3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 08:57 am
Foxfyre wrote:
To those that accuse those tax cuts for ballooning the deficits, etc. there is this in today's papers:

Quote:
A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month.

Besides tax rates, what other determinants of government receipts did the article control for? Inflation? Working age population? Anything? If your point is that the Bush tax cuts increased income tax payments, the evidence in this article is extremely weak -- almost meaningless, considering the fact that it's a one-month effect.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 09:26 am
Thomas wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
To those that accuse those tax cuts for ballooning the deficits, etc. there is this in today's papers:

Quote:
A flood of income tax payments pushed up government receipts to the second-highest level in history in April, giving the country a sizable surplus for the month.

Besides tax rates, what other determinants of government receipts did the article control for? Inflation? Working age population? Anything? If your point is that the Bush tax cuts increased income tax payments, the evidence in this article is extremely weak -- almost meaningless, considering the fact that it's a one-month effect.


From what I've been reading however, it isn't just a one-month effect. Inflation is under control despite the Fed's several incremental increases in the prime rate--they say it is a hedge against inflation in a very healthy booming economy. Economic indicators and confidence are mostly good - inflation under control, unemployment nearing historic lows, personal wealth up. In our area I see a lot of balance sheets and P & Ls and all but the most lazy and incompetent are doing better than they ever have, and we are a poor state. As a result, government revenues are up.

Did the Bush tax cuts do all that? Of course not. But they were certainly a factor.

Nevertheless, we need a huge overhaul of our tax system and neither the current admnistration or Congress seems inclined to be concerned about that at this time. (Americans sometimes have limited attention spans and usually seem to be able to focus on only one scandal or crisis at a time.)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 10:05 am
Foxfyre, what do you think of a national retail sales tax to replace the income tax? I would be in favor conditional on 2 things, one that the income tax must be totally scrapped, and two, that food, energy, and housing (up to a threshold amount for housing) would be excluded. Roughly that would be my idea on it, but details would need to be worked out.

I realize such would probably never happen because too many special interests are vested in the current system.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 10:18 am
okie wrote:
Foxfyre, what do you think of a national retail sales tax to replace the income tax? I would be in favor conditional on 2 things, one that the income tax must be totally scrapped, and two, that food, energy, and housing (up to a threshold amount for housing) would be excluded. Roughly that would be my idea on it, but details would need to be worked out.

I realize such would probably never happen because too many special interests are vested in the current system.


The problem with scrapping all of the current tax code is the major effect it would have on contributions, the housing industry, and expansion of business. The deductibility of these things have a major economic impact. I think there simply must be a way for business to write off some of the cost of doing business, there must be an incentive to own a house rather than rent, the good work done by the private social services sector should be encouraged, etc.

For these reasons I prefer a flat tax on real income with certain exemptions and exclusions allowed.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 12:45 pm
This issue hinges on whether you fundamentally believe that tax structure should be a major player in social engineering and business, or if you believe that commerce should be responding primarily to market forces and that charities should prosper according to how willing people are to support them based on their merits without an artificial outside incentive. I believe the latter philosophy is more efficient and more tied to a results oriented economy.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 May, 2006 01:06 pm
okie wrote:
This issue hinges on whether you fundamentally believe that tax structure should be a major player in social engineering and business, or if you believe that commerce should be responding primarily to market forces and that charities should prosper according to how willing people are to support them based on their merits without an artificial outside incentive. I believe the latter philosophy is more efficient and more tied to a results oriented economy.


I can understand and appreciate your point of view, and philosophically I agree with you. From a practical point of view, however, unless we have a 100% libertarian system in which there is zero expectation for government to provide for the day to day needs of the people, those chartities remove a huge burden from us taxpayers and they deserve all the help they can get to do so.

I also think that property ownership is an important foundation of a strong capitalistic economy and incentives for individual ownership of property is a necessary consideration. Otherwise, people being what they are, there is too much temptation for huge congomerates to own too much of the property and rent it out piecemeal to the little people who have no reason not to avoid roof repair, gutter cleaning, and lawn mowing. But too much property in the hands of too few also leaves lots of room for an imbalance of power too. For that reason I prefer to provide lots of incentive for people to own their own homes.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 May, 2006 10:29 am
For those in need of a pep-talk, Karl Rove did an impressive job, reported here:

Rove Remains Upbeat About GOP Chances in the Fall

Among other things, he noted:

Quote:
Rove acknowledged a "disconnect" between consumer confidence levels and overall satisfaction with the economy, and he blamed the war in Iraq. [..]

"I'm sanguine ," he said. "The American people like this president. His personal approval ratings are in the 60s. Job approval is lower. And what that says to me is that people like him, they respect him; he's somebody they feel a connection with, but they're just sour right now on the war."

Only problem with that, of course, is that he's lying (assuming that if anyone, Karl Rove knows what the polls actually do say).

Job approval is "lower" but "his personal approval ratings are in the 60s"??

President Bush: Favorability Ratings

Numbers from April/May 2006:

29% CBS/NYT
39% USA Today/Gallup
39% NBC/WSJ
40% CNN
40% Pew

Even Fox hasnt had Bush's favouribility rating in the 60s since August - 2003.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 May, 2006 01:14 pm
There are apparently a couple of polls that put Bush's "personal approval" rating in the 60s. One is the George Washington University Battleground poll conducted by the Tarrance Group.

Quote:
Whether you approve of disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President, what is your impression of George W. Bush as a person? Do you approve or disapprove of him?

