President Bush's State of the Union Address [Archive]

Nilodlien

01-29-2003, 12:46 AM

Anyone watch? Any opinions?

I am not a Bush fan. I did think, though, that the speech was both well crafted and presented. Did not convince me of the need to go to war with Iraq, though. NOT that I'm saying Saddam is a good guy, by any means.

Some random thoughts I had:

1. OK - the elimination/*drastic* reduction of the dividend tax as a way to spur on the economy? Phew, I'm so relieved that those making over 300K can keep more of their money. That's really going to help me out...

2. At one point, I swear I thought I saw Hillary Rodham Clinton rolling her eyes...

3. Who's idea was it to put Colin Powell next to Donald Rumsfeld? They can't stand each other. I kept expecting to see them thumb-wrestling.

4. Dick Cheney was there - shouldn't he have been in a "secure location"?

5. I was very pleased with Governor Gary Locke's response for the Democrats. I thought he was terrific. And the fact that he's from my state has little to do with that...(all right, maybe just a little, but really, I thought he was great!)

Whoops, meant to post this in the Current Events sub-board, but failed. Anyway, I have reported myself to the mods, so please don't trout me!

HobbitAinsley

01-29-2003, 12:59 AM

Well, since you already reported it, I won't trout you. :hug: ;)

Originally posted by Nilodlien
[B]2. At one point, I swear I thought I saw Hillary Rodham Clinton rolling her eyes...
I actually think I caught her doing that *quite* a few times! :D Aww Hilary... how much I despise thee...

4. Dick Cheney was there - shouldn't he have been in a "secure location"?
I think they said that it was John Ashcroft who was the one person absent for safety purposes.

I personally AM a Bush fan, Yeah Georgie!, and I agree that I thought his speech was well written and well delievered. My major complaint was the obvious partisanship between the Republicans and Democrats: during the entire speech, you could tell which side of the room was which, simply because the Republicans would leap to their feet in applause immediately, whereas the Democrats wouldn't give him the time of day. One side of the room came off as over-eager to please, while the other side came off as grumpy old sour-pusses.
Also, did anyone else catch the camera zooming over the audience, only to stop on someone adjusting his pants?! :LOL:

Sijy

01-29-2003, 01:00 AM

as to Cheney being there, I think that the secretary person not supposed to be there is the Secertarty of Farming or something(something to the effect of the country being run by farmers if anything goes wrong...back to the farming roots of this country).

As to those getting over 300K getting to keep more of their money: I'm all for them, they already pay more taxes(percentage wise) than the rest of us, so if they get cuts to the same percentage as average taxpayers(or a lower percentage that's still above average taxpayers) they're still paying their fair share...(plus if people have more money they'll spend it, which will thus create more jobs, more money being spent, etc)

tigrrrl

01-29-2003, 01:04 AM

actually, I heard on the radio that Ashcroft was the one cabinent member to sit out the speech. Another one was missing, due to health problems.

I liked the speech -- especially the $15 billion dollars to fund AIDS relief in Africa and the Carribbean. Hope he follows through on that.

This was my first State-of-the-Union speech while in another country. Another experience in itself.

Nilodlien

01-29-2003, 01:10 AM

I'd heard it was Ashcroft in the secure location too. Cheney would have to be there, since the Vice President is sort of "in charge" of the Senate - although only votes if there's a tie.

I just thought it was funny because it seemed like for close to a year the poor man was trundled off to a secure location. Although I could swear I saw him at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas one of those times...

And I did see the unfortunate man with the obviously-irritating pants problem. :rotfl:

And I saw Christy Whitman look very pleased by his statements re. the environment, then she nudged the guy next to her...

Kristin

01-29-2003, 01:16 AM

I have only one thing to say .....

NUKE-U-LAR!!!! :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:

This drives me nuts! I mean, I know Bush isn't the smartest cookie in the box, but you'd think that at least one of his aides would point out the mispronunciation to him. It's nuclear, not nucular! Geesh!

shyre

01-29-2003, 06:28 AM

lol @ nuke-e-lar.... I was just talking to my hubbie about that one. He's never going to be polished, but his speech giving has definitely improved. Thank goodness.

Over all I think it was a decent speech and I too am thrilled about the $$$ for Africa's AIDS problem. It's a decade late, but it's a start. So heartwrenching... :(

Hillary definitely rolled her eyes on more than one occasion... puffed out her cheeks in an "oh brother" expression,etc..... none too gracious. Pelosi was laughing outloud over part of the tax proposals. Is this common at these events?

Darn... missed the pants adjustment part. Got home late from a school meeting on financing college....speaking of $$$.

I'm a flat-tax fan personally. It seems strange that a person gets punished for "making good" in this country. ... I'm also beyond sick of the Dem's referring to poor people as "working" Americans.... I've never met a lazy person who made it to the top. I noticed tonight it was even more divided. There was "rich", "middle class", and "working class".

Did anybody notice those poor young servicemen's faces? I couldn't tell if they were bored or scared out of their minds! :D I once had to sit next to a general for some hoop-ti-do function when I was 20 years old. I thought I'd either pass out or just finally run from the room screaming like Bilbo when he first learns he's been "selected" for an adventure...SHRIEK! I accidentally drank the Major's water next to me and laughed in the wrong places at what the general said. :eek:

Halbared

01-29-2003, 06:37 AM

Oh I dunno, Jnr made it to the top.:)

shyre

01-29-2003, 08:13 AM

:D now now Halb....;) hmmm... what kind of biscuits?

dream wanderer

01-29-2003, 08:27 AM

Someone from Texas on one of the morning talk shows said that was the way they prounounced nuclear in some parts of Texas. I have no idea...am waiting for other Texans to weigh in...

