Let's just throw a little of the cold water of reality on your heartfelt, but fundamentally ill-informed propagandizing.

Because in those tiny, pathetic voices I heard a power that dwarfs yours... I heard children, not yet in the 6th grade beseeching Santa to come -- to please come -- and bring gifts for their brothers and sisters but especially to ease the lives of their mothers and fathers -- weighed down as they are with the burden of working two jobs or three just to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads...

And yet, during Bush's time in office personal income for even the lowest wage workers has risen almost 30%, while their tax burden has been substantially reduced and most of the working poor have been taken off the tax rolls altogether.

And then there's poverty. The poverty rate has been steadily declining since 1965, and despite the recession it continued to decline slightly during the Bush administration. In short, a smaller percentage of the population is in poverty now than ever before.

Then there's unemployment, down yet again and at 4.7%. Oh, and the GDP is at record levels.

Yep, Bush has a terrible legacy to leave behind. I wonder if Clinton or Carter are weeping over their legacies since they had more poor people and more unemployed and lower wages than Bush currently does.

Dave

Dave... DAVE!

I suggest you go over the stats from not only dozens of studies but the government itself...

The mirage of "increased" wages is just that - a mirage. Hell, read PERFECTLY LEGAL. Johnston's certainly done his homework. Read his article in the New York Times, 12/15/07. At least my good fellow he knows how to attribute his sources...

You're pulling a standard neo-con trick... Deny, deny, deny. Misdirect, misdirect, misdirect.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (to site just ONE study) for every $1 that the taxpayer in the bottom 99% of Americans earned (from 1970 to 2004), the top 13,400 taxpayers earned $7,500. An obscene percentage of that came from restructured TAXES...

But this particular article wasn't about the rich getting richer... It was about the humiliating legacy this country will be left with once the current administration is gone.

I can only hope the electorate matures - at least a little. Maybe this next time we won't have people making statements like the last time: "I voted for him cause he talks like I do!"

God help us!

P.Marlowe
"I like smooth shiny girls, hardboiled and loaded with sin.", [Raymond Chandler, Philip Marlowes Guide to Life]

Another beef of yours to be praised, Marlowe. As for the Bush "legacy", some rabbis here have the distinct feeling that George Bush's legacy will be the very first president to serve as high fat, high protein food for the vultures and other birds of prey of the mountains of Israel. If not him, then maybe his Daddy.

Bush is planning two visits here before his term ends. If those rabbis are right about "Gog" Bush, your vice president, the one who is probably running the show in America, will have a short term in office himself.

Aw for my own hopes for Messrs. Bush, I only wish them both a hearty appetite. I'm an animal lover. I believe that vultures should eat well.

You have your opinion--I have mine. I'll remember president Bush for this:

Since libs tell us that terrorism is just a response to our aggression, and our policies, I'll remember Bush for:

1. Following a president who bombed The Sudan and Afghanistan 2 days before the Lewinsky Grand Jury testimony, and Iraq (for 'WMD')2 days before his impeachment vote.

Obviously the liberal logic about what causes terrorism means that Clinton's two bombing attacks created the need for a response. Since the hijackers entered flight school during Clinton's tenure, and after the 2 bombing attacks in 1998, 9-11 was merely a terror response for Clinton's 'wag the dog' idiocy. I'll remember Bush for having to clean that mess up.

2. I'll remember Bush for not backing off of core beliefs to satisfy polling, unlike Hillary's grand dance regarding Iraq.

3. I'll remember Bush giving ample warning to Saddam, but then not allowing us to look like a paper tiger and back off like Bill did in Somalia, The Sudan, Afghanistan and iraq.

4. I'll remember Bush for being such a criminal according to the liberals regarding data mining, eavedropping and 'the surge,' that after a relentless year of media bashing on each of these, the Dems voted for each one of them.

5. I'll remember Bush for belief in our ability to win, and Hillary's, Reid's and Kennedy's belief and hope the war was lost.

I'm just a cop who wrote 12 politically confrontative tunes--dismiss me. But there are folks like me who admire this man even as we admire you for your contrary opinions.

I say it in song @ www.conservativemusiconline.com

Maybe I am justed a little to confused, uneducated, or too simple minded to understand what was written but how can anyone who endorses war or voilence of any kind actually claim to be Christian, Jesus was a pacifist and preached love and nonviolence. If you don't belive me go and read your Bibles until you do. New Testament means a new way of thinking, a New Testament with God if you would, so it's no longer eye for an eye ect,ect....

I suggest you go over the stats from not only dozens of studies but the government itself...

I actually checked my stats with not only the government but also a couple of deeply concerned NGOs. Any increase in poverty since Bush has been in office can only be defined in terms of a low hit in Clinton's 6th year. In comparison to the end of Clinton's term or earlier periods poverty is down by any standard.

The mirage of "increased" wages is just that - a mirage. Hell, read PERFECTLY LEGAL. Johnston's certainly done his homework. Read his article in the New York Times, 12/15/07. At least my good fellow he knows how to attribute his sources...

I'll look for his article, but I've checked the data pretty thoroughly. Not only have wages increased 30% in adjusted dollars, but expenses have increased about half of that in the same period, so the growth in real spending ability is pretty hard to deny.

You're pulling a standard neo-con trick... Deny, deny, deny. Misdirect, misdirect, misdirect.

That's hardly a trick reserved for neocons, though your trick of calling facts a misdirection is typically leftist.

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (to site just ONE study) for every $1 that the taxpayer in the bottom 99% of Americans earned (from 1970 to 2004), the top 13,400 taxpayers earned $7,500. An obscene percentage of that came from restructured TAXES...

Now THAT is a brilliant misidrection. Increases in earnings in the top 1% of earners is completely irrelevant to the situation for the bottom 99%. Their increases in wealth do NOT come at the expense of those earning less, either as a result of direct increases in earnings or as a result of taxes. Taxes were lowered for everyone and higher stock earnings are obviously going to benefit stockholders more than others. And remember that 54% of Americans now own stock, so while that may have benefitted the to 1% more, it also benefitted more than half of everyone else too.

But this particular article wasn't about the rich getting richer... It was about the humiliating legacy this country will be left with once the current administration is gone.

