Bush's plan was a cynical attempt to end Social Security and America saw right through the BS. It was a risky and silly plan.
In retrospect, it was the end of the Bush presidency. He didn't really do anything after that failure except screw up Katrina relief and then our once-robust economy.
We need to remind America - Hoover was a Republican too. This is what they do!
I WAS TRYING TO BE HUMOROUS. THE STOCK MARKET HAS TANKED AND PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE DECIDED TO MOVE A PORTION OF S.S. WOULD HAVE LOST. WALL STREET WOULD HAVE BEEN SKIMMING FEES OFF THESE ACOUNTS AND GETTING GOLDEN PARCHUTES NOT BASED ON PERFORMANCE. MY POINT IS BUSH WAS WRONG ON SOCIAL SECURITY, WRONG, ON KATRINA,WRONG ON WEAPONS,WRONG ON MOST THINGS. AND IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE ME ONE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE BUSH 8 YEARS THAT YOU ARE MOST PROUD OF, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
How about attempting to privatize SS? Yes, young Americans who had invested in a private SS would have the buying opportunity of a lifetime. There would be no danger to those receiving current benefits.
OK big boy, what are the accomplishments of the Clinton administration? Now...since I am a free marketer, he does not get credit for economic growth or contraction. What program except for Rich's grand tax scheme can he take credit for? NAFTA...Republican, Welfare reform? Republican.
Yes, he had a surplus, but the equation was not the same.
And, besides a tax increase, what does the "O" propose besides spending more and spreading the wealth around.
Rich, I know this will set you off like a firecracker, I'm talking to Terry:)
I love your argument parameters; "(President Clinton) can't take credit for economic growth or contraction."
That is incredibly ignorant. You don't think that the Administration + Congress set the table for economic performance? Really? Tax policy? Spending policy? Trade policy? Entitlement policy? Foreign policy? Administration and oversight of the Treasury Department? Commerce Dept? State Dept?
Or, do you mean "besides all that all that policy stuff?"
Economic conditions vary and are set by the state of the economy during each President's term.
So again, to be consistent.
Privatizing SS would be a wonderful first step in reducing the size and scope of government with little long term risk to those involved (and quite frankly if over 30 years, the capital markets cannot give a positive return then the whole system would be bankrupt anyway-another discussion).
So, no Rich, the government does not get credit for the business cycle, the business cycle causes the government to respond. I know you don't read them, but this was addressed (I think) in a WSJ article I posted today.
And Terry, you want big or little government? Free markets or central control? Do you think individuals or plutocrats make the best decisions about money and economic growth? Despite what Richie might say, we can't have both. Government growth is inherently corrupting and never ending.
They are not usually favorably affected by government intervention and growth is usually more influenced by external factors such as a peace dividend or dot com boom or 9/11 or housing melt down. More over, economic activity by a free people under the rule of law is the fairest and most successful economic system.
I am sorry but did anyone answer the question "Bush's Greatest Accomplishment?" In any arena? Please do not say we were not attacked again or I will go nuts? He will go down as one of the worst President's in history. That is my belief. Too bad because his dad was a class act in my opinion. Who brought Clinton in this, just tell me Bush's greatest accomplishment?
"So, no Rich, the government does not get credit for the business cycle, the business cycle causes the government to respond."
Again - a completely ignorant comment. Apparently, the good doctor misses the point of the articles he pins. He thinks the economy just stumbles along without respect to government policies. Not one economist believes this - not a supply sider nor a Keynesian.
The state of the economy provides the context in which government acts. There is not "one policy" that works best in all circumstances - growth, recession, inflation, price stability, etc. Good government responds correctly to the economic environment in which it operates.
Lets imagine that we have a period of irresponsible deficits and then a law is passed that raises taxes and caps the growth of spending. A period of sustained, non-inflationary growth may follow. That happened in 1993 and one can't pretend that the noted law had no effect. Geez Louise!
