New at Reason
Steve Chapman reads the State of the Union for evidence of all of the ways, in seven years on the job, that George W. Bush has disappointed.
Comments to "New at Reason":
kwais | January 31, 2008, 8:34am | #
Hey so any threads about the Wesley Snipes tax case?http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-cfbriefs31_208jan31,0,4366972.story?track=rss
kwais | January 31, 2008, 8:42am | #
Here is the Wesley Snipes tax case.I would like to talk about how evil the IRS is and how there shouldn't be an income tax.
At least you're not hiding the thread jack attempt behind any veil ;)
joe | January 31, 2008, 9:13am | #
I'm not typically one to defend Bush, but he didn't "push through" the Medicare drug benefit. The public was demanding one, and politicians across the spectrum were responding.Reading Reason, you'd think it was Bush's pet project, that he rammed through a skeptical Congress.
Nobody who didn't support a prescription drug benefit in Medicare would have survived in office past 2002 or 2004 without one.
J sub D | January 31, 2008, 9:14am | #
On topic,It's been seven years of the Bush adminstration. He had a GOP majority for the first six. Is there anybody delusioned enough to say this train wreck of an presidency is somehow, by any measuer better than the Clinton I administration?
Partisanship is OK, but we adults should be able to put it aside when assessing a politicians job performance. I've yet to vote for a Democrat for president and consider Bush II, like most sequels, notably worse than the original (who was hardly an upper tier president).
joe | January 31, 2008, 9:17am | #
J sub D,His Africa policy has been better than Clinton's.
And that's it.
J sub D | January 31, 2008, 9:50am | #
His Africa policy has been better than Clinton's.Of all the people at H&R joe, you were the last I'd have expected to find a nugget in that giant pile of manure. I'm impressed.
joe | January 31, 2008, 9:57am | #
I'm not going to find you links for you, RC. I will mock you though.What are you, kidding me? Did you live in this country during the 2000 election cycle?
I think Ford actually said "The State of our Union is not good" IIRC but I can't think of any other President that had the balls to admit it when things were terrible.
Calidore | January 31, 2008, 10:02am | #
joe,Some elements of the public were concerned with the issue.
Enough elements of the public were concerned with the issue that all of the top contenders from both parties felt the need to promise to deliver a drug benefit as they campaigned for the presidency.
The geezers wanted free boner pills and the politicians delivered. Taxpayers? Screw 'em!
joe | January 31, 2008, 10:07am | #
OT, check out this poll question from Gallup:Is there any candidate running this year that you think would make a good president, or not?
And the results…
1992: 40% Yes….. 41% no….. 19% No opinion…
2008: 84% Yes……11% no……. 5% No opinion…
Thoughts?
P Brooks | January 31, 2008, 10:23am | #
Whatever he hears from the American people when he leaves office next January, I'm guessing it won't be that.I'm thinking, "Good fucking riddance- don't let the door hit you on the way out" would be about right.
Although "Sir, come with us, and don't cause a disturbance" as federal marshals escort him to his flight to the Netherlands would be pretty sweet.
Cesar | January 31, 2008, 10:26am | #
The Netherlands? Thats too good for him I was thinking more along the lines of St. Helena.Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | January 31, 2008, 10:27am | #
joe:1992: 40% Yes….. 41% no….. 19% No opinion…Thoughts: Obama and McCain have more appeal across party lines than do most candidates. Not sure if that accounts for all of it, but I think it's a part. Also, the fact that there are significantly different types of candidates running this year than is usual for either party (Ron Paul, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama are all a little unusual for their parties in one way or another) and in some cases getting a little press, might be making those on the fringes or with particular axes to grind more happy than usual.
2008: 84% Yes……11% no……. 5% No opinion…
Thoughts?