From what I understand Bush is convinced that his decision to stand firm against people who murder babies and want to enslave the world will stand him in good stead when it's all added up a few years down the road. Can't say he won't be right at this point. The facts certainly suggest he could be.

And then there's the bounce you get when historians definitively prove that the things people claimed you were lying about at the time were actually true. That reflects very badly on the legacy of the propagandists of the left, but rather well for Bush.

I can only hope the electorate matures - at least a little. Maybe this next time we won't have people making statements like the last time: "I voted for him cause he talks like I do!"

I'd rather have people doing that than voting for someone because their union told them to or because they were paid $20 for their vote, or because they got a free bus ride to the polls and a hot lunch. Or for that matter because they believed fatuous lies about the modern equivalent chicken-in-every-pot bullshit.

Oh, and I was going to dispute your claims about Bush and the religious right, but they're so ridiculous I can't even begin to read that paragraph without laughing. Name one area in which Bush has done anything truly meaningful to implement their agenda rather than to just divert or dilute it.

Dave

Excellent, fresh, point of view in your comment #4, Lance Morrison.

Welcome to BlogCritics.

Stick around.

Johnston's piece...hope that link works

I sent this comment to our local newspaper and they were kind enough to print it. It pretty much sums up my feelings about Bush's legacy.

What Would Our Founding Fathers Think?

What would our founding fathers think if they were able to witness what is presently going on today? Can you imagine what they would think about the following?: 1) warrantless wiretapping, 2) agencies destroying evidence investigating themselves, 3) the present adminstration leading us into an unjustified and unending civil war in another country based on misinformation, 4) an administration creating laws intended to keep historical records and documents permanently hidden from public review. Our founding fathers would probably try to replicate some type of symbolic historic attempt to dump mass amounts of tea in the Boston Harbor only to find out that most of our products are being outsourced, and are now made in China. As Chester A. Riley use to say on the old tv comedy sitcom "The Life of Riley" - "What a revolting development this is...."

Yawnnnnn....gee how refreshing to have another Bush basher join in the circle jerk in here..oh yes very refreshing...

Bush lied...impeach Cheney...blah...blah...blah
BORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRINGGGGG!

JOM

The thing that I find most amazing about Bush supporters is that they seem to mirror the same values that their leader seems to possess. When you ask them a question....they change the subject. When you ask them to take responsibility for their actions...they point fingers at other people. They are like serpents hiding beneath the rocks. I suppose they have to be that way ... because they lack substance ... intelligence....ethics as does their stubborn leader. Thank God .... they are few in number. Maye there is still be hope for America to survive this tyrant!

Lance... How long have you worked for the White House Communication Office?

Don't you get it? Do I have to sketch it out for you?

Do you have a moral base? Does it inform your ethical behavior? I am assuming you do. Then all I ask is for you to take a REAL look at the behavior of those in the White House these past (near) eight years.

Try to break away from the right wing rabid radio group think and LOOK for yourself at the actions of these people...

Can you honestly stand up and say that you feel that the current administration is behaving the way you would?

That you would have no problem allowing a friend to set up special laws for his company in Iraq so that it essentially operates OUTSIDE all law... That way gang rapists can't be prosecuted?

That you would further allow this company to "accidentally" lose track of nearly $5 billion in American taxpayer dollars...

That you would invade a country - knowing full well there WERE no WMDs because there were HUNDREDS of voices, far more informed than you TELLING you there were none - that there were NO LINKS to Al-Qaeda BECAUSE AL-QAEDA AND THE POWER STRUCTURE OF IRAQ HATED ONE ANOTHER... That you were told ALL this months before you ordered the invasion - but you would invade anyway???

That you would VIOLATE the Bill of Rights, even BEFORE 9/11 and order the NSA to begin thousands of wiretaps WITHOUT a single warrant?

THIS is the type of person you claim to be - by supporting someone who's done this?

Is that who you are Lance?

Really?

You see, it has NOTHING to do with whether you are a true conservative (in the old definition) or liberal (in the old definition). Insisting that our ELECTED LEADERS behave in a moral and ethical manner has NOTHING to do with those terms...

Just because I find Bush reprehensible doesn't mean I support Clinton's despicable behavior...

Are you able to get that? Maybe if you turn the radio off...

P.Marlowe

Tough Guys:
"Know who I am cheapie? Your name's Menendez. The boys call you Mendy. You operate on the Strip." "Yeah? How did I get so big?" "I wouldn't know. You probably started out as a pimp in a Mexican whorehouse.", [Raymond Chandler, Philip Marlowes Guide to Life]

"Mothers and fathers -- weighed down as they are with the burden of working two jobs or three just to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads..."

Now they can cheer up!

CBS News just reported that Americans can be thankful this Christmas...

The price of gasoline dropped 3 cents...

Merry Christmas, Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim....

Clash, clang, hammer, ding, dong, bell. Bell, dong, ding, hammer, clang, clash! Oh, glorious, glorious!

Dave...

Despite the years of our intellectual sparing I've always found you to be a moral and truthful individual. I enjoyed our working together recently on the BlogCritic Radio program (I still have to listen to that last show... Christmas. You know...)

It's this assumption that you're an honest guy that always causes me distress.

You see, when I say that I am not a supporter of Rep or Dem, I mean it.

My claims, backed up by MOUNTAINS of not only government stats but also mounds of anecdotal evidence that the rich in this country ARE getting richer, that the middle class is being ripped apart... None of this comes from my being a "supporter" of the Dems.

This trend has been occurring under both Dem and Rep administrations. It's been happening for over 30 years now.

The only real difference has been that when the Reps get in office they go at dismantling any laws and regulations that stand in the way of the rich ripping us off with an energy and glee that is frightening... At least the Dems PRETEND to care for the rest of us. The Reps disdain for the common American is nauseating.

Much of the rip-off occurs in the realm of taxes. I rarely bring this up because taxes are so damn boring...

But it is stunning the billions an billions in taxes that are NOT being paid by the top 5% of this country - leaving YOU Dave and me, to pay ever higher taxes.

The sad thing is we can't possibly make up for the hundred of billions being stolen from us.

I'm going to include a few quotes from an article recently that deals with this in the real estate industry...

But here's the cruncher Dave... in 1957 corporations paid 50% of ALL taxes collected in this country. The people paid the rest...

