The Worst President in History?

Well, the posters on this thread who criticize President Bush may be right that his Job Approval is low.

The Job Approval of a President who is not running again means absolutely NOTHING unless it impacts either his ability to act in his office or it leads to losses by members of his party in November.

With a low Job Approval rating, President Bush was able to sign the tax bill.


quote- Chicago Sun-Times- MaY 10, 2006- Capitals mine.

"Republicans in Congress reached agreement Tuesday on a FIVE-YEAR, $70 Billion measure to extend tax breaks for investors and present more middle income familiesfrom being hit by a tax aimed at the wealthy. The bill would HAND PRESIDENT BUSH ONE OF HIS TOP TAX PRIORITIES, A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THE REDUCED 15 PERCENT TAX RATE FOR CAPITAL GAINS AND DIVIDENDS, CURRENTLY SET TO EXPIRE AT THE END OF 2008. REPUBLICANS CREDIT THE TAX CUTS, ENACTED IN 2003, WITH BOOSTING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND CREATING MANY JOBS>"

end of quote

Even the most die hard Left winger would have to admit that this is a bill, an important bill, with a high priority for President Bush.

This bill passed when his Job Approval Rating was at 32?

Apparently the Job Approval number does little in derailing important legislation.

I would now respectfully ask anyone who wishes to volunteer to list the MAJOR bills desired by President William Jefferson Clinton during his tenure.

I can't thing of too many he signed--important ones, that is. I can think of some that according to the left wing even today were outright "CONSERVATIVE" legislation.

What did William Jefferson Clinton sign during his tenure that was important?

l. NAFTA( a bill highly praised by the left wing--sure!!)

2. Giving China a Most Favored Nation Status( Again, a left wing favorite)

and, last but not least-_Welfare Reform.( A bill highly praised by the left wing- so highly praised that the most radical elements on the left practially turned their backs on W. J. Clinton.




Now, will President Bush's low Job Approval RAting lead to SIGNIFICANT losses in the House and Senate in November?

Perhaps, but only if nothing changes between now and November and only if the Democrats can nationalize the election on the local levels.

It was the very canny Democratic Legislator, Tip O"Neill, who reminded us all that POLITICS IS LOCAL.

Those who think that there will be many changes in the House are invited to review the nature of the redistricting that took place after the 2000 census. Both parties redrew many districts to protect their incumbents.

We shall see what happens in November. In the meantime, there are FIVE LONG MONTHS TO GO>

Cicerone Imposter says that: The Administration just extended the administration lowered tax rates for the rich. I am very much afraid that Cicerone Imposter might have missed some critical parts of the article he might have read.

My article in the Chicago Sun-Times( May 10, 2006- P. 29) indicates the following:

Republicans in Congress reached agreement Tuesday on a five-year, $70 billion measure to extend tax breaks for investors and prevent more MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES FROM BEING HIT BY A TAX AIMED AT THE WEALTHY...THE MEASURE WOULD KEEP 15 MILLION FAMILIES FROM BEING HIT THIS YEAR WITH THE ALTERNATIVE MININUM TAX.WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE SURE THE WEALTHY PAID TAXES BUT IS ENSNARING MORE AND MORE MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES BECAUSE IT IS NOT INDEXED FOR INFLATION"

The AMT should have been discontinued some years ago; the extension means very little, because the range for taxing the AMT was never changed over the years that continued to hit more middle-income families.

You know not of what you speak.

Proof of the worst president.

cicerone imposter, I have two wishes in life: The first is that George W. Bush be cast into the deepest depths of hell and savagely raped by demons for the rest of eternity.

I would also like a new pitchfork. That is my second wish.

Gus: You and I think alike...from your mouth to God's ears!

Mr. Cicerone Imposter. I am very much afraid that you may be unaware of the provisions of the AMT. I refer you to the Wikipedia Enyclopedia for information.

quote:

"The AMT does not correct for inflation owing to unplanned effects as time goes by. STARTING AROUND 2004, THE AMT BEGAN AFFECTING MIDDLE CLASS INCOMES...