You mean if there had been some kind of disaster...John Ashcroft would be running the country?:eek:

Hey..the rich are the ones who own the factories and businesses that employ the rest of us. If they can put more money back into their companies rather than into taxes that would be good for all of us..but that is of course assuming they would do so and not go buy another yacht for themselves with their tax cut....the flat tax does look attractive from certain angles.

I'm neither a Bush fan or detractor. I'm a flaming moderate! :D

dream wanderer

shyre

01-29-2003, 08:37 AM

dream wanderer... I'm from Texas... even though I'm obviously a long ways from there now.... and yes, many say nuke-e-lar... that's why my husand and I joke about it... he makes fun of Texan/Southern accents.... the rascal...my grammar is better than his :p ;)

<Hey..the rich are the ones who own the factories and businesses that employ the rest of us. If they can put more money back into their companies rather than into taxes that would be good for all of us..but that is of course assuming they would do so and not go buy another yacht for themselves with their tax cut....the flat tax does look attractive from certain angles.>

hmmm... but then it would employ those who construct yachts, right? ;)

yeah... Ashcroft in charge would go over like a lead balloon.:eek:

Thornor

01-29-2003, 09:22 AM

I am a big fan of George W. (voted him into the Govs office in Texas). I agree that the speech went well. Very well thought out and brought out the compassionate conservative agenda.

Tax cut on dividends has two purposes. One, it will mean more companies will use them as there will no longer be double taxation (which by the way is against the constitution). Two, it will hopefully help stimulate the stock market. The reasons this is important are numerous, but some examples are:

More people will leave money in the stock market longer as they will now be able to get dividends, income, tax free. Very important with the baby boomers about to retire and start taking all their 401k money out of the stock market.

Will give retired people another avenue for tax free income. This is a huge impact on the economy now and the next several decades.

More money in peoples pockets means more money in the economy and promotes growth.

Saying that only people who make over 300k per year will benefit from this tax cut is a lie. Over 50% of the people in the country have money in the stock market now.

susanna

01-29-2003, 09:59 AM

Heard parts of it in the radio. Sounds great, but if you think a bit you can see that it's all Orwellian Newspeak:

We bring peace to the world.

Halbared

01-29-2003, 10:04 AM

What is the higest tax bracket(%)
Ppl who earn outrageous sums shud pay more. You can say stuff ur neighbour, or u can say, I care aboot my country, and I care aboot the underclass, I want to help them. In a nation that has such a decrepancy between the lowest and the highest, taxes are a good way of aiding the underclass that are kept underfoot.

mephistophelian

01-29-2003, 10:35 AM

Bush jnrs stae of the union speech was the first i've seen televised in Austarlia, and i know this might seem like a strange question. But why does the congress have to clap and cheer every 20 seconds? personally i found it very annoying.

Deagol's Bane

01-29-2003, 10:53 AM

Well, this south Texan says nuclear, and doesn't know anyone who doesn't... at least that's how I hear us say it.

Yes, the clapping. That's why I always read the speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html) instead of watch it -- takes just a few minutes instead of half an hour or whatever.

I had no complaints with it. I kind of wish he'd mentioned something about the states, just to remind all that they're still around. There's usually a response from the other party. Anybody know a link to it? I really have to get ready to go to class.

dream wanderer

01-29-2003, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by mephistophelian
Bush jnrs stae of the union speech was the first i've seen televised in Austarlia, and i know this might seem like a strange question. But why does the congress have to clap and cheer every 20 seconds? personally i found it very annoying.

I think they have a designated 'clapper' in the audience...the President makes a statement..this person starts it off and of course everyone has to clap along or the camera will zoom in on them and make them look bad..

Or it could be they really agree with what he is saying! :p

That irritates me as well...I wish they would just let him say what he's going to say and save the applause for the end.

dream wanderer

Túrin Turambar

01-29-2003, 12:35 PM

Since I work 4 to midnight these days I only caught bits and pieces of the speech from those in my office watching it on the Net. But I did read the text this morning.

I thought the first (domestic) part was mostly awful. Yes, Bush's delivery has substantially improved. But I don't think it was well written or really that deep. I don't know if I'd call it Orwellian: just filled with the usual platitudes. Only two parts struck me as sincere or something new: the commitment to help the Third World fight AIDS, and the conviction with which Bush spoke about addiction.

I read this morning a neat little bon mot: if a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, a compassionate conservative is a liberal who's been mugged and has a drug and alcohol problem.

Argh, I'm surrounded by economic conservatives in this thread! :D ;)

I suppose it comes down to this: I think the government has the right to take away a higher proportion of a rich person's income, and you all largely disagree. I'll go further: I think it's the government's duty to do this. But not necessarily for 'bleeding heart' reasons. I truly believe that to survive as a strong, educated and skillful democracy we are obliged to do so. Look at Brazil: a country where 30% of the people are own all the land, are educated and fairly well off, while the other 70% live in a disease-ridden poverty that shows little sign of improving. Not a role for the US to emulate, as far as I'm concerned. I believe it is a democracy's duty to nurture a strong civic society. As far as I'm concerned, libertarian philosophy does not work in the real world. Strong civic societies do not arise without government help. Even corporations are incapable of it.

But, I'm not unsympathetic to your point of view. I wouldn't necessarily say the income tax for the rich should be much or even any higher. How about, for starters, taxing all the American corporations who move offshore to shirk their duty?

Shyre, do you know any poor people? I'm not even talking welfare people here. Sure, few lazy people rise to the top, but not that many hard-working ones do either. Taxes are the least of these people's problems: give a bank teller and a receptoinist their taxes back and they still would at best just barely be scraping by (where I'm from, anyway).

