Bush, both villain and hero..... Oprah tops, Britney bombs

So much for the title of "UNITER"!

The only thing stupider than this poll is the newspaper that would waste space reprinting its results.

What this poll shows is how unhinged the left in this country has become if they think he is a bigger villian than OBL, Hussien, the nut case running Iran, Chavez, ....

I would be curious to see the breakdown by political party of who voted for the "troops" as heroes of the year.

Bill R. you can only uunite people whne they want to be united. From day one, the democrats never wanted to be united since they felt that President Bush was in office illegimately. Notice I said "felt" and not "thought". If they had thouight about it, they couldn't come to this conclusion.

He-ro. (noun)

1. a person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his/her brave deeds and noble qualities.

2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act.

OK, so I understand the troops in Iraq, and Jesus (if we accept the biblical accounts) for their courage and brave deeds.

But can anybody here explain how Oprah Winfrey, Barack Obama, Bono, Warren Buffett, George Clooney, Bill Gates, Al Gore, Billy Graham, Angelina Jolie, Colin Powell, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Condoleeza Rice can be called "heroic"?

AOL NEWS???

It Depends if your Paulo and John D Bush walks on water. If you are me and a few others he should face the Courts for lying to take us into a War.Then there are some who think he should be impeached and sent to jail. And some think he is a God. All I want is Jan 2009 so I never have to see or hear him speak again.

That's quite a list that Bushie beat out for top villain.But,in reality,he earned it.

As far as the hero part,his ratings higher than the troops he sent in to his war,just goes to show how this guy got elected twice.

Must be a lot of "Earl's" out there.

Well, he united 25% of us in identifying him as worse than Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Kim Il Jong, Donald Rumsfeld and Satan combined, apparently. That's saying something.

George Jr. is the reason why the hardcore GOP hacks are going to be crying in 2008.

You have to admit,they have spunk that's why their second loss in two years is going to be better than the last one in 06.

Way more people voted for W. as biggest villian,than hero.
W. even beat Satan,very impressive!

Now that John McCain/Rudi Guliani/Mitt Romney are positioning themselves to be the next W,people need to decide if they want to go down that road again.
Remember,W. called himself a "uniter",and a "compassionate conservative."
I don't think campassionate and conservative should ever be used in the same sentence again.

It's high time for a Democratic President people!

So Britney Spears beat out Paris Hilton as the "Worst Celebrity Role Model." Congratulations, Brit!!

Along with W. being the top villian,Dick Cheney and the former lockstep,Republican led Congress should top the villian list.

The GOP claims to be the party of god,yet they have done more of Satan's work than god's work in recent years.

See ya in 2012 GOP !

Bill R. you can only uunite people whne they want to be united. From day one, the democrats never wanted to be united since they felt that President Bush was in office illegimately.Posted by: Terry | Dec 29, 2006 9:27:17 AM

To say one side or the other does not want to be united is just not true. Through the years there have been many presidents on both side who have united this country. To pick out one side is a sham. As to his illegitimate victory...I do believe it showed many problems in our system that need to be addressed, but I don't think that many claim that. The problem with Bush is has done a terrible job as a leader.

Yeah, Britney Spears is pretty trashy. I hear Kevin Federline's a pro wrestler now.

Bill R,

Then why is that President Bush is always derogatorily called the "uniter" by many in here. I'll stand by my statement that the democratic party never wanted to run a united, bipartisan gov't in the first place. The dems definition of uniter would only be if they got everything their way, even though they were the minority party for six years

..."you can only uunite people whne they want to be united. From day one, the democrats never wanted to be united since they felt that President Bush was in office illegimately. Notice I said "felt" and not "thought". If they had thouight about it, they couldn't come to this conclusion"...

...yea, right...just like how the Repubs, Conservatives and NeoClowns wanted to united from day one of Clinton's administration...

...your cup of hypocrisy runs over...

Hey All,

This is off subject, but back to the 'war on Christmas' for a minute;
Corporate America shows it's heart.

http://www.slate.com/id/2155906/fr/flyout

"The only thing stupider than this poll is the newspaper that would waste space reprinting its results.

Posted by: Bruce | Dec 29, 2006 9:09:59 AM"

It's called having fun, Bruce.