The AMT disproportionately affects citizens of states with high taxation, since local and state taxes are considered deductables under current federal tax laws but not under the AMT. Because many of these states also voted Democratic in recent Presidential elections( eg, NY, California, New Jersey) and many of these states also have high per capita incomes but also a high cost of living, the AMT is sometimes referred to as the "Blue State Tax"

I realize you may have once known this, Mr. Cicerone Imposter and may have forgotten it. I am happy to have refreshed your memory!

I know the provisions of the AMT very well. The following is an article from CNNMoney, a reliable source concerning taxation.

Alternative Minimum Tax 101
The AMT is meant for the rich, but it's the scourge of the middle class. Here's why.
November 10, 2005: 9:33 AM EST
By Katie Benner, CNN/Money staff writer
With the Alternative Minimum Tax, you'll fork over even more come tax time.
With the Alternative Minimum Tax, you'll fork over even more come tax time.


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Maybe you've managed to ignore the recent spate of tax-reform stories, but that doesn't mean you'll dodge the Alternative Minimum Tax or its higher tax bite.

The AMT system comes with a completely different set of rates and deduction rules. People pay it only if their AMT tax amount is higher than their traditional taxes. Translation: if you're paying the AMT, you are by definition paying higher taxes.

The system created to make sure the uber-rich didn't dodge the tax bullet is under fire because it's now affecting middle-class Americans. And reforming it could mean increased tax payments for everyone.

The problem? What defined uber-rich in 1969, when the AMT was first enacted, has never been adjusted for inflation. That means what made you affluent back then doesn't now -- but you're still taxed like it does.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center says the AMT will hit 3.6 million out of the nation's 131 million taxpayers filing for tax year 2005 (filed in early 2006), and could affect 31 million by 2010 if nothing is done.

To give you a sense of just who might get caught, this year only 1.8 percent of married couples with two kids and an adjusted gross income between $75,000 and $100,000 will be subject to AMT. Next year, that number jumps to 73.4 percent.

The relief provided by the current administration on the AMT is only for one year. It's a political move by the conservatives to win votes during this election year. Most middle class families are very unhappy with this administration on many fronts including the high cost of fuel. This trickery to extend relief of the AMT for one year is fool's gold.You understand little of what's going on.

Cicerone Imposter is like every other demagogue. They twist the facts to suit their agenda of demonizing something or somebody. The fact is thank goodness for rich people because they pay a large share of the income tax in this country. Without them, the high percentage of Americans that pay no income tax would be up a creek without a paddle.

To indicate poor working Americans don't get a tax break is a lie. We hear about lying a lot on this forum, well, the Democrats lie constantly concerning who pays taxes in order to demagogue their opponents. I personally know people that receive far more back from the government than they pay in because of the earned income credit and child tax credits. They are not rich by any stretch of the imagination. The reason some of the poorest people don't get tax breaks is because they don't pay any tax to begin with and apparently don't work, because if they did, they would receive the earned income tax money as a gift from the government. And rich people receive a tax break because they are paying the most taxes, and because of lowering rates, the government took in more money this year, so rich people ended up paying more tax after all.

P.S. I am not rich.

Another P.S. Karl Marx liked to demonize the rich and big business too. He would make a good Democrat in this country now if he lived here, at least in that regard.

okie, Do you know how to read, and who wrote what? I didn't write that article - just in case you missed it. All I said was that the AMT was outdated, because it never made any adjustments for inflation. Where's the demagoguery? Please point it out to me, because I want to know.

That our government gave a one year relief of the AMT is their way to play games with the electorate. I find that to be "demagoguery" of the highest order.

Okie's post was right on target. Thank you , Okie.

It is so good, I will replicate it.


Cicerone Imposter is like every other demagogue. They twist the facts to suit their agenda of demonizing something or somebody. The fact is thank goodness for rich people because they pay a large share of the income tax in this country. Without them, the high percentage of Americans that pay no income tax would be up a creek without a paddle.

To indicate poor working Americans don't get a tax break is a lie. We hear about lying a lot on this forum, well, the Democrats lie constantly concerning who pays taxes in order to demagogue their opponents. I personally know people that receive far more back from the government than they pay in because of the earned income credit and child tax credits. They are not rich by any stretch of the imagination. The reason some of the poorest people don't get tax breaks is because they don't pay any tax to begin with and apparently don't work, because if they did, they would receive the earned income tax money as a gift from the government. And rich people receive a tax break because they are paying the most taxes, and because of lowering rates, the government took in more money this year, so rich people ended up paying more tax after all.