Did Bushes tax cuts effect the economy? Duh. How about the dollar? Of course. How about his spending, did it matter to the economy or was the "business cycle" immune to all this activity?
Jim, you have stepped on your poor little stick on this one. No wonder you like Bush. Neither of you have any idea about economic policy. Really.
and hence our differences, however America agreed with me, until apparently now. We shall see. Just to be clear, the economic engine of the US is the government?
Terry, if we could have a moment of serious discussion.
Presidents are judged by big things, and big things need to happen for them to be judged.
Past Presidents and their achievements.
Nixon, China Ford, none Carter, none Reagan, he gets two, free markets and the restoration of the American spirit and the breakup of communism with the accompanying peace dividend Bush I the first Iraq war Clinton, balancing the budget, but to be honest, that is not much, and I do not mean that insulting, it is not an defining historic event. He did not have a defining moment occur during his Presidency. Bush II, 9/11 and the war on terror. Say what you want and there were mistakes but he reshaped and reordered the government. and before you start trying to argue about errors in execution, that is not what history remembers. This will be his biggest achievement. You asked.
Of all the recent Presidents, Bush II faced the biggest challenge and as I have previously stated, his firmness in the face of opposition will be judged well by history. Also, the economy and the deficit will be left and accredited to the next President, and if it rights it self, the current issues will not matter, if it does not, then the next President will receive the blame.
No one would remember Lincoln's name if he did not serve during the Civil War.
Katrina was also a media blame Bush BS session. Please tell the class what is the order of response to an emergency. When the system works right like in Florida or Iowa Bush doen't get any credit. Why is this? One of the things about President Bush that truly bothers me is why he always sits there and takes the blame. I think he might believe that eventually the truth will come out but unfortunately the liberal MSM has no interest in the truth.
The answer class is Local, then State and then Federal. Mayor Nagin and Governor Landrieux both Democrats totally screwed their responsibilities up first. If Nagin (he of the self proclaimed Chocolate people)had all of those buses running to evacuate people instead of just sitting there this problem would have been vastly different. The funny thing is that the brain dead people in New Orleans reelected the incompetent one. At least the people of Lousisana were smart enough to see that they needed a new Governor and elected the Republican, Bobby Jindal.
The accomplishment that I am the most proud of that has occurred during the Bush Presidency is the fact that there has not been another Islamic Radical Terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.
You finally have given Congress some credit during the Clinton Presidency. Quick answer this one question with one word, which party was in control of Congress for a longer time during the Clinton Presidency?
By the way what good was done out of the State Department under Clinton?
Do you remember Somalia or have you seen Black Hawk Down? Great Commander in Chief during that time.
How about Waco? Remember that one?
Welfare reform was because of the Republican Congress. Republicans also blocked Hillary care.
We had the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of the USS Cole, all told 59 Americans were killed by attacks traced back to Bin Laden during the Clinton Presidency. On numerous occasions during the Clinton years we could have either killed Bin Laden or captured him yet we always chose not to. The rest is history.
Well I hate to say it but bith Rich and Jim are correct. The economic condition at the time does have an impact on the Governmental policies that are enacted but these policies also have a big impact on the future economic condition. Tax too much and you will get diminished government revenue in the future. Spend too much and you get big deficits which you have to finance. The best scenario is that the government taxes at the rate that is the most conducive to creating a healthy and growing economy. The Government must also hold down spending to match the revenues that are coming in. If the revenues are greater than the expenditures they do not have to automatically increase spending like they always do. This has happened under both parties so that is why we need to throw all of these earmark loving, spending my tax money, bums out of congress starting with the tight faced grandmother from San Francisco.
16 comments:
T, I swear, I'm coming through the computer.
Unless you were being humorous, which I don't think you were.
Bush tried to fix S. S., the left called it a risky scheme and said nothing was wrong with the program.
It would have been a great place to start helping the government right its ship.
Buddy, when you take such a redistributionist view and then ask such questions it is quite vexing.
