President George W. Bushs Second Term: Failure

Good to see you are returning to some sense of clarity...

http://img11.imagepile.net/img11/47156applause.gif

:smokey:

http://www.neowin.net/forum/fun/master_obvious.jpg

Just his second term?

I personally can't think of much positive from his first term, maybe NCLB, it was a step in the right direction, but even it is incomplete at best, uses negative reinforcement where it's very ineffective (OK, your school is doing poorly? We're going to pull your funding, that will help out!) and puts too much power in the hands of 'Big Gummint'.

too much power in the hands of 'Big Gummint'.

Welcome to the Libertarian Party. ;)

Staunchly Independent, Sir! :D

(sometimes I think parties should be outlawed altogether, they inhibit any original/independent thought politicians may present, however few they may have in any case...)

You would be amazed at how much variance there is in the LP-USA. I think it's the Island of Misfit Toys for those that want their freedoms- ALL OF THEM- back and protected.

Just his second term?

I personally can't think of much positive from his first term, maybe NCLB, it was a step in the right direction, but even it is incomplete at best, uses negative reinforcement where it's very ineffective (OK, your school is doing poorly? We're going to pull your funding, that will help out!) and puts too much power in the hands of 'Big Gummint'.

I disagree. He had the tax cuts in his first term, which helped the middle class quite a bit, me inlcuded. He got the NCLB passed, though I'm not a big fan...it can still be pointed to as something that was achieved. At the beginning of his second term and with a Republican Congress, I thought there would be some real movement on social security and immigration...not to mention more tax reform. Bush seemed to have a good amount of political capital. But then Iraq sucked the air out of the room, and Republicans started bolting for the exits.

I disagree. He had the tax cuts in his first term, which helped the middle class quite a bit, me inlcuded. Yeah, great, more money for me. And we know that cutting taxes raises revenues, so it all works out in the end anyway, right?

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/fishChoose500.jpg

Yeah, great, more money for me. And we know that cutting taxes raises revenues, so it all works out in the end anyway, right?

If he thought in the end it was all good, would HE have started this thread?

You guys have got to start resisting the temptation to go for the jugular with every post...

Perhaps this thread will shock some of you, coming from a conservative and Bush voter like myself. However, it's something that needs to be discussed apart from the Iraq war and the various scandals, real or concocted as they may be.

From a domestic policy and legislation standpoint, the President's second term has been a total failure. No action on immigration or social security. No major changes to the tax code as promised in his 2004 campaign. Few spending reforms or restructuring of the size and scope of government. Etcetera.

Ironically, Republicans are to blame. My feeling is they saw Bush's numbers falling due to the war and various aforementioned "scandals," and chose to infight and challenge him to protect their own seats. This caused them to get away from conservative principles and become totally ineffective, which in turn cost them the very seats they chose to protect.

It will be interesting to see if anything gets done in Bush's remaining two years (well, 1.5 years I guess). My feeling is no, not with the Democratic Congress, which plans to investigate until everyone turns blue in the face.

I still support Bush's efforts in terms of natonal security. We've not been attacked since 9/11 (this is not by chance, IMHO) and I support the NSA program and the majority of the PATRIOT Act provisions. I realize some of you strongly disagree with that, and we won't change minds here. This thread will be more about domestic policy...or the total lack thereof in his second term.

Let the hate fest begin!

My god!:wow:

Well this must be some kind of alignment of the planets or something!:wow:

Well like Artman I have to say it's good to see you coming to your senses!

However I have to say that I think it's been a failure from the start. His first term had so many things in it that were pointing to where he was going to go and what he was about it was like the first term set the stage for the second.

If you will recall I said during the first term the way GWB operates would become clear in his second term because he has nothing to lose. He's already got most of what he wanted but the way he operates could only go so long before it became apparent to everyone.

However be that as it may this is a big step forward!

I salute you SDW!:smokey:

Actually, tax cuts do raise revenues. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0302-13.pdf)

And Reganomics worked too...imagine that! (http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm)

That said, tax cuts should ideally go along with fiscal restraint, something we haven't had since 2000. :no:Tax cuts absolutely do not increase revenues. No serious person, conservative or liberal, believes it, and not even your article argues that. It claims that revenues grew after the tax cuts - revenues rise due to many factors, such as population growth and inflation. But they won't grow as much as if the tax cuts weren't enacted. (And the example that CATO article uses as the best example of the wonderful effects of tax cuts? 1920-1929. :err: )

And yes Reaganomics worked. It worked the same way Bushenomics worked. It increased deficits. That's it. No stronger economic growth than Clintonomics, Nixonomics, or any other -nomics. Cutting taxes without decreasing spending increases deficits. Nothing more. Oh yeah, it gives politicians good campaign ad topics.

Cutting taxes without decreasing spending increases deficits. Nothing more. Oh yeah, it gives politicians good campaign ad topics.

