OT: Rating the President

[rextorres]

Herbert Hoover didn't do anything during the depression, because governments role was to "stay out of the way" and he's blamed for making the depression worse.

Besides there is an assumption that "taxing the rich" is a redistribution of wealth or is some sort of hand out for the poor. You know what taxes pay for and it's not welfare. All you guys that support a millionaire subsidy still haven't said what sort of things you'd cut from the budget to pay for it - which btw is why we have a deficit because the resident doesn't have the leadership to cut anything either.

[ February 05, 2003, 02:21: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
It's not a republican or democratic problem, it's a rot the whole process.

Clinton policies were actually much mroe favorable to Enrons way of doing business. FOr example Ken Lay was a huge supporter of the Kyoto agreement, which Bush has all but scrapped.

Who was president while Enron was doing all it's shenanigans? Not Bush.

Geoschmo

HUH!

W used Enron's plane to fly around the country during his campaign and Enron and Ken Lay were W's biggest contributors.

The reason Ken Lay supported Kyoto was because he was afraid of stricter regulation - Kyoto was a compromise.

Enron donated 3x as much money to republicans as democrats.

http://www.commoncause.org/publicati...n02/011102.htm

EDIT: It was Gingrich's "Contract on America" that caused all the problems with Enron because of the deregulation that occurred blaming Slick for Enron doesn't make any sense.

[ February 05, 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Uh no. The only thing Bush had to do with Enron was they gave some campaign donations. Enron gave loads of cash to both sides. That's one of the dirty little secrets of American politics. It's not a republican or democratic problem, it's a rot the whole process.

How bout Lay's involvement in the Bush/Cheney's Energy Plan. The energy companies got nice subsidies and tax breaks and the plan was written with the "help" of Enron and the like.
It was being investigated by the Government Accounting Office (whoever they may be).

And if its the whole process then that really sux. Never trust the establishment no matter what they say.

Askan

[tesco samoa]

http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.html

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Clinton policies were actually much mroe favorable to Enrons way of doing business. FOr example Ken Lay was a huge supporter of the Kyoto agreement, which Bush has all but scrapped.

Geoschmo

Um... and here I was thinking the Senate all but scrapped the Kyoto treaty.
(Hint: if the President signs a treaty, it is not binding until the Senate ratifies it. At best a Presidential signature means "we'll consider it". Which is apparently something that many people living inside and outside the US do not realize.)

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Herbert Hoover didn't do anything during the depression, because governments role was to "stay out of the way" and he's blamed for making the depression worse.

FDR, who did a lot during the depression, did not make the economy better in any way. In fact, before WWII began, the economy was getting steadily worse. WWII is the only thing that saved the country from the Great Depression. So, Hoover didn't throw money away and massively inflate the national debt, and the economy didn't get better. FDR threw tons of money away and vastly inflated the national debt, and the economy did not get any better. Looks like Hoover's plan was better to me, because at least the national debt was not increased and money wasn't wasted.

People that blame Hoover for making the Depression worse need to take some basic history and economics classes again to learn how they are dead wrong.

[rextorres]

Huh?

Do you believe what your saying or is it just rhetorical?

Well I guess Coolidge who was even more laissez faire than Hoover, was more responsible, but Hoover pretty much sat by for two years and watched thing get from bad to worse until even he felt that he had to intervene and that's why he is mostly blamed for the suffering of the depression.

I just pulled out my trusty history book and here is an excerpt:

". . . In his second term, Coolidge continued to be sympathetic to business. He appointed William Humphrey to the Federal Trade Commission, who systematically refused to investigate various monopolies. Coolidge also passed the Revenue Act in 1926 this act chopped taxes on high incomes with very little cuts for middle incomes. In 1924, after a decline in business, the Reserve banks created over $500 million in new money. Because of the fiscal policies, banks could now lend out over $4 billion. The enormous credit expansion sowed the seed for the stock market crash in 1929, the depression, and the New Deal. (sound familiar? lower taxes on the wealthy make people want to borrow by lowering interest rates)"

The main cause of the depression was lack of regulation of the stock market and banking institutions.

As far as Roosevelt spending money - (if you read your history books - I agree - there is a lot of debate whether Roosevelt's policies were effective) - still there was very much a possiblility that the there could be a revolution there was up to 20% unemployment 80% in some industrial cities and war veterans were marching on Washington - I guess trying to help these people doesn't fit into your philosophy, but a revolution probably would have been worse - and the New Deal helped alleviate the tensions.

As far as the deficit goes - where did you get your info or did you just make that up? The deficit didn't start ballooning until the eighties when a Reagan passed HIS millionaire subsidy. There was a spike during WWII - but based on how you feel about war that shouldn't bother you.

[ February 05, 2003, 21:44: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fian]

Explain to me how requiring the rich to pay less taxes is a subsidy to them? Personally, I think it is shameful how we are exploting the rich and using class warfare to justify it. Even with Bush's plan, many people with kids will end up RECEIVING money from the government instead of paying income tax. A family of 4 with two kids that makes 40k a year will pay almost no income tax. The top 50% of those in the US pay almost all of the income tax. (See www.rushlimbaugh.com for figures and analysis (he quotes the IRS I believe))

[rextorres]

Well this chart is income tax this chart does NOT include Social Security tax.

Rush (conveniently) forgets to mention that everyone pays 8.9% of their income to Social Security for the first 77k of income so the %s are deceptive. So someone making $20K pays ~ $1900 BEFORE deductions and 40K pays $3800 BEFORE deductions and someone making $1million pays 77K x 8.9% (whatever that is). There are a lot more people making less than 77k.

All this is supposed to go to Social Security and theoretically your supposed to get that back when you retire BUT it is all being lumped together together in the general fund to pay for non social security line items (that is what the lock box is all about BTW for those of you who don't know) - so Rush's figure is partly right because even though it seems like the wealthy are paying a huge amount more - they are not.

So since the tax cut applies only to income tax not Social Security tax someone making 20k doesn't get any tax cut but still pays the same rate of 8.9% for social security. Someone making a million dollars gets a 3%(?) tax cut.

Voila the millionaire subsidy.

EDIT: If the resident had been sincere about giving "the people back their money" he would have also lowered the Social Security tax but he didn't. Why not? The Social Security tax is 44% of revenue AND is mostly paid by lower income people.

[ February 05, 2003, 23:40: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Fian]

OK, I will agree that everyone does pay other types of taxes. You could also have mentioned the gas tax as well (and probably the employer side taxes as well). So long as the cost of Social Security don't decrease, I don't see a reason to decrease the Social Security tax (in fact with the prescription drug benefit maybe we should be thinking about expanding it). In my opinion, the Poor/Middle Class should pay Social Security tax as it is a benefit that they are receiving, just like I paid into a 401k plan for my retirement as well. One other reason that social security and gas taxes have not been discussed in a reduction is that they haven't been raised recently, unlike income tax. In a lot of ways, Bush's tax cut is a repeal of Clinton's tax hike, who IIRC, placed the lion's share of the tax increase on the "rich." So this is the way it always seems to work. On a tax increase, most of the tax increase is placed on the rich. On a tax refund, people complain if most of the tax increase goes to the rich. As a result, the difference between the wealthy at 39% and the poor at 10% has become severe (forgive me if I have the tax brackets wrong). And with inflation people keep getting pushed up to higher and higher tax brackets.

Bottom line: If we like to raise taxes against the rich, then we should also reduce their taxes when we are looking at a tax refund.