Re: Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.
- From: "Jim Blair" <jeb@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:11:28 -0600
"Chas" <chasna2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:rqDcf.7114$m81.6182@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> According to O'Reilly, it's the war in Iraq, gas prices and the weak
> governmental response to Katrina that is dogging Bush's ratings in the
> polls. If that is all there is to it, then there is a chance for Bush to
> re-ingratiate himself to the public before the end of his Presidency.
> Unfortunately, O'Reilly is off on his assessment of Bush for the very same
> reason that Bush and many Republicans can not and will not face the real
> reason for Bush's fall in popularity, namely, Bush's larceny towards the
> middle-class.
Hi,
But have Bush's economic policies changed since he was re-elected (elected?)
in 2004?
What HAS changed since then is the Iraq situation, gas prices, Katrina/FEMA
and Scooter Libby.
>
> As an economist and professor, I've been telling my students since Bush's
> highly successful re-election that Bush has committed the unforgivable and
> will never be respected by the American public again, that is, history
will
> condemn him as a political fraud, a phony.
Maybe. That depends largely on how Iraq turns out. He may be remembered as
the one who brought peace and democracy to the Middle-East, while all
previous US presidents failed.
>.....Here's why. Bush said he had
> collected capital in the last election and now he was going to cash that
> capital in. So what did he do, he attempted to kill Social Security,
He may be remembered as the one who tried to "save" Social Security when
there was still time. Given that his plan was scrapped, SS is back to
facing the same problem: ever fewer workers trying to support ever more
retirees from a tax on wages only. Bush tried to shift the cost of
supporting the US elderly from a wage tax on US workers to the growrh
generated by the global economic expansion.
>.....to take
> away health benefits for American workers, .....
The cost of health benefits will continue to increase as more people live
ever longer. Explain just which benefits he took away--or tried to. You
mean that complicated drug addition to Medicare?
>....to take away interest deductions
> on mortgages,
And (speaking as an economics professor) what do you think would be the
consequences of that on housing prices? And on home ownership?
>.....to flood America with cheap labor, legally or illegally,
That has been happening for decades. But a question-- which do you prefer:
jobs move to Mexico? Or the Mexicans move here for those jobs?
And isn't that the choice? (I mean in the real world).
>....and
> run deficits so high through enormous bouts of federal spending ....
Correct on that one.
>.....that
> Congress would be forced to raise payroll taxes to save the government
from
> default.
"Payroll taxes" means FICA, which must be ever increased to cover Social
Security obligations. (see above), We are paying for that extra federal
spending by borrowing, largely from abroad.
>.....This was the precious capital that Bush thought he earned in the
> last election. The man with the MBA from Harvard, the man who wears a
cowboy
> hat, talks like he's a Texas dirt farmer and waves both the Bible and the
> Koran around the White House. This was his precious capital.
Given the size of his 2004 win, I don't see where he ever had much
"capital".
> Unfortunately, for people like Bush and O'Reilly, the cat is out of the
bag.
> The American people are waking up to Bush and what he really is and they
> don't like what they see. O'Reilly had better wake up and smell the coffee
> before he suffers the same fate as the President.
???? Neither of them will be re-elected in 2008.
>.....Forget the flat-unfair
> tax ....
??? You mean FICA? The one that Bush wanted people to be able to divert
some of into their own retirement accounts?
I mean anyone with a high enough income to pay income tax can divert some of
that tax into a retirement account (IRA, 401K). But if you pay only FICA
you don't have that option. Bush tried to give low income people that same
break that the higher incomes have.
>.....and value-added consumption tax,
Like they have in Europe?
>....American's want healthcare,
Sure, but who should decide what they get and who should pay for it and how?
For example, can you imagine Congress funding any health care that includes
abortions? Or even contraception? Remember the Hillary Clinton proposal
that would outlaw any medical treatment that was not provided by the
government?
>.....they want
> to own a home
And close to 70% do now.
>.....and they want vertical equity in the structure of taxes.
> Americans are smart, they know that Capitalism can work for the poor and
the
> middle just as well as it works for the Bush-O'Reilly super-rich.
>
> Chas.
Not clear. But Americans want a system that permits them to keep most of
what they make, even if they make a lot.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@xxxxxxxx) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.
- From: Chas
- Re: Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.
- References:
- Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.
- From: Chas
- Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.
- Prev by Date: First call for papers - Global Built Environment: Towards an Integrated Approach for Sustainability
- Next by Date: Re: Why isi Chinese Labor so cheap?
- Previous by thread: Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.
- Next by thread: Re: Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
