How Bush Did It...

[Pete]

Ah, the Democratic Party is not where I want it to be, but the Republican Party is far from it too. Too many Republicans think that tax reform is best accomplished by either a flat tax or a national sales tax that would be far too hurtful to the middle and lower classes (I prefer a production tax that is levied on every level of a business's production of a good or service...it is a great idea that a conservative introduced me to, if you want to know about it, PM me and I will send you the website and the pdf proposal). Too many Republicans think that the way to fix Social Security is by cutting benefits and calling it "investment accounts" (I believe that the best way to fix Social Security is to cap payments to wealthy income earners and to increase the amount of taxable income; I also prefer returning the budget to surplus and diverting any surplus funds to the Social Security Trust Fund). Too many Republicans are in the business of demonizing cultural problems, rather than addressing them logically (like abortion, as I discussed earlier). And George W. Bush's philosophy of international relations (unilateralism as opposed to multilateralism) has turned me off the GOP further (I supported the Afghan and Iraqi actions, but I don't think that Bush went about the Iraqi situation correctly). I believe in protecting the environment (George W. Bush and most Republicans are not in that mindset). I believe in welfare (the reforms of Bill Clinton made the program less abuse-prone and more uplifting, rather than systematic). I believe in health care for all (I support providing business credits to all businesses so that they can provide for good, comprehensive health insurance for their workers) and well George W. Bush didn't really address the growing number of uninsured in our nation. So, until these things are rectified, I don't see myself being a Republican anytime soon.

Furthermore, the biggest thing that the GOP had going for it was its belief in fiscal responsibility. Well, $420 billion later, they lost that.

All your points have been argued here before. Republicans typically do preach balanced budgets but things happen, like 9/11, a huge decrease in revenue spurred by the dot com crash resulting in less tax revenue. Sometimes the cure is just as bad as the illness.

I too do not agree with everything Republican. I do not support the privatization of social security. I am pleased that all options are being explored however.

I deamonize only the social programs that have proved time and time again they fail. Clintons welfare reform was won because the new Republican majority in congress wanted it to happen and he saw benefit in doing it. There is no motivation to get off the dole and that is a social problem that will likely not be fixed even in your lifetime if ever. To be blount we have an entire class of "citizens" who are too proud to pick lettuce but not proud enough to turn down a government check.

Bilateralism has gotten us kicked in the sack so many times it was pathetic. Measured responses, UN approval and sanctions for decades. Being a follower was not what made us who we are. I am glad to see that America is back to the business of leading even if it is unpopular among our critics. Although the result is sometimes clouded, out of principle I feel much better being pro-active rather than reactive.

Income tax reform is a big interest to those who are footing the bill for 90% of what it costs to have the greatest nation on God's green Earth. I don't think it is that much to ask that everyone who enjoys the benefits of being an American to cough up some of the funds, if even a little bit to pay for it. With EIC and a heavily stacked progressive tax rate you have an entire class of takers riding on the backs of the givers and that spells trouble in any society. Look at the property tax revolts going on in Maine.

Simple fact of the matter is many of us are centrist, the problem with the Democrats are they are not palletable to most centrists. Many of us view them as the architects of the social ilk that has gotten us to this point. Liberal views, the lack of values, responsibility, erosion of morals are all direct causes of the prominent issues.

 

[Mikeinsmd]

All your points have been argued here before. Republicans typically do preach balanced budgets but things happen, like 9/11, a huge decrease in revenue spurred by the dot com crash resulting in less tax revenue. Sometimes the cure is just as bad as the illness.

I too do not agree with everything Republican. I do not support the privatization of social security. I am pleased that all options are being explored however.

I deamonize only the social programs that have proved time and time again they fail. Clintons welfare reform was won because the new Republican majority in congress wanted it to happen and he saw benefit in doing it. There is no motivation to get off the dole and that is a social problem that will likely not be fixed even in your lifetime if ever. To be blount we have an entire class of "citizens" who are too proud to pick lettuce but not proud enough to turn down a government check.

