Political: USA Today Gives Bush First Term Report Card

[peachgirl]

maybe time & situations have changed his overall outlook about the future of the war on terrorism.

That's fine and well, but when Kerry does that, the right jumps in and screams that he's flip flopping.

How about we extend the same courtesy to both...that over time one's opinon, outlook and assessments can change. That doesn't mean you flip flop on the issues, it means you're open to looking at changing situations and adjusting what your assessment of them is.

But, if when Kerry does it, he's flip flopping, then so is Bush.

 

[Patch'sD]

Depends on how you measure time. Bush's changes in Policy happened over many months or years. However, Keery's positions change of a matter of days. In fact as I type Rudy is having a field day with this right now.

However as I read the first post, it shows Bush was pretty good on his promises. Employment being the worst on his performance. However if you take a look at historical unemployment rates, the rates began to take off right after 9/11. Social Security has alway's been a tough issue to reform, can you say Lock Box.

 

[WillyJ]

So, after finally realizing that one cannot wage war on a noun, Bush is admitting that he has embroiled the US in an unwinnable war. . .


I've also noticed he's started to say a "free-er" Afghanistan and a "free-er" Iraq instead of "free". . . wonder if that means the elections in Oct. and Jan. in those countries are pretty much doomed?

But of course, none of this is like Vietnam. .


The headline in the USA Today article was "Mixed Results For Bush". . except for the tax cuts for the rich, it looks like pretty much solid failure to me.

 

[Patch'sD]

Tax Cuts, Medicare reform, No Child left Behind, I think you may be missing a few. Hey but what about Kerry's promises, one article I read he is allready up to about $1.9 Trillion in new expenditures will getting rid of the upper tier tax cuts and reinstateing the death tax will only raise about $500 Billion. Yet he is going to cut the budget Deficit by 50%. According to article I read, Kerry is allready saying that he is going to have to cut back on some of his proposals. Before he is elected he is allready welching on his promises. So I guess we can give him a pre election report card.

 

[Laz]

USA today gives its report card, Business Week gives there report card that says Clinton won reelection under similar economic conditions. It all depends on what and how you look at things. The link to the story: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_36/b3898026_mz001.htm

Below is the link to the stats in the story.


Stats collected by Business Week

 

[peachgirl]

No Child left Behind,

No Child Left Behind is a joke. It has caused more problems that it ever could have helped. Bush called for all kinds of wonderful improvements and then didn't bother to figure how to pay for any of them.

It sounds good in theory, in practice it's not just worthless, it's damaging.

Then again, I could say that for everything else you listed as a supposed "good thing" he did.

death tax

There's another sound bite from the right. It's not a death tax, it's never been a death tax. It's an estate tax and only applies to the most wealthy. A vast majority of Americans would never be affected by it.

 

[spearenb]

Originally posted by peachgirl

There's another sound bite from the right. It's not a death tax, it's never been a death tax. It's an estate tax and only applies to the most wealthy. A vast majority of Americans would never be affected by it.

WRONG! A vast many of Americans are small business owners (see not wealthy) who when they die, their family has to either sale the business (in part or whole) to just pay these taxes. After working their butts off to build their small business and to give to their children, the American Tax Code makes their effort frivilous! And isn't it the American way to be able to better themself by working harder to get ahead? Why punish these people?

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by peachgirl
There's another sound bite from the right. It's not a death tax, it's never been a death tax. It's an estate tax and only applies to the most wealthy. A vast majority of Americans would never be affected by it.

Really?

“in the end, you don’t tax things, you tax people.”
Ronald Reagan

A property tax doesn't affect the property, it affects the people that own the property. The death tax doesn't affect the estate, it certainly doesn't affect the person that died. It affects the people that receive the estate. The people, not the estate.
And only applies to the most wealthy? How about that hypothetical couple that have 100 acres of land in south Georgia that surrounds their house. Land that has been in the family for 100 years. It's out in the country. He's retired from a paper mill. Blue Collar, 30 plus years. She's retired from a cookie maker. Blue Collar, 20 plus years. They would very surprised to learn they are part of the "most wealthy". What do you think happens when they die?
I'll tell you what happens. The children that get the land will likely have to sell it just to pay the taxes.