I think the Swamp should have 'poll boxes' for Swamp Rats to register there opinions. Wouldn't it be fun to see who is best/worst poster?

Frank, Mark, Dave? What say?

Bryan,

Brit went sans knickers, so, there ya go. I predict huge weight gains in the near future.

To the Cons.
You know, it may have been Republics that put GWB at the top of the villain list. He is the guy that spoiled Bush's chances for '08.
(Jeb, that is)

Further notes:

Earth to the RR;
Satan is not a real 'person'.
He is a concept. Something made up by Big Church to control your thoughts.

Since 'Satan' made the list, I might posit other 'non-people' for the villains list.

Global Capitalism; It, not communism, is now the greatest threat to the American middle class. Welcome to sweat shop America. It's coming to a job near you.

Bush and Cheny should have been at 50% while Saddam,Osama and Kim at 1%. If bush would not have riled them up not of this war stuff cuold have hapened and it"s too bad he's evil more than them
Lacy

O-saddam has just been killed,its on the news now.So Iraq was better off without Bush their and they kill the leader who ruled that counyrt without bommers blowing up people?haha the joke is on us
Lacy

He was only a leader in the practice of creating mass graves, Lacy.

Terry,

"Then why is that President Bush is always derogatorily called the "uniter" by many in here. I'll stand by my statement that the democratic party never wanted to run a united, bipartisan gov't in the first place."

I suspect that you know the reason why people derisively refer to George W. Bush as a "uniter," nonetheless I will synopsize.
"Uniter" is in quotes because this was one of candidate Bush's major campaign themes, along with "compassionate conservative."

Once in office, this zeal for "uniting" suffered a precipitous decline as Karl Rove's divide and conquer politics took effect. There are many examples of this, but I will stick with the most (IMHO) egregious example: the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the run-up to the Iraq War leading in to the 2002 midterm elections.

Democrats proposed the DHS to which Mr. Bush initially resisted. He then co-opted the issue, loading it full of extraneous, anti-civil liberty and anti-labor provisions that had long been on the wish list of the Neoconservatives and were designed to be bitter pills for Democrats to swallow. This was brought through Congress in the manner that most other legislation had been passed in Bush's early years, with no Democratic amendments allowed.

Finally, the bill creating DHS was campaigned on as a choice between Republicans who are tough and Democrats who love terrorists more than security, a theme that would be oft-repeated over the ensuing years. So much so, Terry, that you seem to have rather effectively internalized this specious line of reasoning. The issue, of course, was not whether to protect against terrorists, but how, yet it was turned into a blatantly partisan wedge in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Then you have the Iraq War, "rolled out" in August 2002 for maximum impact and to time the vote to authorize war right BEFORE the 2002 midterms, unlike Bush 41 who purposely waited until after the 1990 midterms to run-up the Gulf War, knowing that it would be unwise to make such a grave decision as whether or not to go to war under the political pressures exerted by an imminent election.

The lies and distortions that were screamed from the rooftops during this period have been well-documented, most egregious being the clearly non-existent link between Osama and Saddam.

Setting all that aside, the selling of the Iraq War relied heavily on painting opposition as terrorist lovers who don't want to protect America. The Max Cleland/ Saddam/ Osama campaign ad was the most memorable of this line of attack, linking a military amputee to the Iraqi dictator and the Al Qaeda spiritual leader.

The reality, as I hope that you know because you seem to believe in the Talking Points, is that most of those who oppose(d) the Iraq War opposed it because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not attack us, and that effectively reconsructing Afghanistan (where the terrorists who DID attack us were operating), catching Osama Bin Laden and taking down Al Qaeda were the most effective means of maintaining the American way of life. The false choice that one is either with Bush or with the terrorists has been repeated so many times and in so many different areas (even tax cuts) that it has become a cliche.

As for Democrats not wanting to run a divided government, they did so extremely effectively during the Clinton/ Gingrich years which were the most peaceful and prosperous this nation has ever seen. The reason people are so fed up with your Republicans is that they have governed exclusively from the margins and have never sought input from the opposition party to modify their fascist tendencies. They would have been wise to have sought a sensible center instead of dividing and conquering, at least allowing for the possibility of the long-term Republican domination of American politics that is now a fading dream.