Anyway, back to Bush. I still can't figure out how he thinks his tax proposal will do much for the economy. If this dividend tax reduction is supposed to help so much, why is Wall Street reacting so anemically to it? As for reducing taxes on the rich, even if for argumen's I accept the conservative argument around tax equity for the rich, didn't we already try this in Reagan's time? Didn't this lead to huge budget deficits, which elevated both interest rates and unemployment, which didn't return to 1960's levels until the 1990's when we once again adhered to a balanced--and yes, conservative--budgetary policy?

And why isn't Alan Greenspan, the country's premier economic caretaker, climbing on board?

Oh: I actually liked the Iraq part of the speech. Scary, but effective. If Bush can reveal some specifics detailing the al-Qaeda/Iraq link, then he may have won me over (in principle, at least).

Nilodlien

01-29-2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Túrin Turambar

Argh, I'm surrounded by economic conservatives in this thread! :D ;)

I don't think we're entirely surrounded, just out-numbered.

susanna

01-29-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Nilodlien
I don't think we're entirely surrounded, just out-numbered.
Be comforted, Turin, and hold out: Relieve is on its way. The only problem is that the European members of this board have not had yet the opportunity to read the speech. When we have done so, we will come and support you. :cool:

P.S. I tried to find a documentation of the speech in the internet, but was not successful. Do you have one? I only have an abridged version in German. But there again was some Orwellian newspeak:

War is forced upon us.

Nilodlien

01-29-2003, 05:03 PM

I have a link for the transcript, but I don't think we're allowed to post links here...

I'll PM it to you.

Whoops - you're full!

susanna

01-29-2003, 05:06 PM

We are allowed to send links, as far as I know, we only are not allowed to have external links in our signature.

And we are not allowed to post articles instead of some ideas of our own... But I think that a link to Bush's State of the Union Address is okay here. ;)

Nilodlien

01-29-2003, 05:25 PM

Let's try it - and if I'm trouted, so be it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

susanna

01-29-2003, 05:34 PM

Hmm ... I found that one myself when I did some Google research. My impression is that this last year's speach.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Nilodlien

01-29-2003, 05:40 PM

LOL!

Posted the wrong one - I was comparing both of them this morning and had both bookmarked! :o

http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current_event&code=bush_admin&year=2003

Try that one, Susanna! LOL!

shyre

01-29-2003, 06:39 PM

<Shyre, do you know any poor people? I'm not even talking welfare people here. Sure, few lazy people rise to the top, but not that many hard-working ones do either. Taxes are the least of these people's problems: give a bank teller and a receptoinist their taxes back and they still would at best just barely be scraping by (where I'm from, anyway). >

good grief, yes! I know poor people! Family, friends, associates, neighbors from everywhere I've lived...I didn't exactly grow up with a silver spoon in my mouth. Just because I said that the majority of rich are "working Americans" certainly doesn't imply that I think the poor don't work hard. :eek: That would be absurd. I'm just saying I'm disgusted with the implication that the rich don't work hard and don't deserve to keep what they EARN! Those "lazy" rich people pump millions of dollars into the govt.'s coffers, as well as to hundreds of charities, museums, PBS, etc....

I don't like the tax system in the US.. yes, I think it punishes citizens for success, BUT... I agree... go after those offshore accounts. Knock off the ridiculuous corporate welfare. Tighten the loopholes, etc. Let's have real election reform. The lobbyists have been out of hand for decades or more. Do something about these crooked CEO's who bleed their companies and leave the workers and stockholders high and dry! :mad: :mad:

Kristin

01-29-2003, 06:56 PM

What struck me most about the speech (besides nuke-u-lar, which is an error of ignorance not a characteristic of Texas accents) was the pollution-free cars. I question how committed to this Bush really is, but if he means what he said, then great! I was impressed. I think it's a great goal.

But I strongly disagree with his tax-plan. I think it's bad policy.

As for U.S. tax policy ... well, it's not fair. There was a West Wing episode that addressed this very well. But a lot of other ways are even more unfair. A flat tax sounds fair, in theory. But it would be horribly unfair in practice.

shyre

01-29-2003, 08:45 PM

hmmm...I wouldn't consider nuke-e-lar an error of ignorance... any more than a Kennedy saying "idear" for idea... annoying though they both are. I lived in North Central and Southwest Texas for many years and heard lots of variations on words....that seemed to have little to do with a person's education level.... except for double negatives...:rolleyes: (*shudder*--a personal pet peeve along with using me as a substitue for I)

I've also taught phonics/phonetics and have learned that there are some disagreements even amongst the "learned" about correct pronunciations.... not that nuke-e-lar or idear would be in there:p ;)

I don't care for the West Wing very much...seems like a soapy propoganda show to me:sleep: I wouldn't count me in on viewing Mister Sterling any time soon either. :rolleyes:

Ah yes... can't believe I left out the deal about hydrogen cars....another program that is at least a decade late. I think there will be some growing pains though. Having lived in 2 "oil states" now (Texas & Alaska) I wonder how it will affect their economies....especially Alaska's.

Brandir

01-29-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by shyre

I don't like the tax system in the US.. yes, I think it punishes citizens for success, BUT... I agree... go after those offshore accounts. Knock off the ridiculuous corporate welfare. Tighten the loopholes, etc. Let's have real election reform. The lobbyists have been out of hand for decades or more. Do something about these crooked CEO's who bleed their companies and leave the workers and stockholders high and dry! :mad: :mad:

The sad part is that the late Senator Wellstone tried to go after the offshore companies, at least partially. He placed a restriction in the homeland security bill saying that no company that had moved offshore to avoid taxes would be eligible for any contract given out by the Homeland security department or to form the Homeland security department. However as soon as the Republicans won the election they took this line out and currently two companies that have moved offshore to avoid taxes have been given huge contracts. Its despicable.