How's that for a sound byte?

Richard

 

[peachgirl]

WRONG! A vast many of Americans are small business owners (see not wealthy) who when they die, their family has to either sale the business (in part or whole) to just pay these taxes.

No, it's not wrong:

"The vast majority of estates are already exempt from the estate tax. In 2001, when the estate tax exemption was $675,000 for individuals, only 2 percent of estates were subject to the tax. Even if no changes are made to the estate tax, after 2010 the tax will only apply to estates worth more than $1 million for individuals ($2 million for couples). Under the higher exemption levels that will take effect in 2009 ($3.5 million for an individual and $7 million for a couple), only about 10,000 estates a year—less than 0.5% of all estates—would be subject to the estate tax. Thus, permanent repeal would benefit only the largest 0.5 to 2 percent of estates."

Even without reform, the estate tax does not apply to the vast majority of family-owned farms and small businesses. A Treasury Department analysis of 1998 data shows that family-owned businesses or farms constituted the majority of a taxable estate in only 3% of all taxable estates. And when family businesses and farms are subject to the estate tax, they are already eligible for special treatment, such as special valuation rules and tax payment deferral for up to 14 years. Reform of the estate tax could further insulate family businesses and farms from taxation, and targeted reforms could address any remaining problems affecting family farms and businesses.


Calendar Years Exemption Amount
2002-2003 $1 million
2004-2005 $1.5 million
2006-2008 $2 million
2009 $3.5 million


So, the statment that " A vast many of Americans are small business owners (see not wealthy) who when they die, their family has to either sale the business (in part or whole) to just pay these taxes", is simply not true.

 

[jrydberg]

Did they mark him down for "Does not play well with others?"

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by jimmiej
Of course, you take this completely out of context! I heard what President Bush said, & I think he's exactly right. Do you think we can completely rid the world of all terrorists? If you do, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Bush could've eliminated 2 terrorists, Bin Laden and Al-Zawahri. You remember them..........they're the real perpetrators of 9/11 and they are alive and well and living somewhere in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

And guess what, remember the Taliban? They're baaaack.

 

[peachgirl]

How about that hypothetical couple that have 100 acres of land in south Georgia that surrounds their house. Land that has been in the family for 100 years. It's out in the country. He's retired from a paper mill. Blue Collar, 30 plus years. She's retired from a cookie maker. Blue Collar, 20 plus years.

Well, unless that rural Georgia property is worth more than 1.5 million dollars, they don't have a thing to worry about. That is, if the owner dies this year. Even then, there are regulations and deferrments available to them for the next 14 years.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Did they mark him down for "Does not play well with others?"

No, but if this was a real report card, is there any doubt ?

 

[ThAnswr]

Originally posted by jimmiej
Whether he initially said it could be won or not, maybe time & situations have changed his overall outlook about the future of the war on terrorism.

Gee, could this be classified as a "flip flop"?

 

[richiebaseball]

Here's an example of the death tax at its worst.

OBITUARIES: MARIETTA
J.C. HYDE, wanted no wealth, but farm. [Derrick Henry - Staff Saturday, March 6, 2004]

J.C. Hyde was an unassuming farmer, land-rich but cash-poor. For virtually his entire life, he plowed by mule on his 127-acre farm along the Chattahoochee River in east Cobb County, land he had lived on since his father bought it in 1920. Surrounded by pricey subdivisions, it had become one of the largest tracts of undeveloped land in metro Atlanta..

The land survived the boll weevil and the Great Depression. Mr. Hyde intended to make sure it would survive developers.

"I remember being there when a real estate developer drove up, as many did, and said: 'J.C. Hyde, I can make you a wealthy man,' " said Rand Wentworth, head of the Atlanta office of the Trust for Public Land from 1990 to 2002. "J.C. answered : 'But then I would not be happy.' "

Mr. Hyde was plenty happy to live the way he did, in the log house he grew up in, with heat from a pot-bellied stove and water from a well.

"I have running water," he joked in a 1991 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article. "I run out to the well and get it."