This is a great example of how maddening it can be for thinking people to argue with sheepish democrats.

Witness this statement by "Bryan," and I wouldn't be surprised if he was named after William Jennings.

"Democrats proposed the DHS to which Mr. Bush initially resisted. He then co-opted the issue, loading it full of extraneous, anti-civil liberty and anti-labor provisions."

What Bryan is referring to here is the fact that Bush wanted his secretary of homeland security to have the ability to hire and fire subordinates without engaging the tedious processes of the 1883 Civil Service regulations. To Bryan that's "anti-labor." It's not. It's called keeping control of government.

When he refers to "anti-civil liberties" he means the USA Patriot Act which was approved and renewed by a majority of both houses of congress including many democrats, a fact he will conveniently leave out.

When the Civil Service was established well over a century ago it had a worthy goal, to create a professional workforce in our Capitol free political cronyism. Back in 1883 the solution was valid. But too often in government we pass laws to fix the problems of the moment and then we keep those laws on the books for years and years without ever following up to see if they're still needed.

The truth of the matter is that a solution from the 19th century is posing a problem in 21st. Especially when our nation is threatened in a modern and sinister way.

Despite its name our civil service system today has nothing to do with civility. It offers little reward for good workers. It provides cover for scores of bad workers. Firing a bad worker under the current system takes more than a year - if allowable at all - because of the mountain of paperwork, hearings, and appeals.

For instance, a federal worker caught drunk on the job can't be fired for 30 days, and then he has the right to insist on appeals.

The President MUST have the flexibility to respond to terrorism on a moment's notice and be able to shift resources (including personnel) as the executive sees fit.

In civil service productivity SHOULD be the name of the game. It's no wonder there's resentment among our many good federal employees. If I watched bad workers kept on the payroll and given the same pay raises by managers who are intimidated by the discipline and firing process I'd be resentful, too.

I respect and thank the many good, hardworking federal employees we have. But maybe it's because as a young man I worked reporting jobs that paid less than $20,000 a year and was glad to have a job that I find their union bosses' refusal to budge on the issue of civil service regulations in homeland security for the greater good of ALL our security so reprehensible. What the issue came down to was would we choose to protect the lives or Americans or protect the special interests?

The democrats in the Senate sided with the special interests. Then in Nov. 2002 Max Cleland and Jean Carnahan lost their Senate seats mainly because of that vote.

Immediately after the election the bill passed with the democrats not saying the first word about protectionism for union and federal employees, which weeks before they had dwelled on. Wow, what a way for Bryan's heroes to take a stand, eh?

Also, Bryan considers the Clinton/Gingrich years when the federal government was TWICE shut down due to congressional-executive disagreement and when companies such as Enron and Worldcom began to deceive their shareholders and the American people as "prosperous." He may not be playing with a full deck.

Bill,

First off, I have been called many things, but "sheepish" is not one of them. I explicitly lay my views on the line (which often, by the way, do not align with those of the Democratic party) and take shots from you and your ilk as if my view is somehow misinformed and/or unpatriotic. This is perfectly in keeping with your "liberals hate America" line of attack. It is emblematic of what is tearing this country apart. If imagining me and those who think similarly to be uneducated or, amusingly, not playing with a "full deck" allows you the smug superiority to sleep soundly at night, so be it.

As to your argument that new civil service regulations were critical for the effectiveness of the government, if this was the case Mr. Bush should have been front and center before 9/11 pushing it through the traditional legislative process. He also could have sought to remove those provisions and pass a compromise DHS bill with a follow up civil service reform bill but instead he chose to use it as a wedge issue and portray opposition as unpatriotic and terrorist-loving. Not exactly "uniting."

As you well, know the DHS was rightfully treated with a sense of urgency, so linking new federal civil service regulations with a truly emergency bill was cynical politics as its worse, and was DESIGNED to be divisive, as you tacitly accept.

Finally, yes, I do consider strong economic growth coupled with an expanding middle class, shrinking poverty, large influx of new millionaires, budget surplus and low interest rates to be a time of "prosperity." I'm not concerned that the long arc of history will be too concerned with the two government shutdowns in light of the economic success of the era. The results speak for themselves.