Scytale

01-29-2003, 10:08 PM

Like Turin's said, taxes can be god for the economy. There's benefit in having a healthy, educated workforce and true equality of opportunity (which America simply doesn't have, even in comparison with the 'old world' European countries). As it is right now, an American who manages to escape from poverty is much more likely to sink back into it than a German who escapes from poverty, for example.

To establish equality of opportunity you need to ensure that everyone has equal access to basic neccessities such as universal healthcare or education, which needs some government participation because if healthcare and health insurance is left solely to market forces, the rich are going to benefit a lot more than the poor.

Government intervention goes against the principles of the new right. In the general right-wing ideology the role of the government is to protect people's individual freedoms from each other. The only legitimate extension of government is in mantaining order-defense and law enforcement. The rest is to be left to individuals to fend for themselves. This is in contrast to 'liberal' ideology where the concept of government is that it expresses people's general will (within limits that respect human rights). There is also the concept that there is such a thing as society, that the members of a society owe something to each other. So, if someone becomes rich, they are obligated to use their wealth in a way that benefits others. It's similar to the great tradition of generosity in America, where people can choose to help each other. But in the liberal view, people are obligated to help each other.

In the conservative view taxation or any government intervention is coercian, a violation of people's rights to private property. However, in the liberal view, taxation in order to ensure that people can take part in society and not remain trapped in poverty, or taxation or government intervention that benefits the economy, is morally justified providing it has democratic legitimacy and it isn't a violation of someone's human rights.

Taxation is coercian, but only in the same way that driving on one side of the road is coercian in that its justified if it is beneficial for everyone.

The conservative argument on taxation is that it takes away money from the economy and penalises success by taking money away from the successful.

As has been said before, taxation, if it goes into providing good levels of healthcare and insurance and education for people who wouldn't otherwise get it, has benefits for business. By providing people with equality of opportunity and welfare, business benefits off a healthy, educated workforce who feel that they've got a stake in society. The conservative argument is that welfare takes away incentives for people to better themselves, rewarding poverty. Studies, I think I posted references to some of them in the meandering historical discussian thread, have shown that unemployment benefit doesn't have an effect on the level of unemployment, contradicting the conservative view that welfare encourages poverty and unemployment.

It can be argued that taxbreaks for the rich encourage the view that there is no such thing as society, people have no obligations towards each other and encourages corruption and greed.

Artanis

01-29-2003, 10:41 PM

Let's clear up this nuclear thing once and for all ;);). Merriam-Webster's site, http://www.m-w.com., has three pronunciations for nuclear. Go and listen to the sound files :):). I believe the Bush pronunciation is the third one
:D:D.

shyre

01-29-2003, 10:58 PM

<Let's clear up this nuclear thing once and for all . Merriam-Webster's site, http://www.m-w.com., has three pronunciations for nuclear. Go and listen to the sound files . I believe the Bush pronunciation is the third one>

:rotfl:

Thank you Thank you Thank you Artanis!!!

Brandir, that is despicalbe indeed. :mad:

Sorry, Scytale, but you lost me on that one. Seems a bit polarized. I like and dislike things about both parties.
:p

Deagol's Bane

01-30-2003, 12:16 AM

That is a funny sound clip! "Nu-cu-lar" is completely not right! Sorry. :)
Some columnist made the comment that giving Bush a speech with a dozen instances of the word "nuclear" is as horrible as giving a person with a lisp a speech with a dozen instances of the word "sassafrass." :)

There's benefit in having a healthy, educated workforce and true equality of opportunity.
As far as the state and federal gov't is concerned, there is a total equality of oppurtunity in the U.S. For the most part, a child's oppurtunity is capped only by his/her parents or lack thereof (and of course his/her personal character/talent/intelligence/ambition), IMO.

I support a tax level necessary to maintain "safety-net" programs that catch those who've been struck by lightning, so to speak, and cannot get help from family/friends, but if we want to really fix the problems, I think we must focus on strengthening the concepts of strong family and personal responsibility. Ever expanding gov't programs which become entitlements and handouts will make the root problems worse, I believe (but they do have a place, IMO).

I think that if we can focus mainly on personal responsibility and familial cohesion and thus greatly reduce the problems of substance abuse, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, divorce, school dropouts, and juvenile criminality, we'll be well past half-way to that goal of bringing U.S. poverty to the lowest possible level.
And towards that goal, I hope that Bush succeeds in his aim to work with or support those charities that have had success by focusing on those issues.

Do not believe that I attribute people's income levels to their personal behavior alone.

...And I don't particularly blame any business or person who legally avoids paying taxes. I judge them (Is that wrong?) by what they otherwise do with it. Regardless of income statistics/situations, it is definitely not a given that sending your cash into federal or even state gov't programs is the best thing that one could do with it. Gov't is great, but it's only maybe one of the top five best tools with which to improve everyone's lot, IMO.

I heard snippets of the State of the Union speech. He does seem to have gotten a bit better than before, I think.

Is "gotten" a word? I don't know.

Thornor

01-30-2003, 12:20 AM

Excuse me, but why do you think that giving the 10% that pay 50% of the taxes a cut is encouraging a view that there is no society. If you look at the facts, most of the rich are very good at helping their fellow man. Rockafeller (I forget which one) gave 90% of his income to charity. Its just a tradition in the US that charity and goodwill are not things that should be imposed on people. It has something to do with rights of the individual.

