President Bush: Insane?...Or Just Nuts?...

Remove all ads!

Well, he is my lawful president--if you ignore the claims of Al Gore and John Kerry--and yours too, if you happen to live here in Wonderland.

Historically, the touchstones of a failed presidency used to be the Grant or Harding administrations. Rampant corruption, incompetent administration, they set a standard not to be equalled. Until now. As our president, George W.--Dubya to his friends--has done what he has always done best. That is to say, he has failed. Failed oil companies in the Eighties, from which he was bailed out by his father's friends. Then a spell as the billboard president of a Texas baseball team. And then, to our woe, a moderately successful spell as the governor of that state, where he earned a reputation, now obviously undeserved, as a man able to work in harmony with the opposition party. These events, and their satisfactory outcomes--from the Bush point of view--have given us the administration we have today: "I cannot fail; and if I do, someone [God?] will bail me out."

Whether Bush was as flexible as legend reports in his years as governor of Texas I cannot say; not having been there to see those years close up. (Perhaps Chandos could give a view.) He was pretty inflexible when it came to executing prisoners, perhaps a harbinger of things to come. It is quite certain that his attitude hardened when he became President: opponents were to be humiliated or crushed; My Way or the Highway! The Rove influence? Rove, Bush's closest political advisor, idolizes Richard Nixon, who had a paranoid view of his enemies.

But all this toughness and intransigence have produced only failure, a failure, I believe, without parallel in our history. In fact, I believe it would be impossible to cite a single instance in which it could be said that this administration had been successful in anything other than awarding lucrative contracts to its corporate friends and giving tax breaks to the rich who don't need them, but do of course desire them.

Katrina? A disaster, and still a disaster today, as displaced residents are still sheltering in Houston or Memphis or wherever, while FEMA yuppifies the places where they used to live. This was their HOME!

Iraq? Lies, Lies, and still more Lies! And the magic word OIL is never mentioned. As though we'd be there if Iraq's major national product was tobacco. Liberation from nicotine. Right. And the way they've fought it has been especially delightful: no body armor for the troops, no armor for the vehicles, but plenty of fat contracts for the corporate friends.

Global Warming? A left wing fantasy.

The Clean Air Initiative? Better call it the Dirty Air Initiative, since it reduced standards.

No Child Left Behind? All children left behind. Ask a teacher!

So it goes. But this is just intransigence, and possibly stupidity, or, less kindly, evil intent. But today, Bush, asked about Iraq, said there is no civil war. "It's just evil, pure evil."

So maybe he is nuts.

 

I agree with most of that, but not all of it. The tax breaks were fair for all. Everybody was treated equally on that front, it was liberals attempting to discredit him (if only they'd known what was just around the corner). Iraq was about 2 things Bush Sr.'s revenge and oil, but even Clinton believed there to be large stockpiles of wmd's. Also, what the news didn't tell you, they did find chemical weapons, small amounts and relatively old, but it was there. He is definitely a bane to the enviroment, just a money hungry oil buddy.
The whole Florida recount crap was just that. They wanted to throw out a ton of ballots, most of which were absentee ballots from the military. He won that election. The Kerry controversy, who knows what happened in Ohio. However it has been made public that both sides have been rigging elections, and I think that's even scarier. The Patriot Act is the least patriotic bill ever passed and honestly scares me. I fear for our country because of this administration and the people around it. Don't think that the Democrats are any better though, they're just as bad, and that's the saddest thing of all.

 

Elaborate, please. All information I've come across suggests otherwise.

 

Here's the best analogy I could find, and pretty friggin accurate

and that is what the actual complaint in fact is. It's about the top bracket getting a bigger monetary break, nevermind that the percentage of the break is infact less. The top 40% save an avg of almost $3000, and the bottom 60% save a little over $350. Is it unfair to the poor that don't pay taxes already? No, it's not like we're going to give them money, this isn't welf... nevermind but in all seriousness we aren't going to give them money in lieu of a tax break that theysee no benefit from because they don't pay taxes.

The top 25% pay 85% of the taxes. The top 5% pay 57% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pays 3.3% of the taxes, down from 4% of all taxes before Bush implemented his cuts. Now let's go into tax rate.
Top 50% in 2000 paid at an avg of 16.86%, in 2004 the paid 13.51% a 19.9% difference. The bottom 50% in 2000 paid 4.6%, in 2004 they paid 2.97% a 35.5% difference. Does that help clear things up? Mind you a substantial portion of the bottom 50% paid no taxes at all, and that number only went up


edit: but remember, I do agree with you that Bush is making a serious case for worst president ever.

