You know, people bash the Clinton presidency and try to give all his credit to the Republican senate and vice versa, but there was one simple fact....THINGS GOT ACCOMPLISHED! Who the @*$^ cares who is responsible there? I mean, seriously, I don't like Bush, but if he and the democratic senate could get as much done as the Clinton/Republican senate did, there wouldn't be much to complain about on my end.
The reality is that politicians on both sides of the aisle accept more praise than they deserve when things go right and are saddled with more blame than they deserve when things go wrong. This is a big country with a lot of things contributing to the economy, etc. One guy can't make it perfect or destroy it. Bush, IMO, is more responsible for LOOKING STUPID than he is necessarily for screwing up. There is a reason Clinton got the nickname "Slick Willie." He was very good at avoiding problems and accepting accolades. Did that make him a great president (or even a good one). Eh, who knows? It really depends on how you view his politics and how effective they were. He was effective doing what he did mainly because he knew how to make it appealing SOUNDING. Bush's biggest mistakes have come as the result of his looking dumb and taking risks where the reward was not nearly as great and the risk much higher than he thought. He took a chance with the budget and it has, so far, backfired. He took a shot with the faith-based initiative and it is struggling to survive. His education plan is getting gutted. His "star wars" defense plan is on life support. And, his energy policy is undergoing major bypass surgery. Much of that was the case even before the Democrats controlled the Senate. His biggest mistakes have been to trust advisors who seem out of touch with what people want. If anything, his advisors need a serious kick in the ass. If Clinton was "Slick Willie" maybe Bush should be "Slow Donnie."
Forget for a moment the actual merits of a tax cut. Bush swore up and down, in justification of this tax cut, that the social security surplus would not be touched. I, and many other people, were absolutely clueless as to how this would be possible. Turns out, there was never any chance of it working out, short of a radical economic up-swing. You can have it one of two ways: 1. Bush is an idiot. 2. Bush is a liar about substantive issues.
The biggest f*ck up he's had is promising a missile defense, promising a tax cut, and following it up with a speech to American servicemen the "help is on the way" after the Clinton debacle. His advisors told him that he'd only get 2 of 3 in the best of worlds, but he promised them all anyway. The missile defense is going to be built. The tax cut is done. And he's going to cut the military's force structure more than Clinton ever did to pay for it. One carrier group (down to 11, with only 5 operating max at any given time), 2 air wings (bye-bye 'composite wing' concept), and approximately one army division (down to 9) will be cut. The services, needless to say, are extremely pis*ed about this. This is as deep as anything Clinton ever did, and he never even bothered to campaign on a defense platform. Shameless. And Jeff, you're right - someone is going to get fired. Jane's Defence is reporting that Rumsfeld is about to get the axe. Scapegoat. "Help is on the way". For the PLA, maybe. Can you say "T-A-X C-U-T"?
From today's New York Times <I>Truth and Lies By PAUL KRUGMAN Dishonesty in the pursuit of tax cuts is no vice. That, in the end, will be the only way to defend George W. Bush's deceptions. Let's remember the way the debate ran during the spring. Back in May, The New Republic's cover showed a picture of Mr. Bush, with the headline "He's Lying." Inside were two articles about the tax cut. One, by Jonathan Chait, showed that -- contrary to administration claims -- the tax cut would mainly go to the richest few percent of the population. The other was an excerpt from my own book "Fuzzy Math," refuting the administration's claims that it could cut taxes, increase military spending, provide prescription drug coverage and still avoid dipping into the Social Security surplus. The New Republic cover caused much tut-tutting; the magazine's editors were accused of hyperbole, of rabble-rousing. But the headline was a simple statement of fact. Mr. Bush was lying. It was obvious from the start that the administration's numbers didn't add up. And in case you were wondering, the administration is still lying. I could explain at length how the Office of Management and Budget has cooked the books so that it can still claim a surplus outside of Social Security over the next two years. But here's an easy way to see that the numbers are bogus: O.M.B. claims that the budget will show a surplus of $1 billion this year, and another $1 billion next year. Ask