Also what happens to society when the people are not responsible for helping the poor and disavantaged because the govenment does it. Are you not teaching the people to not care for one another?

If you think you can keep taxing the rich to pay for most of the "social programs" ask an English person what happens. Taxes get too high and the people will move away. It happens all the time. It happens with corporations as you all have mentioned and it happens with individuals.

Turin, Reagan inherited high interest rates and high inflation. It is called stagflation. The only way to solve this problem is to force big changes in the economy and cause unemployment (econonmy 101 inflation/unemployment tradeoff). This causes the inflation to go down. Once inflation stablizes then the economy will settle out interest rates come down and so will unemployment. This is what happened in the end of Reagan's term. It can be argued that the reason the US had the 15 years of good economic conditions is what Reagan did during his terms and Greenspan holding inflation in check. It can also be said that Clinton did nothing signigicantly to effect the economy and thus we eventually sunk back into recession. In fact one could say interest rates are too low and this is hurting the economy, no incentive to save thus less capital to be had for investment in the future. It is a tricky thing to balance the unemployment/inflation tradeoff.

shyre

01-30-2003, 12:20 AM

Agree about personal responsibility, Deagol's Bane.... seems we're somewhat lacking in that department nowadays. Also, one congressman's pork is another's necessity apparently. :P

LOL @ sassafrass....:D

Brandir

01-30-2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Thornor
It can also be said that Clinton did nothing signigicantly to effect the economy and thus we eventually sunk back into recession. In fact one could say interest rates are too low and this is hurting the economy, no incentive to save thus less capital to be had for investment in the future. It is a tricky thing to balance the unemployment/inflation tradeoff.

So even though it was four years removed from the presidency of Reagan he is to get credit for the longest Bull Market in the history of this country. That is just conservative rhetoric. Are we also to give him credit for the budget surplus at the end of the Clinton presidency, even though Reagan never balanced a budget, in fact he created the largest deficit in the history of this country? That is the sound economic policy we are to adhere to.

I have no problem with the graduated tax table we use because our laws have made it very easy to make money if you have the original capital to invest. If a person invests in the stock market they are only risking the original investment. They are the owner of a company, but if it goes bankrupt, or wrecklessly hurts somebody through their policies, the investor doesn't lose his house or even his other investments. He loses only the amount of money in that one company. That is called the corporate shield. Because the government have extended this benefit to the wealthy, I see no reason not to have them pay higher taxes. Not to mention that it is the socially right thing to do.

Túrin Turambar

01-30-2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Thornor
Turin, Reagan inherited high interest rates and high inflation. It is called stagflation. The only way to solve this problem is to force big changes in the economy and cause unemployment (econonmy 101 inflation/unemployment tradeoff). This causes the inflation to go down. Once inflation stablizes then the economy will settle out interest rates come down and so will unemployment. This is what happened in the end of Reagan's term. It can be argued that the reason the US had the 15 years of good economic conditions is what Reagan did during his terms and Greenspan holding inflation in check. It can also be said that Clinton did nothing signigicantly to effect the economy and thus we eventually sunk back into recession. In fact one could say interest rates are too low and this is hurting the economy, no incentive to save thus less capital to be had for investment in the future. It is a tricky thing to balance the unemployment/inflation tradeoff.

I grant that the deficit build-up began before Reagan--but his supply-side policies really blew it into mammoth proportions. But no, I disagree that the unemployment/inflation tradeoff is difficult to balance. We did just fine in the first decades after WWII. Inflation was negligible and a three percent employment rate was the norm.

What first caused stagflation was the 70s oil crises as well as the escalation of the deficit due to the Vietnam War. Also, it took the Fed a while to get monetary policy in check after coming off the gold standard thanks to the end of Bretton Woods in 1973.

I'm not saying that it was Clinton alone who caused the 90s boom, but as a corollary I also think that Reagan gets more credit than he deserves. I remember the 1980s, and policy nerd that I was I read many an article back then that argued that the new "full employment" level of unemployment was 6%. And that's just where unemployment stood through most of the Reagan years.

6% full employment? Hogwash. This was conservate apologia, mere revisionism to obfuscate the fact that deficit spending had driven up the cost of borrowing money and therefore was discouraging companies from hiring new workers. Once we started getting the deficit under control (give thanks to Clinton, to Newt Gingrich, I really don't care since my argument is not ideological), we returned back to the 3% level, which is what it was in the real boom years of the 50s and 60s.

I believe Bush is sacrificing this. How long have we been hearing about this recovery? Where is it? I sure don't see one. I thought the first tax cut was supposed to help. Things are arguably worse in many regions than before tax cut number one. This just seems to be more bad medicine.

Incidentally, I don't think more tax increases (or cuts, for that matter) are the main answer to creating wealth, or even equitable wealth. As I noted before, give the working poor all the income they earn, don't tax them one red cent, and they still would be poor. They still won't be able to afford healthcare. They still will find it difficult to go back to school.

I believe the laws that govern corporations would need to change to have any real effect on income distribution in this country. Sure, the rich are entitled to their money. But are they entitled to as much money as they can get their hands on? Never before have companies put so much emphasis on their stock price. Perfectly profitable companies cut back on benefits and services just to pump up their stock price. Which benefits the classes that primarily invest and hurts those that primarily work. Barring flukes like Microsoft, which come around about once every fifty years, your typical office worker will never make enough money to get rich off his investments.

