Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Paul Krugman: Bush budget is class warfare

by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 17, 2005 9:41 PM PST
From the mouths of babes: Bush budget cuts one way.
(Chronicle login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw = speakeasy)

>>It may sound shrill to describe President Bush as someone who takes food from the mouths of babes and gives the proceeds to his millionaire friends. Yet his latest budget proposal is top-down class warfare in action.<<

It's just that "compasionate" conservatism in action again.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Paul Krugman: Bush budget is class warfare
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Paul Krugman: Bush budget is class warfare
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Hard to believe!
by duckman / February 17, 2005 9:58 PM PST

Liberals accusing Conservatives of class warfare. Time for a new playbook for the Demo-Retro-Libs.

Collapse -
Class-warfare death wish
by Mark5019 / February 17, 2005 10:08 PM PST

At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Washington, D.C., last Saturday, several party leaders revived the mantra of ?tax cuts for the wealthy? as an attack on President Bush. This, of course, was a campaign slogan of Sen. John Kerry, who as we all know was unsuccessful in his bid for the White House.

Carrying the tired Kerry line were Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. They all repeated the chant of ?tax cuts for the wealthy,? stating that the Bush tax cuts must be pulled back. This will sit well with Howard Dean, the duly-elected DNC chair whose anti-war presidential campaign platform also included a full rollback of the tax cuts. (Note, by the way, that Reid and Pelosi are minority leaders, as Republicans control both the Senate and the House. Note also that John Edwards is a former senator, as his Senate seat was taken over by Republican Richard Burr

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/lk20050217.shtml

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Like I said, time for a new playbook.
by duckman / February 17, 2005 10:12 PM PST
Collapse -
Mark...
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 18, 2005 3:06 AM PST

Conservatives may want to believe that Kerry lost because of his positions, but he lost for two main reasons:
1) No US President has ever been defeated for re-election during a war (though Johnson was pretty much forced to withdraw from the contest).
2) He ran an absolutely horrible campaign -- in his efforts to take the high road in the face of the typical Republican mud-fest, he recapitulated Dukakis' feat of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Yes, they're both liberals -- and both tried to maintain focus on issues in the face of all-too-effective smear campaigns.
Point is, Bush LOST in the all the polls on most of the issues under discussion here -- the majority of Americans don't like tax cuts for the wealthy and spending cuts for the rest, but that's sadly what Bush is taking his victory to be a mandate for. He didn't win on "values," or his domestic agenda -- he won on "don't change leaders in the middle of a war." Period.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Right and wrong Dave
by Roger NC / February 18, 2005 3:13 AM PST
In reply to: Mark...
2) He ran an absolutely horrible campaign

Right, and was the worse candidate the democrats could have fielded to many of us. Better people than him within the party were rejected by the Democratic PTB.

in his efforts to take the high road in the face of the typical Republican mud-fest, he recapitulated Dukakis' feat of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Yes, they're both liberals -- and both tried to maintain focus on issues in the face of all-too-effective smear campaigns.

In terms of Kerry, poppycock. High road my backside, he has no leadership quailities, so can't take any road except to wander there. I'd actually consider Dukakis a much better individual than Kerry, even if not the best the Democrats could have fielded.

Kerry is not just liberal, he's as far left as any extremist right member you can come up with. And as untrustworthy as David Duke.

Point is, Bush LOST in the all the polls

Proves the questions about polls forecasting accurracy then doesn't it?

He didn't win on "values,"

You may not like Bush's values, but at least he has some. I never saw anything consistent with any ideals in Kerry, past or persent.

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
Collapse -
He has values, but didn't state them at all well
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 18, 2005 3:23 AM PST
In reply to: Right and wrong Dave

One of the liberals' core values, to which he subscribes, is that American fiscal policy should benefit all Americans, not just the rich and powerful. That's one of the key differences between liberals and conservatives, and it baffles me how many folks are conservative who are getting screwed over by implementation of their own beliefs.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
He's way past benefiting all
by Roger NC / February 18, 2005 3:31 AM PST

and is into redistribution and screwing anyone to gain fame and power unto himself.

You feel the Republicans all want to enrich the rich at the expense of the poor. Probably some do, but not all.