P.S. I am not rich.

Another P.S. Karl Marx liked to demonize the rich and big business too. He would make a good Democrat in this country now if he lived here, at least in that regard.


I would add one thing which I am sure Okie is aware of. Not only have President Bush's tax cuts helped millions of American(Some do not know or remember that the lowest tax rate was lowered from 15% to 10%) but the tax cuts have resulted, counter-intuitively, in an INCREASE in Federal Tax Revenue.

How can that be?

Simple. Allowing Corporations and small business to keep more of their profits, MORE JOBS ARE CREATED CAUSING MORE INCOME TO FLOW INTO THE TREASURY OF THE US. It is just a rumor that Corporations and Small Businesses put their profits in their mattresses.

I took off from Bernards quoting of you saying "tax breaks for the rich" were being extended. Every time I hear "tax breaks for the rich," said, I try to point out the demagoguery, which I think it definitely is. My apologies if that is not correctly portraying your statements. I read through the AMT discussion and just a comment there, if ones adjusted gross income is over $75,000, I don't think that person or family is doing too badly at all.

Glad to be of assistance. Maybe I should take my partial apology back that I offered Cicerone Imposter?

No, not badly, but certainly not enough to be taxed as if they were the super rich, which is what the AMT was designed to do. 75,000 is solidly middle class, and they should not be taxed on the value of their holdings, which is what the AMT does.

It's the loss of perspective that I am arguing about. When our country is at war, and our government goes deeper into debt, the people most able to help reduce the deficit should not be a problem. Yes, I already know they pay the largest share of taxes, but they can "afford" to pay more. The middle class, the $75,000 to $100,000 income families are not rich by any stretch of the imagination - especially for those living in high cost areas of the country.

The AMT was established more than 30 years ago when $75,000 to $100,000 income families were considered wealthy. Not any more; that's the reason the AMT without adjusting for inflation hurts those middle class families.

The intent of the AMT should have expired many years ago. What this administration is doing is to "postpone" it until next year. Again; it should have expired many years ago, not postponed for one year.

As for the poor not paying taxes, I agree with this concept in general. So, what's your point? I consider my family to be middle class, and I'm more than happy to pay our fair share in both federal and state taxes. My wife and I are now both retired, but our taxes will remain almost constant. I'm also willing to pay more if it goes to improve our schools for our children, because they are the ones that will keep our country competitive in the world economy of the future.

The wealthy, those making millions of dollars, can afford to pay more. It's irresponsible to transfer our debt to our grandchildren - of which my wife and I have none.

Laura Bush doesn't believe bad polls on husband

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush said on Sunday she does not believe opinion polls showing her husband's approval ratings at record low levels.

reuters

That's fair. I don't believe they are that good!

Remember, 75,000 is the adjusted gross income, so this is after some deductions, so anyone falling under this tax is making more. I've never made that much in my entire life. On the one hand, you complain about the rich not paying enough, but now you complain when the "prosperous" people are asked to pay more. This reminds me of the comment I heard where somebody said the "rich" is always referred to as somebody else no matter how much you make.

As you complain about the AMT, richer people than you likewise complain about the taxes they have to pay and think it unfair if rates are raised on them.

The one mistake you constantly make is the assumption that raising tax rates on the rich will increase tax revenues, when in fact that may not be the case at all. Raising rates may under some economic conditions actually dampen economic activity more than the extra percentage tax gained, and revenues are decreased. Taxes are not a zero sum game. This has clearly been demonstrated in the past. Obviously, 0% tax rates would collect no tax, and a 100% tax rate would also fail dismally because there would be no incentive to work. The optimum tax rate lies somewhere in between, and we may be above that point already, so raising rates on the rich might end up lowering tax revenues.

Politicians, and Democrats specifically, do not understand that you simply cannot continue to raise taxes as if the economy is a bottomless pit of revenue for all of their pet projects and budgets. Part of the problem is many of them have never run a business in their lives. All they have ever done is government and have no clue about actually what goes on out here in the country.

P.S. I will agree something is haywire with corporate execs making millions when sometimes the corporation is actually failing and going broke. I hate to use tax law to do it, but that might be the most effective way to slow such activity down, but tax the bejeebers out of anything over a million dollars annual salary or some such threshold.

