• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bushenomics

bluestater3

New member
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
BUSHENOMICS
By http://www.nationbooks.org/book.mhtml?t=beinhart3 Larry Beinhart

(first posted at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-beinhart/bushenomics_b_10643.html )

It is truly time to change the way we speak about this administration's economic policies. The old words -- conservative, liberal, Keynesian, stimulus, supply side, job creation, deficits, deficit reduction and so on -- just swirl around and help them hide the truth in the fog.

Bushenomics is something different. It is also very simple.

Bushenomics is the use of the government to take regular people's money and give it to rich people and corporations.

The genius of Bushenomics has been selling it to the voters as something that's good for them.

Any appearance of benefits to low and middle income people -- or for that matter to the country as a whole -- is only there to sell the programs. Any actual benefits will be more than offset by increases in other taxes, the loss of services and by the accumulation of debts.

The story that tax cuts for the rich will stimulate the economy so much that it will solve all problems is bogus. It was originally called Trickle Down economics, an inadvertently apt right wing euphemism for **** on everyone else. It was changed to Supply Side Economics. The old Bush called it voodoo economics. The current Bush calls each tax cut a "jobs and stimulus" package.

This Bush even maintains that it works. In the words of the White House website, in bold face and using title case, "the president's policies have helped create jobs, growth, and opportunity."

Compared to what? The president would like us to compare it to an imaginary alternative world called how-much-worse-it-would-have-been-without-my-initiatives. But it makes more sense to look for some real world comparison. The closest thing in time and kind is the previous administration.

Under Clinton, 18,000,000 new jobs were created. The Dow Jones average was 320% higher when he left office than it was when he came in. The budget had gone from a record deficit to the first surplus since 1969.

Under Bush the only increase in jobs has come from government expansion. There has actually been a decrease in the number of private sector jobs. Adjusted for inflation, the

Dow Jones has gone down about 8.6%.

Ronald Reagan changed course after one year. Bush's policies have failed to fulfill their promises year after year for five years.

Why does this administration persist? If we use their language -- stimulus and jobs and tax cuts lead to deficit reduction -- or the standard language of economics, the discussion disintegrates into a food fight, except that it's statistics and buzz words being thrown around the lunch room.

If we forget all that, just look at what they've done, then make up our own description, it's clear and simple.

The tax policies unarguably favor the wealthy. They especially favor unearned income, dividends, capitol gains and inheritances, money that accrues as you sip Campari on the veranda of the Splendido in Portofino.

Their spending also favors the rich. Also at the expense of the rest of us. The Medicare package has the bizarre requirement that the government has to buy pharmaceuticals from the drug companies at the highest possible price. That means it is requiring us to pay the highest possible price. The $12.3 billion energy bill was a triumph for special interests and was followed, shortly thereafter, by $3 a gallon gas at the pump and record profits for the oil industry. If the privatization of Social Security had been successful, it would have taken money that now goes from people to people through the government and sent it off to corporations. The process would have incurred gigantic interim debts that taxpayers would have had to pay for. The reconstruction fund for Iraq originally had neither oversight nor controls and the people who handled the money were specifically exempted from ever being prosecuted. Funds for the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast were original offered as no-bid contracts with guaranteed profits. They argued that it was a matter of urgency, but they had time to try to break the rule that requires contractors to pay the prevailing wage. The privatization of the armed forces means that about 30% of the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan goes directly to private contractors.
It is, of course, hard to believe that our elected leaders would be cynical enough to use the government primarily to enrich the rich, without really caring of it creates social benefits. Especially if it's true that they will leave huge debts behind, a mess for others to clean up or to suffer with. It's hard to believe unless we are familiar with the private careers of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Bush ran a series of companies. He, personally, always made money. They all went bankrupt. He never seems to have had any regrets and could always find more money to lose.

Then he organized the purchase of the Texas Rangers baseball team. His group got the city of Arlington to pass a special tax to build a stadium for the team. When the group sold the team -- with the stadium included -- Bush's $600,000 investment turned into $13,000,0000. The increase in value came entirely from the taxpayer financed stadium.
In short, Bush had used government to collect money from ordinary taxpayers and pass it through a stadium project as a way to give it to him and his friends. That's how he got rich.

Dick Cheney spent most of his life working for the government. As Secretary of Defense he initiated the privatization of the military. He gave the contracts, without bids and with guaranteed profits, to Halliburton. They were worth billions. When Cheney briefly left government, Halliburton hired him as their CEO. In turn, they gave him a seven-figure salary, stock and options. A lot of stock and options. Now he's worth around $45,000,000.

Cheney was not a good CEO. His decisions brought Halliburton to the verge of bankruptcy. He sold his stock while he was in a position to know that but before the information became public.

When Bush and Cheney were outside government, that's what government was -- a instrument to take money from taxpayers, then give it to companies, who then gave a generous share to Bush and Cheney.