Working beside his brother, William "Buck" Hyde, he grew sweet potatoes, corn, okra, green beans, peas and tomatoes, selling them from the back of a pickup truck near Marietta Square. In 1996, Mr. Hyde was selling a bushel of his "Gold Nugget" sweet potatoes --- Grade 1 --- for $16.

After a long day's work, he might pick up his fiddle and play some music.

Mr. Hyde was a bachelor, not given to idle talk. "I remember picking sweet potatoes with him for six hours and during that period he never said more than four words," said Kevin Johnson of Atlanta, Chattahoochee River Program coordinator with the Trust for Public Land.

He lived with his brother, also unmarried. While the men tended the fields, their four married sisters took turns cooking and helping with the domestic chores, said Mr. Wentworth.

When Mr. Hyde's brother died in 1987 and left him his share of the farm, the IRS and state revenue collectors arrived. They assessed Mr. Hyde with a debt of $467,000 to the IRS and $96,000 to the state for estate taxes.

"This is all something new to me," Mr. Hyde said in a Journal-Constitution story in 1991. "I never owed anybody nothing."

The private, nonprofit Trust for Public Land worked out a deal in 1992 with the National Park Service to buy 40 acres of riverfront property from Mr. Hyde for $1 million, more than enough to pay the taxes. The deeded land would become part of the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area, safe from developers. Mr. Hyde, meanwhile, could continue living and working there.

J.C. Hyde, 94, of Marietta died Wednesday. The funeral is 2 p.m. today at Roswell Funeral Home.

"I have never met a better conservationist than J.C. Hyde," said Mr. Wentworth, now president of the Land Trust Alliance in Washington, a national umbrella of conservation organizations. "He cared for that land like it was family, like it was part of his body. When he feared he might have to sell part of it, he said, with tears in his eyes, 'Losing part of this land would be like cutting off my arm.' "

The future of the nearly 90 acres not owned by the National Park Service remains to be determined, said Mr. Wentworth. "The challenge now is that the land could be lost to subdivisions."

Survivors include three sisters, Rosa Lee Stroup of Atlanta, M. Maglee Mitchell of Mableton and Gladys A. Holcomb of Marietta.

 

[peachgirl]

I don't know where your story came from, but if they only paid them 1 million for 40 acres, yet their estate tax was over 1/2 million...someone took them to the cleaners and it wasn't the estate tax.

Since the ceiling for farms is 8 million dollars and if you assume the government paid a fair price for the land they purchased, then this family shouldn't have owed a dime in estate taxes.

Either the story isn't true, or someone screwed up royally.

Is the estate tax breaking up family farms?
Rarely, if ever. On April 8, 2001, the New York Times reported that the pro-repeal American Farm Bureau Foundation could not cite a single case of a family farm lost due to the estate tax. There are special estate tax breaks for farms, including the ability to value farmland at less than market value. Many “farms” that owe estate taxes are actually vacation ranches owned by wealthy city dwellers. In any case, the estate tax can be modified to protect farms. Repeal is unnecessary.

This is a very interesting Q&A on estate taxes:

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/Estate_Tax/Estate_Tax_FAQ.html

 

[treesinger]

Before I respond Wvrevy, I thought you might enjoy some humor. I asked my 3.5 yr old daughter if she was Democrat or Republican. Her response? "Repugican!" I swear, I heard you laughing 500 miles away!

Originally posted by wvrevy
And it ain't pretty I've bolded a few things that are of particular interest.
--------------------

Scorecard on the president: A mixed bag

By Judy Keen
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Even presidents get job reviews.

President Bush's performance evaluation is underway now, and his scores will be determined by the voters who are weighing whether he has met the goals he set for himself four years ago.

When Bush campaigns, he tells people that examining whether his actions match his promises is one way to gauge whether he deserves four more years. “The only reason to look backward is to best tell who to lead us forward,” he said this month in Stratham, N.H.

Bush's opponent, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, agrees. His campaign, he said in March, is focused on “restoring people's trust that what we say, we mean, and that we mean what we say; that the things we talk about in a campaign are not promises to be broken — they are promises to be kept.”