Bilateralism has gotten us kicked in the sack so many times it was pathetic. Measured responses, UN approval and sanctions for decades. Being a follower was not what made us who we are. I am glad to see that America is back to the business of leading even if it is unpopular among our critics. Although the result is sometimes clouded, out of principle I feel much better being pro-active rather than reactive.

Income tax reform is a big interest to those who are footing the bill for 90% of what it costs to have the greatest nation on God's green Earth. I don't think it is that much to ask that everyone who enjoys the benefits of being an American to cough up some of the funds, if even a little bit to pay for it. With EIC and a heavily stacked progressive tax rate you have an entire class of takers riding on the backs of the givers and that spells trouble in any society. Look at the property tax revolts going on in Maine.

Simple fact of the matter is many of us are centrist, the problem with the Democrats are they are not palletable to most centrists. Many of us view them as the architects of the social ilk that has gotten us to this point. Liberal views, the lack of values, responsibility, erosion of morals are all direct causes of the prominent issues.

Well put!!

 

[FromTexas]

(I prefer a production tax that is levied on every level of a business's production of a good or service...it is a great idea that a conservative introduced me to, if you want to know about it, PM me and I will send you the website and the pdf proposal).

That is just a sales type tax called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Its what they use in Europe.

 

[FromTexas]

Liberal views, the lack of values, responsibility, erosion of morals are all direct causes of the prominent issues.

Very well said.

Oops, quoted out the part about being more centrist. Which is really where most of us are closer to.

 

[Lenny]

That is just a sales type tax called a Value Added Tax (VAT). Its what they use in Europe.

But, but. . .isn't the VAT a regressive tax which more adversely impacts the middle and lower classes? That's what the Democratic party says every time a national sales tax is proposed by the Republicans.

Hmmmm, gonna have to ponder that one.

 

[Lenny]

Let's talk fiscal responsiblity and that mythic $450B

Furthermore, the biggest thing that the GOP had going for it was its belief in fiscal responsibility. Well, $420 billion later, they lost that.

I believe you refer to the budget "surplus" the Clintons claimed they had created during their 8 years. This is the same "surplus" which depended upon continued unbridled growth in the U.S. economy (the same growth fueled by the Enron and Worldcom-style bookkeepping now villanized) The same unbridled growth that petered out in the final year of the Clinton reign and left Bush with a faltering economy before the attacks of September 11 (which further threated to suppress America's faith in its economy.)

Had anyone but George W. Bush been president to bolster American spirit following the most recent attacks on American soil, the economy would have continued to dive into the worst recession/depression we have seen in our lifetimes. But. . .the fiscal responsibility and moral encouragement of this president pulled the nation out of its economic doldrums faster than ever done before and lead this nation into making the hard international decisions which could not and would not be made by Albert Gore, John Kerry or Billary Clinton.

 

[vraiblonde]

already accepted into college

Where did you decide on?

And I think the business fine, aka "production tax", is crazy. If higher taxes are levied on businesses, they'll have to increase their prices to make up the revenue. Then it's just getting passed on to the consumer, which would be the same thing as increasing the sales tax. Plus businesses will have to pay more for their own goods which, you guessed it, will get passed on to the consumer as well.

But that's just at first glance. Please PM me the URL - I'd like to take a look at it.

 

[Bruzilla]

You beat me to it Vrai. Once again, folks are looking at a cause without looking at an effect.

I think that Kerry lost because he was a phony and a lot of people saw that. He's a wealthy New England Liberal snob, and he should have run on that. When you've been against guns all of your political life, and suddenly you're out there trying to look like a hunter when you're really looking like Paris Hilton on the farm, people know you're a fake. I don't think the Swift Boat Vets issue started people questioning Kerry's qualities as much as they served to confirm what many other incidents showed.

Bill Clinton and George Bush are two guys who the masses can look at and say "There's me!" They both have a strong appeal to the Joe Six-Packs of the United States. Kerry never looked comfortable in settings that everyday people are used to, and that came across to the voters.