Last year? Last year corporations paid just 7%. The rest of us picked up the remaining 93%.

Our country is literally crumbling around us. Road, schools, hospitals, affordable housing (isn't that a joke) and on and on... Meanwhile corporations cry about the "taxes" they have to pay. With the way they've managed to get Congress to restructure the tax codes over the past 3 decades, if a corporation DOES pay taxes it isn't any more a percentage than roughly 22% - IF they actually have to pay it. It's WORSE for the rich - worse in the sense of the tax "bolt holes".

I have to ask: are these people not citizens of the United States? Do they not drive the same roads you and I do Dave? Do they not use our electricity, our water, our sewers?

Of course their children are whisked past our crumbling public schools... And should they get sick they're flown to the best private medical clinics in the world... But until the day comes where these people live high above us in orbit, they are STILL a part of this country. Don't they have an obligation to pay their FAIR SHARE?

P.Marlowe

An example that hits home is in real estate. I'm taking this from Johnston's article in the NEW YORK TIME 12/07/07 entitled: EX-IRS AGENT SAYS TAX EVASION BY REAL ESTATE PARTNERS IS HUGE...

Merry Xmas everyone (where X represents whatever superstition describes your particular Creation Myth.)

"Merry Xmas everyone (where X represents whatever superstition describes your particular Creation Myth.)"

After you celebrate Festivus and do your pole dance, be sure you celebrate an Airing of Grievances and conduct a celebration of Feats of Strength.

Just finished putting the stockings under the tree and thought I'd stop in with a gift of consternation and bewilderment for Marlowe.

Oh, and the X in my XMAS is X the Unknown.

Despite the years of our intellectual sparing I've always found you to be a moral and truthful individual. I enjoyed our working together recently on the BlogCritic Radio program (I still have to listen to that last show... Christmas. You know...)

Well, you were actually there for the show, so you ought to have some idea how it went. Usually sounds better listening to it after the fact, tho.

It's this assumption that you're an honest guy that always causes me distress.

It's the wonder of humanity that I can be honest and still totally disagree with you on such a fundamental level that we cannot see eye to eye, and I think I have a good illustration of that below.

You see, when I say that I am not a supporter of Rep or Dem, I mean it.

But some of the things you say derive directly from disinformation and spin characteristic of the left, so intentionally or not, when you repeat it you help them.

My claims, backed up by MOUNTAINS of not only government stats but also mounds of anecdotal evidence that the rich in this country ARE getting richer, that the middle class is being ripped apart... None of this comes from my being a "supporter" of the Dems.

I agree that the very rich are getting slightly richer, but I see zero evidence that the middle class is being ripped apart except by those who sow the devisiveness of class envy. The middle class is also doing better, with much more upward mobility and substantial gains in earning ability.

Of course if you define the middle class as the working poor in the $20-30K a year range, then things look different, and you really are a Dem even if you won't admit it.

This trend has been occurring under both Dem and Rep administrations. It's been happening for over 30 years now.

Actually, the stats show that the growth in wealth for the rich is really only a trend that goes back about a decade.

The only real difference has been that when the Reps get in office they go at dismantling any laws and regulations that stand in the way of the rich ripping us off with an energy and glee that is frightening... At least the Dems PRETEND to care for the rest of us. The Reps disdain for the common American is nauseating.

See, here is where you don't get it. The Reps don't disdain the common American. They love and respect the common American. They believe that if they leave the common American alone he can advance himself in prosperity, and statistics bear that out. Not everyone will be a great success, but the majority will work their way into the upper half of the middle class or higher no matter how humble their beginnings. And the truth you don't want to accept is that no state mandated system of fairness will produce a better result for more people.

The other thing that you don't get is that the rich are NOT 'ripping us off'. Their accumulation of wealth doesn't come at the expense of others, it comes as a byproduct of creating jobs, opportunities and income for others, and even the wealth itself creates more jobs and more opportunities and grows the economy.

Much of the rip-off occurs in the realm of taxes. I rarely bring this up because taxes are so damn boring...

Tax inequity is largely an illusion, though. Much of the break the rich get comes from the low rate of capital gains, and capital gains is a DOUBLE tax, it is a second tax on money which was already subject to both corporate and income taxes. If you add it up the money you pay capital gains on actually ends up with a total tax accumulation somewhat higher than the highest income tax bracket.

But it is stunning the billions an billions in taxes that are NOT being paid by the top 5% of this country - leaving YOU Dave and me, to pay ever higher taxes.

Really? My taxes were lowered during the Bush administration, and so were yours.

The sad thing is we can't possibly make up for the hundred of billions being stolen from us.

Stolen by who and by what mechanism? Do you mean that taxation is equivalent to theft? I'm on board for that.

But here's the cruncher Dave... in 1957 corporations paid 50% of ALL taxes collected in this country. The people paid the rest...

Last year? Last year corporations paid just 7%. The rest of us picked up the remaining 93%.

Another basic reality you just don't get. It doesn't matter where in the system the taxes are taken out. If you take more from the corporations they pass it on in the form of lower wages and higher prices. The individual still ends up bearing the burden.

Our country is literally crumbling around us. Road, schools, hospitals, affordable housing (isn't that a joke) and on and on...

This is the anecdotal stuff, right? With the housing bubble bursting home prices are down. Hospitals and schools are going up like weeds and so are new roads. The only crumbing going on is the crumbling of the hold which the negativity of the left has on the minds of the people - or so we hope.

Meanwhile corporations cry about the "taxes" they have to pay.

No they don't. When have they ever done this?

With the way they've managed to get Congress to restructure the tax codes over the past 3 decades, if a corporation DOES pay taxes it isn't any more a percentage than roughly 22% - IF they actually have to pay it. It's WORSE for the rich - worse in the sense of the tax "bolt holes".

But corporate tax receipts have been up dramatically under Bush. They're paying more than they have in years.

BTW, here's a hint for you. Ireland recently went through an economic boom. You know how? They cut corporate taxes to 12% and kept income tax at a low level (for Europe anyway). The growth in business made the whole nation richer.

I have to ask: are these people not citizens of the United States? Do they not drive the same roads you and I do Dave? Do they not use our electricity, our water, our sewers?

Um sure they are. What's your point again?

Of course their children are whisked past our crumbling public schools...