Many of us feel the Democrats want to enrich themselves, and gain power, by giving what is ours to others to buy support. AT least some do, why do the rest support them?


Seems to me you've got opposite views of the same process. Middle class who votes for conservatives are taking from themselves to give to the rich. Middle class who vote for the Democrats are taking from themselves to give to the poor (for their votes IMO, not for caring about them). It seems either way, money is taken from the middle class.

But if it's for the liberal causes, it's caring humanity, but if it's for the conservative views,


...it baffles me how many folks are conservative who are getting screwed over by implementation of their own beliefs.

And again, conservatives don't know enough to know what is good for them. So we should let a liberal government take care of us?

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
You are baffled because you've got it wrong. The Republicans
by Kiddpeat / February 21, 2005 3:57 AM PST

have long ceased to be the party of the rich and powerful. They now speak for the common man, and the Dems (read left) speak to the elites and their captive constituencies. That's why the Republicans win elections unless someone (Ross Perot) splits the vote. (Hint: we aren't fooled by those who 'know' we're getting screwed)

Collapse -
Republicans have prejudice and fear and anger on their side.
by Ziks511 / February 22, 2005 11:19 PM PST
Democrats have values.

Rob Boyter
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) ROFLMAO!
by Evie / February 22, 2005 11:25 PM PST
Collapse -
allso kerry lost because the people relized him for what
by Mark5019 / February 18, 2005 10:18 PM PST
In reply to: Mark...

he was

Collapse -
You keep believing that Dave ...
by Evie / February 18, 2005 10:19 PM PST
In reply to: Mark...

... it only helps the other side in '08!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
The big DUH ''I could have had a V-8'' moment
by Cindi Haynes / February 21, 2005 2:30 AM PST
In reply to: Mark...

WRT why Bush won.

If we'd only have just asked you, we could have saved all that time, money, and aggravation of holding an election.

--Cindi
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email the mods

Collapse -
ROTFLMHO - Spin, spin, spin, tilt, tilt, tilt....
by Kiddpeat / February 21, 2005 3:50 AM PST
In reply to: Mark...

You guys just can't admit that George Bush won! John Kerry was wonderful and a real hero until he lost. He was an intelligent man of vision, courage, and integrity to whom the Presidency, with all its powers, should be given. Now...he ran an absolutely horrible campaign! Surprise! That's what we were saying before the election.

George Bush really lost! In between belly laughs, I am struggling to grasp how the left tries to respin reality using 'all the polls' as the basis. One wonders what 'all the polls' are. Perhaps, the electoral college should use 'all the polls' to guide their vote? What happened to counting all the votes?

Collapse -
This is supposed to be about Bush's budget isn't it
by Ziks511 / February 19, 2005 8:18 PM PST

Why does everything Mark disagrees with turn into a Kerry rant.

Have you no ideas of your own to contribute Mark, without lapsing into paroxysms of Kerry abuse recycled here for the thousandth time? We've heard it, we've memorized it, we can recite it, Get Over It.

Rob Boyter

Collapse -
Ummm
by Evie / February 19, 2005 10:22 PM PST

Mark linked to and excerpted a Larry Kudlow piece to counter Krugman's drivel.

It's Krugman and the Dem's mantra of "tax cuts for the rich" that we've heard a thousand times. But if the Dems want to recycle a failed strategy, I suppose I shouldn't try to stop them Grin

Collapse -
The same is true of you and your anti-Bush, anti-USA rant
by Kiddpeat / February 21, 2005 4:01 AM PST

Rob. Think about it.

Collapse -
Roosevelt's New Deal economics gave the US the best
by Ziks511 / February 18, 2005 5:29 PM PST

economic situation the world has ever known. It enabled the US to finance and supply the all the Allied Forces in the Second World War and then to finance the rebuilding of Western Europe and Japan all by itself. It proved that by taking care of the lower 2/3rds of society the upper 1/3 would benefit as well. It generated the longest period of steady economic growth ever which only halted with the Arab oil embargo in the '70's. What it didn't offer was the sense that the upper 1/3 was really sticking it to what they considered the losers in society, the bottom 2/3. In response to that the upper 1/3 has waged almost continuous war on the legislation that gave the US that prosperity, and since Reagan they've been winning.

