Questions from Governor Reagan

[Meadmaker]

Here's a stroll down memory lane for some of us:

GOVERNOR REAGAN: It might be well if you ask yourself are you better off than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe? That we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then I think your choice is very obvious as to who you'll vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have.


If the truth be told, I don't think those are the best questions to ask in a Presidential campaign, but they aren't bad. Also, Governor Reagan was running against a sitting incumbent, while Barak Obama is not. Still, I think these questions are worth asking.

 

[XBoxWarrior]

I lived in California and was in high school during that campaign. Reagan clearly had the better argument, hell, even my union carpenter dad voted for the actor over the peanut farmer...

Today's race is different...

The real questions will never be asked, but perhaps 50% of the voters in the US will understand that the Bush years were really bad...

It's that simple.

Bush has no actual good points...hell, he even screwed up an 80% approval rating after 911...only a moron could screw that up.

peace.

 

[Upchurch]

Bush has no actual good points.

Not true. He extended Daylight Savings Time by four weeks. He has had one good decision and/or proper follow through on a decision. Everything else was garbage.

 

[corplinx]

Bush increased funding for alternative energy, he designated vast amounts of marine acres as protected, he removed more low and middle income people from paying any federal income tax than any president before, and I think he was right on immigration and campaign finance reform even though his proposals were either not taken up or defeated on those issues. This past year he reversed course on crop subsidies after the apparent inflation of food and food shortages across the world revealed the dark side of those subsidies.

The problem is, though those were correct decisions. They may not be perceived to be "good points". Immigration isn't a "good point" even though his push was a morally good one. Immigration is one of those weird third rails and burned McCain with the GOP base.

So yes, Bush did make a few other good decisions other than DST changes. However, the post conquest period in Iraq and before the surge coupled with the new economic crisis basically mean Bush is a bad word in the general public.

 

[leftysergeant]

Bush increased funding for alternative energy, he designated vast amounts of marine acres as protected, he removed more low and middle income people from paying any federal income tax than any president before,

With a corresponding cut in actual government services, like food inspection, resulting in who knows how many deaths to salmonella, listeria and E- coli. And he gave the greatest tax breaks to those who did the least for the ecconomic growth of the American industrial base.

This past year he reversed course on crop subsidies after the apparent inflation of food and food shortages across the world revealed the dark side of those subsidies.

If you can sell everything you grow, who needs a subsidy. Problem is that it does nothing to make American grown, E-coli-free food more cheaply available to the growing numbers of jobless or under-employed Americans.

So yes, Bush did make a few other good decisions other than DST changes. However, the post conquest period in Iraq and before the surge coupled with the new economic crisis basically mean Bush is a bad word in the general public.

Got part of it right, anyway.

 

[corplinx]

And he gave the greatest tax breaks to those who did the least for the ecconomic growth of the American industrial base.

The Bush tax plan:
Replacing the current tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent with a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent.
Source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/taxplan.html

In the Bush plan, the middle two brackets get the highest cuts. The bottom bracket gets 1 percent less than the top bracket, but is still less than 30 percent of the top bracket. This was also packaged with flat per child tax credits. So the greatest tax breaks went to the lower brackets and married people.

This is unless you use the Krugman fallacy and say "since the rich guy got more dollars back than the guy who didn't pay much in, this makes it a tax cut for the wealthy". I reject the Krugman fallacy on the grounds that it is outright silly.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think the significance of Reagan's question is that we can all sit around and talk about whether or not this plan or that plan would be good, in theory. However, Reagan asked, basically, is it working?

Most of us are ill equipped to analyze economic data and determine whether this modification of regulations, or the slowly expanding effect of a Clinton era law, or a gradual expansion of Asian power, or the expanding national debt, caused the economic state we are in today. However, we can ask ourselves, did it work?

 

[leftysergeant]

The Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush tax plans did not work. It does make a difference that the top brackets kept more in raw numbers than did the lower. When a workiong man has an extra thousand dollars to spend, the local grocer, mechanical and restrateur all make more money. But, at the same time, the major investor has an extra few hundred thousand dollars to spend, which he mostly re-invests, and, to make some real money, build physical plant in Vietnam, to the hurt of the working man who used to make furniture here.

 

[moon1969]

What does Oliver North think about that? I really don"t like Ronald Reagan. He was a crook and Oliver North still is a crook.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Bush increased funding for alternative energy, he designated vast amounts of marine acres as protected, he removed more low and middle income people from paying any federal income tax than any president before, and I think he was right on immigration and campaign finance reform even though his proposals were either not taken up or defeated on those issues. This past year he reversed course on crop subsidies after the apparent inflation of food and food shortages across the world revealed the dark side of those subsidies.

The problem is, though those were correct decisions. They may not be perceived to be "good points". Immigration isn't a "good point" even though his push was a morally good one. Immigration is one of those weird third rails and burned McCain with the GOP base.

So yes, Bush did make a few other good decisions other than DST changes. However, the post conquest period in Iraq and before the surge coupled with the new economic crisis basically mean Bush is a bad word in the general public.

Bush's:

• Increased funding for alt energy, good. I agree.
• Marine protection, good. I agree.
• Tax cuts for middle class, good. I agree. Overall tax structure, good? I disagree. Not if he wanted to run a war. Not if he couldn't reign in spending.
• Guest worker program, good. I agree.
• Campaign finance reform, good? I'm not sure. In principle, I agree, but would it really do what it's supposed to? Would it introduce any disastrous unintended consequences? I don't know enough about Bush's proposal.

I definitely think Bush deserves some credit for some good decisions. Unfortunately for him, when the final accounting is done, his good credit is dwarfed by his bad.