Bryan
"Democrats proposed the DHS to which Mr. Bush initially resisted. He then co-opted the issue, loading it full of extraneous, anti-civil liberty and anti-labor provisions that had long been on the wish list of the Neoconservatives and were designed to be bitter pills for Democrats to swallow. This was brought through Congress in the manner that most other legislation had been passed in Bush's early years, with no Democratic amendments allowed."

Co-opting issues has been going on for a long time. President Clinton and welafare reform is the perfect example. The president wanted the DHS personnel to have more flexibility than the typical employee sitting behind the next at the social security office so that when our national security was at stake, no one had to consult union rules.

As far as structuring a bill with items that were his priorities, presidents and Congresses of the same party get their privledge. Look at the tax hike President Clinton passed in 1993. Wasn't what I would call bi-partisainship.

As far as linking the Iraq war to people, why is it the dems are constantly linking Iraq to Haliburton and then saying this is all part of Dick Cheney's deferred compensation.

As far as The Clinton/Gingrich years, I guess you forgot the villification of Newt for "shutting down the gov't". He was crucified by the Clinton Administration and the media for trying to bring gov't spending under control.

Politics unfortuately is a dirty business, but for everyone to believe that the Bush administration invented it, your nuts. I do believe that Presdient Bush wanted to unite this country as can be seen by his wok with Senator Kennedy, as much of a liberal senator you will find, on the No-Child Left Behind Act.

Remember after the 2000 elections and the 50/50 split Senate, the GOP worked out a power-sharing arranagement, even though it was not necessary since they were the majority party due to Vice-President Cheney's tie-breaking vote.

The president has tried, but the dems have not attempted to meet him half-way.

As far as The Clinton/Gingrich years, I guess you forgot the villification of Newt for "shutting down the gov't". He was crucified by the Clinton Administration and the media for trying to bring gov't spending under control.
Posted by: Terry | Dec 31, 2006 10:47:20 PM

Nobody villified Newt more than Newt himself. He was a pompous little man who lead the republicans not to vote on a budget allowing parts of the Fed. government to shut down because he felt "snubbed" by Clinton on Airforce on returning from Yitzhak Rabin's funeral. He
was more than willing to try and keep 4.5 million
for an advance on a book deal over Jim Wright. He was one calling and leading the way for impeachment of Clinton, yet he had his own thing going on, and for those who say it was about the lying, he had his own share of lying in the GOPAC
scandal.

Bryan, do you really believe that in today's political environment it'd be possible to pass BOTH civil service reform and a new cabinet-level DHS? In one congress? I can imagine the unions ramping up their campaign contributions to defeat BOTH measures as I type this and the republicans fighting back with other fundraising drives that would take up time and delay a vote on either measure for at least a year. Come back to reality, my friend.

Bryan, I quote: "Finally, yes, I do consider strong economic growth coupled with an expanding middle class, shrinking poverty, large influx of new millionaires, budget surplus and low interest rates to be a time of "prosperity."'

Do you even CONSIDER the possibility that any of those low interest rates and large influx of millionaires could have been based on money that didn't and never really existed?

You do remember the dot-com "bubble" don't you? Remembere when everyone was going to be a millionaire? The bubble was breaking even before Bush got into office. I'm here to tell you today that much of the prosperity of the late '90s was a pyramid scheme and Clinton and his SEC did nothing to stop it.

Start with an investment company, which in turn has controlling shares of four more holding companies. These, in turn, have controlling shares in still other holding companies and ultimately control 240 utility companies. Exempt from most regulatory scrutiny, the holding companies and their subsidiaries manufacture profits by marking up stated values of properties and selling properties from one company to the other and booking those profits—until the stock market plummets, bringing the pyramid scheme crashing down, and ruining thousands of investors.

This was RAMPANT during the Clinton years. Enron did it going back to 1997. Worldcom did it as far back as possibly 1995. How many more Andersen accounting firms were out there during the Clinton years creating this type of "prosperity?"