[ April 05, 2007, 12:00: Message edited by: Shadow Assassin ]

 

For that analogy to be applicable to Bush's tax cuts, the tax cuts would have to have been equally beneficial--proportionally--to everyone. However, the rich benefited more proportionally from the tax cuts than did any other segment of society.

EDIT: hmm. Editing while I respond. Underhanded, sir! I call foul and demand a duel at dawn. With shotguns.

It should be kept in mind that while income tax is progressive--though less so than it was--there are regressive taxes in this country. Sales tax hits the minimum wage worker a hell of a lot harder, proportionally, than it does Warren Buffet.

 

not really, seeing as Buffet buys much bigger toys. Remember Sales tax is State and local, not federal. And when you say proportionally it depends on what you use, percentage wise I'd say no. The total monetary value may be more, but it's a larger percentage of overall income by far. So percentage wise the less wealthy reaped a larger benefit (35.5% difference!) So let's just say he were to cut taxes by 50% for those making under 60K and 25% for those making over. let's say they're taxed at 20% each. so a guy making 400K saves 25K, while a person making 35k only saves 3500. That is what they're crying foul over, in essence. Does it seem wrong that the guy making 400k just saved 21500 more than the guy making 35k? Nevermind that the guy making 400k is still paying 75k in taxes while the guy making 35k is paying 3500. Not such an injustice is it?

 

Neither Insane or Nuts, just out of his depth and seemingly without the ability to realise it. Mind you, I sure wouldn't want his job.

We've seen that Tax analogy before, and others picked rather large holes in it last time as I remember. The main issue being that due to the overly complicated tax laws, most of the "very rich" pay nowhere near that amount of tax in the first place.
As I said before, in my opinion the tax cuts were a stupid idea in the first place. The US national debt is how much and climbing?

 

You're mistaken. Buffet spends less of his income, proportionally, on items subject to sales tax than does a minimum wage worker. If you doubt this, consider how much of Buffet's income is spent on items sales tax applies to. Then consider how much of a MWW's income is spent on items sales tax applies to. Keep in mind that, for instance, stock purchases aren't subject to sales tax.

That sales tax is local rather than national is irrelevant to my point.

Your figures are erroneous; the White House's own page describing the tax cuts makes it plain that the highest tax brackets saw the largest proportional decrease in taxes. Sure, it claims otherwise in charts, but the figures it provides belie its claims.

Especially when the estate tax is factored in; that doesn't effect low (or mid, or even upper-mid) income groups one iota.

 

I was using purely income taxes, but then most low income families rent and don't own, so they don't actually pay any estate or property taxes. When the low income is unaffected by a tax break because they didn't pay it in the first place makes the point rather moot, wouldn't you say? You can only really compare what the are both likely to pay, and that's only income tax at the federal level.
Maybe Buffet doesn't spend his money on taxables, so how about we use someone like Shaq? I can almost guarantee he pays a ton in sales tax based on his lavish expenditures. And yes, it does depend on where their money goes, whether it be a tax-free roth IRA or a tax free lottery ticket(not the prize, just the ticket).

You see where my problem is with saying he gave tax breaks only to the rich? He cut alot of taxes, it just so happens that the poor only pay into one of them. When you pay more types of taxes and a tax cut is given on all types of taxes you're likely to see gains in more places simply because you pay more taxes

and this edit is just in the hopes that you're responding right now so you'll have to edit your post in order to respond to me calling you a bleeding heart liberal just right of Castro(this is an actual quote of Bill O'Reilly when refering to Robert Greenwald.)

oh and Carcaroth, the figures I gave on the percentages of actual taxes paid are accurate. The only thing that might be different is the rate at which they're taxed because of things like Roth IRAs and other deductions. The amount they actually paid isn't going to change.

[ April 05, 2007, 14:08: Message edited by: Shadow Assassin ]

 

Sure, but that wasn't what you originally wrote (and what I took issue with), which was 'the tax cuts were fair for all'.

As I've already stated, they weren't. I'm not going to get in to the degree to which the cuts were unfair (I don't feel like writing a thesis, after all), but they were demonstrably weighted in favor of the upper end of the scale.

You cold-hearted fascist bastard just to the right of Hitler, you.

 

As I understand, the figures quoted are what they SHOULD pay in taxes, but in reality...

There are enough internet articles and books written about it to back my case.

Who really pays taxes

Which your average bloke in the street can't afford to do, whilst your mega rich bloke...