So are mine, MB. It takes a sacrifice and it's well worth it. Sure would be nice if I could get back some of the tax money I pay for the public schools I wouldn't send my dogs to.

And should they get sick they're flown to the best private medical clinics in the world... But until the day comes where these people live high above us in orbit, they are STILL a part of this country. Don't they have an obligation to pay their FAIR SHARE?

I think you just don't get what their fair share really is and how much they are actually paying. I also sense that you think the rich ought to be punished for success, and that seems inherently self destructive.

But Merry Christmas to all anyway.

Dave

I think you just don't get what their fair share really is and how much they are actually paying. I also sense that you think the rich ought to be punished for success, and that seems inherently self destructive.


Maybe I've been infected with a pinch of the Christmas spirit, Dave.

Sneeze!

On any other day, this would just read like your typical defense of the rich, the stuff we all know you for when it comes to economics. Today, it seems positively obscene. You sound like Scrooge's personal defender.

*It doesn't matter where in the system the taxes are taken out. If you take more from the corporations they pass it on in the form of lower wages and higher prices. The individual still ends up bearing the burden.*

so...corporate tax increases represent the transfer of wealth from individuals to the state and corporate tax cuts represent the transfer of wealth from individuals to the owners

merry christmas all you individuals

Ruvy, when I defend the rich from vindictive tax policy I'm defending every one of us who wants to be rich and works hard to earn money, because if we accomplish our goal then we will be unfairly targeted as well.

And no, troll. All tax cuts represent transfers of wealth from the state to individuals and all tax increases represent transfers of wealth from individuals to the state. If corporations are involved they are only involved as middle men.

Dave

Good Lord Dave (no, you're not the lord, despite probably occasional alcohol-induced delusions of grandeur)...

First, the tax system we have is grossly UNFAIR for everyone SAVE the rich. Another tiny example is recently the IRS claimed to have closed yet another "loophole" that - in this case, IBM was using. It's purpose? To funnel $1.6 BILLION OUT of the US, then bring it back INTO the US by which time it was no longer "taxable".

I say "claimed" with regard to the IRS because, God bless 'em, they admit themselves that even though they've wagged a finger at all the other businesses doing this they don't have the manpower to check even 1% of the other Fortune 1000 to see if they TOO are doing the same thing...

Then there is the IRS "fast audit" program. Recently 50 auditors of large and medium companies were secretly polled about this new practice instituted at the HIGHEST levels (and once you hear the rest of this you'll no doubt be asking yourself - as I am - WHO the hell whispered this program into Congress' ear). Fast audit is supposed to "speed through" major corporations - doing what is termed a "quick representative audit" to catch tax cheats...

Here is just SOME of the rubs...

The major corporation, say EXXON, TELLS the IRS ahead of time what they WILL and WILL NOT allow to be audited during "fast audit".

Then, in the MAJORITY of audits, the on-site auditors are pulled up short - told by their senior managers to wrap up the audit often BEFORE the audit (already FAST mind you) deadline!

Why?

BECAUSE THE SENIOR MANAGERS GET A CASH BONUS FOR COMPLETING THE AUDIT ON OR BEFORE THE DEADLINE.

First of all these are GOVERNMENT employees. Who the HELL came up with the idea (LOBBYIST ANYONE?!?) to give FEDERAL EMPLOYEES a "CASH INCENTIVE" to - and here's the OTHER key point - NOT actually FIND the tax cheats mind you - BUT SIMPLY TO FINISH THE "FAST AUDIT" on or before the "deadline"????!!!

Dave, if you would PLEASE stop listening to neo-con propaganda and instead find the facts yourself you'd see these things and be as outraged as I am.

As for your example of Ireland... The ISSUE isn't "high" tax versus "low" tax Dave... It is EVERYONE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE of taxes...

It isn't that corporations shouldn't be given incentives that will spur real growth and innovation - it is making corporations something OTHER THAN UBBER-CITIZENS - which is what they are now.

Dave PLEASE... Get out of your burb-clave and take a stroll through the real world!

Oh... And Merry Christmas old man...

P.Marlowe

Dave - *And no, troll. All tax cuts represent transfers of wealth from the state to individuals...*

as owners are themselves individuals - that's what I said...(it's a class war thing)

Yes, troll. I'm not into that whole class warefare thing.

And Marlowe me amigo...

The whole fast audit thing sounds fantastic. You put the companies on notice, they come up with quick errors to throw to the IRS like bones to throw to a dog and then pays them off. The IRS gets more money than they would if they did nothing, and the business is minimally hassled. Sounds like a win for everyone.

Dave, if you would PLEASE stop listening to neo-con propaganda and instead find the facts yourself you'd see these things and be as outraged as I am.

Would YOU please stop misusing the term neo-con. It has NOTHING to do with domestic tax and economic policy. And I'm kind of known for finding my own facts. It's not that we necessarily disagree on the facts. It's that we disagree on what trends are bad and what ones are good.

As for your example of Ireland... The ISSUE isn't "high" tax versus "low" tax Dave... It is EVERYONE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE of taxes...

So how do you define 'fair share'? Consider this. A wealthy person may mak much of his money from dividend income. Every dollar of corporate profit is taxed at 35%. The remaining 65% is then distributed as a dividend. That dividend is then taxed as a capital gain at 15%. So the real tax on corporate profit is 44.75%, considerably higher than any tax being paid on regular income at any level in society.

It isn't that corporations shouldn't be given incentives that will spur real growth and innovation - it is making corporations something OTHER THAN UBBER-CITIZENS - which is what they are now.

What special rights do they currently have? The IRS has fast-tracked audits for regular citizens as well. They've also massively reduced the number of audits. Why is this a bad thing?

But if you don't like our current tax system - and there's plenty about it not to like, then let's implement something like the FairTax which eliminates all of these loopholes and all corporate taxes and treats everyone equally.

Dave PLEASE... Get out of your burb-clave and take a stroll through the real world!

I'm in the belly of the beast right now and the world doesn't get much more real than this, and the same paradigms remain true. People want to be left alone to achieve as much as they possibly can based on their own ability and hard work, and not be penalized for success.

Dave

Oh... And Merry Christmas old man...

