I used mediocre to mean slightly below average - which is my understanding of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Printable View
I used mediocre to mean slightly below average - which is my understanding of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
I agree, our presidential choices have not been very good (understatement) for several terms now. Hopefully we will see that change in the next few elections.~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Anyhow, I voted mediocre because that is the closest to average to me. He has done some things I have liked and some I haven’t. I like the way he has stuck with something rather than flipping every time a poll says he should but I am disappointed with how nancy he has been, he is the President of the United Fricking States of America for crying out laud, he should be walking like he has 10 pound balls but he tiptoes around, I don’t get that.
Yes indeedy, the activities of Bill Clinton's cock were the most important issue facing 90's America. Its obviously much more important to keep your johnson in your trousers than it is to balance the budget.Quote:
he has never had his knob polished by some fat intern.
I voted worst ever, but then I remembered Carter, so possibly that was slightly harsh. On the other hand Carter didn't seem to leave any messes that took to long to clean up, so...
Clinton didnt balance the budget singlehandedly and its never just 1 person with the economy (although we are all smart enough to know that) Clinton disraced his position by doing what he did. As for American polotics we are usually stuck with the same 2 choices. The guy who licks his finger and lets the wind take hime regradless of conviction or the diehard who is unwilling to change even when it needs to be done. To many Anericans dont give a shit they are the typical fat dumb and happy american. this is bad becuase one day we will wake and realized we just pissed away the greatest thing we ever had
Bush did some good things economically, having the courage to use tax cuts to pull out of a recession was a smart move.
From a historical perspective we really can't say cuz it will depend on how Iraq and Afghanistan pan out. If the neo-con theory that terrorism and authoritarianism in the middle-east can be defeated by forcibly removing despots and building democracies, which will then spread to other mid-east nations, a positive domino effect, then Bush will be remembered 50 years from now as a great president based on those accomplisments. If the whole project collapses, Iraq plunges into civil war and afghanistan is carved up by warlords and the talaban again, Bush won't be regarded so well (well that depends on what progress he makes in the remainder of his term, and whether or not it's him or his successor that bungles it).
He will be definitely remembered based on this though, and his presidency will be significant, good or bad depending on the eventual outcome. 50 years ago really nobody is going to give a crap (or even remember who they are) about what John Kerry, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Franklin, etc. think of him or that John Stuart made fun of his speech impediment. Can anyone here tell me how popular Truman and Eisenhower were back in the day? Orname some prominant opposition and their criticisms to them? Doubt it
Recriminations, prosecutions, and paralysis is the best we can hope for while he is still in office. His agenda (and his party's) have wrecked international relations, our energy policy, social policy, and our budget. As a nation all we can really hope for with these clowns in power is to reduce/contain the damage. Paralysis is preferable to anything I've seen him/them suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Clinton did what was best at the time, besides the whole lying under oath thing, depending on what you call sex. With our economy taking a dive, I would be disappointed if Bush, or Congress, tried to balance the budget. Of course that said, Bush's military spending has been more than needed, imo, which is not going to help the economy much and will leave a large debt.
Courage? It was handing out candy to get elected. That's not courage, it is irresponsible and not sustainable. If you look at the details of how it was justified it is all smoke and mirrors, short term thinking versus long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
We have never really pulled out of this recession. Look at the combined market cap of companies today, vs. when the recession began. You will notice a few trillion few dollars of market cap missing today. Find the new economic driver to replace what was failed as a result of the last recession. There isn't one.
How can you say that when the facts speak for themselves? 3.5% growth, highest in the western world, and record employment rates.. Lowering taxes is the most productive way economically a govt can spend money, doesn't matter if in the short term debt is run up, cuz a few years from now a much stronger, economy can pay them back easily.
There was a recession when the market was overvalued and was deflated, no duh market cap won't be as high.
How do you suggest getting out of recession? Hiking taxes surely won't do the trick, and leaving them stay won't either. The point is to encourage business ventures. And the stock market doesn't always reflect the economy's health well.
You have a purely artificial stimulus, one that has added several trillion in debt and not grown the economy faster than normal. Yet market cap is several trillion below what it was. Think about that for a second. Now you've got about 4 trillion dollars to explain away from the two combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
Now, think about this: where are those new jobs? What real growth are we seeing? What sectors do we have that show promise for leadership going forward?