But... you are not a dummy like my BIL.
Bush's plan was a cynical attempt to end Social Security and America saw right through the BS. It was a risky and silly plan.
In retrospect, it was the end of the Bush presidency. He didn't really do anything after that failure except screw up Katrina relief and then our once-robust economy.
We need to remind America - Hoover was a Republican too. This is what they do!
I WAS TRYING TO BE HUMOROUS. THE STOCK MARKET HAS TANKED AND PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE DECIDED TO MOVE A PORTION OF S.S. WOULD HAVE LOST. WALL STREET WOULD HAVE BEEN SKIMMING FEES OFF THESE ACOUNTS AND GETTING GOLDEN PARCHUTES NOT BASED ON PERFORMANCE. MY POINT IS BUSH WAS WRONG ON SOCIAL SECURITY, WRONG, ON KATRINA,WRONG ON WEAPONS,WRONG ON MOST THINGS. AND IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE ME ONE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE BUSH 8 YEARS THAT YOU ARE MOST PROUD OF, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
How about the war on terror?
How about attempting to privatize SS? Yes, young Americans who had invested in a private SS would have the buying opportunity of a lifetime. There would be no danger to those receiving current benefits.
OK big boy, what are the accomplishments of the Clinton administration? Now...since I am a free marketer, he does not get credit for economic growth or contraction. What program except for Rich's grand tax scheme can he take credit for? NAFTA...Republican, Welfare reform? Republican.
Yes, he had a surplus, but the equation was not the same.
And, besides a tax increase, what does the "O" propose besides spending more and spreading the wealth around.
Rich, I know this will set you off like a firecracker, I'm talking to Terry:)
Jimmy:
I love your argument parameters; "(President Clinton) can't take credit for economic growth or contraction."
That is incredibly ignorant. You don't think that the Administration + Congress set the table for economic performance? Really? Tax policy? Spending policy? Trade policy? Entitlement policy? Foreign policy? Administration and oversight of the Treasury Department? Commerce Dept? State Dept?
Or, do you mean "besides all that all that policy stuff?"
Terry -
We knew you were kidding and I thought it was rather clever...
OK, class one more time.
Economic conditions vary and are set by the state of the economy during each President's term.
So again, to be consistent.
Privatizing SS would be a wonderful first step in reducing the size and scope of government with little long term risk to those involved (and quite frankly if over 30 years, the capital markets cannot give a positive return then the whole system would be bankrupt anyway-another discussion).
So, no Rich, the government does not get credit for the business cycle, the business cycle causes the government to respond. I know you don't read them, but this was addressed (I think) in a WSJ article I posted today.
And Terry, you want big or little government? Free markets or central control? Do you think individuals or plutocrats make the best decisions about money and economic growth? Despite what Richie might say, we can't have both. Government growth is inherently corrupting and never ending.
They are not usually favorably affected by government intervention and growth is usually more influenced by external factors such as a peace dividend or dot com boom or 9/11 or housing melt down. More over, economic activity by a free people under the rule of law is the fairest and most successful economic system.
I am sorry but did anyone answer the question "Bush's Greatest Accomplishment?" In any arena? Please do not say we were not attacked again or I will go nuts? He will go down as one of the worst President's in history. That is my belief. Too bad because his dad was a class act in my opinion. Who brought Clinton in this, just tell me Bush's greatest accomplishment?
"So, no Rich, the government does not get credit for the business cycle, the business cycle causes the government to respond."
Again - a completely ignorant comment. Apparently, the good doctor misses the point of the articles he pins. He thinks the economy just stumbles along without respect to government policies. Not one economist believes this - not a supply sider nor a Keynesian.
The state of the economy provides the context in which government acts. There is not "one policy" that works best in all circumstances - growth, recession, inflation, price stability, etc. Good government responds correctly to the economic environment in which it operates.
