Is "compassionate conservatism" a slogan and nothing more?

I Completely Agree:
I completely agree with what Craven just wrote (^^).

The indication of an individual, in my experience, who is truly compassionate, in some majority of characteristics, is the last individual to pin that label on themselves, and/or, to use self laudatory monikers, such as is "compassionate conservative" among others, for self promotion, much less political gain or a political selling point.

Usually, people who are actually compassionate, are too humble and lacking in arrogance and/or pride to promote such labels. Too busy involved in works that produce helpful results, and promote the wellness of others.

We should all be so compassionate. Sadly, most of are not.

Least of all, the current Republican Administration. The day that Bush, Jr. doesn't make a snively retort to the press and/or snicker at someone who asks a significant question, is the day that I'll regard him as beginning to mature and round the corner into reality.

Perhaps the White House slogans are best summed up by he printed drapery or backboards used at every Bush speech. I thought at first they were cue cards, but no - they are intended to convey the true meaning and gravity of the speech.

Compassionate conservatism is pretty good. While I don't think Bush has the greatest speech writers, he does have the advantage of having those who had experience in that commercial advertising field. They learned how to turn a phrase with one line, designed to be attention getting, but with no necessity of relating to topic. It just has to sound good.

Compassionate relates to humanity as a whole. Conservative means a moderation between extremes. A slogan, nothing more.

HTB,

That's not what I said, I didn't mean that the truly compassionate are not going to label themselves as such but that those devoid of what others would consider compassion often think they are compassionate.

"He's a cold calculating greedy bastid, I'm just rational and show tough love"

Often compassion isn't so much the issue as is policy. In the past the notion that the poor were entirely responsible for thir plight was considered sound, it has been debunked and now most people realize that the poor are partially but not always completly responsible for thir poverty. The old ratiocination might not have been lacking in compassion as much as simply being equivocal.

The news today is that Bush is going to unveil a new stimulus package which will give no tax relief to the rich but will include tax relieve for the middle and lower income taxpayer. I wish everyone, however, would stop using this to show he is utilizing "compassionate conservative." It's another example of looking at polls, scouring through editorials and all the other options available to his advisors. The administration is figuring out that millionaires can only buy one toaster for each kitchen of each house they own. The middle and lower income class can buy literally millions of toasters every year. Right now, they seem to be doing with their old toasters, not even giving them as gifts (lowest Christmas sales three decades). This looks like they are abandoning the trickle down theory that the upper echelon of taxpayers will use their tax relief to hire more workers and pay them more money. Well, duh.

I think the discussion has strayed from the real issue of the poor being left behind and not able to establish and lower middle class status. Will the churches be able to adminstrate and provide services for this? Again, the thought of that having delt with chruches and church groups over the years in business dealings makes me laugh.

If you were "poor" in 1998, the U.S. government drew the "poverty" line at an income of $8,480 per year or less., and you weren't taxed by the feds. One filed tax returns only if income exceeded $6,950 for a person or $12,500 if married filing jointly. The standard individual exemption was $4,250. So, one would have had to make more than $12,730 in 1998 to pay any taxes and for a married couple, more than $16,750.

Either way, if you were "poor" in 1998, whether as a single person or as a partner in marriage, you did not pay taxes.

Let's be clear, using the standard deductions the tax rates currently for people making $20,000 is 14.9%, the tax rate for incomes at $25,000 is the same. At income of $30,000 the rate is 15.3%. The monthly taxes break down per month to about $200, $200, and $330 respectively.

The rhetoric from the bush budget advocates point to the lower taxes provided for in this budget proposal, and herald how much it helps the poor (who do not pay taxes) and the lower income working class, but this help is pretty much invisible. What is not invisible is how much money will be returned to those who need it less and whose use of it will be less beneficial to economic stimulation.

The matter is made even more stark when the looking at the actual numbers of those multi-millions who will be getting their pittance of a tax decrease, versus the scant thousands who will be receiving average tax refunds measured in excess of the incomes of 85% of the American public.