We've seen our high tech industry nose dive and not recover. It is stagnant and transitioning to maturity. Our industrial manufacturing base never came out of recession. We have nothing new on the horizon. We don't do R&D the way we need to support new growth. You want to improve the economy. Focus on major research initiatives in fields that will be need by the *world* in coming decades. Want to do something for the long haul? Enourage research and development, and in a big way.
Lowering taxes when they were already too low to pay for expenditures was dishonest short-sighted stupidity. You can't pay back this deficit in a few years and you aren't going to grow your way out of it because the deficit's rate of growth has far outstripped tax revenue growth. What was done was to cover up the deficit in non-Social security expenditures by further dipping into the Social security "surplus." Even if you believe in the tax cut philosophy, any examination of expenditures quickly reveal that Soc. Sec. taxes would have been the ones to cut to get rid of "surplus", not income tax which is heavily in deficit for what it is supposed to pay for.
Doing a true stimulus package is one thing. This was all smoke an mirrors, and most folks fell for it. They still don't understand how this has all worked, or what the long term consequences are.
you really need to stop reading noam chomsky/peter galbraith
that whole statism thing isn't working out so well for europe buddy
Iraqi war, Kyoto, Space Vision(crappy vision reincarnating old stuff. Bleh)...
I say bad.
Alot of funny things has happened to him though, like when crashed a bicycle, giving award to that boxing guy(name?),hurting his arm while throwing ball etc..
I would have picked great or outstanding president, but that was'nt a choice so I had to go with the best, even though in reality that would to be for Teddy Roosevelt or Regan.
In honesty I can not get why so many people have such a (usally baseless) hate of Bush. I don't know if it's that so many of you believe what media or anyone tells you, or your just ignorant and naive, but come give a half way educated and intellgent anwser or say nothing.
Foreign Policy and Iraq: Please some one explain to me what Bush has done so wrong with Iraq. And what really gets, me is that it was fine for Clinton to Bomb Iraq in 1998, but for Bush to Carry out a war in Iraq is wrong. Clintons reasons to attack Iraq ( and this is in his own words) "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Appearently as the UN found and Clinton knew, Hussen had used chemical and biological and was developing a neucular weapons program and Clinton Took action ( possible the one redeeming thing he did in his carreer, but that can be discussed on another thread). And yet when the Bush administration took action to disarm Iraq ( and we again found that Hussen had the Capabilities) it wrong and the only thing Bush wants is oil. A little bit of stand from you Bush haters, don't you think.
Not sure who you are talking to. I'm not reading those you mention. I've actually found it more beneficial to work through the numbers myself. Much better than relying on somebody else's politicized interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
What I find humorous is how many folks believe the pile of crap/lies that was the tax package, and have no knowledge of the particulars and what happens at the end of the period. I'm still trying to understand parts of it, and the more I learn of the "gotcha's" in coming years, the more dismayed I am.
The whole basis of the cuts producing *more* revenue is a fallacy based on erroneous extrapolation. The taxation rate wasn't so high as to be a significant inhibitor to growth. We weren't in a high tax regime. While the theory does hold true in certain conditions, it is at much higher tax rates.
Again, it is more interesting if you plug through the numbers yourself, look at growth in prior years, the post tax cut growth, and revenue. Then look for this "bonanza" of stimulus. Good luck finding it. It is very educational.
One must also keep in mind that this stimulus is in fact coming from borrowed money. With two trillion dollars of stimulus, we've gotten about two trillion dollars worth of GDP growth (and that doesn't even discount what "normal" growth would have been, or inflation.) Consider that for a minute. How long will it take to "catch up" with that sort of payback? (Answer: Never, because tax revenue can't catch up, particularly with an increasing interest payment each year.)
Well saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
However it seems that the tax cuts have stimulated some growth - enough to off-set the deficiet spending in the future - will have to be seen. The Reagan Tax Cuts worked well for what its intended purpose was - Bush was trying to follow that examble. The issue is not so much the tax cuts - but the unneccessary spending done by the President and the Congress.Quote:
What I find humorous is how many folks believe the pile of crap/lies that was the tax package, and have no knowledge of the particulars and what happens at the end of the period. I'm still trying to understand parts of it, and the more I learn of the "gotcha's" in coming years, the more dismayed I am.
Did you notice how the balance budget debates went in Congress?
Not sure where you going with this paragraph - the beginning sentence and the last sentence seem to contradict each other.Quote:
The whole basis of the cuts producing *more* revenue is a fallacy based on erroneous extrapolation. The taxation rate wasn't so high as to be a significant inhibitor to growth. We weren't in a high tax regime. While the theory does hold true in certain conditions, it is at much higher tax rates.