You miss the whole point; our government continues to spend more than their revenue resulting in huge federal deficits. During times of war, those making the income should share in paying for the war - and not our children's children.

That you never made $75,000/year has no bearing on this topic.

That you assume that the rich cannot afford to pay more in taxes in unfounded.

The following article was written by Bill Gates. You probably don't know him or who he is.

Print-Friendly Version
Tax the Wealthy
Why America needs the estate tax.
William H. Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins

For more than a decade, a powerful group of special-interest organizations has waged a multimillion-dollar campaign to turn public opinion against a tax that falls on the wealthiest 2 percent of the population. It worked. The "death tax," many Americans now believe, afflicts family farmers and small-business owners, robbing them of the opportunity to bequeath their lives' fortunes to their children.

The people pushing this line include the heirs to the Gallo wine and Mars candy fortunes, along with an organized association of more than 100 independent newspaper owners. Together with a veritable antitax industry of think tanks and lobbying firms in Washington, these groups have formed a potent "death tax elimination" lobby.

Of course, the vast majority of family farmers will never owe an estate tax. Rather, the windfall of estate tax repeal will shower upon the heirs and heiresses of the 3,000 wealthiest estates. This elite group will inherit billions in appreciated stock and real estate -- significant capital gains, many of which have never been subject to taxation.

Why do we raise the issue now? Because in a matter of days the Senate will decide whether to make permanent the 2001 repeal of the estate tax. It's an issue that has scarcely made the news, but its consequences will profoundly affect the health of the republic.

Many Americans believe that the estate tax debate has already played out. After all, the tax's phase-out and eventual repeal were included in the $1.35 trillion tax cut that President Bush signed into law last June. But the Bush tax bill includes such a puzzling assortment of phase-outs, delayed activation dates, and gimmicks that money guru Jane Bryant Quinn called it "a contemptible piece of consumer fraud." To mask the bill's enormous cost in outlying years, its authors included a "sunset" provision: At the end of 2010, tax rules revert to those in effect as of May 2001.

Predictably, the original patrons of the tax bill -- some of whom have spent millions in campaign contributions, political advertising, and lobbying fees to abolish the estate tax -- find the sunset provision unacceptable. They urgently wish to make repeal of the estate tax permanent. And if they don't succeed in doing so now, the odds will soon be against them, as budget deficits grow and the cost of repeal escalates.

If, however, the Senate bows to this lobby's pressures by permanently repealing the estate tax, the country stands to lose $800 billion between 2011 and 2021. It's a loss that will significantly undercut Social Security and Medicare over the next seven decades, hitting hard as the eldest baby boomers reach retirement age.

The United States also stands to lose one of its most progressive federal taxes. Only estates worth more than $1 million (or $2 million for couples) are subject to the tax -- and the bulk of it is paid by the fewer than 3,000 estates with assets in excess of $5 million. Thanks to the Bush tax cut, between now and 2009 the exemptions will rise to $3.5 million for an individual ($7 million for couples).

Some people object to the notion of a tax at death, but taxing dead multimillionaires is eminently more fair than taxing the not-so-rich living. Between now and 2052, the intergenerational transfer of wealth is projected to reach between $41 trillion and $136 trillion. An estimated one-third to one-half of this wealth will be transferred by estates worth more than $5 million. The estate tax, should it remain in place, will therefore be an increasingly significant progressive source of revenue in the coming decades. Meanwhile, state budgets, already straining from plummeting tax revenues, will lose more than $6.5 billion a year when state-linked revenue from the estate tax is eliminated in 2005.

If the direct costs weren't high enough, the indirect ones could be beyond measure. Philanthropy is not solely inspired by the tax code, but the estate tax unquestionably provides a powerful incentive for charitably oriented people to stretch their giving. Estate tax repeal will most likely reduce charitable giving and bequests, particularly from estates in excess of $20 million, by an estimated $5 billion to $6 billion a year. This will certainly hit large charities that depend on bequests, such as hospitals, universities, and land conservancies. But it will also affect the entire nonprofit sector because one-third of all bequest dollars go toward creating or expanding foundations.