Of course the rich pay the largest proportion of income taxes. That's because they HAVE so much income. If income were distributed more equitably, their share of taxes would decrease. If the odds weren't stacked so much in favor of global corporate entities, I believe you WOULD see a lot more personal responsibility. If people knew they'd truly be rewarded for their efforts by their company, or if they knew their small business might have a chance at success, then the prosperity that would result would be far greater than any amount of raising or lowering of taxes might cause.

You see, I'm a conservative too, at heart :D

Shyre:
My apologies! I totally misunderstood the intention of your earlier post where you were talking about the poor.

shyre

01-30-2003, 03:08 AM

Turin, no problem. :)

tigrrrl

01-30-2003, 03:14 AM

http://www.smallbrainer.de/uploads/bush-oil.jpg

:rotfl:

Will Whitfoot

01-30-2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Kristin
I have only one thing to say .....

NUKE-U-LAR!!!! :eek: :rolleyes: :mad:
In the wise words of Homer Simpson: "It's not foliage, it's foilage! You don't have to have a degree in nucular science to know that!"

:D

Scytale

01-30-2003, 10:17 AM

As far as the state and federal gov't is concerned, there is a total equality of oppurtunity in the U.S. For the most part, a child's oppurtunity is capped only by his/her parents or lack thereof (and of course his/her personal character/talent/intelligence/ambition), IMO.

Legally, there's equality of opportunity. But in social and economic terms, the child of rich parents are generally going to do a lot better in life than the child of someone on welfare. If you're from a lower income background you're far less likely to go on to higher education or to escape from poverty. The key to getting rich in modern societies is getting an education and the statistics show that this is heavily biased against poor families. In America, 46% of school-leavers gain no certificate or degree and 31% receive no formal training after school, compared with 80% and 1% in Germany. In 1979 a student aged 18 to 24 from the top quarter of incomes was four times more likely to get a degree by the time they were 24 than a student from the bottom quartile. By 1994, the figure's ten times more likely. And states have on average cut their support of university students on average of 32% since 1979.

I support a tax level necessary to maintain "safety-net" programs that catch those who've been struck by lightning, so to speak, and cannot get help from family/friends, but if we want to really fix the problems, I think we must focus on strengthening the concepts of strong family and personal responsibility. Ever expanding gov't programs which become entitlements and handouts will make the root problems worse, I believe (but they do have a place, IMO).

It's been shown that welfare does not affect patterns of unemployment. Studies by a leading German Economist, Fritz Scharpf, show that unemployment's unrelated to the level of social spending. (Fritz Scharpf, Governing in Europe, Effective and Democratic?). His studies also show that in sectors of the economy that are exposed to international competiton America has the same employment rate as France and a lower employment rate than Germany or Austria.

I think that if we can focus mainly on personal responsibility and familial cohesion and thus greatly reduce the problems of substance abuse, out-of-wedlock pregnancy, divorce, school dropouts, and juvenile criminality, we'll be well past half-way to that goal of bringing U.S. poverty to the lowest possible level.

I think that those problems are as much a result of poverty and ignorance than as a cause of them.

Excuse me, but why do you think that giving the 10% that pay 50% of the taxes a cut is encouraging a view that there is no society. If you look at the facts, most of the rich are very good at helping their fellow man. Rockafeller (I forget which one) gave 90% of his income to charity. Its just a tradition in the US that charity and goodwill are not things that should be imposed on people. It has something to do with rights of the individual.

As Turin said, the rich are going to pay the highest amount of taxes because they have the highest amount of income.

Charity's voluntary. I should have made myself clearer on the idea that conservativism destroys the concept of society (I was going off Maggie Thatcher's statement that there is no such thing as society). In conservativism, I don't think that there's any obligation for people to help each other. It's a matter of personal choice and that everyone should be self-reliant. Like I said before, there is a great tradition of charity in America and among the American rich. I think that the American rich give more to charity than their European counterparts, but I'm not sure.

I have tried to explain in my post before why taxation's not a violation of individual rights, I'm not going to repeat myself on that. I also think that the idea of a social contract to help the poor, with everyone paying in and the idea that everyone therefore benefits from trying to stop poverty, is more dignified than poor people having to rely on what the rich might or might not choose to give to them.

If you think you can keep taxing the rich to pay for most of the "social programs" ask an English person what happens. Taxes get too high and the people will move away. It happens all the time. It happens with corporations as you all have mentioned and it happens with individuals.

I'm English, btw. But if that's true, then why haven't European firms such as BMW or Nokia collapsed considering the taxation there?

Nazgul

01-30-2003, 01:26 PM

As one of the few Texans on this board I can say that you hear Nuk-le-er a lot around the Dallas and Waco areas. I'm not sure why so many people have a problem with this? In Illinois they say Warrshington, instead of Washington. Or in the university of Clemson is said Clemppson by most who attend.

They Kennedys do come to mind as the family that butchers the english language. It almost sounds like their from a state of Elmer Fuds rather than New England area.

Oh yes.......I'm back

Scytale

01-30-2003, 02:07 PM

And you all say Aluminum rather than Aluminium! :eek:

skitali points at the Americans and mocks ;)

Wb nazgul. :wave:

Sijy

01-30-2003, 03:35 PM

On the aspect of charity: It's very good for a person's/corporation's image to give to charities, people will then see that the certain company is helping out the community, and buy their product over the competition's, so there is, in fact an incentive to give to charity.

Stormcrow

01-30-2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Scytale
It's been shown that welfare does not affect patterns of unemployment. Studies by a leading German Economist, Fritz Scharpf, show that unemployment's unrelated to the level of social spending. (Fritz Scharpf, Governing in Europe, Effective and Democratic?). His studies also show that in sectors of the economy that are exposed to international competiton America has the same employment rate as France and a lower employment rate than Germany or Austria.

