Two great victories for president Bush.

Get your head out of Bush´s arse!

 

Triumph of diplomacy??? Ha!

Bigger paycheck? Assuming you're actually receiving one.

 

I consider it a positive diplomatically that the sanctions were lifted. Especially with the earlier position that one country wanted to condition the reentry of inspectors on the lifting of sanctions. That being said, five steps backward, one step forward, is still -4 steps. The bungling of the diplomacy led to this problem.

 

The ones that are not receiving a paycheck just got extensions on their benefits.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/23/jobless.benefits.ap/index.html

 

Love him or loathe him, "dumbya" is pretty effective at getting things done.

An interesting exercise might be to look at this successes he's had thus far in his administration:

-Scrapping the ABM Treaty. I think this was supposed to touch off a new nuclear arms race. Or something.

-Iraq. NYT's Johnny Apple declares it a quagmire. Couple of days later the U.S. is in Baghdad. With Mr. Apple that's par for the course really.

-Afghanistan. How was the US ever going to succeed where the Soviets and Brits had failed?

-Tax cuts I and II.

-Mid-term congressional elections. In an election cycle that is supposed to cost the party in the White House, Bush comes out ahead. An interesting contrast is to look at the results of the mid-term elections in both Reagan and Clinton's first terms.

-Trade Promotion Authority passed (AKA fast-track). Something that Clinton didn't get to enjoy 7 of his 8 years in office I believe.

Not too bad for a guy with the alleged IQ of an ant. Actually kind of makes you wonder about the state of the opposition.

 

Not for us poor slobs in New York. First 9/11, now that slob hypocrite Bloomberg. New York is dying a slow and painful death.

 

The are numerous Democrats who misunderestimated him. He may not be the brightest bulb himself, but he has a crack staff.

Regarding the tax cut, I (like all married people) will get about $300-500 from this through the change in the married filing jointly deduction. It's nice, but it's not a major shift in my well-being or my spending patterns. And that's the problem with this tax cut: it is being pushed as an economic stimulus, but it will not make nearly as much difference as targeted cuts or spending would.

When Reagan passed his cuts in the 1980s, he was carrying out conservative philosophy first, stimulating the economy second. (The real econ stimulus came from increased defense spending.) Dubya should just be honest about this and say that it's not really about the economy as much as it's about GOP philosophy.

 

"Doesn't anyone think of the CHILDREN?"

So was Josef Stalin.

The point is that even if you buy the exceedlingly shaky premise that it is Bush himself and not his father's handlers who are effective, the question remains "Are the right things being done 'effectively'?".

RE: the tax cuts, I'd like to review recent comments by that well-known Bolshevik agitator who obviously knows nothing about economics, Warren Buffet, as quoted by those radical Reds over at CNNMoney.com:

"Renewing his criticism of the dividend tax cut laid out by the Senate last week, Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett called the proposal "voodoo economics" that uses "Enron-style accounting."

The Senate's plan for dividends to be 50 percent tax free in 2003, 100 percent tax free in 2004 through 2006 and then face the full tax in 2007 would "further tilt the tax scales toward the rich," Buffett wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Post.

Buffett posed a hypothetical situation in which Berkshire Hathaway, which does not currently pay a dividend, paid $1 billion in dividends next year.
Through his 31 percent ownership of the company, Buffett said he would receive an additional $310 million in income that would reduce his tax rate from about 30 percent to 3 percent, while his office secretary would still have a tax rate of about 30 percent.

"The 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax free -- seems a bit light," Buffett wrote.

Instead of the Senate's tax cut plan, Buffett proposed that it provide tax reductions to those who need and will spend the money in the form of a Social Security tax "holiday" or a tax rebate to lower-income people.

"Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets," Buffett added.
He closed the piece by saying that the "government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party."

It seems that conservatives here are getting all excited over what they believe is a "free lunch" and ignoring the consequences when this is viewed in the full context of our current economic situation and the likely future effects of these actions.

Considering that the US has and will continue to spend profligate sums on Iraq and Vishnu knows what other wars in the future, it looks like we're headed for more fiscally irresponsible Republican "borrow and spend" since Bush wants cheap, short-term political popularity among economic know-nothings who think they're getting something for free. It's a shame Congress is too cowardly to do the right thing for this country's future and tell him to pay for Iraq out of taxes rather than stick our children and grandchildren with the cost of Iraq AND the interst ono all the debt that will be needed to pay for that and make up for Bush's poltical gimmicks.

 

Re: "Doesn't anyone think of the CHILDREN?"

Stalin never had to deal with the US Senate.