Voters will judge Bush on his entire record, and the war with Iraq and the failure to capture al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden will be a big part of their judgment. But long before those factors came into play, two speeches — his nomination acceptance in Philadelphia on Aug. 3, 2000, and his inaugural address on Jan. 20, 2001 — outlined Bush's goals for his time in office. Some of his objectives, such as his promise to restore civility to Washington, were broad, and results are difficult to measure. But others, including his pledges to cut taxes and reform Social Security and Medicare, were specific.

Bush's successes, failures and unfinished business define his presidency and are crucial to his chances of winning on Nov. 2. His key promises, in his own words:
The promise:

“We will extend the promise of prosperity to every forgotten corner of this country.”

The record: In 46 states — everywhere except Delaware, Hawaii, Montana and Wyoming — unemployment rates are higher now than when Bush took office. The national jobless rate in July, the most recent figure, was 5.5%. In January 2001, it was 4.2%. During Bush's tenure, 2.6 million manufacturing jobs have been lost.

Hi! Unemployed in Delaware here. My own fault though. No point, just a non sequitor.
Most of those jobs left because of cheap labor in other countries. It is not Bush's fault. Bush can't stop companies from pursuing profit. However, I would have liked to see Bush come up with a "re-education initiative" to help those affected by outsourcing get another good job.

In campaign speeches, Bush says the economy has “overcome some mighty obstacles.” He says the recession he inherited, corporate executives' mismanagement and the impact of the Sept. 11 attacks and his war on terrorism have slowed recovery, but the economy is improving. But gains in jobs have slowed in the past couple of months, and most Americans are not upbeat about their own situations. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken last month found that 62% of Americans rate economic conditions in the country only fair or poor.

Bush had an uphill climb and overpromised. The turnaround is happening, but you're mistaken if you think the USA is going to suddenly enter the Golden Age of Economic Prosperity overnight.
Also, just because people think it's bad doesn't mean it is. I watch money shows on cable and the consensus is that the economy is improving, but it takes time for it to reach the people. Heck, when the "recession" was in full panic mode, I was making more money then ever as a furniture salesperson. It took a full year before my income started to drop. It takes time for the economy to turn, no matter which way it is turning.

The promise:

“We will set (Medicare) on firm financial ground and make prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them.”

The record: In December, Bush signed a law providing prescription-drug benefits for people on Medicare. It won't take full effect for more than a year, but seniors can use discount cards now to save 10%-25% on most medicines. Low-income seniors can get a $600 credit to help pay for drugs. The law encourages seniors to enroll in managed-care programs, which is expected to reduce the overall cost of Medicare.

“For the first time, we're giving seniors peace of mind that they will not have to face unlimited expenses for their medicine,” Bush said when he signed the law.

But in March, trustees of the fund that supports Medicare predicted that it will become insolvent in 2019 — seven years earlier than the previous estimate. The changes enacted last year are expected to slow the growth in Medicare spending, but Bush has not proposed other significant changes to stave off bankruptcy.

The Medicare program is a monster and I'm ashamed that that bloated piece of pork made it through a Republican Congress. I think, though, it was more an "issue theft" program rsather than a real effort at helping. If it goes bankrupt, I won't be said. It needs a little trimming.

In a study released last month, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-partisan group, concluded that the discount cards “offer good value” but found that “frustration and confusion” with the program has been widespread.

Yeah, gov't programs are known for being simple.

The promise:

“Social Security has been called the ‘third rail of American politics' — the one you're not supposed to touch because it shocks you. But if you don't touch it, you can't fix it. And I intend to fix it.”

The record: Bush is still talking about Social Security. “I've got to tell you, I'm concerned about Social Security,” he said this month in Sioux City, Iowa. “For old guys like me, Social Security is fine. It's for the younger workers, those who are just starting to work, we've got to worry about the fiscal solvency of the Social Security system.”

He has only gingerly approached that electrified subway rail. He has described his principles for reform, including a proposal to allow younger workers to invest part of their withholding taxes in the stock market. He appointed a bipartisan commission to study the issue and has ruled out increasing payroll taxes for the fund.