The debate that will decide all this may go by very quickly. Senators Phil Gramm of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona are fervently pushing to attach permanent repeal as a provision to any moving legislation. After Gramm threatened to attach the provision to the energy bill, the Senate Democratic leadership agreed instead to allow a freestanding vote on the matter before June 28. The vote currently looks too close to call, as each side pressures a handful of swing senators. Ultimately, the question is this: How high a price is America willing to pay in order to give a handful of millionaires and billionaires a tax break?

Opponents of the estate tax tend to be animated by a zealous belief in individual success and a profound animosity toward government. If my success results from my own effort and industry, the thinking runs, then the estate tax -- or any form of taxation -- is a form of larceny.

Like the "great man" theory of history, our dominant "great man" theory of wealth creation borders on mythology. Such folklore fills the pages of business magazines. In a recent interview, one chief of a global corporation was asked to justify his enormous compensation package. He responded, "I created over $300 billion in shareholder value last year, so I deserve to be greatly rewarded." The operative word here is "I." There was no mention of the share of wealth created by the company's other 180,000 employees. From this sort of thinking, it is a short distance to, "It's all mine" and, "Government has no business taking any part of it."

There is no question that some people accumulate great wealth through hard work, intelligence, creativity, and sacrifice. Individuals do make a difference, and it is important to recognize individual achievement. Yet it is equally important to acknowledge the influence of other factors, such as luck, privilege, other people's efforts, and society's investment in the creation of individual wealth.

Consider the many components of the social framework that enable great wealth to be built in the United States. Among them are a patent system, enforceable contracts, open courts, property ownership records, protection against crime and external threats, and public education. Even the stock market is a form of socially created wealth that provides liquidity to enterprises. David Blitzer, the chief investment strategist at Standard and Poors, recently wrote, "Financial markets are as much a social contract as is democratic government." When faith in this social system is shaken, as it has been by recent breaches of trust, we see how quickly individual wealth evaporates.

Some potential beneficiaries of estate tax repeal are well aware of the dynamic relationship between individual wealth and the society in which it's produced. Last year, Responsible Wealth (an organization co-founded by co-author Chuck Collins) circulated a petition in support of reforming, but not eliminating, the tax. More than 1,100 business leaders and investors who will pay estate taxes in the future signed it, including George Soros, Ted Turner, and David Rockefeller Jr., as well as hundreds of small-business owners and "millionaires next door" whose wealth totals between $1 million and $10 million.

Bootstrap sagas and "great man" theories reflect deep strains of American self-perception, but a countervailing view of wealth also claims roots in this country's history. In response to the dramatically unequal distribution of wealth in the first Gilded Age, Andrew Carnegie wrote The Gospel of Wealth, which proposed to address these disparities through steep inheritance taxes and aggressive charitable giving.

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt also believed that society had a claim on the accumulated fortunes of the very wealthy, thanks to its role in creating those fortunes. In his 1906 State of the Union address, Roosevelt proposed the creation of a federal inheritance tax. He explained: "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government." As Roosevelt further argued in a June 1907 speech: "Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation." Such taxation, he noted, should "be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits."

No doubt Roosevelt would consider the great income and wealth inequalities of our second Gilded Age reason to increase rather than to eliminate the one tax we have that limits the buildup of hereditary concentrations of wealth. Roosevelt and others of his day understood that the American experiment was an attempt to balance economic liberty and free enterprise, on the one hand, with a traditional concern about democracy and the dangers of concentrated wealth and power, on the other. The estate tax, adopted in 1916, was one of the means by which Americans rejected the Old World, with its political and economic monarchies.

The upcoming vote on the estate tax will tell us much about the Senate's ability to maintain fiscal discipline at a time of war and budget deficits. Responsible senators should vote against making repeal of the estate tax permanent. They should open the next year with an honest debate about the dangers of wholesale repeal and the possibilities for meaningful reform.

If need be, Congress should explore the possibility of linking estate tax revenue to the Social Security trust fund, providing long-term solvency for the fund without increasing payroll taxes or reducing retiree benefits. But Congress should reject the notion of wholesale repeal in the short term because it is fiscally reckless -- and in the long term because we recognize the importance of protecting our democracy from a further buildup of hereditary wealth.

William H. Gates Sr. and Chuck Collins