Joe, the Warren Buffett thread has already been established and is over here:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=50475

 

just for the record - in the legislation on the way to the Prez, the House version of the dividend proposal was included, not the Senate's now-you-tax-em-now-you-don't-now-you-tax-em-again version.

Dividends are, therefore, taxed at long-term capital gains rates.

And I agree with Joe completely ... except the part about Vishnu.

 

> The real econ stimulus came from increased
> defense spending.

Military spending is a terrible way to stimulate the economy. If it actually worked, wouldn't we currently be stimulated by Bush's big increases in the Pentagon's budget?

 

Also makes you wonder about the people that support his opposition.

 

Yes, getting a $300 to $500 check from the government will be nice. It will pay for something new for the house or a nice weekend for my wife and daughter and I to go the coast or something.

What's not so nice is the almost $300 billion federal deficit, a figure that is climbing and will climb more dramatically after the latest tax cut is enacted.

Liberal or conservative, can anyone here spin anything positive about the ever increasing deficit? Does everyone not realize the damage to the economy the deficit (along with the $6.5 trillion debt) does?

Getting a check from the government is great. What is much more important, though, is the overall economy. In a good economy, I get raises and bonus' (substantially more than the table scraps the $300 represents). In a bad economy, my income stays relatively flat. Can anyone truely rationalize that people getting an extra $300 from the government will cause true economic stimulus? So people will spend a little more for a weekend, then it's over. So what? That puts us right back where we started.

What we need here is perspective. Whether one is liberal or conservative, one needs to look at the big picture and not get all excited and adoring towards Bush & Co. regarding the $300. Don't let them fool you and demand a true economic stimulus package (balancing the budget would be a good start).

 

No, which is why pro-cut people are all shouting "Over here! Over here! Ignore the giant pink elephant! Look over here! I have a check for you!"

 

Another thing...

This thread is titled "Two great victories for the president".

The France/Germany/Russia thing is a victory (by force).

The tax cut thing is not a true victory. Bush is dealing with a Republican controlled congress, so he is going to get whatever he wants. That is not a victory, since he has no battles to fight, nor does he have to convince anyone of anything. In other words, there is no "victory" to be had when something is automatic.

The tax cut is being forced by the Republicans and there is nothing the Democrats can do about it. Sure, they can spout off about the deficit, but since all the mindless lemmings in this country are being blinded by their $300 checks, it is completely futile.

 

This is a good point. Remember W asked for some ridiculous $600 million tax cut that even his own party couldn't stomach.

 

What's actually more likely given the debt load many households are carrying is that many people will use it to pay down debt rather than rush out and buy a new yacht, house or car or any thing that will directly stimulate the economy in a meaningful way.

btw, I apologize for any redundancy in citing Buffett. I didn't see the other thread.

[edit]After viewing the other thread, I see very little if any discussion of substance over there. Maybe someone of the pro-tax-cut persuasion can comment here on why they believe Buffett is wrong since the other thread seems defunct. Thanks! [/edit]

 

How does balancing the budget -- which would entail either cutting spending or raising taxes, thus taking money out of the economy -- help stimulate growth?

 

Actually it was over 700 billion. And it wasn't that the party couldn't stomach it -- it passed in the House -- but rather a handful of Senators opposed it.

And although the nominal figure of the current tax cut is $350 billion, don't kid yourself, it's actually substantially more than that. The only reason the $350 billion figure is used is because of the accounting used by which the tax cut is eliminated after three years -- something that we all know won't happen.

 

How about the unemployment rate? Yes, everyone who worked hard will get some amount of money back (and perhaps that is only fair), but what about those people who can't find jobs in the shrinking economy? How will sending $300 tax refunds to people stimulate the economy to the extent that it needs to be stimulated?

Congratulations to Mr. Bush on winning the war and getting international backing now. That was good work. My question is: How will the working classes of this great nation pay off the cost of the war if they can't find employment? Yes, maybe we are going to bring democracy to the far off land of Iraq, but what about our fellow Americans? Unemployment is rising and Bush's first tax cut didn't do much to stop it. Will a second tax cut change unemployment in any way? I'm not trying to bash Bush, I just want to know who is looking out for the homefront while Bush concerns himself with the Iraq situation (and mistakenly believes his tax cuts will solve all domestic problems)

 

That's exactly what I was thinking. I told my wife to bank any extra cash. Fortunately we don't have any outstading debt. So our cash back can be put into the economy, not pay for things I couldn't afford.

 

I can't afford my wife. I had no debt until she showed up! Can't wait for her to finish school... Unfortunately, I don't have a choice - I have to pay for her.

But, that's exactly what I'll be doing with the "extra money" - paying down the credit cards.