yourself how likely it is that revenues and outlays in a $2 trillion budget would line up that exactly. Then ask yourself how likely it is that they would line up that exactly two years in a row. The O.M.B. numbers are the result of desperate backing and filling -- shift some revenue from this year to next year, then move some of it back, then change accounting rules that have been in place for 65 years, then bump up the estimate of economic growth -- all so that the administration can pretend that it is keeping its promise. The Congressional Budget Office, which does honest work but under certain constraints -- more on that in a minute -- is supposed to release its own estimate today, but the main results have already been leaked. They show a deficit outside Social Security this year, a tiny surplus next year, then a return to deficit in 2003 and 2004. And these numbers, read properly, flatly refute two of the arguments you'll hear over the next few days. First, the administration will tell you that the return to deficits is the result of the economic slowdown. Not so: the C.B.O., like the administration, assumes that the economy will recover next year, but projects that we will be in deficit through 2004. Why? Because the tax cut grows over time, and the revenue lost because of that growing tax cut is more than the revenue gained from economic recovery. Why has the prospect of surpluses been replaced by the prospect of deficits, even after the economy recovers? To coin a phrase: It's the tax cut, stupid. Second, the administration will try to blame big spenders in Congress for the deficits. But who are these big spenders? The only major new spending items in the C.B.O. projection are for defense and education -- both in response to administration initiatives. And it's the administration, not the Democrats, that has described the defense increase as a mere "down payment" on much larger future sums. Those future defense increases aren't in the C.B.O. projection, because the rules under which C.B.O. operates force it to project the budget as if current policy will remain unchanged. So the C.B.O. projection leaves out the budget-busters it knows are out there, such as Donald Rumsfeld's next installment and the cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax. Put those items in, and the picture is clear: the surplus is gone, and we won't see it again as long as the tax cut goes through as scheduled. I'll turn in future columns to the reasons why this year's deficit is not a bad thing, but those future deficits -- which will be much larger than the C.B.O. projects -- are very bad things indeed. But the important point for now involves honor and credibility. Mr. Bush promised not to dip into the Social Security surplus; he has broken that promise. Critics told you that would happen; they have been completely vindicated. Mr. Bush told you it wouldn't; he lied.</I> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/28/opinion/28KRUG.html
I don't know what all the fuss is about, this is the exact same thing that happened when Clinton first got into office. He got elected largely in part due to promising a "middle class tax cut". But right after he took office, he says "Oops, turns out there's not as much money as we thought, sorry--no middle class tax cut.". I know the tax rebate may not be important for people like Kevin Garnett or Achebe, but believe it or not, it's helping my family a great deal.
mc mark: At least try to use a paper with some sembelence of unbias! Freak: There is no difference except that one of those two men is obviously the devil. Which one...hmmm? Ok, maybe they're satan's r****ded cousins!
Great, the voice of objectivism on this board speaks...and it's pro-Bush, anti-Clinton, what an astounding surprise. The difference between what Bush did and what Clinton did is that Clinton didn't completely obliterate the surplus. I think it was widely needed at the time and one could argue that it was needed and he didn't have the vast majority of experts saying it was a horrible idea. If I was Republican or Democrat who worked to create this surplus, I'd be pissed, but those who voted for it share nearly as much of the blame as our President does. <font size=-1><I>(Hey, that's more objective than anything TheFreak's ever posted)</I></font>
Rm95 -- so was that "part 1" of your response? Should I go ahead and respond here, or wait and respond in one of the 5 additional threads you'll probably create on the same subject? Here are some ideas for thread titles: 1. "RM95 is more objective than TheFreak" 2. "RM95 is more objective than RichRocket" 3. "RM95 is more objective than Clutch" 4. "RM95 is more objective than Arbitrator" 5. "RM95 is more objective than finalsbound" I'll go ahead and prepare my response. Look for it under thread number 1 above.