Roosevelts New Deal passed into law because even the top few percent of the wealthy were afraid of a revolution in the United States following the Depression. The Depression was an entirely made on Wall Street phenomenon which circulated around the world. Apparently the only thing that will convince the 1/4 of eligible voters who voted for Bush that he's wrong will be another similar crash and potential revolution. Unfortunately he's also putting in place all the conditions necessary for that crash.

Good luck folks

Rob Boyter

Collapse -
Re: Roosevelt's New Deal economics gave the US the best?NOT!
by Catgic / February 18, 2005 8:53 PM PST

Hi Rob?it?s been awhile. If you think FDR?s New Deal wasn?t a Double Deal, then your living in Canada?s socialist democracy is the right geo-place for you to pitch your tent. Critical correction?American Capitalism, not FDR, enabled the US to finance and supply the all the Allied Forces in the Second World War and then to finance the rebuilding of Western Europe and Japan. Where do you think all the 91% Tax Rate income tax money came in from over the period 1945 to 1964?

Clearly, you?re a FDR worshipper. Use of the Clintonista longest period of steady economic growth ever to try to hand wave through three decades that included Truman?s Korean War, eight years of Liking IKE and JFK escalating from Ike?s few hundred special military advisors in Indo-China to the JFK-LBJ Administration?s full-scale Vietnam War Escalation that grew to over 500,000 troops in 1968 then halted with the Arab oil embargo in the '70's, is too, too broad a brush. A lot of Democrat S**T HAPPENED during those three decades.

I?ve gotten an inadvertent, involuntary taste of your favored upper 1/3rds taking care of the lower 2/3rds Canadian socialist democracy society, and I don?t like it much.

By the capitalist Wall Street phenomenon process of M & A, Canadian Manulife acquired USA?s John Hancock. In the process my John Hancock U.S. stock became Manulife Canadian stock. Now, every quarter,15% of my stock Manulife stock dividends get involuntarily taxed via Canadian Withholding Tax. I never even get to put my hands on it first. Down here in Yankee Doodleland we call that TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

What is the Canadian Government doing for me with MY 15%? I?m neither a Canadian Upper 1/3rd?er nor a Canadian lower 2/3rd?er. I?m a 100% Yankee Doodler which makes me 0.00% Canuk. I just did my Federal Taxes and had to enter my U.S. Canadian Hockey Score on Line 46 of my 1040 Canuks 15[%] ? JP 0.

?Nuff said about the Double Dealing of Socialist Democracies? Canadian or legacy FDR U.S.

Ziks baby, we capitalists don?t need any Good luck folks though we?ll gladly take all that Lady Luck delivers to us. We just need big socialist democracy governments to stay out of our Biz way so we can continue to innovate and renovate our U.S. and the Global Economy. JP Cool

Collapse -
As you may already have guessed I don't exactly buy what
by Ziks511 / February 18, 2005 9:48 PM PST

you're selling vis a vis the economy of 1945 to 1970, but I am puzzled by the 15% tax you're getting hit with. I am more than sympathetic to the no taxation without representation argument as it is part of my insistence that I continue to be an American despite my flock of critics here for also having Canadian citizenship. I pay taxes in the States on property there. I'm sure its all above board and Kosher but I'll look into it if only to understand it for myself.

In the meantime keep well and stay cool (love the shades by the way).

Rob

Collapse -
Considering your wife is a doctor ...
by Evie / February 18, 2005 10:08 PM PST

... is your family not in the top 1/3rd??

Tax breaks for the rich is a tired and worn mantra. When the tax RATE was reduced (on ALL OF US!!!!!), the taxes PAID by the "rich" INCREASED. Of course the reason this is, is because they also made more money. Can't be having any of that. MUST punish the successful! Sad

Collapse -
Yes. Call me a class traitor, I love 1930's Comintern
by Ziks511 / February 19, 2005 8:28 PM PST

rhetoric. It makes me nostalgic for the times I never knew (always like a little irony in my diet).