Lets imagine that we have a period of irresponsible deficits and then a law is passed that raises taxes and caps the growth of spending. A period of sustained, non-inflationary growth may follow. That happened in 1993 and one can't pretend that the noted law had no effect. Geez Louise!
Did Bushes tax cuts effect the economy? Duh. How about the dollar? Of course. How about his spending, did it matter to the economy or was the "business cycle" immune to all this activity?
Jim, you have stepped on your poor little stick on this one. No wonder you like Bush. Neither of you have any idea about economic policy. Really.
and hence our differences, however America agreed with me, until apparently now. We shall see. Just to be clear, the economic engine of the US is the government?
Terry, if we could have a moment of serious discussion.
Presidents are judged by big things, and big things need to happen for them to be judged.
Past Presidents and their achievements.
Nixon, China
Ford, none
Carter, none
Reagan, he gets two, free markets and the restoration of the American spirit and the breakup of communism with the accompanying peace dividend
Bush I the first Iraq war
Clinton, balancing the budget, but to be honest, that is not much, and I do not mean that insulting, it is not an defining historic event. He did not have a defining moment occur during his Presidency.
Bush II, 9/11 and the war on terror. Say what you want and there were mistakes but he reshaped and reordered the government. and before you start trying to argue about errors in execution, that is not what history remembers. This will be his biggest achievement. You asked.
Of all the recent Presidents, Bush II faced the biggest challenge and as I have previously stated, his firmness in the face of opposition will be judged well by history. Also, the economy and the deficit will be left and accredited to the next President, and if it rights it self, the current issues will not matter, if it does not, then the next President will receive the blame.
No one would remember Lincoln's name if he did not serve during the Civil War.
I'd change the subject too, if I were you.
I think Jim met to put the last thread after a different post because it appears twice.
Rich and Terry,
Katrina was also a media blame Bush BS session. Please tell the class what is the order of response to an emergency. When the system works right like in Florida or Iowa Bush doen't get any credit. Why is this? One of the things about President Bush that truly bothers me is why he always sits there and takes the blame. I think he might believe that eventually the truth will come out but unfortunately the liberal MSM has no interest in the truth.
The answer class is Local, then State and then Federal. Mayor Nagin and Governor Landrieux both Democrats totally screwed their responsibilities up first. If Nagin (he of the self proclaimed Chocolate people)had all of those buses running to evacuate people instead of just sitting there this problem would have been vastly different. The funny thing is that the brain dead people in New Orleans reelected the incompetent one. At least the people of Lousisana were smart enough to see that they needed a new Governor and elected the Republican, Bobby Jindal.
The accomplishment that I am the most proud of that has occurred during the Bush Presidency is the fact that there has not been another Islamic Radical Terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.
Rich,
You finally have given Congress some credit during the Clinton Presidency. Quick answer this one question with one word, which party was in control of Congress for a longer time during the Clinton Presidency?
By the way what good was done out of the State Department under Clinton?
Do you remember Somalia or have you seen Black Hawk Down? Great Commander in Chief during that time.
How about Waco? Remember that one?
Welfare reform was because of the Republican Congress. Republicans also blocked Hillary care.
We had the first bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of the USS Cole, all told 59 Americans were killed by attacks traced back to Bin Laden during the Clinton Presidency. On numerous occasions during the Clinton years we could have either killed Bin Laden or captured him yet we always chose not to. The rest is history.
Well I hate to say it but bith Rich and Jim are correct. The economic condition at the time does have an impact on the Governmental policies that are enacted but these policies also have a big impact on the future economic condition. Tax too much and you will get diminished government revenue in the future. Spend too much and you get big deficits which you have to finance.
The best scenario is that the government taxes at the rate that is the most conducive to creating a healthy and growing economy. The Government must also hold down spending to match the revenues that are coming in. If the revenues are greater than the expenditures they do not have to automatically increase spending like they always do. This has happened under both parties so that is why we need to throw all of these earmark loving, spending my tax money, bums out of congress starting with the tight faced grandmother from San Francisco.
Post a Comment