Are you naive enough to think that companies such as govworks.com, an online start-up that was has a website for people to pay parking tickets, were making the millions they claimed to be in the late '90s? When Clinton hosted their CEO at the White House? Never mind the fact that it was already pretty easy to pay parking tickets! Watch this movie to get a clearer understanding of the supposed profitable dot-com companies of the late '90s http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/

No one questions that people thought the economy was great in the late '90s. On paper it looked like it was. But if it REALLY was, why, oh why were there were so many restatements of earnings? So many dot-com bankruptcies? What's truly amazing is that Bush and his treasury, SEC, and Fed have been able to undo all the damage of the dot-com hype and corporate malfeasance and put the domestic economy back on REAL solid footing while still fighting a war and creating another cabinet level buraeucracy in DHS (thanks small government republicans, ugh).

When I used the word "sheepish" I didn't mean you I meant democrat arguments in general concerning DHS. Often "anti-labor" and "anti-civil liberties" are code words used by the left used to describe policies that are neither. That's what I was referring to. Sorry if I offended you, I never meant to say you didn't stand behind the merits of your arguments and present them cogently.

Bill,

I'll tell you the same thing I'm telling Terry.
You should get a p.r. job with team Bush.

You're good at putting lipstick on a pig.

Happy New Year Everyone!!!

John E.

If that's the case, then pucker up, we'll get the cherry red out just for you

Loon, thanks for the backhanded compliment but I'm a reporter and a PR job would be the worst kind of sell-out to me, personally.

Do you at least agree with me that internet speculation in the late '90s and early '00s made the economy appear healthier than it was? I really don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that.

As for your claim that the economy's really not very good today how about the news that the Dow crossed 12,500 for the first time recently? I don't see how you can fake that. That's not putting lipstick on Monica Lewinksy if you ask me.

Terry,

"Remember after the 2000 elections and the 50/50 split Senate, the GOP worked out a power-sharing arranagement, even though it was not necessary since they were the majority party due to Vice-President Cheney's tie-breaking vote."
Posted by: Terry | Dec 31, 2006 10:47:20 PM

Yes, Terry, Bush campaigned on being a "compassionate conservative," a "uniter not divider," and he has at various times made overtures of bipartisanship, such as your aforementioned power-sharing agreement which ironically came to benefit the GOP when Jim Jeffords jumped ship from the Republican Party. When it came to actually working in a bipartisan fashion, rather than the usual Bush mantra of "give me everything I want and we can call it 'bipartisanship,'" Democrats and particularly moderate Republicans were largely shut out as a moderating force.

Jim Jeffords defection from the Republican Party in 2001 was explicitly as a result of the shunning of moderates in the GOP and Democrats altogether in favor of the extreme right wing. This was the modus operandi of the Bush Administration from day one, despite, to remind you how this started, their campaign slogan from months earlier of being a "Uniter Not a Divider." This is why you will continue to see Bush opponents referring to him sarcastically as a "uniter."

Here is an article from the Washington Post following Jeffords defection: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A74458-2001May24?language=printer

Finally, it is necessary to remember that the Bush agenda did not win the election of 2000. He won the electoral college in an exceedingly contentious way, and thus had not received a "mandate" for right-wing change when 550,000 more people had voted for a continuation of the Clinton/ Gore agenda. He promised to unite, but you are simply propogating a revisionist fantasy when you attempt to portray the Democrats as unduly partisan and unwilling to reach across the aisle despite President Bush's outstretched hand. You must willfully ignore his first months in office leading up to the Jeffords difection and all of the events leading up to the 2002 midterms and the run-up to the Iraq War as well as a myriad of other events to come to such a conclusion.

Here is a discussion from December 2000 on the News Hour about expectations for Bush's first year in office: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec00/politics_12-19.html

Following 9/11, George W. Bush was given a clean slate after his extremely contentious first half-year, and could have united the country and indeed the world in the fight against Jihadists. Instead, he immediately went back to work on the Rove strategy of "divide and conquer" and "the majority of the majority" governance. The politicization of terrorism and the Iraq War are the loudest examples of this. Karl Rove genuinely thought the Republicans could establish a long-term majority by playing to their "base," but that dream has finally run headlong into reality, where people genuinely do want compromise policy and REAL bipartisanship, defined as two parties working toward compromise rather than simply trying to steamroll the other. That is why they voted overwhelmingly in November for Democrats, who bring the promise of, if nothing else (for you Dem haters), divided government and oversight.