From the Keystrokes of John Q. Public.. | January 31, 2008, 10:31am | #
2000 2007 Change (%)US Population 281.4 million 301.6 million +7.18
Tax Revenues $2.025 trillion $2.54 trillion +25.4
National Debt $5.67 trillion $9.01 trillion +58.9
Budget Deficit/Surplus $236.2 billion -244.2 billion -196.7
Unfunded Liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) $33 trillion $53 trillion +60.6
MZM Money Supply on Dec. 31 $4.697 trillion $8.105 trillion +72.6
Monthly Inflation in December 3.38% 4.08% +20.7
Military Spending $294.5 billion $439.3 billion +49.2
Department of Agriculture budget $75.1 billion $88.7 billion +18.1
Farms 2.167 million 2.09 million* -3.5
Dollar-Euro Exchange Rate on Dec. 31 1.062 .6794 -36.0
Gold Price on Dec. 31 $272.15 $833.20 +206.15
Citigroup Stock on Dec. 31 $51.06 $29.44 -73.4
Archer-Daniels-Midland Stock on Dec. 31 $15.00 $46.43 +209.5
Gasoline Price (US Regular) on Dec. 31 $1.38 $3.02 +118.8
Dear President Bush and Congress,
Fuck You.
Remaining Your Faithful Servant,
Lee J. Cruz
The tax cut I received was a hell of a lot bigger than we'd get from Gore. And the carbon myth would have been front and center under Gore. Not to mention we would have had to look at that disgusting man for four years. Those things alone make Bush better than the alternative.
P Brooks | January 31, 2008, 10:35am | #
Enough elements of the public were concerned with the issue that all of the top contenders from both parties felt the need to promise to deliver a drug benefit as they campaigned for the presidency.Hoorah! Let's hear it for the hypochondriac vote.
Cesar | January 31, 2008, 10:42am | #
James-The Republican Congress would've blocked a Gore Presidency's leftish tendencies.
kwais | January 31, 2008, 10:45am | #
I think what is needed to fix the current mess of prescription drug handouts, SS, and the drug war too, if for people to start refusing to pay their taxes in larger percentages.I wonder if they could legally bar someone from running commercials to encourage people to refuse to pay taxes?
Wouldn't that be a cool trial?
kwais | January 31, 2008, 10:51am | #
Also about comparing this Prez,I Clinton's policy in regards to Iraq was worse than Bush's
Clinton and Gore's stance on Gun rights would have been worse.
They seem to be equally bad in the area of IRS, and the Drug war.
I am hoping that the Republicans in Congress fight the seemingly inevitable Hillary presidency tooth and nail. (and that they gain much popularity doing so.
Sam Grove | January 31, 2008, 11:10am | #
Is there any candidate running this year that you think would make a good president, or not?1992: 40% Yes….. 41% no….. 19% No opinion…
2008: 84% Yes……11% no……. 5% No opinion…
Thoughts?
It would be interesting to see who the respondents thought would make a good president.
R C Dean | January 31, 2008, 11:11am | #
What are you, kidding me? Did you live in this country during the 2000 election cycle?Sure, and while I am sure powerful lobbying groups were pushing for a big Medicare expansion, I'm just wondering what the broader public attitude was.
You don't seem to know either, joe, so we'll just leave it at that.
J sub D | January 31, 2008, 11:12am | #
Clinton's policy in regards to Iraq was worse than Bush'sThousands of dead solier's families might disagree. Tens of thousands of wounded and crippled vets might disagree. Tens of thousands of dead Iraqi's families might disagree. Halliburton Inc. probably agrees.
Clinton and Gore's stance on Gun rights would have been worse.
Maybe, might have. Speculation.
From the Keystrokes of John Q. Public.. | January 31, 2008, 11:22am | #
I'm reminded of Fred Barnes chuckling as he spoke about the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. He spoke of how the Democrats had tried for years to get one through and the Republicans had always blocked it. Now they were mad because the Republicans got that legislation through and they could claim it as their success.Talk about blind partisanship, if they blocked it... it must have been a bad thing. That is.. until they did it. *shaking head*I don't think it would have got through if we had an Al Gore Presidency, the deciding vote was Cheney in favor of the bill.