So, if the Busheviks have truly been blinded by the Light on their way to Damascus, and want finally want to help the poor, that's just great, and they should push for a reduction in taxes for the lower income workers, and help the multi-millions living paycheck to paycheck who need help.

But there is no need to help the multi-millionaires; they got their money back in the 2001 tax package.

Needless to say, all these reductions in taxes would be occurring while the MONTHLY US govt. budget deficit increases $10-15Billion/MONTH and the country is in a recession.

In the words of a Republican analyst:
"Because of the effect of government borrowing on investment, there is no tax incentive that promotes growth as effectively as deficit reduction. [emphasis in original]
Budget and Economic Analysis, Volume 1, #3, House Committee on the Budget, U.S., House of Representatives, 1996.

(Can't help feeling that this move is also a little feeling of guilt).

Re: Guess What:


I do think the moderators have asked that we keep the level of debate on a high plane, here.
Personal attacks are not welcomed.
Correcting spelling and typos is also considered to be ridiculous.
Assuming you know my income level is personal.

If these items are now acceptable, that is fine. As long as we're all playing by the same rules.

I stand by my assertion that the 15% added tax relief is helpful to the working class poor. How could it be viewed as not helpful?

I don't think there is any doubt that Bush's usage of the phrase "compassionate conservative" was just as vaild as his claiming to govern from the middle. It's a catch phrase that this administration is so famous for. It means nothing and it has NO sincere meaning behind it. This administration has not done ONE thing to show that they planned to at any point to govern as "compassionate conservatives" since day one Bush has taken a hard line right approach. The only time he veers back to the middle is when is numbers go down or they catch some flack. They don't even have enough balls to back their principles even when it's unpopular.

States welfare is on the rise and will keep going up if something isn't done to help the economy. Bush is backing off his tax cuts but not because it's best but because they know they cannot afford a war and tax cuts. They don't mind a little defecit since they will not be the ones cleaning up the mess and when everyone else is suffering they will be out of office living well. Cheney wants a war at all costs and he is just ensuring that his war will be fought and there is at least enough money there to make it happen.

mamajuana-- Glad to see your input.
You said:

They learned how to turn a phrase with one line, designed to be attention getting, but with no necessity of relating to topic. It just has to sound good.

It is called a "sound bite". It has been a colloquialism used by the media to describe what you allude to above. It is driven by perception and has been used long before Bush ever got onto the scene. By both parties.

kuvasz, Even your post doesn't explain the 'whole' story of taxation. Most of us 'middle income' people pay another ten percent in state taxes, and 8.25 percent in sales taxes. If you add all the 'other' taxes of all levels of government, we're looking at tax rates approaching or exceeding fifty percent of our income.
Here's a rough summary: Federal income tax 28 %
State income tax 9.8 %
CA sales tax 8.25 %
Utility & fuel taxes 7.00 %
That's 53 percent without adding other excise taxes on cigarettes, liquor, property taxes including vehicle taxes, and other "hidden" taxes.

The family earning $100,000 may be considered 'middle class,' but many that used to work in high tech are now living in homeless shelters and asking charities for food.

BTW, 80% of my social security benefit is also taxed, because my wife still works three days a week. The government has the gall to give us a 1.4% increase for 2003, while they give themselves and government workers a 3% increase.

c.i.

. This administration has not done ONE thing to show that they planned to at any point to govern as "compassionate conservatives" since day one Bush has taken a hard line right approach
Red Heat--
At the top of page three in this thread, fishin' listed several links on the actions Bush has taken as evidence of Compassionate Conservatism.
What hard line do you speak of?

I have no doubt Fishin has but my guess since I have dealt with him is that we view the items differently. I stand by my opinion that he has done nothing.

From what I see it's a bunch of empty programs that don't offer anything. If these were such "compassioante" programs with REAL iniatives to work then why were they "executive orders" without any reporting? Please don't tell me Bush wouldn't take credit for such deeds.

His hardline approach's would be toward sex education, which he has decicded we only need abstenince only programs and has taken condom information off the gov't website.

Toward faith based programs that only deal with "christian" programs

His voucher programs that will end up punishing rather then fixing.