More or less exactly what I ended my post with, sorry if you misunderstood.

http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/fishChoose500.jpg

Are we sure he can read the packaging? Imean, really, he has a real hard time reading his speeches, and it is getting worse by the day. The condolence speech after VT wrenched my heart... for the country.

If the packaging was full of pictures and images, I think he might be able to tell which was which.

--
How many times were we attacked before 9/11?

Stop calling this scam a president.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

He ain't no scam artist, but he is a scam. Or did you mean to say:

Quit calling this scum a president.

?

With his continual demise (I am seeing early signs of dementia), who is propping him up? What was that movie, again, where the prez is not the prez but..?

Early signs of motor disfunction in my hands... maybe... er... Bubble Wrap!!!

Yeah, great, more money for me. And we know that cutting taxes raises revenues, so it all works out in the end anyway, right?

Yeah, more my what was my money to begin with. And yes, tax cuts do often end up creating more revenue, though you refuse to acknowledge it.

Yeah, more my what was my money to begin with. And yes, tax cuts do often end up creating more revenue, though you refuse to acknowledge it.

It's my impression that the people who came up with the idea in the first place don't even agree with that. I think the gist was that in certain, although not all, situations, tax cuts don't result in a 1 to 1 decrease in revenue. Instead, for every 1 dollar tax decrease would only be only a 70 loss in revenue or something like that.

I seem to recall reading an article recently where the originators of supply side economics were very much opposed to the bush tax cuts.

It's all hazy though. I could be totally wrong.

It's my impression that the people who came up with the idea in the first place don't even agree with that. I think the gist was that in certain, although not all, situations, tax cuts don't result in a 1 to 1 decrease in revenue. Instead, for every 1 dollar tax decrease would only be only a 70 loss in revenue or something like that.

I seem to recall reading an article recently where the originators of supply side economics were very much opposed to the bush tax cuts.

It's all hazy though. I could be totally wrong.

All respect, you are wrong. Just look at the overall revenue numbers over a few years time after tax cuts have been instituted. It's unquestionable.

You're hopeless, BRussell. You'll use anything except that data that actually matters to justify your position. Look at the OVERALL REVENUE FIGURES over a period of years after major tax cuts have been instituted. That's what matters. Revenue has gone up dramatically each time major tax cuts have been enacted. Really. So in other words if we looked at revenues over time, say on the first page of this CBO document (http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf), we wouldn't see that the only times in history that revenues ever went down were when there were tax cuts? Like after Reagan's tax cuts were passed, we wouldn't see a drop in revenues from 617.8 billion to 600.6 billion? And when Bush's tax cuts were passed we wouldn't see revenue drops for three years in a row afterwards? Instead we'd see that revenues actually went UP rather than down? Amazing.

SDW, nobody believes that tax cuts result in a net revenue increase. The economists who work for Bush don't believe this. The people that originally advocated supply-side and Laffer curves don't believe it. The data don't support it, no matter which type of analysis you try to suggest. It's just not true.

Perhaps this thread will shock some of you, coming from a conservative and Bush voter like myself. However, it's something that needs to be discussed apart from the Iraq war and the various scandals, real or concocted as they may be.

From a domestic policy and legislation standpoint, the President's second term has been a total failure. No action on immigration or social security. No major changes to the tax code as promised in his 2004 campaign. Few spending reforms or restructuring of the size and scope of government. Etcetera.

Ironically, Republicans are to blame. My feeling is they saw Bush's numbers falling due to the war and various aforementioned "scandals," and chose to infight and challenge him to protect their own seats. This caused them to get away from conservative principles and become totally ineffective, which in turn cost them the very seats they chose to protect.

It will be interesting to see if anything gets done in Bush's remaining two years (well, 1.5 years I guess). My feeling is no, not with the Democratic Congress, which plans to investigate until everyone turns blue in the face.

I still support Bush's efforts in terms of natonal security. We've not been attacked since 9/11 (this is not by chance, IMHO) and I support the NSA program and the majority of the PATRIOT Act provisions. I realize some of you strongly disagree with that, and we won't change minds here. This thread will be more about domestic policy...or the total lack thereof in his second term.

Let the hate fest begin![/QUOTE]

Do you not feel that 'national security' and the integrity of our borders are in close relation? By rights, when it has been promoted ad nauseam that there are 'Islamic terrorists out to get us at the slightest opportunity', and our unguarded porous borders are penetrated by 3000 undocumented people per day, shouldn't we expect the Bush Administration to pay at least some attention to fixing that problem? I guess not. I wonder why? I know this is a silly question, but does Mexico monitor al Qaeda so diligently that they are scared to set foot in that country on the way to "getting at America"? Hardly.