I found it (as discussed in a previous thread on just this issue) - however it is not the figure that President Bush's administration would like to see to justify its tax cut and its spending policies.Quote:
Again, it is more interesting if you plug through the numbers yourself, look at growth in prior years, the post tax cut growth, and revenue. Then look for this "bonanza" of stimulus. Good luck finding it. It is very educational.
The stimulus is in fact coming from multiple sources - the stimulus from the tax cuts is there - just not at the numbers needed to justify the spending done by the Federal Government.Quote:
One must also keep in mind that this stimulus is in fact coming from borrowed money. With two trillion dollars of stimulus, we've gotten about two trillion dollars worth of GDP growth (and that doesn't even discount what "normal" growth would have been, or inflation.) Consider that for a minute. How long will it take to "catch up" with that sort of payback? (Answer: Never, because tax revenue can't catch up, particularly with an increasing interest payment each year.)
A tax increase is coming - I expect a minor one to happen after the 2006 congressional elections. It will be hidden by the failure to extend one of the current tax cuts due to expire this year if its not renewed. (haven't seen if it has or has not been renewed yet.)
All one has to do is begin looking at the measures in congress right now - several things are upcoming concerning the budget.
Edit: Forgot an article mentioning many of the tax bills being watched in the finicial markets
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AFX) - Amid uncertainty over the fate of congressional efforts to extend a pair of investment tax cuts due to expire in 2008, Treasury Secretary John Snow argued Wednesday that action now would encourage economic growth.
"We should not raise the cost of investing here at home when we expect American companies to compete in the global economy," Snow said, in remarks prepared for delivery to the Tax Foundation.
Under the tax-cut package signed into law by President Bush in 2003, taxes on most capital gains were cut from a rate of 20% to 15%. The individual tax rate on corporate dividends was set at the same level. Dividends were previously at personal income rates as high as 35%.
A House package that would cut taxes by more than $55 billion over five years includes provisions to extend the tax breaks until 2010. In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, dropped a proposal to extend the break one year in order for his $59.6 billion, five-year tax plan to gain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Me., a key swing vote on the panel.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he would ensure that the extension of the investor tax breaks is included in any final bill that emerges from a House-Senate conference.
Wall Street firms and some business groups have lobbied heavily to extend the provision now. They argue that investors will be spooked by uncertainty if lawmakers postpone action until closer to the expiration date.
Democrats contend the provision hasn't done much for most middle-class Americans, while some fiscally conservative Republicans, such as Snowe, contend that it's more important to tackle more pressing tax issues.
The Senate is expected to vote this evening on the package, but first must handle a number of amendments, including a proposal sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
The measure would put a 50% excise tax on major oil companies' "windfall" profits. The amendment defines a windfall as the profits earned on sales of oil at more than $40 a barrel.
Republican lawmakers contend the measure is likely to fail amid solid opposition by GOP leaders in both the House and Senate.
An amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, would revoke an existing tax break that allows energy companies to write off exploration and development costs.
The Senate earlier Thursday rejected 44-55 a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., that would have extended only tax cuts due to expire in 2005, while expanding protection against the alternative minimum tax. Conrad's measure would have offset tax breaks by cracking down on a range of tax shelters and other loopholes.
This story was supplied by MarketWatch. For further information see www.marketwatch.com.
No, they mesh, but I'll try to clarify here since it isn't transparent. The theory that was used would be correct, IF taxes were very high (that is where it comes from.) Instead, the basis for the cuts was using the beneficial effect of tax cuts at *very high* (far north of 50% marginal) tax rates, and extrapolating it down to low rates. At very high rates, cutting taxes has a strong impact on economic growth. The extrapolation to another regime is fundamentally unsound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
What they did was analogous to doing pressure drop calculations using laminar flow equations to justify something, while the actual system was in the turbulent regime and should have used the turbulent flow equations.
Did anyone watch Fahrenheit 9/11? (hope it's good spell)
That seems to state to me that if the tax bracket is not above 50% of income then tax cuts are not warranted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Reason I ask - is because I know we have different thoughts on taxes - but before I respond - I am trying to figure out exactly where you are coming from.
I rather talk in sheets of paper through a press based upon humidity levels - its a better anology for me.Quote:
What they did was analogous to doing pressure drop calculations using laminar flow equations to justify something, while the actual system was in the turbulent regime and should have used the turbulent flow equations.