As for gun control, there's only one way that you can really reduce crime and that is to reduce the number of criminals. Criminals don't care about laws, be they relating to burglary, murder, or possession of a gun. I've been to countries that have draconian methods for dealing with criminals (Saudi Arabia and Singapore), and I must admit they are a pleasure to live in. You feel safe and secure, and you don't have half the worries that we have. They also execute most of their repeat and all of their serious offenders. So, what people really need to ask themselves is how much they really want to be free from crime. There was a time in the US that we hung people for many crimes that now barely warrant probation. Crime rates were low, and criminals so scare that they were celebrated. Now, after we've become "civilized", the criminals own the streets in most areas. Banning assault weapons, handguns, or sling shots isn't going to change that... banning criminals will.

Lastly, speaking on behalf of pre-emption, I'm all for it. Many of us grew up during the Cold War, and were very familiar with World War II. We've learned that the World is not a peaceful place, and never will be. There will always be some person out to take more than they have, and we need to deal with those threats before they become too big of a problem. Hiding our heads in the sand and hoping they'll go away doesn't work.

 

[ylexot]

The concept behind an assault rifle ban is good, but any legislation needs to show true sensitivity to gun owners.

I'm sorry, what was the good concept behind the assault rifle ban?

 

[rraley]

Where did you decide on?

I decided to attend the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana (GO IRISH!!!). It was a dream come true to get that letter of acceptance in the mail.

As for some of the counter-points some have posted, I will respond later (too much homework right now).

 

[sleuth]

I decided to attend the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana (GO IRISH!!!). It was a dream come true to get that letter of acceptance in the mail.

As for some of the counter-points some have posted, I will respond later (too much homework right now).

Very liberal school. You'll love it!

 

[rraley]

Ok, I lied, homework wasn't so bad (just heard that one of my essays is due next week).

On to my rebuttals...

Pete, you stated that the current budget deficit is attributable to 9/11 and revenue loss because of the dot com bust. Yes, I believe that any president would experience a budget deficit in 2001, but not every president or Congress would create policies that would allow it to expand to $420 billion. Recall, 9/11 was three years ago and according to Republicans, the economy is purring along quite nicely right now. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the budget would be at least closer to balanced in 2005 (if not already balanced)? But, my friends, our budget deficit is growing. Why? Two reasons: long-term declined tax revenue due to the 2001 income tax cuts and the 2003 dividend tax cut and and spending that is out of control. The combined cost of President Bush's tax cuts over the next ten years is $1.6 trillion, and that is a conservative estimate. Some estimates have the cost being closer to $3 trillion. Federal spending, meanwhile, has outpaced the spending that Democratic congresses have passed. From 2002-2004 (when Republicans controlled Congress), discretionary spending increased 39%. That's pathetic...even worse is that federal spending is now 11% of GDP (the first time in history) and that was done under the Republicans' watch. Furthermore, President Bush has proposed an average 4.6% spending increase every year that he has submitted a budget request to Congress; that is a higher average than the previous four administrations (2 Republicans and 2 Democrats).

So, Pete, we have two dynamics here working. One is our nation is losing money, mostly to those who earn over $230,000 a year, and it is spending more than ever. That's why we have a $420 billion deficit that could soar to a trillion dollars in five years. We can't blame this year's budget deficit on a three year-old event. What we can blame is a President and Congress who believe in the concept of borrow and spend.

The solution? Reinstitute true PAYGO in our budget. Under President Clinton, any tax cut or spending increase had to be balanced by budget cuts for other programs. Now, only spending increases have to be balanced out; not tax cuts. That must be stopped. Secondly, reconsider if our nation needs to spend $448 billion on defense. I know that we are fighting a war, but President Bush's increase in defense spending outpaces even Ronald Reagan's buildup in the early 1980s. You know, we're fighting insurgents and terrorists who are unorganized. We don't need to spend billions to build battleships, a new set of fighter jets, or to continue the development of Cold War-era weapons. These things won't help us find Osama bin Laden. Thirdly, freeze discretionary spending. And finally, repeal the dividends tax cut and the income tax cuts for those who make above $200,000 and stop the tax loopholes that the rich use to avoid taxes.