Gilbert Martin | January 31, 2008, 11:26am | #
"It's been seven years of the Bush adminstration. He had a GOP majority for the first six. Is there anybody delusioned enough to say this train wreck of an presidency is somehow, by any measuer better than the Clinton I administration?"Yes - investment income tax rates are lower and we don't have a Vice President running around squawking about needing more gun control laws to protect "the children".
kwais | January 31, 2008, 11:31am | #
J subA lot of people might disagree. Haliburton employees or owners might agree or disagree.
Tens of thousands of dead or injured Shia might agree or disagree.
Tens of thousands of dead or wounded Kurds might agree or disagree.
3,000 or so dead Americans in the towers might agree or disagree (they were, I believe, proof that containment was not working).
Also, it is speculation that Al Gore and Clinton were worse on gun control?
joe | January 31, 2008, 11:44am | #
3,000 or so dead Americans in the towers might agree or disagree (they were, I believe, proof that containment was not working).Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Nothing. This has been definitively proven for years.
There are two groups that benefited from the Iraq War. The Kurds, and the Iranians. Everyone else loses.
Calidore | January 31, 2008, 11:50am | #
joe,One could make that argument, but would be an argument about the nature of the overall troubles in the region from which the 9/11 plot orginated.
Calidore | January 31, 2008, 11:50am | #
joe,At least that is the argument I would make if I were trying to draw said connection.
NAL | January 31, 2008, 12:05pm | #
US Population 281.4 million 301.6 million +7.18Tax Revenues $2.025 trillion $2.54 trillion +25.4
Are those tax revenue numbers in the same year's dollars? That is, have they been normalized for inflation. If so, then conservatives are right that lowering taxes can increase tax revenues, even correcting for the larger population.
If they are not inflation normalized, then normalizing them using the method below* (and correcting for population increase) you get $2.613 trillion that we would have collected had the tax laws stayed the same as under Clinton. That is, the Bush tax cuts are costing the treasury ~$73 billion per year.
*Take the inflation rates of 2001-2007 from here: http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp
and multiply them properly (i.e. 1.0283 * 1.0159 * ...) to get the total inflation from the end of 2000 thru 2007 (=1.204 or 20.4% inflation over 7 years), then you multiply that by $2.025 trillion, you get $2.438 trillion. Now if you correct that for the increase in population (more people paying into tax system), 2.438 trillion * 1.0718 = $2.613 trillion.
kwais | January 31, 2008, 12:10pm | #
Right, that is what I was referring to.9/11 being a direct result of containment.
OBL already didn't like us. But Our troops stationed in Saudi and Kuwait containing Iraq were the motivations for 9/11.
Of course if containment was the right thing to do, then it was the right thing to do, and fuck the terrorists.
But I don't think that containment was the right thing to do. Bombing Iraq day by day, and starving kids, and enriching corrupt UN officials.
TrickyVic | January 31, 2008, 12:19pm | #
"""Is there anybody delusioned enough to say this train wreck of an presidency is somehow, by any measuer better than the Clinton I administration?"""I bet there is. It's the same group that acts like it's the dems fault for the current problems in the nation. How they forget that the republicans were in charge of 2 of the 3 branches of government for 6 of the last 7 years.
TrickyVic | January 31, 2008, 12:22pm | #
"""3,000 or so dead Americans in the towers might agree or disagree (they were, I believe, proof that containment was not working).""Yet containment is the way the Bush admin has handled the person behind those almost 3000 deaths to this day.
J sub D | January 31, 2008, 12:28pm | #
3,000 or so dead Americans in the towers might agree or disagree (they were, I believe, proof that containment was not working).Well that explains us invading the country that was home to the majority of them, deposing the undemocratic regime and freeing up the 50% of their population that had no discernable human rights. Yep, the House of Saud had it coming.