 

Not that one again! It's been on this board everytime taxes are a topic. Everytime I see it, it makes less and less sense.

 

Actually you don't understand what I posted. Those figures are the 2004 income tax figures as reported in Sept. of 2006. They aren't what they should be, they're what they actually were. Those are the actual figures, not expected figures.
While I was thinking about it I started thinking about the other tax breaks. Now is the percentage higher on the other tax breaks? because if it isn't or even if it is just a little the percentage change of total taxes paid will still be a smaller percentage than that of the bottom 50%. The fact that they have more tax breaks only goes to show that they have more taxes, not that they're getting a bigger break(percentage wise). And ofcourse their tax break will mean a larger monetary amount, they pay more to begin with.
The fact that they dodge about 1/3 of the taxes they're expected to pay has no bearing on the tax break. That's a seperate issue(some of the deductions are ridiculous I most definitely agree).

check out the taxfoundation.org to get the actual irs figures. Obviously the top 1% should be paying more than 23.49% of their income, the figure should be close to 35%, but that's what they paid.

 

Fascinating; I actually agree with SA on one instance - a 'tax break' is moot when one earns little enough.

E.G.: I just completed my T1 for Canada a week ago, and without digging out ANY charitable donations receipts, or investing any of my money in anything except depreciating assets (clothes, furnishings, electronics - all of which wear out), I will get back EVERY PENNY I've had deducted from my pay for income tax. I didn't have to even touch a RRSP yet. (give it time, though - I'm still youn...er, youthful )

There are some new deductions that were offered as a placebo to the masses, but I never had to TOUCH them; I'd confirmed that including these in my form would not increase the amount of my refund.

But all this talk of taxes is giving me a headache; how's about we just get back to debating whether Junior is a loon or not?

 

Yelp, anyone earning over £40k in the UK pays at 40% Tax put 1% National Insurance. And death duties are also at 40%, as are capital gains.

 

Death duties? They tax you for dying? That's pretty sorry....


But the topic was really about Bush and he is sorry. He's probably the worst president in the nation's history, even Nixon was not as dishonest and incompetent as this guy has been. As for being Governor of Texas: He really didn't do a whole lot, except clean-out death row. Democrats and Republicans in Texas are very conservative anyway, so it was easy to see how Bush got along with both sides. Democrats here are pretty much like Republicans in most other parts of the country, but Republicans here are just plain toxic...(Tom Delay is fairly typical of the genre).

[ April 05, 2007, 19:06: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

@ Chandos - Last time I checked there is a death tax in the U.S.A. If I recall correctly the estate tax rate was 45% of estate value in excess of $2 million.

The exemption makes it so that only the rich and upper middle class will have to actually pay the tax but unless things have changed recently the tax does exist.

 

The death tax is also a pet of the left and Democratic party.

Funny thing...other than the war I am not sure what he has done that is so inept...the economy is good, and I really can't think of anything off the top of my head that has been any worse than what other Presidents have done. I think it is natural to think things are extreme at the time they are happening. Personally, other than the war, I don't think history will be all that tough on Bush 43.

If Bush were insane we would have grounds for his removal.

[ April 05, 2007, 20:13: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

It's not that they are crying foul about the low income guy saving money. It's that the wealthy - who didn't need the tax break in the first place - are saving a large dollar value than the little guy. The arguement wasn't that the percentages were wrong, it's that the high income people who didn't need the extra money also got the break, and that's a large reason we're in debt as much as we are. If the tax break didn't effect the upper income folks, it would amount to BILLIONS of additional tax revenue for the federal government annually.

Wow, you need to do a lot more than merely own property to pay the estate tax! Only the wealthiest of Americans ever paid the estate tax - you know, the ones that literally own estates! A break in an estate tax that already didn't effect over 95% of Americans was a tax break exclusively for the wealthy - the very wealthy.

As for the topic at hand, I do agree with the initial post. As for incompetence, I'll take a quote from Bill Maher's show, "Real Time". He said that one of the reasons that things are as bad as they are is that Bush has always chosen loyalty over competency. Ain't that the truth...

 

Darkwolf, how about the recent scandal in which they offered up scooter libby? Then theres the unchecked increases in gas prices(completely unwarranted). There's the worst law ever passed, going straight after our freedoms in the patriot act. There's the Katrina disaster. The Abramoff scandal. If I keep thinking about it I'm sure I'll remember more, probably to do with the enviroment. I know he's screwed up really bad there.