Bryan,

You are correct that Jeffords jumped because he didn't fit in with the current Republican party, since his views are more liberal than conservative. From his perspective, he didn't like where the party was heading.

The other thing you forget to mention in Jeffords jumping is his handing his chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which he had held since 1997, to Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and was given the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which would have been occupied by ranking minority member Harry Reid. This was all part of the deal.

Unfortuately your conclusion "That is why they voted overwhelmingly in November for Democrats, who bring the promise of, if nothing else (for you Dem haters), divided government and oversight." is off-base. The GOP was booted out of office for corruption and/or the perception of corruption, for not keeping to their smaller gov't principles that they were elected to office in 1994 in the first place, and by a good strategy of Congressman Emmanuel and Senator Schumar of finding moderate sounding, military canidates to run for office.

The ability to "unite" had nothing to do with the last election.

If you truely believe that the dems met the president halfway, then you are not seeing things clearly.

Bryan, no one denies that the democrats won in a landslide last month, but if you honestly believe that the democrats are serious about compromise and that they aren't just as guilty as Bush of putting their priorities ahead of the good of the nation then I think you should read this letter that a REAL bipartisan, John McCain, wrote to Obama.

My favorite part: "I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party’s effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/
politics/main1289745.shtml

Bill,

Loon???

I resemble that remark!

Bryan,

The sad part about 9/11,other than the loss of life,is that W. had a chance to be one of the alltime great Presidents in history.
A real "Uniter" of a country,and a real "Uniter" of the world for the cause of democracy and freedom.

He choose to take the fear route to "victory",scare the people and they will do what I say and then he,Cheney and Rummy proceeded to wet the bed.

Somehow all of their rightwing drooling got us into Iraq,and now we need smarter people than the rightwing Bozo's who caused the problems in the first place to fix it.

I hope Speaker Pelosi rethinks that no impeachment talk.

Sorry John E., I long ago stopped distinguishing between the two of you. The posts are really interchangeable. Anyway, thanks for the backhanded compliment.

Bill,

Just wanted to remind you, despite the rosy picture that you paint, poverty has risen a full percentage point since Mr. Bush took office (it fell 3.3% over Mr. Clinton's term), median income is down $4500 dollars from the day Bush took office, unemployment is 5.1%, up from 4% in January 2001, and wages are falling against inflation.

It bewilders me to this day how hard people try to spin away the 90's economy. Its very simple: progressive taxation, coupled with balanced budgets kept treasury coffers full while exerting little (if any) provable strain on economic growth. The economy expanded for 116 consecutive months, as ALL indicators of properity rose and ALL indicators of poverty fell. For whatever spin you want to lay on it, today's economy is very much a mixed bag of haves and have nots.

Here are some numbers on wages: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060111

Here's a link to the census bureau: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/005647.html

Bryan,

The two weblinks you quote are out of date being 12 and 17 months old. Unemployment is now 4.5% and real wage growth for non-supervisory employees (what those on the left like to call - the working man), rose by 2.8%. This was in the WSJ last week.

One other point, you state that the economy expanded for 116 consecutive months - this is a true statement. How many months was President Clinton in office? Hint 12 times 8. When do you think that economic expansion started and who was president? Also, which month did that consectutive month streak end and who was president?

As far as the cause of the economic expansion, it had nothing to do with "progressive taxation". If you believe that, please explain your theory. You have the cart before the horse. The balancing of the budget helped, but the balanced budget was caused by the growing economy and the growing economy was primarily caused by the second greatest invention of the 20th century - personal computer/internet. This caused so much efficiency in business that profits grew and it created high paying jobs.

Terry,

Clearly, 116 is greater than 12x8, and the expansion began in Bush 41's term. I thought that would be obvious in terms of when it ended which we all know to be sometime in late 2000-early-2001, but since you brought it up, the expansion seems to have began right around the time Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge and reached a compromise on a budget package that increased the marginal tax rate and phased out exemptions for high-income taxpayers. Perhaps it was just a lucky coincidence.

As for progressive taxation, my supply-side kool-aid drinking friend, large structural trade and budget deficits exert upward pressure on inflation. High interest rates means less borrowing leverage for consumers and businesses. This slows the economy.