Republicans will forever bash Clinton and his presidency because at the time of his departure, his approval rating across the board were better than their beloved Reagan. They can't handle that. Say what you want about Clinton, the country kicked major ass while he was there. Republicans want to give Reagan all the credit for ending the Cold War as unrealistic as that is? Fine. But give Clinton credit for being the slimy, underhanded, slick politician that he was and had to be to get the country moving forward. The debt was paid. The surplus was growing. The country was booming. Did you need those 300 lousy dollars then? Where you crying that it was our money then? I agree that Washington is totally clueless when it comes to the budget. Both parties are to blame. But to say that Clinton did the same thing? Geez, look at the results, will ya? It all revolves around Clintons penis. Republicans can't get passed that. They will never give any credit to that guy for doing what he did in office. I guess 70 percent of the people they polled for months were all idiots because they sure as hell liked what he was doing. I voted for Gore. But the major sin is that I actually, really, seriously thought about voting for Bush.
I read an article a while back that said that the tax rebate wasn't so much a gift as it was an advance. I can't remember what paper ran that story but it was very interesting. It left me pretty confused. Should I spend it or should I hang on to it and apply to next years taxes which may be higher because of the "rebate"? I'll look around and see if I can find that article......
Found it. http://detnews.com/2001/politics/0107/25/-254330.htm I'd like to hear what some of you think about this article. I don't pretend to know exactly how all this works, but if this article is true then Bush (and congress) will suffer big time in their next elections after tax time rolls around next year.
In a nutshell, the tax tables were modified for the tax year 2001 and beyond. The modification resulted in lower taxes. Rather than wait until you file your 2001 tax return in 2002 to receive the full benefit of the lowered tax, you get the first $300.00 or $600.00 (or some number in between) now. The good part (for the taxpayer) of this is that this is based on the 2000 tax year income so if you DO NOT qualify in 2001 you don't have to return any portion of your rebate. If your refund based on your 2000 tax return IS NOT ENOUGH based on your 2001 tax status, you get to claim it in 2002.
SpaceCity, that's exactly what I thought I had heard about this rebate!! It's an advance on the taxes you WILL be paying this year... if you're single and usually get back about $300 at the end of the year... this year you'll get nothing! That's one of the reasons I'm putting this check in the savings till tax time... If I owe, I use that money... if not, I do with it whatever at that time! Some people are gonna find out they will need that money and it will be too late, already spent! proceed with caution, rH
Is it our debt or is it the politicians' debt? The main problem is that congressmen will spend any money that shows up as a "surplus". Debt reduction? Don't count on it. It won't take a politician that long to find a "priority" that is "underfunded". Thus, I have no problem with the tax cut...except that it wasn't large enough. Don't count me as a Bush supporter...I don't like the idea that my tax dollars are going to subsidize religious groups and am anti-death penalty. Clinton deserves credit that he found it politically worthwhile to go along with the Congress on budgetary matters after 1994. In some respects, Clinton was the most conservative Democratic president since Woodrow Wilson. The Republican Congress did slow the rate of growth in government spending during the 90s...though they obviously found it hard to resist the urge to hold down spending too much towards the end of the decade. As for the performance of the US economy in the 90s...Clinton had very little to do with that. Anyways, why is it good for politicians to spend the money that is earned by taxpayers, especially after the government is fully funded and some is applied to debt reduction? Why is it bad for the taxpayers to keep more of what they earn after the government is funded and some debt is retired? Or is it that the 'smart' people in DC know how to manage our money better than we do ourselves?
Mr Spur, I will agree that Clinton had little to do with the economy or steering the country in the right direction if the Republicans quit taking credit for Reagan ending the cold war and start blaming him for Iran Contra and damn near bringing the country to near bankruptcy. I guess you have to run 30 trillion dollars in debt in 8 years to get an airport named after you, eh? Until then, Clinton Rules. And so does Steve Francis!
This is not true. The tax rates were lowered. If you usually get back around $300.00 you will still get that amount back. If the government did not issue these checks but maintained the lower tax rate schedule, you would be getting back more than $300.00. To expand on that a bit more, the tax schedule you get when it's ready to do income taxes for the 2001 tax year will look similar to what you received last tax year. So everything else being equal, you would get the same refund AND you have already banked the $300.00. Total 2001 tax year refund check = Total 2000 tax year refund check PLUS $300.00
that's interesting bobrek... i'm still gonna wait till tax time and see where I stand...i'll put that 'advance/rebate' in the savings and make it work for me till then... rH