Seriously, Iranian mullahs excepted, how than the invasion and occupation of Iraq be counted as anything but an unmitigated disaster? The Kurds were essentially autonomous prior to the invasion, the average Shia is less safe than prior to the invasion. But you knew that.
GreenArtifex | January 31, 2008, 12:40pm | #
Are those tax revenue numbers in the same year's dollars? That is, have they been normalized for inflation. If so, then conservatives are right that lowering taxes can increase tax revenues, even correcting for the larger population.I buy the correction for inflation, but isn't the population correction somewhat bogus ? This is making the assumption that the tax burden is evenly distributed. I suspect that the vast majority of population increase is not the favored target of the tax man.
Actual numbers for this would be interesting.
joe | January 31, 2008, 12:55pm | #
But Our troops stationed in Saudi and Kuwait containing Iraq were the motivations for 9/11.OK, let's accept that for the sake of argument. For you claim that Bush's Iraq policy was "better" in this respect, you would have to believe that a larger number of American forces actively occupying Iraq would inspire less terrorism than a smaller number of American forces on bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
The growth of al Qaeda in Iraq would seem to refute such a claim.
Bombing Iraq day by day Good thing we're not bombing Iraq anymore, and that poverty is lower.
kwais | January 31, 2008, 1:11pm | #
""Well that explains us invading the country that was home to the majority of them, deposing the undemocratic regime and freeing up the 50% of their population that had no discernable human rights. Yep, the House of Saud had it coming.Hmm should we invade Germany too? If it turns out that a bunch of them were German citizens? Or were studying in Germany maybe?
I mean, I lived in Saudi for 6 months, I don't like the government anymore than the next guy, but this line of logic seems misplaced to me.
joe | January 31, 2008, 1:42pm | #
If the 9/11 hijackers were Germans citizens, or if they'd studied German, there would be a stronger nexus between Germany and the attacks than there is between Iraq and the attacks, though still less than between Saudi Arabia and the attacks.If invading Saudi Arabia, which is much more closely linked to those events, seems nonsensical (and I agree, it does), what does that say about invading Iraq?
economist | January 31, 2008, 3:50pm | #
"because the public was demanding one and politicians across the spectrum responded."This is exhibit A for how much ass unchecked democracy sucks. It doesn't matter if it's constitutional. It doesn't matter whether it's redistributive and whether or not the government has the right to take earned income from some and give it to others. It's all about what "the public" demands.
Gilbert Martin | January 31, 2008, 4:34pm | #
"It doesn't matter if it's constitutional. It doesn't matter whether it's redistributive and whether or not the government has the right to take earned income from some and give it to others. It's all about what "the public" demands."The line was crossed in a major way on that about 70 years ago and it's been off to the races for government expansion ever since.
Thanks for nothing, FDR.
TrickyVic | January 31, 2008, 4:47pm | #
""""It's all about what "the public" demands."""You could not be more wrong. That is why we are a Constitutional-Republic and not a Democracy. Our founding fathers knew public demands = mob rules.
TrickyVic | January 31, 2008, 4:49pm | #
"""This is exhibit A for how much ass unchecked democracy sucks."""Ah, yes you are right about that.
beachjake | February 4, 2008, 2:25am | #
Does anyone notice that we haven't been attacked under President Bush since 911? He thinks long-term, has principles, and is much smarter than any of the bloggers and critics.Can you envision Bill Maher giving the State of the Union speech?
lnwells | February 9, 2008, 2:10pm | #
winston churchill said- "democracy is the worst form of government - except when compared to everything else"But if the US has a constitution to prevent mob rule or abuse- wouldn't that worthy document have limited the powers of the adminstration from telling lies to justify an illegal war. And once it was discovered, that lies were knowingly used - wouldn't impeachment be persued?