For examble - if the humidity level is 35-40% my efficiency for running paper through my presses increases to 85-90%. If its too high - we are inefficient - if its to low we are inefficient.
Now given a choice I rather have the building at 35% because it provided the balance between human confort and machine efficiency. If I go to 40-45% percent the machine run better but the people are uncomfortable. If I run below 35% the people are comfortable but the machinary doesn't work so well.
Now I view the tax cuts in a similiar fashion - a lower level makes for happy taxpayers - but for a government that doesn't work as well. One must find the balance that insures the people are happy but that the government functions at an efficient rate. This is where I think we agree - with the tax cut - the president failed to address the issues to insure that the government was still able to function within its expectations - the efficiency being how much deficiet was being created.
The issue is using a reasonable factor that corresponds with the range in which taxes are. I'm not saying taxes shouldn't be cut until X or Y level. Rather I'm saying don't assume you will get the X stimulus factor, when your taxes are actually in the Y range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Cutting taxes is fine if you've got things balanced and debt paid down. It would have been possible in a very few years, simply by pulling down the national debt. We were headed in the right direction. Spending was in control, the debt was coming down. Then we went flipping nuts! Massive spending spree, massive debt.
I'm not for taxing for taxes sake, nor do I want to see most wealth redistributed, etc. I do believe that use of taxes for infrastructure, research, and growth inenctives in strategic economic areas can provide a huge economic benefit to the country. And I believe that some social programs are both necessary and beneficial to the whole of a nation. The best ones are incentives for people to raise themselves up. That's why the cuts to college grants/loans that were proposed were so friggin' insane and backwards--simply self destructive.
That is close enough using efficiency, with one substantial difference. It wasn't so much a question of efficiency, as using the wrong press efficiency factor and applying it to the 35% case because it is what people want. You aren't going to do that at work, and if you did, it would only give you headaches because the machines would not be doing what you had projected.Quote:
I rather talk in sheets of paper through a press based upon humidity levels - its a better anology for me.
For examble - if the humidity level is 35-40% my efficiency for running paper through my presses increases to 85-90%. If its too high - we are inefficient - if its to low we are inefficient.
Now given a choice I rather have the building at 35% because it provided the balance between human confort and machine efficiency. If I go to 40-45% percent the machine run better but the people are uncomfortable. If I run below 35% the people are comfortable but the machinary doesn't work so well.
Now I view the tax cuts in a similiar fashion - a lower level makes for happy taxpayers - but for a government that doesn't work as well. One must find the balance that insures the people are happy but that the government functions at an efficient rate. This is where I think we agree - with the tax cut - the president failed to address the issues to insure that the government was still able to function within its expectations - the efficiency being how much deficiet was being created.
As you say there is some optimum point for taxation. Obviously, we disagree on approach to what are "necessary" expenditures for both a healthy nation, and a healthy economy. That's okay, as there are few absolutes in that regard and each side should have to make a case for spending money.
Indeedy, those equipped with one may find that the brain kicks in, and that's when the pain starts. Don't go there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
ArcticSonata, while I can admit that I've never liked Bush, 5 years of him has never even given the sight of any redeeming policies or traits. That's highly unusual for me, many politicians I dislike does atleast show some competence. Admittably I don't hear all about Bush, but can you give examples on what good stuff he has done? I can give planty of examples of bad stuff if I want to, with the start of spending 5 years of budgets on 4 years.
About Iraq, for me it haven't been about WMD, but the honesty of the Bush-administration but about their honesty. From the beginning it has felt that they wanted war, and asked themself the question: "How can we convince the American population about going to war with Iraq?"
What's scary is that, the more information that shows up, the more it seems that that assmumtion was correct.
And that the auctual occupation after the war was very poorly planned (and that is the most important part, not the actual war), and is put in some kind of "light" mode doesn't make the issue any better.
I actually have not seen it. I'm not a big Michael Moore fan, although I think he does publicize some things that are worth attention. At least he provided some counterbalance to the extreme right's use of 9/11 as a propaganda tool. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Templar
Mediocre. He did afew things right though. but the huge debt, weak border policy, and the weird strategy of tying the hands of the army in iraq make him mediocre at best.