Rob

Collapse -
Re:don't buy what I?m selling vis a vis economy of 1945-1970
by Catgic / February 19, 2005 7:22 PM PST

Like Carnak the Great, I pre-guessed that you probably wouldn?t BUY my view of the historical U.S. economic record from 1945 to 1970, but even The King, Elvis, had to pay taxes as a conscripted G.I. based upon his being in the 91% Tax Bracket. What, specifically, you choose not to BUY?vis a vis the economy of 1945 to 1970 during that 25 year period spanning 1945-1970 isn?t clear to me. Surely you?re not crediting politicians for the business growth that occurred. Politicians only spend money obtained from taxing citizen wealth. They never have created a single dollar of wealth and only know how to tax, spend and redistribute it.

Trust me on the ?stealth? 15% Canadian Withholding Tax on stock dividends. 15% of my U$D dividends vanish from my Manulife dividend each quarter. My Manulife Wampum check shows that even the Catgic is involuntarily supporting Canada?s cradle-to-grave social democracy.

I?m not among those who criticize you for having Canadian citizenship. Canada is a fine country. I and my family travel there frequently on business and pleasure. I?ve spent both Biz & Pleasure time in Halifax and the Maritimes, Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, enjoying the Calgary Stampede and over in Seattle North?Vancouver and Victoria Is., BC. Canada is great fun, but just a tad too cold in the winter for my subtropics adapted body and too socialist 24/7/365 for my Citizen Serf tastes.

Any way, the social-political direction that the old U.S. of A. has taken over my lifetime shows we?re tracking very closely behind Canada and the EUC, as regards becoming a socialist democracy in good standing. It looks to be only a matter of time and a few more Democratic Presidents and Congresses before we?ll be there too. Bush getting elected twice has flattened the convergence toward cradle-to-grave social democracy a bit, but in the social aggregate we?re still, as Air Traffic Controllers have told me during Radar Controlled Approaches, Closing Nicely?On Glide Path? for full cradle-to-grave social democracy status Back in the U.S... Back in the U.S... Back in the U.S.S.R?.er-r-r?I mean U.S.A.

As always, I enjoy your civil, courteous and gentlemanly repartee, even though we walk on different sides of the political street on most SE subjects. Take care and have Canadian winter fun. As for me, I?ll be roughin? it here oceanside in El Para

Collapse -
You sir, are a horrible tease, Shorts and power walks indeed
by Ziks511 / February 23, 2005 3:05 AM PST

We are still in the middle of one of the snowiest winters on record, and Toronto is anything but a snow capitol. Normally we run about 3 feet of snow per winter in amounts from 1/2 inch up to 6 or 8 inches at a time. This year we're already a couple of inches past 3 feet and still counting. We'll be getting another 6-12 inches of snow before it all stops by mid March though snow in April is not unheard of here and apparently it did snow once in June many years ago but we weren't around for that.

Had this been the 1960's I might have agreed regarding the socialism part. Even Canada has retreated from that course, but if you want to see the remnants of real socialism England is the place. My wife the doctor trained in the US, did her fellowship in Gastro-intestinal medicine here in Canada because they have some of the worlds great Endoscopists here. She trained at the Wellesley Hospital which is no more because of Reagan-inspired Conservative politics and an influx of Republican hitmen direct from the Gubernatorial campaign of Christine Todd Wittman in New Jersey. No, really, I'm serious. They hopped on a plane and acted as consultants for Mike Harris who was sort of like Canada's Governor George Bush, not too bright but as committed as hell. All of this is entirely by the way. One of the things that Therapeutic (as opposed to Diagnostic) Endoscopists do is insert Stents, little spring loaded devices which prop a duct or artery open when it has narrowed for whatever reason.

Nancy was accustomed up here to doing a diagnostic procedure and then ordering the Stent worth several thousand dollars apiece from the supplier for subsequent insertion. Yes, it would make perfect sense for them to be on hand so the patient would have to undergo only one procedure rather than two, but budgets in Ontario hospitals are such that an inventory of perhaps 20 multi-thousand dollar items just ain't gonna happen. Private hospitals in the States can afford to keep an inventory I suspect.

So off we go to England because of the budget cuts for hospitals here and during her orientation what's the first thing she sees? An inventory of stents to make the most interventionist surgeon drool. All just waiting for my sweeties gentle hands.