But Bush decided last year that the issue was too complex and too politically risky to tackle in a first term. In March, trustees predicted that Social Security will be out of money in 2042.

The only thing Bush is guilty of is being overly confident that he can fix SS. It's going to take a radical change I think. And radical change is usually only accpetable when our backs are against the wall. Give it another 30 years before SS reform really takes place.

The promise:

“When a school district receives federal funds to teach poor children, we expect them to learn. And if they don't, parents should get the money to make a different choice.”

The record: The No Child Left Behind Act, which Bush signed in 2002, embodies those principles. It requires testing of public-school students to measure their reading and math skills. It allows parents of children whose schools' overall test results repeatedly fail to meet the new standards to move their children to different schools.

Every state has produced a required “accountability plan,” but administration officials say the full effect of the law won't be evident for years. Reading and math testing of students in grades 3-8 begins in the 2005-06 school year. The following school year, students will be tested in science at least once in elementary, middle and high school

Opponents say Bush's budgets haven't included enough money to make the program work. The new law encourages converting traditional schools that fail into charter schools, privately run institutions that have more flexibility in hiring and teaching techniques. The Education Department said this month that students in charter schools are doing worse than comparable students in regular public schools.

I posted an article a little while back which showed MILLIONS of dollars across the country in education budget that WASN'T YET SPENT, and that it had to spent or they would lose the funding that they haven't used. The blame with education money falls squarely on the shoulders of school district administrators that are mismanganing the money.

The promise:

“Every family, every farmer and small-business person, should be free to pass on their life's work to those they love. So we will abolish the death tax.”

The record: Bush's first package of tax cuts, which he signed into law in 2001, did end the estate tax.

But the victory was temporary: Unless Congress votes to continue this tax relief, it will expire on Dec. 31, 2010. Bush says all his tax cuts should be made permanent. A new Congress will take up that issue next year.

My view? Anyone who makes money in their lives should be allowed to pass on an equal percentage to their heirs, no matter your income level. It is unfair to tax people different levels. I'm a flat tax proponent. And I wonder if the rumor is true that Bush might roll that out as a campaign issue.

The promise:

“We will reduce tax rates for everyone, in every bracket.”

The record: Done, but the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the middle class now pays a bigger share of all federal taxes and the richest Americans pay less.

The rich still pay the highest rate of taxes. And since I'm flat tax, I call it patently unfair.

The promise:

“We will lower the bottom rate from 15% to 10% and double the child tax credit.”

The record: Bush's 2001 tax cuts did both. But the new $1,000 per-child tax credit is scheduled to shrink to $700 in 2005.

moving right along...

The promise:

“We will transform today's housing rental program to help … low-income families find stability and dignity in a home of their own.”

The record: Bush said in 2002 that he wanted 5.5 million more minority homeowners by 2010. Since then, more than 1 million minority families have bought homes.

The American Dream Downpayment Act, which Bush signed in 2003, provides $200 million each year to help first-time home buyers with down payments and closing costs. The Department of Housing and Urban Development allows housing agencies to use federal rental assistance funds to help low-income families pay mortgages or make down payments.

Although minority homeownership is at 49%, an all-time high, thanks in part to low mortgage rates, minorities still lag. Overall, 68% of Americans own their homes.

Don't know enough about this to comment.

The promise:

“We must help protect our children … by finally and strictly enforcing our nation's gun laws.”

The record: Bush says he supports a ban on assault weapons, but critics complain that he hasn't pressured Congress to renew the law, which expires on Sept. 14. Bush also supports giving gunmakers immunity from civil lawsuits.

People kill people. Responsible gun owners should not be punished. We don't sue car makers and alcohol companies when drunk drivers kill people. The driver made the bad decision, not the car maker or the alcohol.

He said in the 2000 campaign that enforcing existing gun-control laws was the right approach, but last month the Justice Department's inspector general reported that inspections of gun sellers' record-keeping by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are “infrequent and of inconsistent quality,” and penalties have been sporadic. The report also said the bureau is slow to retrieve guns from buyers who fail federal criminal background checks. The law allows buyers to take their guns before the background check is done.