Did the adminstration oversell the impact of the tax cuts on how it would provide stimulus onto the economy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
I would answer that question with a slightly. The immediate effects of the tax cut did provide some stimulus to the economy in boosting the moral and pysical money into the tax payer's pocket. This had an impact on the middleclass which was needed. Could the tax cuts been better structured to provide releive to those who actually needed the tax cuts - but maintained the Y tax range for those who didn't? I thing the answer to this question is that the tax cuts could of been thought out better - along with a better management of the budget by Congress.
I blame Congress more then the President - for every worthwhile and needed expenditure in the plan - there is an Z factore of pork spending or necessary cuts in the federal spendign package maintained.Quote:
Cutting taxes is fine if you've got things balanced and debt paid down. It would have been possible in a very few years, simply by pulling down the national debt. We were headed in the right direction. Spending was in control, the debt was coming down. Then we went flipping nuts! Massive spending spree, massive debt.
AgreedQuote:
I'm not for taxing for taxes sake, nor do I want to see most wealth redistributed, etc. I do believe that use of taxes for infrastructure, research, and growth inenctives in strategic economic areas can provide a huge economic benefit to the country. And I believe that some social programs are both necessary and beneficial to the whole of a nation. The best ones are incentives for people to raise themselves up. That's why the cuts to college grants/loans that were proposed were so friggin' insane and backwards--simply self destructive.
I would answer it as highly oversold. The economy has come nowhere near hitting the projections. When you consider how oversold it was, you have to also subtract out the extra expenditures that were not part of the plan. These were additional stimuli (that also happen to add to the debt.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
There is a lot more to it than just the growth aspect. It is the way the cuts are structured and require elimination to acheive their targets. People are howling over the AMT, but that was *intentional* by the Administration, it wasn't a "tax and spend" liberal sneak atack. It was a GOP "wink and nod" knowing that people would complain because it was being abused *as part of the plan.* The idea was to force another tax cut, by not doing what was required by the plan, thereby busting the basis of the original plan anyway. The same folks that supported the plan so vehemently, also support making the rollbacks permanent, even though it destroys the basis of the plan. Therefore, the plan was never an honest one from the start. The wrong factors were used, and the later parts of the plan were never to be enforced. It was all smokescreen.
The extra spending by the govt. for military, etc. is actually a fairly strong stimulus itself as it does add jobs--and the one most often ignored when supply siders look at Reagan or Bush plans. On the flip side that is the problem with doing govt. spending cuts during a recession, it hurts employment. Choosing to run a deficit during the time to drive some economic incentives is not of itself bad, but don't oversell it assuming you are going to get several times what is reasonable. And reducing revenue too much (as was done) only makes the consequences dire in the long term.
About capital gains: I've long favored doing an inflation adjustment on capital gains. I do feel it is proper to tax capital gains, just as it is proper to tax any other income. However, they should be indexed for the time involved, using standard inflation factors from each quarter. This represents the real cost of investing. Same should apply for interest--although that can be a lot more complicated to calculate.
Bestest President Ever!!!
I mean hey, if he was otherwise, nobody would have called him Amir al Mu'mineen*. ~;)
*Prince of the Faithful
Long live sheik bush ~:cheers:
Nice to see that someone gets it. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
I agree. Our economy is doing great- it's a victim of bad PR if anything.Quote:
How can you say that when the facts speak for themselves? 3.5% growth, highest in the western world, and record employment rates..
Do you realize that the US has some of the highest corporate tax rates of the developed world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
So, you're saying the proper response to a recession is even tighter spending and possibly higher taxes?Quote:
Cutting taxes is fine if you've got things balanced and debt paid down. It would have been possible in a very few years, simply by pulling down the national debt. We were headed in the right direction. Spending was in control, the debt was coming down. Then we went flipping nuts! Massive spending spree, massive debt.
Considering how little is actually taxed and the double set of books used for tax accounting. I say bullshit to that. However, your statement is off in left field anyway, since it has diddly squat to do with what was being discussed in what you quoted. Nice try at diversion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
No, that is not at all what I said. Learn to read and take your strawman somewhere else. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
So, you're saying the proper response to a recession is even tighter spending and possibly higher taxes?
Right, cuz you were saying we werent in a high tax regime- my point that we do have high corporate tax rates has no bearing...... riiiight. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Well ok professor, what do we do in that situation? Since I, apparently, misunderstood your position, go ahead and lay it out for us all to see. Im very curious. You said we were on the right track with spending 'in control' afterall.Quote:
No, that is not at all what I said. Learn to read and take your strawman somewhere else. ~:rolleyes: