THE BUSH POLICIES ARE WORKING

for those who they were intended to help!

Published on September 13, 2005 By COL Gene In Politics

Sometime ago, Bush addressed a wealthy audience and put his finger on the problem with his policies. He said, some call you the haves and the wealthy, I call you MY BASE.

That truth is what is wrong with the policies of George W. Bush and the other conservative Republicans who push them through the Congress. By definition, the truly wealthy in this country represent maybe 5% of the total population. If you include the upper end of the middle income Americans you might get to 10%. The Bush policies, with conservative backing in Congress, have passed into law policies that benefit that 5% or 10% of the population. They ARE WORKING for that small group of Americans! They shift wealth from the middle to the upper income brackets and totally ignore the needs of the poor.

Therefore, most Republicans who have supported Bush and the conservatives in Congress are not in that group that benefit from the Bush policies. The vast majority of Republicans, like most Democrats, are not in top 5% or 10%. The shame is that most of the people who doggedly support Bush and the conservative Republicans in Congress are actually putting individuals into power who are acting against their best long-term interest.

Comments (Page 2)

COL Gene

on Sep 13, 2005

No, What I am saying is restore the tax rates on the top income levels to the rates in effect in 2000. The wealthy did just fine during the 1990's paying those higher rates. The added revenue along with spending cuts (Pork for example) and more agressive collection of the existing taxes would go along way toward a balanced budget. We may need to take some other steps if those three actions (Higher tax rates on the wealthy, cut spending and more agressive collections) does not balance the budget and enable us to begin paying down the debt!

Rightwinger

on Sep 13, 2005

Gene, are you saying that we should tax all income levels at the same rate we currently tax the rich? Or are you still saying we should punish the rich for being rich, and exploit them as a source of free money to fund the Utopia you dream of?

If this is what he means....um....my wife and I make about 25-40,000 dollars a year between us (if that). If we're going to be taxed at a rate equal to that of a household making $100,000 a year or more, man, we could have some serious trouble!

Rightwinger

on Sep 13, 2005

Pork for example

Better ask "Sheets" Byrd before you cut out the pork!

drmiler

on Sep 13, 2005

No, the issue is that the needs of this country are being provided with DEBT. We need to Pay for what we are spending. Balance the budget even if that means increasing taxes to the rates in effect PRIOR to Bush. You can not cut the revenue with tax cuts and increase spending. That is what President Reagan did in the 1980's and Bush is making the same error. The long term cost from added interest will take the money we need for the countries other needs in the future to pay the added interest! Bush 41 had the term correctly-- Voo Do Economics. I doubt they tought that at Harvard!

Nope. Try again. From the Office of Management and Budget: Link

THE NATION’S FISCAL OUTLOOK
Over the past four years, the Administration and the Congress have responded to the challenges posed by recession, terrorist attacks, corporate scandals, and the War on Terror. The responses included enacting tax relief, reducing regulatory burdens, promoting trade, supporting entrepreneurship, and making a substantial investment in our homeland security and defense. Working with the Congress, this Administration took steps to help generate and fuel the economic recovery.

Sustaining economic expansion now requires additional action, especially strong Federal spending discipline. While the Administration and the Congress succeeded in slowing the growth in non-security discretionary spending during the President’s first term, more needs to be done to ensure Federal spending growth does not place unsustainable demands on our economy.

When the Federal Government focuses on its priorities and limits its claim on resources taken from the private sector that helps sustain a stronger, more productive economy. When it is achieved through spending restraint rather than through tax increases, deficit reduction bolsters confidence in America’s economy. This confidence in global capital markets brings important advantages to America's economy in the form of lower interest rates and lower borrowing costs, which in turn lead to more investment and more jobs. Keeping America’s fiscal house in order, while holding taxes down, sustains growth and justifies investors’ confidence in the U.S. economy.

A strong economy and a strong fiscal condition are mutually reinforcing goals. Just one year ago, the Nation’s economy was still emerging from the effects of multiple shocks. Last year’s Budget estimated a deficit of 4.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2004, or $521 billion. Private and other forecasters had similar deficit expectations. Largely because economic growth generated stronger revenues than originally estimated, and because the Congress adhered to the spending restraint called for in the President’s Budget, the 2004 deficit came in $109 billion lower than expected, at $412 billion, or 3.6 percent of GDP

COL Gene

on Sep 13, 2005

The major impact is from increased spending (demand). That is why the tax cuts for the middle income workers should not be changed. The increased Child care deduction and the elimination of the Marriage penalty. The new 10% bracket.

However the cuts on the top two bracketrs, capital gains cuts and the estate tax cuts go to the very wealthy. they do not spend most of that added income. No spending cuts will come even close to a balanced budget . Thus, added revenue from higher rates on the wealthy and more agressive collections are essential to balance the budget and then produce the surplus needed to pay down the debt!

stutefish

on Sep 13, 2005

Thus, added revenue from higher rates on the wealthy and more agressive collections are essential to balance the budget and then produce the surplus needed to pay down the debt!

I don't get it. You're saying that we're spending too much money, and that the solution is to find someone with a lot of money and take it from them.

Man, I wish I could pay my bills this way! Just blow my entire paycheck luxuries, and then break into my neighbor's house and clean out their slush fund to cover my necessities.

Gene, please explain why people who have more money than you deserve to have the government take it away to pay for people who have less money than you. Also, please explain why you don't deserve the exact same treatment.

Island Dog

on Sep 13, 2005

This is just col's excuse to raise taxes on successful people. If you want to raise taxes, raise them on everybody.

COL Gene

on Sep 13, 2005

When we require additional resources to provide the services our citizens need, those resources must be provided. The Bush administration has been borrowing those added funds and that will require us all to pay much more interest until, if ever, that added debt is repaid.

To provide the needed resources we must increase taxes when just cutting other areas will not provide all the added funds required. The wealthy can pay more without causing them financial problems. The middle income workers, many who live pay check to pay check, would suffer and their families would suffer if tax increases were across the borad. The poor are even worse off and taxing them would be unacceptable since many can not afford the essentials without any added tax. The wealthy can afford to pay more in taxes so that the needs can be met without adverserly impacting their lives. In addition, increasing taxes on the wealthy will have the least impact on spending. It has nothing to do with with punishing people who have been more seuucssful. It mearly is the best way to provide the added revenue with the least negative impact!

Island Dog

on Sep 13, 2005

The middle income workers, many who live pay check to pay check, would suffer and their families would suffer if tax increases were across the borad. The poor are even worse off and taxing them would be unacceptable since many can not afford the essentials without any added tax. The wealthy can afford to pay more in taxes so that the needs can be met without adverserly impacting their lives. In addition, increasing taxes on the wealthy will have the least impact on spending. It has nothing to do with with punishing people who have been more seuucssful. It mearly is the best way to provide the added revenue with the least negative impact!

A minimal tax on the poor would not affect them. They use up most of the services, so they need to start contributing to them.

You are punishing people who are successful col. Why should someone who made the right choices in their life and have become successful have to pay for people who aren't? You offer no logic to this except, "they can afford it". That's bs.

Col, I'm still waiting for you to admit you are wrong in the other thread.

COL Gene

on Sep 13, 2005

It has nothing to do with punishment. It has everything to do with getting the needed revenue from those who can afford to pay more with the least negative impact on their lives. In addition, it is the wealthy that got the big cuts from the Bush tax cuts. Those tax cuts were to return a surplus that never existed. The poor and many of the middle income workers can not pay more without har ming them and their familiesd. The wealthy will suffer no harm because they have a little less surplus in their accounts.

dabe

on Sep 13, 2005

One thing I have to say about COL Gene. He's getting a lot of people to do some research. Unfortunately, they only believe stuff from sites they like the answers to. It's no surprise that I back the COL 100%. But really, do any of you actually read the stuff? Or, are you just in a who can post more crap duel?

COL Gene

on Sep 14, 2005

I do read the material. As with most research, some of the data in any given article is more on point. In addition, I have operated in the real world with some degree of success and have a BS in Finance/Economics and an MBA. Many of the things I sight are from well established Economic principals or my own experience from 40 years of working in Business and Financial management. I also have learned that when a plan does not achieve the desired results, you go back and see why so you can alter the course to achieve the objective. Simply staying on a path that leads to the wrong location is not smart . The two issues I have with Bush is that many of his objectives are designed to benefit only the wealthy and when it is clear that a policy is harming the majority he continues with that policy without reguard for the long term negative impact. The deficit is the best example of that. In 2001, Bush said we needed the tax cuts because of a $5.7 Trillion projected Surplus that the economy would produce over the following 10 years. That surplus proved we were over taxing the American tax payers. He was advised by the Fed Chairman and Sec of the Treasury to tie the tax cuts to available surpluses to pay for the tax cuts. Not Bush, he and people who think like him in Congress passed them without linking them to the money with which to fund the tax cuts. Whan it became clear there was NO surplus, he passed two more tax cuts. That created a structural deficit because at the same time he was cutting taxes he increased spending. Even non- defense spending has increased at 6% since Bush took over and his projections said the spending increases should not exceed an average of 4%. What does Bush do? He wants Congress to make the tax cuts Perminant. He must be brain dead! His own projections NEVER show a balanced budget much less a time when we generate a surplus so we can begin paying down the deficit and lower the interest we will be required to pay. That approach in business would bankrupt ANY company . It will take the needed money we need for things like Social Security, Medicare, Education , defense and spend it on interest THAT PROVIDES FOR NONE OF OUR CURRENT NEEDS!

closetograd

on Sep 14, 2005

I am not really into politics (giving loyalty to any PARTY). But I always find it hilarious how ONE MAN gets blamed for an entire countrie's woes! Let's face it. A president is part of a 3 BRANCHED Government...Dem or Rep. All equally responsible.

Blame is easily thrown and hardly ever embraced. If you want to know why America is in the shape it's in...look in the mirror, look at your neighbor, go ahead look at the President....but don't think one man is responsible for it all. That's crazy.

Island Dog

on Sep 14, 2005

Col, you research things that you use to try and prove your allegations, but totally ignore the posts that prove you wrong. Like right now, I am still waiting for you to admit you were wrong about the 2000 election.

COL Gene

on Sep 14, 2005

I am not wrong on the 2000 election. If the 3,500 ballots that were double punched in error in Palm Beach had been counted, Bush would have had just under 3,000 votes less then Gore. There people voted and what we should have done because of the confusion is to have allowed that one county to have revoted just for President so their votes would have been counted. These votes did not create the confusion it was the ballot design.

The economic principals and factual data I have used HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN INCORRECT. The Bush supporters refuse to accept these facts. For example-- we did have a balanced budget in 2000. We are not even close today. The interest will increase with the added national Debt. The trade defict has increased over 50 % since Bush added China to the WTO. 3 million people came into this country without our control. Over a million Americans have lost their healthcare coverage since Jan 2001. Lower income workers will spend more of any tax cut then the wealthy. Show me where ANY of these statements is not correct!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!