Dave - *I'm not into that whole class warefare thing.*

...sure you are - but I can understand your not wanting to talk about it

Marlowe: Just because you're a leftie doesn't mean the bastards aren't out to get you.

And I don't mean the neocons. I mean the clowns whose preferred headgear is the tea-towel and whose religious beliefs are, well, let's say fervent at the very least.

Nalle would probably consider my views even left of yours, and I don't think much of Bush's politics I can tell you now but I still think he (and America) was right to go after the mongrels.

I don't agree with how it was done, or the excuse of WMD's, but I still don't think it was intrinsically wrong. A badly planned and executed "peace" is no reason to deny the rightness of removing a stalinist lunatic and his cronies (Iraq) and trying to turn a place that was a safe hideout for murder-plotting extremists into a very scary place to hide (Afghanistan).

And as far as I'm concerned, it still ain't wrong, and it won't ever be wrong. And I'll still be standing WAAAY to the left of Mr Nalle on most issues, including universal healthcare and why a nation that spends trillions on its defence (attack) budget can't mothball a few ships to find a few billion to spend on a decent healthcare system.

But there you go. It takes all kinds ...

No, I reckon Bush's legacy will be that he'll be remembered at least for having the balls to stand up to mass murderers and bullies who just want to kill, maim and destroy because we (collectively, on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific) don't believe what they believe - something the United States, for all its failings and current neo-imperialist blunderings, doesn't have as it's raison d'etre and never will.

We still aren't on the wrong side of this, and despite the fact the White House gave it a silly name, the war on terror really does exist. At least Bush recognises that. Let's hope America's next president does too, because this really isn't just about America any more. It's about keeping what we've all got, and the way things stand at the moment, if you don't, we don't.

And then what happens?? Open tea-towel stands in New York, London or Sydney?

Surfer dude... Gotta disagree with you on the legacy. Bush will NOT be remembered for "sticking" up to the murderers. Our boys in Afghanistan did a fantastic job... The special forces that spread out over Asia and the Middle East did as well... But Iraq will be seen - at the very best - as a massive mistake with some good outcomes...

Did Saddam have to go? Sure. Eventually. But we know there was no reason to go in when we did. We know that Bush has made a decision to invade prior to 9/11 - for a host of poor reasons, including avenging Daddy B.

The real legacy for Bush is and will be humiliating... Only a little less so for us for allowing it...

P.Marlowe

Dave...

The tax "rates" at least in America - for corporations is essentially a hurtle to be overcome by tax evasion specialists. At worst they're a joke.

Again, the issue is that corporations and ultra rich individuals via all these mechanisms (and when that doesn't work literally whispering in a congressional committee's ear to "retask" the IRS) DO NOT PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE...

Hell YES they should pay a greater share of taxes! Why the hell not? We LIVE in a COMMUNITY. Which means we ALL give to the common good.

What is pathetic (and there is so much) is that year after year (and I'll stop using neo-con - I was just using it as a stick ta poke ya old man!) the Republicans stomp about yelling TAXES! TAXES! THEY'RE TAKIN' YER TAXES!!! WE'LL FIX THAT!!

But of course they don't. Because the real TAX burden keeps shifting DOWN - between the $25,000 to $150,000 BRACKET. What's more - because the IRS are leaving HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS uncollected each YEAR guess where the burden further falls?

ON THE STATES!

So the state, now with actually getting lest outlay from the Federal Government has two choices: either RAISE its own taxes - always guaranteed to make citizen spitting mad (because it's not as if this began happening LAST year... It's been happening for DECADES now) or the state shrugs and says, "sorry, we simply can't provide these services anymore!"


As to corporations being UBBER-CITIZENS... Of COURSE they are! For crying out loud Dave! Do you NOT read the national papers? Do you not watch any news OTHER than Fox?

When you have four "health" industry lobbyists for every member of Congress... When you still, after DECADES can't get the USSC to figure out that somehow, a corporations spending MILLIONS to back certain candidates is NOT on an EQUAL PLAYING field (of free speech) with you and I... When you have a massive revolving door - despite some weak ass regulations to "curtail" it between Congress and the lobbyist industry themselves... (Hmm... Will Senator Lott remain in office as he promised or will he quit, as he's hinting to take that job as lobbyist? And where is former Congressman Billy Tauzin today? Oh, that's right... He put on his Nikes and sprinted his FAT LILLY WHITE ASS down to K Street about five minutes after shepherding the Medicare Prescription Bill through Congress...

No Dave, there is a VAST difference in scale between your tiny little voice and that of Exxon when it comes to reaching the ears on the Hill... They hear the soft rustling of millions of dollars much better than any of your pleas.

P.Marlowe

Marlowe, what you're not getting here is that the term 'fair share' is meaningless when it comes to government taxation and redistribution of wealth by force.

That's like saying that those who were not abused as children avoided their 'fair share' of molestation.

When government takes money arbitrarily it cannot be fair for ANYONE and you can't blame anyone who tries to avoid it by whatever means are at their disposal, from the poor waiter who doesn't report tips to the person wealthy enough to hire an accountant to find ways to shelter some income.

It is the SYSTEM which is flawed, not the citizens or corporations who do what they can to minimize the harm.

An equitable system would not have to be structured such that people could find loopholes or easy ways to cheat and get away with it. An equitable system would derive government income from fees for services provided or from usage taxes which would be impossible to avoid and would charge based on demand rather than some arbitrary standard.

Dave

Good God Dave! Couldn't you have thought of a better analogy?!?

I realize you're libertarian - God only knows why since much of the political philosophy rests on mythologizing the ancient past and closing one's eyes to the recent past...

So, if by your own assertion our tax system is and has been inherently flawed, WHY with its undisputed ability to completely influence Washington didn't Corporate America "fix" things long ago?

I'm gonna suggest you tread carefully in how you answer this...

Tax is tax. It has always existed. Where it is applied as fairly as possible society HEALTH - measured across the scale is much better.

The US ranks so low in virtually every single measurable category it is an embarrassment.

But this has taken us further and further away from the LEGACY issue...

"Legacy" President Bush. For you it will be spelled "S i c k J o k e."

P.Marlowe

Good God Dave! Couldn't you have thought of a better analogy?!?

I could have thought of a nicer analogy, but it wouldn't have been more effective.