Once, these things happen, and the budget returns to surplus, that money should go towards paying off the national debt (which consumes the third largest amount of our budget).

Just some thoughts...others later

 

[rraley]

Very liberal school. You'll love it!

Incorrect, sir. A poll conducted by the school newspaper had a 58/42 division at the school in favor of Bush over Kerry. It's very balanced and leans rightward if anything.

 

[vraiblonde]

I decided to attend the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana (GO IRISH!!!).

No kidding? Good for you!

 

[ylexot]

Incorrect, sir. A poll conducted by the school newspaper had a 58/42 division at the school in favor of Bush over Kerry. It's very balanced and leans rightward if anything.

It looked like sarcasm to me. Thus the and

 

[sleuth]

I'm from Indiana... I know a little about Notre Dame...
Be sure to rent Rudy....

 

[Bruzilla]

Pete, you stated that the current budget deficit is attributable to 9/11 and revenue loss because of the dot com bust. Yes, I believe that any president would experience a budget deficit in 2001, but not every president or Congress would create policies that would allow it to expand to $420 billion. Recall, 9/11 was three years ago and according to Republicans, the economy is purring along quite nicely right now. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the budget would be at least closer to balanced in 2005 (if not already balanced)? But, my friends, our budget deficit is growing. Why? Two reasons: long-term declined tax revenue due to the 2001 income tax cuts and the 2003 dividend tax cut and and spending that is out of control. The combined cost of President Bush's tax cuts over the next ten years is $1.6 trillion, and that is a conservative estimate. Some estimates have the cost being closer to $3 trillion. Federal spending, meanwhile, has outpaced the spending that Democratic congresses have passed. From 2002-2004 (when Republicans controlled Congress), discretionary spending increased 39%. That's pathetic...even worse is that federal spending is now 11% of GDP (the first time in history) and that was done under the Republicans' watch. Furthermore, President Bush has proposed an average 4.6% spending increase every year that he has submitted a budget request to Congress; that is a higher average than the previous four administrations (2 Republicans and 2 Democrats).

So, Pete, we have two dynamics here working. One is our nation is losing money, mostly to those who earn over $230,000 a year, and it is spending more than ever. That's why we have a $420 billion deficit that could soar to a trillion dollars in five years. We can't blame this year's budget deficit on a three year-old event. What we can blame is a President and Congress who believe in the concept of borrow and spend.

If I may rebutt the rebuttal...

Your analysis suffers from a fatal flaw. It fails to look at what the current economic state would be if Bush hadn't put the tax breaks into place; the recession hadn't ended as quickly as it did; and 9/11 occurred. What would the US economy look like today? Certainly nothing near as good as it is now. While I would agree with you that Bush has been a big spender and the Republicans have become every bit as bad as Democrats at being entitlement kings, you cannot look at the current deficit and say that the tax breaks (and I noticed like a true Dem you just had to make note of the $250,000 income earners) were a bad idea. There was a reason why the recession was so mild, despite the triple causes (dot com bust, technology sector declines, and bogus accounting), and that was because Bush got all of those $250,000+ folks investing in the economy. I hate to think of what shape our economy would be in if we had been at the peak of a recession on 9/11.

 

[dilettante]

If I may rebutt the rebuttal...

Your analysis suffers from a fatal flaw. It fails to look at what the current economic state would be if Bush hadn't put the tax breaks into place; the recession hadn't ended as quickly as it did; and 9/11 occurred. What would the US economy look like today? Certainly nothing near as good as it is now. While I would agree with you that Bush has been a big spender and the Republicans have become every bit as bad as Democrats at being entitlement kings, you cannot look at the current deficit and say that the tax breaks (and I noticed like a true Dem you just had to make note of the $250,000 income earners) were a bad idea. There was a reason why the recession was so mild, despite the triple causes (dot com bust, technology sector declines, and bogus accounting), and that was because Bush got all of those $250,000+ folks investing in the economy. I hate to think of what shape our economy would be in if we had been at the peak of a recession on 9/11.

Nice Post!!! GO BUSH!!!