We are witnessing this right now. Artificially low interest rates over the last 4 years helped to stimulate a housing boom that has been the driving engine of the economy throughout Mr. Bush's term. Now that they are rising, and due to the aforementioned large structural deficits (further complicated by the ill-conceived Iraq War) they will likely continue to rise for the foreseeable future.

Now that people will no longer be able to refinance and take equity out of their homes, fewer residential units will be built, and home values will cease to rise due to the negative relationship between interest rates and home prices. This is similar to the unraveling of the technology boom. It will be the big economic story of the coming years to see how large the effect of this slowdown on both the consumer and business side will be.

Terry, you did not provide a link but I suspect is that what the WSJ said was that wage growth rose 2.8% THIS YEAR. I really don't care if wages rose THIS YEAR, what I care about is that they haven't risen for the previous 4. This is the opposite of what occurred during the Clinton administration, where wage and income growth was spread out over the whole of the ecnonomy and rose year after year after year.

Mr. Bush has borrowed over a trillion dollars from the Social Security fund to pay for the excesses of today. The beneficiaries of this largess have been primarily those who are owners of capitol (i.e. not the working guy). If the $2.3 trillion in tax cuts passed thus far during the Bush Administration were targeted progressively, you can bet that the indicators of prosperity that rose during Clinton's years would also rise.

On the flip side, had supply-side policy such as Mr. Bush's been passed instead of Bill Clinton's 1993 budget bill that raised taxes on the wealthy (top rate from 30 to 39.1%), the economy would likely have remained flatter as the debt that was paid down and the deficits that were reduced and eliminated in the 90's instead expanded, exerting upward pressures on interest rates and therefore downward pressure on economic growth. The bill for your GOP's "credit card" governance has not yet come due, my friend.

Furthermore, if supply-side economic theory worked, and the flipside of it clearly did not, then the 1990's should have been the second Great Depression as the top rate was raised nearly 10% . This should have utterly stifled the economic growth, but somehow it magically did not do that. Somehow it magically ushered in low interest rates, broad economic growth, low inflation, decreased poverty... well, you know the rest; I anxiously await your attempt to spin it away.

Now, from a previous discussion, perhaps you can explain how repealing the Estate Tax (as currently in existence or with higher limits) would increase economic productivity?

Quick mental exercise for you: The government is attempting to distribute a tax cut, and they have $1000 that they want to get the biggest bang for. They could give it to a working class citizen trying to get by, and that citizen will most likely spend that money on something they want or need, putting that dollar right back into the economy. $1000 represents 2% of the current median annual income.

They could also give it to a citizen who makes in the neighborhood of a million dollars a year. This same money would represent 0.1% of his or her annual income. That person is far more likely to simply put that money in the bank, where it provides less economic utility. This is a microcosm of the situation that has been going on since Mr. Bush took office.

Don't forget, Terry, we're operating off of borrowed money which needs to be repaid with interest. The national debt is, get this, 64.7% of GDP. If that doesn't strike you as a serious problem, you are simply fooling yourself.

Terry,

I'm awaiting for your supply-side elixir to help show me the way... don't chicken out on me!

Bryan,

Some of us have to work during the day and not sit around and wait for our govt check. When I have the facts on my side, I won't chicken out.

Let's start with your brillant quotes:

"As for progressive taxation, my supply-side kool-aid drinking friend, large structural trade and budget deficits exert upward pressure on inflation. High interest rates means less borrowing leverage for consumers and businesses. This slows the economy."

Progressive taxation - some history first. Under the Carter administration, the highest individual tax rate was 70%, Reagan - 28%, Bush41 - 31%, Clinton 39%, Bush43 - 35%. If progressive taxation is so good for the economy, what would recommend the highest rate be: 40%, 50%, 60%...? Your Bobby Rubin theory on interest rates and deficits was just shattered these past few years. The deficit, you know the one - the highest of all-time that has occurred during the past few years, was taking place at a time when interest rates were their lowest in about 40 years.

"Now that they (interest rates)are rising, and due to the aforementioned large structural deficits (further complicated by the ill-conceived Iraq War) they will likely continue to rise for the foreseeable future."

Most economist see interest rates declining in 2007.

As far as the housing boom coming to an end, moneys are starting to transfer back into the stock market.