Approve/strongly....................................................42%
Approve/somewhat.................................................18%


LINK


I also saw references to a recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll that put his "personal approval" rating at 61%, but I haven't seen a direct link to the poll.

And of course that's "personal approval" rating (as opposed to "job approval"), which is what Rove was talking about, not "favorability," which is probably a combination of the two.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 May, 2006 05:33 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
And of course that's "personal approval" rating (as opposed to "job approval"), which is what Rove was talking about, not "favorability," which is probably a combination of the two.

Nope. The "favouribility" rating explicitly asks whether the respondent has a favourable or unfavourable opinion of George Bush - not of the job he's doing, but of him.

You would have known that, of course, if you'd bothered to click the link I provided - the wording of the question is included for each of the listed polls.

Ticomaya wrote:
There are apparently a couple of polls that put Bush's "personal approval" rating in the 60s. One is the George Washington University Battleground poll conducted by the Tarrance Group.

That poll is from last February. I admit: that's quite a bit later than August 2003. But all the five polls I listed - none of them job apprival ratings, all ratings of George Bush personally - are from the last two months. And all of them have the number at 30-40%.

And again, if there is one person in the country who would know about current polls, it's Karl Rove; pleading ignorance is implausible here.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 May, 2006 10:02 pm
nimh wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
And of course that's "personal approval" rating (as opposed to "job approval"), which is what Rove was talking about, not "favorability," which is probably a combination of the two.

Nope. The "favouribility" rating explicitly asks whether the respondent has a favourable or unfavourable opinion of George Bush - not of the job he's doing, but of him.

You would have known that, of course, if you'd bothered to click the link I provided - the wording of the question is included for each of the listed polls.


I did click the link you provided, so you can end the snotty tone, nimh. And you're exactly right, the question in your poll asks the respondent if they have a favorable opinion of Bush, and does not delineate between their opinion of his "favorability" as a "person," or their opinion of his "favorability" pertaining to his "job performance." Thus, it is necessarily a combination of the two. You disagree?

Quote:
Ticomaya wrote:
There are apparently a couple of polls that put Bush's "personal approval" rating in the 60s. One is the George Washington University Battleground poll conducted by the Tarrance Group.

That poll is from last February. I admit: that's quite a bit later than August 2003. But all the five polls I listed - none of them job apprival ratings, all ratings of George Bush personally - are from the last two months. And all of them have the number at 30-40%.

And again, if there is one person in the country who would know about current polls, it's Karl Rove; pleading ignorance is implausible here.


No, nimh ... the 5 polls you listed are NOT polls of Bush's "personal approval" rating (at least the one you linked to isn't). As big a poll nerd as you are, I'm having a hard time believing you are not grasping the difference between asking someone whether they have a favorable impression of Bush, and asking them: "Whether you approve of disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President, what is your impression of George W. Bush as a person? Do you approve or disapprove of him?"

That is the question asked in the Battleground poll I listed.

Incidentally, the Battleground poll -- just as the poll you linked to -- also asked respondents about whether they looked "favorably" upon Bush, and the "favorability" rating was (p. 4):

Quote:
Approve/strongly....................................................30%
Approve/somewhat.................................................15%


... so quite a bit lower at 45%.

And his "job approval" rating was (p. 4):

Quote:
Approve/strongly.....................................................30%
Approve...................................................................16%
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 05:14 am
Notes from Lake Wobegon...
Quote:
Having been called names, one looks back at one's own angry outbursts over the years, and I recall having once referred to Republicans as "hairy-backed swamp developers, fundamentalist bullies, freelance racists, hobby cops, sweatshop tycoons, line jumpers, marsupial moms and aluminum-siding salesmen, misanthropic frat boys, ninja dittoheads, shrieking midgets, tax cheats, cheese merchants, cat stranglers, pill pushers, nihilists in golf pants, backed-up Baptists, the grand pooh-bahs of Percodan, mouth breathers, testosterone junkies and brownshirts in pinstripes." I look at those words now, and "cat stranglers" seems excessive to me. The number of cat stranglers in the ranks of the Republican Party is surely low, and that reference was hurtful to Republicans and to cat owners. I feel sheepish about it.
Garrison Keillor
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 07:53 am
Garrison Kellor is so liberal they need GPS to find him out in left field. But okay, that was clever. It made me smile.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 08:17 am
People do not believe Bush, people do not trust Bush, people think Bush is doing a lousy job. There are still some people OTOH who wouldn't mind having a beer with George W. Bush! Big fricking deal!

We don't elect presidents based on whether or not we would like to hang out with him!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 08:36 am
BBB
bm
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 11:33 am
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/4665/animallb1xc.gif

Of course, this means nothing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 11:56 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Of course, this means nothing.

Cycloptichorn


Of course that means nothing.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 11:58 am
Of course it does. Nothing actually means anything these days.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 12:09 pm
And sometimes anything actually means nothing.



Take, for example, these past several posts of ours.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 12:12 pm
They sure are scrolling that meaningless picture out of the way fast, though. Whew

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 04:42 pm
I'm going to go out on a limb and make a prediction. I don't think the 2006 general election is going to produce the blood bath the Democrats are hoping for. I think the primaries might be a bit painful for incumbant Republicans who have betrayed their conservative base; or at least I think some might get the bejeebers scared out of them. I for one am going to vote for the candidate with solid conservative credentials over the one who has proved to be a liberal in Republican clothing.

The Republicans very much need another 1994-type revolution and get back on track. Or we might as well scrap the two party system and go to a bicameral system.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/18/2025 at 03:17:04