I realize you're libertarian - God only knows why since much of the political philosophy rests on mythologizing the ancient past and closing one's eyes to the recent past...

Once you've studied the past AND the present libertarianism of some form ends up as the only rational choice.

So, if by your own assertion our tax system is and has been inherently flawed, WHY with its undisputed ability to completely influence Washington didn't Corporate America "fix" things long ago?

Good lord, why would corporate interests try to create a more equitable tax system? How would that benefit them?

Tax is tax. It has always existed. Where it is applied as fairly as possible society HEALTH - measured across the scale is much better.

I don't disagree that an equitable system is better than an inequitable one. However, tax is not tax. How it is collected is vitally important. It also hasn't always existed, at least not in the form we currently identify as tax. If taxes are charged only to those who use government services as those services are used, that is far more equitable than a blanket tax based solely on income.

The US ranks so low in virtually every single measurable category it is an embarrassment.

We currently rank 4th highest among developed nations in corporate tax rate, now that France lowered their rate.

Now go read my new article on American Empire.

Dave

Of course Corporations get preferential government benefits over mere people.

-Corps are taxed on (apparent) profits, people are taxed on revenue. Thus, tho corp profit tax rates may appear higher, they are actually lower compared to income taxes.

-Corps can maim and kill people and not get the death penalty, or even a fine in many cases, whereas a person would be imprisoned and possibly go to Death Row.

-corps are routinely excused from civil lawsuits through wholesale exclusion from litigation, e.g., the pending legislation to excuse the telcos that cooperated in the Bush admins illegal wiretapping activities.

-behind the corporate veil, thieves are protected from being liable to their victims.

etc., etc. There's plenty more.

Everyone knows these things, and yet some people continue to insist otherwise. The only reason to persist in speaking untruths (known as lies) is an intention to deceive. How could it be otherwise?

Good post Biff... Yes, the Corporate Ubber-Citizen is something that HAS to go. It is, among so many other things, standing in the way of universal health care.

As a matter of fact I am surprised someone hasn't found a way to sue based on the 9th Amendment concerning this.

Tell me how unrestrained access to medical remedies is NOT a right? Tell me how it ISN'T linked to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

P.Marlowe

"Yes, the Corporate Ubber-Citizen is something that HAS to go. It is, among so many other things, standing in the way of universal health care."

By all means. Let's run the rest of the evil corporations outta here. Make them ALL go to China; let the Yellow Peril deal with 'em, we have our government, the richest in the world, to take care of us.

We don't need corporations and their immoral seeking of profits; everything that's wrong in this country is blowback from the profit motive.

We don't need no stinkin' commerce.

Marlowe, this article might be more effective if you didn't REALLY hate EVERYTHING Bush ever did. I have no respect for Bill Clinton, but he didn't pee in every cereal bowl. Your analysis of Bush strains credibility. How about the expansion of federal education funding and medicare? I think both were bad ideas, but since you and I don't see eye to eye, I'd figure that you would like them.

And Powell's integrity? Why would you say that about him if you think he lied to the UN? Powell's reputation for integrity rests on his disagreement with the Administration. He's basically riding the reputation he got by talking to Bob Woodward.

Bush didn't like it when Iraq tried to kill his father. I've never understood why people would criticize him for it. Assassination of an ex-president is a big deal. You don't need to have father issues to take it seriously.

The evil religious right? You're just being lazy on that one. Too few troops in Afghanistan? That was smart military strategy. Revisionism of Reagan's term? We've been saying the same thing about Reagan since the 1970's, and historians are finally catching up.

I could go on for days about this article.

Clavos ya big lox... You can't follow a thread huh? The argument's been over the treating of a corporation AS A CITIZEN... I never said to get rid of corporations. They are an amazing vehicle for capitalism...

But the capitalism we have now is WRECKING us...

P.Marlowe

Baronius...

My we all throw "hate" around a lot these days. If one has strong disagreements with the current administration they're either a "Bush-hater" or an "America-hater". I remember the same people during the Vietnam war... I remember those opposed to Nixon's heavy-handedness as "Nixon-haters". As those who opposed the war as "American-haters".

I don't hate Bush Baronius. I don't know the MAN well enough first off and at worst it would be more a mix of "fear" and "loathing". THAT I've got plenty of...

He has done nothing for Medicare. The Prescription Act has been a bait and switch and if anything true conservatives should have railed against it - since it transfers hundreds of billions in taxes to the pharmies...

Regarding Afghanistan - NO that was NOT a good strategy. Ask any officer there - the ones now BEGGING to have troops transfered from Iraq to Afghanistan - and I think you'll discover that soon enough...

I've never said anything about Powell's integrity. Indeed I have nothing but RESPECT for the man. I said that it was embarrassing when Bush had him go before the UN to do the dog and pony show... I only wish Powell had quit sooner rather than later. Staying on as long as he did gave a patina of legitimacy to President Bush and his administration...

ANY religious fundamentalism - of ANY creed - is a breeding ground for evil men and evil actions. It doesn't matter a bit what religion a person belongs to - when they are CERTAIN that THEY and THEY ALONE do the work of the Lord... When THEY KNOW that all others are in error... This is a sickness. Doesn't matter if they're Jewish, Christian or Muslim. When people come to this point they stand in shame before all that Moses, Jesus and Muhammad sacrificed Their lives for...

Good try on your part to twist everything presented though! I'll give ya points for that!

P.Marlowe

Geez, our entire way of life is built on free trade and capitalism.

What's the problem?

Actually, corporations and limited companies virtually do almost have the rights of a citizen, and have virtually since the year dot - well, since The Dutch East India Company (1650s?). That's partly why you have anti-trust legislation as part of US corporate law.

Nothing's different Marlowe ... I just know you're tieing all this in with Bush's other sins, real and perceived.

You know, elect a government and a president who will give you decent healthcare, rein in corporations so that wages become an accord between labour, employee and consumer - but pray long and hard even if you aren't religious that whoever comes next really understands the risks the US is currently facing.

And afghanistan is the place where the conflict was handled properly. Where are you getting your info Marlowe? Iraq wasn't, but Afghanistan was, and still is. They're also getting a lot more bang for their buck in Afghanistan, with use of smaller, specially trained forces - which must make the US taxpayer happy even if the Taliban aren't.

