things are going with all the jobs moving to asia, we may yet return to where only the rich pay income taxes, fewer and fewer people in the future will be paying any income taxes as more and more people lose their jobs.