I agree that welfare has a negligible effect on unemployment. Unemployment is much more influenced by the economy. It would follow, then that the United States, which has much greater productivity and much lower taxes than Europe would have much lower overall unemployment than Europe, which is in fact the case. Notice, please that Herr Professor Scharpf's studies are limited to one particular sector of the economy. In fact, overall German unemployment is around 9 percent, while in the United States, it is somewhat over 4 percent.

Charity's voluntary. I should have made myself clearer on the idea that conservativism destroys the concept of society (I was going off Maggie Thatcher's statement that there is no such thing as society). In conservativism, I don't think that there's any obligation for people to help each other. It's a matter of personal choice and that everyone should be self-reliant. Like I said before, there is a great tradition of charity in America and among the American rich. I think that the American rich give more to charity than their European counterparts, but I'm not sure.

Conservatism doesn't destroy society, if anything it does just the opposite. It conserves institutions that preserve order, the family, the church, etc. Liberalism does just the opposite. It destroys these institutions, in the interest of "liberating" the masses, and in doing so, destroys society. And all you do when you rely on the government to help other people is to create bureaucracies. People still sleep on the street and go hungry.

I have tried to explain in my post before why taxation's not a violation of individual rights, I'm not going to repeat myself on that. I also think that the idea of a social contract to help the poor, with everyone paying in and the idea that everyone therefore benefits from trying to stop poverty, is more dignified than poor people having to rely on what the rich might or might not choose to give to them.

I think that it's much more important to empower the poor to change their status, than to help them stay poor.

I'm English, btw. But if that's true, then why haven't European firms such as BMW or Nokia collapsed considering the taxation there?

That one's easy. Because of the high volume of sales to wealthy Americans and the low cost of doing business here! :p

Thornor

01-31-2003, 01:33 PM

hmmm, where did I say that Reagan was responsible for the Stock Market? I will give you the fact that Clinton was in office when the budget was actually put into surplus, but most of that was caused by Congress who acctually have the responsibility for the budget. Now I'm not saying Clinton did not have a part he could have vetoed some of the legislation, and he was a proponent of a balenced budget. The economy mostly caused the surpluses, along with fiscal responsibility of Congress.

But no, I disagree that the unemployment/inflation tradeoff is difficult to balance.

Turin, If its so easy why has it not been done in over close to 40 years.

And folks I wasn't saying the Rich shouldn't be paying the majority of the taxes. I was saying why is it a problem that they get a bigger portion of the tax cuts. You see they pay proportionally more they should get more proportionally back. And if you look at the tax cuts they seem to be across the board.

Also, I was thought conservative was one who did not like change, while liberals encouraged it. Now what most of you are calling conservative and liberal are the political parties slants, ie Republicans=Conservative & Democrates=liberals
:)

Thornor

01-31-2003, 04:14 PM

Hi Amber, you didn't seem to want to talk about much at all. Although you did loosen up some Sunday morning.

Besides, I always like a good debate. :D :rolleyes:

Túrin Turambar

01-31-2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Thornor
But no, I disagree that the unemployment/inflation tradeoff is difficult to balance.

Turin, If its so easy why has it not been done in over close to 40 years.

No, it was done up until 1973, which is thirty years ago. That was the year of the first oil crisis and the beginning of 'stagflation'. Reagan's austerity measures of his early presidency brought inflation under control and raised growth, but throughout the Reagan and Bush years there was still a higher level of inflation and of unemployment than what we saw before the 1973 crisis.

However, in the mid- to late-90s unemployment, and (albeit to a lesser degree) inflation returned to its pre Oil crisis levels. So during the 1990s the unemployment/inflation tradeoff was balanced quite nicely.

Sorry to be such a nit :)

Scytale

02-03-2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Stormcrow
I agree that welfare has a negligible effect on unemployment. Unemployment is much more influenced by the economy. It would follow, then that the United States, which has much greater productivity and much lower taxes than Europe would have much lower overall unemployment than Europe, which is in fact the case. Notice, please that Herr Professor Scharpf's studies are limited to one particular sector of the economy. In fact, overall German unemployment is around 9 percent, while in the United States, it is somewhat over 4 percent.

I'm not sure it's the direct low taxes=high employment rates due to more businesses coming in (a lot of the high levels of American productivity are due to Americans putting in far longer hours and having less holidays than Europeans) that you make out, but I don't know much about how the world economy works so I'm going to have to get back to you on that one.

Conservatism doesn't destroy society, if anything it does just the opposite. It conserves institutions that preserve order, the family, the church, etc. Liberalism does just the opposite. It destroys these institutions, in the interest of "liberating" the masses, and in doing so, destroys society. And all you do when you rely on the government to help other people is to create bureaucracies. People still sleep on the street and go hungry.

I'm not sure just how important the church is in maintaining a sense of society. I'm not particulary religious myself and most left wing people aren't out to "destroy religion". I know a lot of people who are left-wing liberals and are very religious and I know right wing people who are atheists. It's not so much that there's a liberal agenda to destroy religion, but that liberals are sceptical of the church's moral authority seeing as a lot of religious figures support immoral views such as homophobia, for example. It's felt that religion should be there for people who are sincere in their beliefs and that there should be freedom to practice your religion, but that an organised church should not be the basis for the morality of a society.

I can't see how liberal (I know, Thorner, I should be saying right and left wings but I'm lazy :p) values destroy the family either. It's just felt that the only thing that counts is whether there's love in that family, whether it's single parent or a married couple or non-married or Welsh parents or whatever.

I think that it's much more important to empower the poor to change their status, than to help them stay poor.