Why should they think of government differently now that they are the government? To them, that's what government if for and that's what they're doing with it. They left their companies bankrupt or nearly so. And life kept on going just fine, better than ever. Someone else took the loss, someone else picked up the pieces. So it will be with the country. No worry.

Larry Beinhart is the author of
http://www.nationbooks.org/book.mhtml?t=beinhart2 Wag the Dog,
http://www.nationbooks.org/book.mhtml?t=beinhart The Librarian, and
http://www.nationbooks.org/book.mhtml?t=beinhart3 Fog Facts: Searching for
Truth in the Land of Spin. All available at nationbooks.org
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
bluestater3 said:
Bushenomics is the use of the government to take regular people's money and give it to rich people and corporations.
:2party: We have heard this for 40 years. It was called Reaganomics too, but that was probably before you were born. This is nothing new. Can't you guys come up with something new?
 

tecoyah

Back
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
9,777
Reaction score
3,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
KCConservative said:
:2party: We have heard this for 40 years. It was called Reaganomics too, but that was probably before you were born. This is nothing new. Can't you guys come up with something new?
Actually, as Bush was not our president 40 yrs ago....your comment is quite pointless. I just tried to refute the numbers in the OP, and actually ended up verifying rather than debunking.....and to be honest, though I wondered about this at some level, I never really looked into it. Rather depressing when you stop to think about it but, the numbers seem to be true.
Pardon me now...as I need to try to figure out how I'm going to pay my mortgage this month, much like many other non existant mddle class workers are doing.Wait....whats that sign up ahead............

"Welcome to the Lower Class"
Paid for by Enron
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
KCConservative said:
:2party: We have heard this for 40 years. It was called Reaganomics too, but that was probably before you were born. This is nothing new. Can't you guys come up with something new?
Looks like a good post to me, if a long post. I agree with nearly all of it, and I am not a conservative, or rich. If I live long enough, I may someday be worth around a million dollars, but the wife shares that of course.
One issue to consider. We already have, as of 2006, an inheritance, or estate, tax exemption of around a million dollars, which will cover nearly all of us here, and almost all American citizens. Why, then, did we fall for the crapola of eliminating inheritance tax for the rich?
According to the link below, only a very small percentage of Americans will ever have more than a million in our estates.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/tax-j13.shtml

and for those who want to see the other side of the coin.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_Inheritance_Tax
 

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Real Bushenomics -- pander to the electorate. Spending is popular, so spend more. Get tough wars are popular (until they backfire) so let's give a get tough war. But what about the cost of all this, you ask? That is the genius of Bushenomics. We can increase spending and fight wars, and we don't have to pay an extra cent! If fact, he did all this and cut taxes!

Busheonomics! The guy is brilliant! That's why people love him. He panders to them and gives them want they want. Spending. wars, and lower taxes.

So he added another $2 1/2 trillion to the Govt debt and stole another $600 billion from the SS trust fund. Like Cheney said -- Reagan proved deficits don't matter. Well, they matter to the country's economic future (the interest expense on the Republican debt was $352 billion last year), but they don't matter to the electorate, that's what Cheney meant. Most folks don't know the difference between deficit and deceit. And he was right! They got reelected.

That's the power of Bushenomics.
 
Last edited:

Iriemon

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
2,187
Location
Miami
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
UtahBill said:
Looks like a good post to me, if a long post. I agree with nearly all of it, and I am not a conservative, or rich. If I live long enough, I may someday be worth around a million dollars, but the wife shares that of course.
One issue to consider. We already have, as of 2006, an inheritance, or estate, tax exemption of around a million dollars, which will cover nearly all of us here, and almost all American citizens. Why, then, did we fall for the crapola of eliminating inheritance tax for the rich?
According to the link below, only a very small percentage of Americans will ever have more than a million in our estates.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/tax-j13.shtml

and for those who want to see the other side of the coin.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_Inheritance_Tax
We fell for it because they called it the "death tax", and talked about all the poor farms that had to be sold to pay the tax, although I have never found an actual example of this happening once. They sold it because it was packaged with the rest of the tax cuts, that were sold as benefitting all working Americans, though we now know they very wealthy beneifitted a lot and the working poor didn't benefit at all (SS taxes were never cut).

So when you see heir like Paris Hilton smiling for the camera, you'll know why. You and I pay higher taxes so the likes of Paris can inherit their millions without paying a dime in taxes, and live off the proceeds from their trust fund at 15% tax rates (which the Republicans want to eliminate altogether), while people who earn a living pay a 33% top rate.

Actually, that is not quite right. You and I do not pay higher taxes -- yet. Bush's government just borrows the money. That was the other way he sold it. But we'll be paying much higher taxes when the costs of this debt come due and the boomers start to retire.

The Republican legacy.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Bush bankrupted 3 companies and now he is bankrupting the U.S., that's Bushenomics.
 

Old and wise

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
310
Reaction score
0
Location
New England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
scottyz said:
Bush bankrupted 3 companies and now he is bankrupting the U.S., that's Bushenomics.
I think it is also known as Voodoo economics. The neocons are experts at it.
 
Top Bottom