A man killed 33 people in Virginia the other day, and the authorities had no clue in advance. That should give us some idea how incredibly easy it is to perpetrate mass killings on U.S soil, that is, for those who are offbalance or psychopathic enough. No amount of big brotherism wiretappings, security measures, mass surveillance, detention camps, color codes, kangaroo court/military tribunals etc. will "make us totally safe" and the motivation for such measures is undoubtedly more to do with business, ie. maintaining the flow of taxpayer dollars towards industries and agencies that specialize in "security".

It is also plain that the 'PATRIOT' Acts, the ridiculous 'Terror Threat' color code, domestic wiretapping, Carnivore, and all the other big government/big brother type measures imposed since 9/11 are more political in nature, aimed more against domestic dissent and philosophical/political opponents of the Bush admin/neocon axis, rather than netting people who might want to commit acts of terror.

Re. the rest of his domestic program, I agree that it is a total failure, resulting in bigger more intrusive government; are not true conservatives against "bigger government"?

Re. the Iraq war: everyone has been touting this as a failure. However, the architects of the war are no political spring chickens, and the chaos that reigns in Iraq now was foreseen, forecast, and planned for. The real (unmarketable) reason for the war was, in the words of the neocon former White House advisor P. Zelikow, "Israels security", and with the 3 cultural and religious factions in Iraq neatly divided and fighting amongst each other, they have surely gone some way towards that aim.

He's not been a failure from the start...that's objectively false. It's the second term and the inability to push any major domestic agenda forward whatsoever.

Ah! The universe back to normal!

This kind of dependability kind of gives you a warm feeling doesn't it?:lol:

:lol: Of course revenues increase if you include long enough periods of time. You get population growth, economic growth, inflation, etc. What you're claiming is that having tax cuts increases revenues over what it would have been. So let's compare.

Revenues were 517 billion in 1980 and 909 in 1988. That's an increase of 75%. Now look at an 8-year period that didn't have tax cuts. Look at 1972 to 1980, right before Reagan. There's an increase from 207 to 517 billion, or 150%, twice as much revenue growth as during the Reagan years. So Reaganomics massively reduced revenue growth from what it had been, it didn't increase it. Tax cuts lose revenue.

Or look at the Clinton years, 1992-2000, after tax increases. According to SDWenomics, revenues shouldn't grow as much during this time as they grow after tax cuts. But the increase is 1091 to 2026, or 86%, again, more than during the Reagan years.

Now let's look at the Bush years. Revenues were 2026 billion in the years 2000. In 2006, they were 2407. That's an increase of less than 20% in 6 years. It's not 8 years like the other time-frames yet, but my guess is that's the lowest revenue growth in any 6-year period in that chart. We'll see in 2008, but I'd be willing to bet it will be one of the lowest 8-year periods of revenue growth too.

That doesn't happen by accident. It's because tax cuts lose revenue. The data show exactly the opposite of what you claim, no matter how you try to finesse it.

So Reaganomics massively reduced revenue growth from what it had been

But this begs the question...what would revenues have been[i] without the tax cuts that stimulated the economy in the 1980s and early 2000s? I'll agree that tax cuts don't "create" revenue per se...that was a poor way to phrase it on my part. They do [i]aid the revenue situation over time if the economy is not doing well at the moment. Further, it's not a matter of tax cuts "costing" money. That rhetorical device drives me bonkers. It's like saying that me saving an extra $50 a week costs me $50 a week. That's another issue, though.

The following is only my opinion..

Bush has taken the platform of Republican party and ideas of "conservatives" and flushed these things down the sewer. What Bush has done is rely on his image of being for tax cuts, his image of being a "Christian", his image of being on the hunt for terrorists, and his policy of fear. did I mention sound bites? With us or against us" etc.

Bush in my view has played conservatives and Christians tossing each "a" bone to lead them on.

for the conservatives it is tax cuts which I do agree with 100%

for the Christians it is his support of "Christian" causes which I agree with 100%

As a Christian, you will have more insight into this... but why have a large segment of the US Christian community, especially those who relate to the Bush Administration taken up two arbitrary issues out of hundreds of others, many of them far more pressing and urgent, and instead, narrowing Christianity's worldly focus to become a crusade against gay people and abortion?

What about warfare and mass killings of innocents based on lies?
Corporate greed?
Hunger and starvation?
Trashing and poisoning the planet, pollution?
Placing the fate of the worlds food supplies and crop seeds in the hands of Monsanto etc?
Homelessness and hopelessness?
Poverty?
Racism, sexism and all the other uncivilized "isms"?
inequity of pay and prospects between men and women?
Inner city gang violence ... and the causes thereof?
Instigating or using terrorist attacks to justify war and curtailing of civil rights?
Secret kangaroo trials?
Imprisonment without charge?
Torture?
Mass surveillance?

...and all the other sick and sorry afflictions that are plaguing this unfortunate planet?

These are all major deals for *real* Christians, but for the Robertson/Falwell phoneys on the religious right, addressing/solving these problems seems to be "excess baggage", or smacks of "Commie Talk".. (I can hear that preacher right now).

:( :(