The big problem now is that there's been a return of insurgents from the Pakistan border regions and they've become active.

Come summer, it'll get worse. But if you're not there, it's worse again.

I'm sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities with the word "hate". I didn't call you a Bush-hater or an America-hater, though.

I think you missed my point about Powell. I know that you respect him. I don't understand why. He's the hero of every leaked story, but really, what did he ever do well? He was incompetent at best.

You didn't even bother to cite what the religious right did wrong. Whatever their supposed sins, they can hardly be called a Bush legacy. The modern infusion of religion into politics began with Carter. It was co-opted by Reagan, and every subsequent president has used his religion for political benefit.

Anyway, I'm not twisting things. I'm just disagreeing with you.

And capitalism and workers/citizens rights (and I mean tangible day-to-day rights, like minimum pay rates that guarantee a decent standard of living and good workplace conditions, not Bill of Rights type rights) aren't mutually exclusive. They can and do co-exist successfully in many countries that are as prosperous as the US.

Some of them also recognise the threat we are facing, the same way Bush - no matter his politics - does.

STM - Does Santa wear heavy clothes down there?

I agree about Afghanistan. It's never been invaded, and we would have been doomed if we tried to. There were seventeen factions in Afghanistan. We aided sixteen of them in banishing the worst. Brilliant and subtle.

No Baronius ... we think he gets the sleeveless shirt and boardshorts on and ditches the boots. I mean, how could you not??

You'd die of heat exhaustion.

As for Afghanistan, it really has been a worthwhile exercise if you believe as I do that islamic fundamentalist radicals are determined to destroy us (I mean, how much more evidence do we need) and have used that region as a base.

I know there has been a cost in human lives, but what would the cost be had they not done it?

As for our armed forces, I know that apart from the initial invasion of Iraq, when the SAS were involved, it was mostly a small deployment of the regular Army, with infantry and engineers doing the work, mainly patrolling and reconstruction - which of course is still very dangerous there.

But in Afghanistan, it seems like the deployment has been mainly the SAS and the Commandos (certainly, they have been the ones who have died, so you could base your reasoning on that as the govt here doesn't admit the SAS is anywhere until afterwards), so there's a huge difference in the way the conflict has been conducted and it's been obvious from the start.

I think the British have done the same thing, with their Marines and SAS, and I know the US is using all its covert-type units there. I saw on the TV news a few years back a US soldier on horseback with a bunch of locals.

It costs a lot less than something like Iraq, and it's aimed also at really targeting the bad guys and enlisting local help. I guess it's more armed social work in many respects than plain armed.

You can't invade Afghanistan. In recent times, The British failed, followed by the Russians a century later. It's just lawless and wild, and a perfect place for cowards to hide out in caves and God knows where.

Afghanistan - YES we HAD to go there - we just didn't commit to it the way we needed - THAT and Pakistan is one of the major breeding grounds for Islamic fanatics...

No Baronius, you couldn't possibly have offended my sensibilities...

Powell was the only one of the original Bush Administration that had the guts TO leak stories (if he did).

If you can't understand what is wrong with the right - religious that is then it's likely that you belong TO the religious right.

People who desperately YEARN to control the lives of others, whether they wear a cross or a turban suffer from a nearly incurable mental/emotional flaw. Their behavior no more resembles the life called for by Jesus Christ (or Muhammad) than those they imagine to be their enemies. Indeed there is probably more of the Christ-like Spirit in the "sinner" in Vegas than in their shriveled hearts.

And Baronius, try to be a bit more honest in your motives...

P. Marlowe

STM - excellent points all... Bush isn't to be "praised" for responding to these evil terrorists. As if he actually had a choice.

The point was and is that he had designs on Iraq even before 9/11. That tragedy simply provided a much better excuse to invade Iraq.

As I've said - repeatedly - eventually Saddam would have had to have been dealt with. The odds were pretty high about that.

But not by this group of carpetbaggers...

P. Marlowe

Yes, they are a bunch of carpetbaggers Marlowe ... I'll agree with you on that one.

Let's hope the next one's not a snake-oil salesman as well.

-Corps are taxed on (apparent) profits, people are taxed on revenue. Thus, tho corp profit tax rates may appear higher, they are actually lower compared to income taxes.

The distinction you draw here just isn't accurate. Yes, corporations are taxed on profits. But people are not taxed on gross revenue. Deductions and exemptions are the equivalent of the corporate expenses which are taken out before determining net profit. If you pay taxes you ought to be aware that the actual tax you pay is considerably lower than the stated percentage.

Dave

Corp net taxes are lower than net personal taxes. Marginal tax rates of corps are also lower.

In fact, it is lower tax rates (as well as limited liability) that attract many of us to incorporation in some form or another. We get preferential tax treatment. Most consultants soon spend the $1600 to form a legal corporation, or, perhaps, an LLC, which is cheaper and has other advantages.

We don't need to eliminate corps, after all, they serve useful purposes, We need to circumscribe their activities and cure their ills. They are not a replacement for the church, nor are they an expression of Gods (or Satans) Will. They are simply human contrivances to facilitate certain group activities.

Corps were never intended to seek unlimited power and growth. In fact, early corps had charters that limited them in endurance (usually something like 25 years, or about one human generation) and scope (like trading blankets for beaver pelts in the Hudsons Bay area).

There's no good reason that corps should be unrestrained, or even that they should have any more than a "corporate personage" type of citizenship.

Dave... You're going to have to get beyond this point of SIMPLY denying, denying, denying concerning Corporate America and taxes... The MOUNTAIN of evidence contradicting YOUR assertions is OVERWHELMING... The vast percentage OF that evidence is the government's statistics, SEC filings, reports from the IRS, major investigations reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.

Please present evidence. Simply stating, "Actually you're wrong. Corporations pay X%," is not evidence. It is the equivalent of Wal-Mart saying, "We do to provide insurance to all our full-time employees!" Yes Wal-Mart, you do. It says that RIGHT THERE in the employee handbook. See?

Except from an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence AS WELL AS their own records it's obvious that ONLY ON PAPER is this true. Wal-Mart floor managers work OVERTIME themselves making SURE that as many employees at possible only get 35 hours a week - thus NOT being eligible for that insurance...