One of our friends there had a disabled child. Now this was a well off family living in a very posh new house. They had a Ford Villager van paid for by the State so they could take Emma to her play groups and doctors appointments. This strikes me as a truly civilized response to support for a family with someone who has severe chronic illness. One of Nancy's nurses's husbands had severe heart trouble, and they had a "Motability Car" too.

The draw back to this situation is that the social service agency responsible for this support called her a day or two after he died and apologized but said they needed the car back for somebody else.

In Europe things are even more geared to supporting the less fortunate than England and they have not experienced Thatcherism or Reaganomics or the Canadian Province of Harris-ment. Now I'd like to remind you that the US in the 70's complained about German cars and Japanese cars and other imports, and told American workers that they would have to take less and not have wage increases and laid off tens of thousands, even though both Europe and Japan had better social programs and supports than the United States.

Truth is that almost every country except corrupt African and Asian dictatorships are willing to support the bottom 2/3rds of society by taxing the upper 1/3rd. Sure the upper 1/3rd complains about it, but essentially they believe that a healthy and moderately happy population is better for the country than a wealthy upper caste. They live longer than the American average, they have a lot more holidays than the American average, and they're still able to constitute a competitive economic enitity to the United States economic power. Many things have changed since then, but Korea produces most of the steel and India does most of the computer programming donkey work, and country after country competes with the US despite the US protective trade practices (from which Canada feels it suffers unduly). Middle class income peaked in 1970 and has been declining slowly but perceptibly ever since, but the wealthiest 2-4% have never been wealthier since 1905 and the introduction of income tax (or is that when it was introduced in England? recall, like nostalgia, is not what it used to be). Now a lot of people still believe that the US is the greatest country in the world, and it may well be. But I think it was greater when it gave some thought to the weaker members of society.

I appreciate your pleasant repartee too JP, I know I am an occasionally volatile correspondent, but I do think some of that volatility originates in how I am addressed in the first place. Best wishes and good fortune attend you.

Rob Boyter

Collapse -
They hopped on a plane?
by Evie / February 23, 2005 9:58 PM PST

So Mike Harris has ties to the "conservatively challenged" Governer Christine Todd Whitman. According to your legislative record, he met her in NJ to play golf. Yeah, some Republican hit squad trapsing north of the border!

Tell us Rob, who do you think the top 1/3rd is? You obviously have not availed yourself of the actual FACTS that have been linked to by myself, Clay and others on several occasions. The top 1/3rd is not some "rich class", with an AGI threshold of $56K/household for the top 25% (that's an even smaller slice off the upper crust), one can hardly support your notion that ANY country can even survive with the upper 1/3 supporting the lower 2/3. Your inability to process economic data is again showing.

Collapse -
There you go! Rob's view of recent American history, and
by Kiddpeat / February 21, 2005 4:04 AM PST

he is a historian. He has told us that several times. I think you glossed over a few things in that analysis Rob.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) So
by C1ay / February 18, 2005 10:11 PM PST
Collapse -
This would be ...
by Evie / February 18, 2005 10:14 PM PST

... Paul "former Enron advisor" Krugman Devil

Collapse -
And Molly Ivins' take on the same subject.
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / February 22, 2005 9:14 PM PST
A closer look at the budget shows just how nasty it is.
(Chronicle login: semods4@yahoo.com; pw = speakeasy)

>>Good Lord, what a nasty document. The cuts are in health care, childcare, Head Start, nutrition programs, food stamps and foster care. Because budgets are such abstract things -- add a little here, cut some there, all produced by the Department of Great Big Numbers -- it's hard to see what they actually mean to real people's lives.

In fact, that's something I've long noticed about George W. Bush: He really doesn't see any connection between government programs and helping people. Promoting the general welfare, one of the six reasons the Constitution gives for having a government in the first place, is not high on his list. <<

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Collapse -
Big government programs ...
by Evie / February 22, 2005 10:09 PM PST

... have solved few if any problems. Too bad liberals can't look beyond their pseudoreligious belief that only more government programs funded by more taxes confiscated from the "rich" are the solution. Sad

Evie Happy

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

Does BMW or Volvo do it best?

Pint-size luxury and funky style

Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.