Reply With Quote
Time to examine a part of your critique of his "dogma"...Bush's dogma appeals to my wish for a simpler world, but wishful thinking works poorly in reality.
If you believe that a government should pursue an active policy to move out of a recession how does that not include reducing tax rates, increasing govermment spending, and leaning on the Fed to keep rates low? The last time I checked Bush's tax cuts were across the board, not just for the "rich" as you claim. If I am not mistaken the average family of four with an income of $40K saw their tax bill cut by $1500. Sure, the "rich" got larger tax cuts in raw dollar terms but that is because their taxable income is at higher levels and income tax rates are progressive.Initially, Bush presented tax cuts as the solution to all economic ills in his 2000 campaign, and he finally got a good reason with the recession after 9/11. However, his tax cuts have not had the economic impact they should have because mostly they just gave money back to the wealthy without an overall economic policy.
And tax cuts for the "rich" aren't necessarily a bad thing, certainly if you are hoping for increased business investment to pull an economy out of a recession. And it is that investment which drives an economy, as we saw in the 1990s. The "animal spirits" of an economy as Keynes referred to it. Once the unsustainable market bubble burst in early 2000 such investment dried up. 9/11 pretty much hit a weakening economy in the head with a 2 by 4 and kicked it over the ledge. The federal government cannot force businesses to invest, but it can try to entice them to do so.
Given the GDP growth we have seen over the last couple of years I'm not sure what you are basing your claim on Bush's policies not having an impact simply because "they just gave money back to the wealthy". What do you think the "wealthy" do with that money? Put it under their matresses?
Bush did have an "overall economic policy" if I ever saw one. Not that I agreed with all of it, but it's a tad bit hard to honestly claim otherwise.
With respect to health care, you can thank the fact that most individuals in this nation pay for their health care expenditures through 3rd party payers (ie insurance & govt). Not that I agree with the Bush solution of more government en lement spending on health care but if given that you are a self described "socialist" in favor of Medicare I don't think you should be complaining about this.Outsourcing, $2/gallon gas prices, increasing health care costs, and a stagnant minimum wage take up all the tax cuts to the lower and middle class. Perhaps Bush could not do much to have an effect, but he has done nothing to try. What we have is a stagnant ecomony by many measures, and the largest federal deficit ever.
Minimum wage? Minimum wage laws simply limit employment opportunities for those who most in need of gainful employment and disproportionately hurt non-whites. If you increase that then most likely you will hurt the people you think you are helping.
Outsourcing is part and parcel of having an open economy. If we want the benefits of free trade (lower prices for goods, more choice, more markets for what we produce in this country) then we will have to put up with the costs.
If you want to complain about government tax policy then perhaps consider the federal payroll taxes that are regressive and effectively take away 15% of the earnings of lower and middle class workers.
"Stagnant economy"? Based on GDP growth you are dead wrong. What measures do you suggest to use?
As a percentage of GDP the federal deficit is not the "largest ever", in fact it is about half of the "largest ever." Basing that claim on the nominal value of the deficit doesn't really mean much.