I'm sorry but you will never convince me this man is "compassionatea" when he stood by and laughed at a woman being put to death. Or considered 9/11, recession and war as hitting the "trifecta". Or who allowed voters to be disenfranchised without uttering a single word.

Redheat great avatar

If one is paying $ 2,000 in taxes and receive a 15% reduction, that's $300.00 which translates to .82 cents per day. Enough to buy can of coke. Wow!

Thanks

c.i. I hate to debunk your numbers, but shall.

http://www.ctj.org/html/oecdtax.htm
Overall taxation




In 2001, total federal, state and local taxes in the United States were 29.0% of our gross domestic product, ranking 27th among the 30 OECD countries. Only Korea (27.5%), Japan (27.1%) and Mexico (18.3%) had lower taxes.
In 2001, total taxes in the 26 OECD nations with higher taxes than ours ranged from 29.2% of GDP in Ireland to 53.4% in Sweden.
In 2002, total U.S. taxes fell to only 26.3% of GDP.

Corporate income taxes



In 1965, U.S. corporate income taxes were 4.1% of our GDP, compared to 2.4% of GDP in the other OECD countries.
But by 2000 U.S. corporate income taxes had dropped to 2.5% of GDP, while corporate income taxes in the other OECD countries had risen to 3.4% of GDP.
In 2002, U.S. corporate taxes plummeted to only 1.5% of our GDP.

Personal income taxes:
Personal income taxes in the United States rose from 37% of total federal, state and local revenues in 1970 to 42% in 2000 (but declined sharply since then).
In contrast, over that same period, personal income taxes remained at a quarter of total revenues in the other OECD countries (although they rose as a share of GDP, from 6.5% to 8.8%).

Social insurance taxes:
Social Security and other social insurance taxes (generally wage taxes) have risen rapidly worldwide.
Since 1965, social insurance taxes in the U.S. have risen from 3.3% of GDP to 6.9%.
In the other OECD countries, social insurance taxes rose from 6.2% of GDP to 10.7%.

Sales, excise and other consumption taxes:
Reliance on sales taxes and other consumption taxes has fallen worldwide since 1965.
In 1965, the United States raised a fifth of its total federal, state and local taxes from consumption taxes. In 2001, the U.S. raised a seventh of its total taxes from consumption taxes.
In the other OECD countries, consumption taxes were a third of total taxes in 1965, but less than a quarter of the total in 2000. (Europe's replacement of cascading gross receipts taxes with value-added taxes solely on personal consumption around 1970 contributed to this downward trend.)

Property & wealth taxes:
Property and wealth taxes in the U.S. fell from 3.9% of GDP in 1965 to 2.9% by 1980, and have been stable thereafter (3.0% in 2000).
In the other OECD countries, property and wealth taxes fell somewhat from 1965 to 1980 (from 2.2% of GDP to 1.9%), but have since risen to 2.5% of GDP in 2000.
Sources: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Revenue Statistics 1965-2001 (Oct. 2002); U.S. Treasury Department (Oct. 2002); U.S. Census Bureau (Oct. 2002).

kuvasz, Charts can be made to reflect the 'averages' of taxes by country, but that eskews the detail of folks living in high tax states vs states that do not have any income tax. Sorry, guy, but I don't buy into that 'kind' of analysis. My "real" world of taxation is living in California, not Nevada or Alaska. c.i.

then perhaps you should take ronald reagan's advice and vote with your feet and move to a place were taxes at the state level are less. but that is your own choice to live where you do. most of my relatives have moved out of california for just such reasons.

when discussions detail tax codes, there is no other way to access their impact other than in the aggregate, and claims that people in the US are too taxed does not pass muster when compared to other nations.

BTW one does in fact get something in return for taxes.

kuvasz, Your suggestion that we move out of California is a good one, except my wife "wants" to live here. I also realize charts reflecting the "aggreagate" usually doesn't speak to the 'average' citizen of any country. Finally, I have never claimed that we do not get something for our taxes. I also know that all levels of government "wastes" a lot of our taxes too! When it comes to universal health care, I'm a left wing liberal. c.i.