I wonder if the current level of enforcement is higher or lower than before Bush's term. Yes, it is still deficient, but has their been any improvement at all? If it stagnated, or got worse, then boo on Bush.

The promise:

“I will work to reduce nuclear weapons and nuclear tension in the world.”

The record: Last year, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the Moscow Treaty, in which both agreed to reduce deployment of strategic nuclear warheads by two-thirds by December 2012. Bush has recruited 15 countries to participate in the Proliferation Security Initiative, an effort to thwart shipments and sales of weapons and the materials needed to make them to terrorist groups.

But he hasn't been able to persuade North Korea and Iran to stop their nuclear-weapons programs. The administration is pressing the United Nations to impose sanctions on Iran, and it is negotiating with North Korea with the assistance of South Korea, Japan, Russia and China. Bush has proposed increasing the nuclear stockpile by adding a nuclear-tipped bunker buster.

Tipped nukes are not even remotely like the stereotypical nuke. Nukes should only be compared as to their uses. If he was increasing ground-level nukes, then that would be a slap in the face of every country that we say can't have them. Bunker buster nukes? Yes, they are nukes. But their application is much much different from what we stereotypically call a nuke.

The promise:

“We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance.”

The record: Arrogance is exactly what Bush has been accused of by his opponents at home and abroad. His pre-emption doctrine, which asserts that it's appropriate to take military action to avert emerging threats, revised longstanding U.S. foreign policy and angered some allies in Europe and elsewhere. Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq without the participation of the United Nations or other world organizations also was criticized as arrogant.

I see it as vision and committment. I think we'll just agree to disagree.

Bush says his policies and decisions are driven by necessity, not arrogance, and his supporters say they reflect strength. But his relationships with world leaders, including French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, remain tense because they believe his approach disrespected their concerns.

Well, I think their lack of support shows disrespect for our concerns. Again, we'll agree to disagree.

The promise:

“At the earliest possible date, my administration will deploy missile defenses to guard against attack and blackmail.”

The record: This fall, a prototype of the missile-defense system will be deployed. Bush requested more than $10 billion for the next phase of the program in his 2005 budget. Preliminary tests have raised doubts, however, about how well the system will work.

Bush has puched this thing hard, but it isn't nhis fault if the system isn'tt perfected. He isn't building the damn thing himself! It should only be rolled out when it is correct. It would be irresponsible to do otherwise.

Bush admits that he hasn't fulfilled every promise, and he tells voters he needs four more years to accomplish his goals.

No president ever does fulfill all of their promises. Par for the course. But I find it sad that he would say he needs four more years to get the first term fulfilled. The second term should be a continuation of efforts and expansion of ideas, not make-up work.

“We've got more to do for our country,” he said this month. “I want to make our country the best country it can be by improving jobs and improving our schools. I will continue to fight the war against terror. … We have done a lot. I'm here to ask for your help, because there's more to do.”

Ok, I'm in! Go Bush!

 

[treesinger]

Is this thread dead already?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by treesinger
Is this thread dead already?

Nope, not dead...I just didn't get a chance to respond to your post....The problem with point-by-point discussions (one I run into myself all the time) is that they are kinda like appropriations bills....they turn into this christmas tree debate that tries to go in 50 directions at one

That said...LOL'd at the story about your daughter

Oh, and I just saw this quote from the Kerry campaign about Bush's latest flip flip, so thought I'd share (thinking of putting this in my signature )

"This president has gone from mission accomplished to mission miscalculated to mission impossible on the war on terror."

I can already see the moveon ad in the works.

...dun..dun...dada..dun..dun...dada.......danana...danana...danana....dudun.

Wonder if Tom Cruise will star ?

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Unemployment rates are higher now than they were when Bush took office. DUH. He inherited the early end of a recession. An economy built on .com stocks that were not worth the paper they were printed on. In his first year in office America was the dealt the largest terrorist attack in our nation's history, during a recession, and destroyed was the WORLD TRADE CENTER (think about those words). But my boy G-DUB got things turned around and jobs are being created and you cannot argue that the economy is turning around.