I agree and I think that right-wing policies make life harder for the poor and do nothing to help people escape poverty. But we're probably not going to agree on that one. :p

Túrin Turambar

02-03-2003, 11:48 AM

[i]
I agree and I think that right-wing policies make life harder for the poor and do nothing to help people escape poverty. But we're probably not going to agree on that one. :p [/B]

I fall in with Scytale. I love how Bush neglected to mention in his State of the Union address how he would soon be gunning to dismantle the entire concept of overtime pay, one of the few wage benefits still afforded to the blue collar and lower-level white collar job holders. I mean, how is that supposed to benefit the common man? Just another example of how Bush really is waging class war, funneling money to the investor class and out from those who engage in actual labor. I suppose since Reagan finished off Johnson's Great Society (some of it rightly so), Bush sees it as his mission to dismantle the New Deal (our labor laws date from 1937 and 38).

Stormcrow

02-03-2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Túrin Turambar
I fall in with Scytale. I love how Bush neglected to mention in his State of the Union address how he would soon be gunning to dismantle the entire concept of overtime pay, one of the few wage benefits still afforded to the blue collar and lower-level white collar job holders. I mean, how is that supposed to benefit the common man? Just another example of how Bush really is waging class war, funneling money to the investor class and out from those who engage in actual labor. I suppose since Reagan finished off Johnson's Great Society (some of it rightly so), Bush sees it as his mission to dismantle the New Deal (our labor laws date from 1937 and 38).

Oh I think labor is doing alright. Have you tried hiring a plumber or an electrician lately?:jawdrop:

Halbared

02-04-2003, 09:49 AM

Didn't Jnr mention summat aboot an unelected leader ammasing weapons of MD and flouting the UN? Was he referring to himself?:D

shyre

02-04-2003, 08:28 PM

Not that I'm a fan of ANY politician (foreign or domestic), but I don't get too upset any more about what the UN says. IMO when it put the likes of Libya and Sudan on human rights' commisions it lost all credibility. :rolleyes:

susanna

02-05-2003, 02:00 AM

Maybe people in America should begin to think. America's death penalty and more than that the way it is practiced (death penalty even for people younger than eighteen or mentally handicapped) people is not what people here think to be in accordance with human rights. So why should the likes of the U.S. be members of human rights commissions.

shyre

02-05-2003, 05:44 AM

susanna,

when you say "people" do you mean the government or the entire population of the U.S.?

Is the UN an international body of law as I thought it was supposed to be, or is it simply an institution for countries to air grievances, take revenge and do their best to gain the upper hand over each other? Seems to me that it has strayed a great deal from its original purpose.

susanna

02-05-2003, 11:47 AM

With people I mean ordinary people in the U.S., though not all of them, but I definitely mean you.

The UN was founded after the Third Reich was defeated and before the Cold War really started. It's an attempt of countries to get on more peacefully than they used to do.

The problem is that different cultures have different ideas about what is right and wrong. This was even so when the UN were founded: The Soviet Union and the Western countries had very different ideas about what is right or wrong... The UN is an attempt to get along with each other with a relatively small base of common beliefs of what is right or wrong. And still it is an attempt... there were some rules that worked in spite of contradicting ideologies, for example the rule that countries are souvereign and should not meddle with each other's domestic affairs, or the rule that you should stick to a treaty....

There were attempts for compromises. The declaration of human rights (1948) is one of them. It contains a mixture of social rights (or whatever you would call the right to have enough to eat) and civil rights.

The difficulty yet remains. There are different ideas about what is compatible with Human Rights and what is not. They are different in Europe than in America, and they are different in Libya then in both from them.

Who can tell who is right? (Of course I think that the European attitude towards death penalty is right.... )

But the UN does not want to make such decisions. Exclude countries because they don't agree to Western ideas of what is right or wrong. The only country I know to have been excluded was South Africa when there was still Apartheid.

I think that there are quora for the different regions of the world in all important commissions. Probably it were the African countries that sent Sudan and Libya to the Human Rights Commission. We don't have to like that, but it's not our choice but the choice of the African countries.

Okay, I leave... I don't know any details about the way countries are voted into important commissions. Maybe they just take turns.

Túrin Turambar

02-05-2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Stormcrow
Oh I think labor is doing alright. Have you tried hiring a plumber or an electrician lately?:jawdrop:

That's a cute answer, Stormcrow, but I don't even think the plumber or electrician that you hire to work at your home even charges "overtime", since they are self-employed (I suppose those who work for him get it though).

The profession of plumber and electrician are the blue collar equivalents of lawyer or medical doctor, highly necessary fields that require specialized training that relatively few people want to do and few people can do without. Therefore, plumbers and electricians can and do charge relatively high rates for their labor. They're the perfect example of a free market at work, unencumbered by corporate oligarchic concentration.

I'm not talking about plumbers or electricians. The revision of the overtime rules will affect not only traditionally blue collar workers but also millions of lower-level, quasi white-collar workers like administrative assistants and nurses. And also, yours truly. The weird little niche profession I work in qualifies as non-exempt, meaning I must be payed hourly and eligible for overtime pay. When these laws get rewritten, I fully expect my income will drop by about 10% a year.

As far as I'm concerned, this is direct, conservative ideological warfare. It's not just a tax cut that benefits the superrich much more than middle income people like myself. It's a direct shift yet more money away from working people and to corporate entities, and by implication, the wealthy investor class. I think it's fully reprehensible.

Also, Bush is revoking the 40 hour work week for these people. I suppose revoking the New Deal is the latest conservative vogue. Or rather, the fulfillment of their dreams for the last 70 years. And I'm sure it will have its defenders on this board.