Friday, March 04, 2005

Bush can't pull it off

Change social security? I don't think so. Bush is starting to waddle like a lame duck already. Or how about the idea of the "consumption" tax? I'd rather privatize social security, or leap out into traffic than support a consumption tax. I don't know, but I see his second term agenda getting bogged down in mud at this point.


Mike Netherland said...

Barb, you mean you 'hope' his second gets 'bogged down.' There's nothing more delightful for liberals than to see a bold policy initiative that doesn't go far enough in my opinion to salvage Social Security, fail. Nevermind that you and I and our children (they more than us) will suffer under the it's-not-a-crisis-until-it's-a-tragedy crowd oozes back into the Oval Office and blames the mess on the Bush Administration (or whichever Republican Administration is handy).

Now what about a consumption tax, levied once, at the point of sale, is so offensive? I think as long as the Democrats keep their mits off it, the consumption tax should be the most fair and straight-forward method of financing the government. And, it will have the added benefit of encouraging savings (which we'll need when Social Security goes belly up).

Barb said...

Well maybe I would have more faith in the Bush administration's financial ideas if it hadn't squandered the federal surplus that Clinton's administration created and turned it upside down into a huge deficit in 4 short years. I consider that robbery of our children.

A consumption tax is simply a way to tax the poor more than the rich, and you know it. The poor will actually be paying a much higher per capita tax rate (based on income) than the rich because they earn a hell of a lot less and still have to buy the same amount of basic necessities to live. And the rich will find ways to buy overseas and all kinds of crap.

Look at the latest polls...Bush is dying, man. The only thing that got him reelected was fear created by his campaign--fear of hot button issues like abortion and gay marriage and removing God from the Pledge of Alligiance! People don't know shit from shinola when it comes to big issues like deficits and taxes and international diplomacy, but they sure know they hate seeing those darn gays kissing on television.

Mike Netherland said...

First of all, you must disabuse yourself of the Clinton-Budget-Surplus myth perpetuated by Democrats. The Clinton Administration had about as much to do with the budget surpluses as it had to do with the weather. Similarly, it would be a miracle if a president less than two years into his first term could adversely affect the budget, unless of course there was a recession, an attack on the homeland, the subsequent authorization by John Kerry of the mobilization of half a million troops and materiel to fight a war literally brought to our shores by the sloth and neglect of foreign policy by graduates of the Don't-Worry-Be-Happy school of government who, it seems, prefered to kill Americans (Waco, Ruby Ridge) and send would-be Americans like 6-year-old Elian Gonzales back to the tender embace of Fidel Castro.

I submit that if you want to associate budget surpluses in the mid-1990's with a single person, you would be more factually correct to speak the name Newt Gingrich. His consistent and principled stands against raising taxes and opposing spending increases helped a boom in the technology sector that flooded the Treasury.