"Terry, you did not provide a link but I suspect is that what the WSJ said was that wage growth rose 2.8% THIS YEAR. I really don't care if wages rose THIS YEAR, what I care about is that they haven't risen for the previous 4. This is the opposite of what occurred during the Clinton administration, where wage and income growth was spread out over the whole of the ecnonomy and rose year after year after year". My favorite.

Thsi one intrigued because I thought I might be slipping. I wasn't. The following is from the EPI (which you quoted earlier). This is the the hourly wage 50th decile cutoff for all workers adjusted for inflation using the CPI deflator. We will start at the beginning of the Bush41/Clinton economic expansion:

1991 - $13.20
1992 - $13.31
1993 - $13.32
1994 - $12.94
1995 - $12.89
1996 - $12.83
1997 - $13.13
1998 - $13.50
1999 - $13.91
2000 - $13.88
2001 - $14.18
2002 - $14.30
2003 - $14.46
2004 - $14.46
2005 - $14.29
2006 wasn't available on the table, but multiply 2005 by 1.028.

As you can see from the data during the 1991-2000 expansion, it took until 1998 until wage growth caught up with the economic expansion. The reason is that wages are a lagging economic indicator and always trail. Wages trail investment.

"The beneficiaries of this largess have been primarily those who are owners of capitol (i.e. not the working guy). If the $2.3 trillion in tax cuts passed thus far during the Bush Administration were targeted progressively, you can bet that the indicators of prosperity that rose during Clinton's years would also rise."

The reason onwers of capital, and not the "working guy" (as if owners don't work), benefit nmore is that they put more at risk than the wage earner. Risk and return.

The tax cuts were targeted progressively because we have tax tabels that are progressive. Take for example Joe and John. Joe pays $2,000 in income taxes a year while John pays $20,000. In your world, an equal tax break would be if they each got a $200 tax break. In the progressive tax world, that would mean Joe got a 10% tax break while John only got 1%. The progressive tax breaks would give each Joe and John a 10% tax break - Joe gets his $200 while John gets $2,000. If you remember back in 2002 we all got these flat refund checks for a few hundred dollars, was there great economic growth? No, because many people used this to pay down credit (good for the individual but not for the economy) and others just saved it. Lowering tax rates on the incremental dollars that one will earn adds incentives for individuals to work harder and smarter since they will get to keep more of their money.

"Furthermore, if supply-side economic theory worked, and the flipside of it clearly did not, then the 1990's should have been the second Great Depression as the top rate was raised nearly 10% . This should have utterly stifled the economic growth, but somehow it magically did not do that. Somehow it magically ushered in low interest rates, broad economic growth, low inflation, decreased poverty... well, you know the rest; I anxiously await your attempt to spin it away."

You missed this in my post above that the 90's economic expansion was not caused by any great gov't economic solution but by private industry and the technological revolution.

For the answer to boring mental exercise, see my paragraph starting "The tax cuts were targeted progressively..." Here is amental exercise for you: Name the two tax rates that will generate the same about of tax revenues?

Estate taxes - first this is a matter of fairness, just because one dies should not give the gov't the right to come in confiscate the heirs property. Even if the heirs are as dumb as Paris Hilton. Second, the money in the hands of "the rich" will create more economic good, than having the money in the hands of the gov't.

As far as the deficit/debt, it should be reduced, not by increasing taxes, but reducing non-military gov't spending. Get the federal gov't back to its original purpose and quit acting like a nanny state taking care of us "womb to the tomb".

The national debt at 65% of GDP. If you make $100K a year, would you be worried abouy a $65K mortgage?

Bryan, I probably just packed more economic teachin in the past 30 minutes (I type slow) than you have had in lifetime. No thanks necessary.

Sir,
In the book “A man called intrepid”, the secret German “enigma machine”, was found by the British, in WWII.
The English home office, knew in advance, of the bombing strikes on London, as well as other secret German military maneuvers.
In order for Churchill to keep it a secret that the British had found the de-coding device, the bombing of London was allow to continue, again with advance knowledge.
So don't anyone tell me about the evil of just Saddam, and Bush.
I ask a simple question the answer must surely be; Are all leaders psychopaths, or are all psychopaths, leaders?