I've seen this myself in a number of retail companies I was working for - and was in management for... I've heard it from friends and family who themselves have worked for OTHER major retail corps. AND there is the preponderance of statistical evidence.

So really, help us here - PRODUCE the actual "statistical" evidence you keep using to deny our claims. I've been trying to do that here. I've been quoting books, New York Times articles, SEC filings, etc.

Thanks Mr. N... Always love our tug-o-wars!

P.Marlowe

Dave... You're going to have to get beyond this point of SIMPLY denying, denying, denying concerning Corporate America and taxes... The MOUNTAIN of evidence contradicting YOUR assertions is OVERWHELMING... The vast percentage OF that evidence is the government's statistics, SEC filings, reports from the IRS, major investigations reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc.

I haven't seen a shred of evidence here countering anything I've written. Most of the things you mention have nothing to do with what I've been discussing. The corporate tax rate and how it's charged are a matter of public record. I don't need to provide a link to them. The same is true for the capital gains and individual income tax figures. Go get your 1040 and look at them.

Please present evidence. Simply stating, "Actually you're wrong. Corporations pay X%," is not evidence.

No, it's a statement of fact based on evidence which is easily available to anyone and which no one here has been stupid enough to contradict.

It is the equivalent of Wal-Mart saying, "We do to provide insurance to all our full-time employees!" Yes Wal-Mart, you do. It says that RIGHT THERE in the employee handbook. See?

Except from an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence AS WELL AS their own records it's obvious that ONLY ON PAPER is this true. Wal-Mart floor managers work OVERTIME themselves making SURE that as many employees at possible only get 35 hours a week - thus NOT being eligible for that insurance...

Again, you're talking through your hat. WalMart in fact makes insurance available to ALL employees, even part-timers. And again, this is information which is easily available from the WalMart website. There's no minimum hourly requirement to qualify for insurance if you pay the premiums yourself, and under current rules WalMart will underwrite insurance for part-timers who have been there for at least 6 months. If you want a link for the latest info on WalMart's health plan improvement, look here.

I've seen this myself in a number of retail companies I was working for - and was in management for... I've heard it from friends and family who themselves have worked for OTHER major retail corps. AND there is the preponderance of statistical evidence.

Well, apparently you're talking to the wrong people because they have no idea what they're talking about either.

So really, help us here - PRODUCE the actual "statistical" evidence you keep using to deny our claims. I've been trying to do that here. I've been quoting books, New York Times articles, SEC filings, etc.

Perhaps, but not on any of the issues I've actually been discussing.

Dave

Marlowe - My motives? Are you kidding me!? I'm religious and conservative. I'm not a "member" of anything, anymore than you're a card-carrying Bush-hater. I'm certainly not a theocrat. My motive for criticizing this article is that I think you're wrong.

STM and I don't agree on everything, but I know the guy is genuine. He takes reasoned positions on issues. You disagree with everything Bush has done, which doesn't give me confidence that you've thought these positions out. Cheney, oil, religion, the rich getting richer... the only thing missing is a shot at the "Mission Accomplished" banner. I'll bet you thought about including it in the article, didn't you?

Like Cheney meeting with oil company experts behind closed doors. Were you just as passionate when Hillary Clinton met with health care experts and wouldn't release information about the meetings? If you were, good for you. But either way, cooperation with industry lobbyists isn't unique.

The most interesting thing about this article is that I don't think Bush cares about his legacy. Presidents didn't used to fret about such things. Clinton seemed consumed with the idea. He's said that he wished 9/11 happened on his watch, not because of how he'd have handled it, but because it would have enhanced his reputation.

Bush is doing what he thinks is right, as he's always done. In fact, his unconcern about his reputation has been a virtue and a vice. He's ignored critics. That's great. But he hasn't bothered to explain himself or his policies. I respect the instinct, but it's worked against him.

Baronius...

Concerning Clinton - I had not written an article about her legacy. It was about Bush.

Concerning your speculation that Bush is "unconcerned" about his legacy. This is laughable. There is rarely a politician, Dem or Rep that doesn't have an ego a light year wide. ESPECIALLY Bush! He is desperate for people to like him. And if he weren't concerned with his legacy the battle over White House source material wouldn't have already started (nearly a year ago).

Unfortunately you are locked into the standard black/white, Dem/Rep mode of thinking.

I am (as I've always claimed) non-partisan. I praise anyone who seeks a just, honorable and even-handed approach in administering to the needs of our nation.

Simply because I have yet to see President Bush do anything that isn't incredibly self-serving doesn't mean that I condemn all Republicans.

I feel the Republican party though WAS taken over by a combination of right-wing religious zealots and corporate interests...

I feel that the Democrats at the same time allowed themselves to be overtaken by PC zealots while clinging desperately and blindly to morally and intellectually bankrupt economic, social and cultural concepts.

What I mostly feel is that if the Founding Fathers were here - esp., Mr. Madison, he would be stunned that his greatest fears (esp., those voice in The Federalist Papers #10) had come to pass...

P.Marlowe

Marlowe is right.

What I don't get is why Marlowe thinks that being self-serving is a bad thing. The dynamic interrelationship of conflicting self-interests is what our government is based on.

Dave

Dave: "What I don't get is why Marlowe thinks that being self-serving is a bad thing".

Prob'ly 'cause there's self-serving and self-serving, and one has no correlation with the other.

Is it just me or did that last comment make very little sense, Stan?

Dave

It's just you, Dave. Must be the hour.

I mean good grief, man, it's even later in Texas than it is here. What the heck are you still doing up?

It probably didn't make ANY sense Dave. In my defence: I'm a tired, worn out man.

Too much Christmas.

I'm actually in DC rather than Texas, so it's even an hour later.

And I was just staying up doing some work. And now I'm done...

Dave

Bush's legacy is America's legacy. Bush off course did not belong in the position. What is significant is that we let just any old body into that office because we were so commercialized so lulled by glitz, jingles and spin. Bush was an invention.

A large population fell for ideals that have never existed in our species They were compelling, tugged at your heat strings, just vague enough to create intrigue. They were invented, much like Bush.

Bush is not the problem and he has nothing to be ashamed of. He was not qualified for the job from the start. He was as good as he could be.

WE bare the blame. WE should be embarrassed for being crazed enough to vote for him.