|
MESSAGE BOARD It’s still the economy, stupid
In “It’s still the economy,
stupid,” Jacob S. Hacker
assesses George W. Bush’s
handling of the economy,
as both a policy issue and
a campaign issue. Will
Bush’s vision of an
“ownership society”
bring greater security and
prosperity to America, and
help him edge out John Kerry
in November? Or are Kerry’s
plans more in line with
what the country needs?
Page 1 The economy added 144,000 new jobs. But what kind of jobs? Over the last 3 years I have seen my salary go down from a peak of 65K to 36K, which is what I am making now as a teacher. Sure, I still have a job, buT my quality of life has definitely suffered. Bush claims that the down turn in the economy started before he became president and that 9-11 also disrupted the economy. This brings me to my point which is this president sites tax cuts as the only solution to all problems: In 2000 when he was running: He said that the surplus has to be given back to the people in tax cuts, because he said that in good economic times, people should have their money back. When the economy tanked after 9-11. More tax cuts are needed to stimulate economic growth. In our current SLOW economic recovery: He wants to make his tax cuts permanent... So, Good economic times call for tax cuts Bad economic times call for tax cuts, even with a war in Iraq he claims we need to cut taxes. This ideological approach to economic policy is my biggest concern with the Bush administration. Are people that ignorant that they forget what bush has done because of a highly choreographed and deceiving Republican convention? Judging from recent polls showing bush ahead, apparently they are.... Calos If you are a gambler and use fuzzy math then go ahead and vote for Bush. Howerver; if you are sensible and value security and you do not want to spend your golden years homeless and in the street you had better vote for the lock box. Everyone's future hangs in the balance! Julianne , Upper Black Eddy, PA An ownership society is absolutely the way to go. The author espouses an essentially pessimistic world view and looks at most people inherently incapable of taking care of themselves. Why is making people dependent on govt programs the way to go. Encourage people to be self reliant and be the best they can be and watch our great nation achieve even greater heights. I believe strongly in the people of America and know they are capable of running their lives very well. Ownership brings pride and the instinct to protect what you have created and that automatically fosters good behaviour. Do you treat a rented car better than the one you own ? Of course not. Then why would you treat a bunch of handouts and social programs with more respect than something you have created yourself ? America was built on rugged individualism and let's not take that away. Yes, a certain section of society needs help, let religious organizations, neighborhoods and families fill that need, don't take half my paycheque and make someone else dependent on largesse. True compassion lies in encouraging people to be in charge of their own destiny rather than making them dependent on a one size fits all social program that kills their ambition and fosters the worst habits in people. Why is a cut and dry issue like this complicated for you socialists ? Answer, you are scared to let people control their own lives because then you elitists lose power and actually have to work for a living. Maneesh, Woburn, MA I would say that Bush's approach to meeting the country's needs are better than Kerry's. The Democrat's approach to solving problems is to have the government meet people's needs. The cornerstone of this approach is Social Security. From its inception in 1937 through 1950, the tax rate was 1%. In 1950 it was raised to 1.5%. Additional tax hikes led to its current rate of 6.2%. But instead of helping the country as a whole it has been a negative. The national debt is soaring. It's rising at a weekly rate of around $11 billion. It's currently $7.365 trillion with a debt ceiling of $7.384 trillion. If the approach of having the government meet our needs was working, the debt wouldn't be at these levels. So the Bush approach of meeting needs privately is the way to go. Raising taxes wouldn't help. Europe has higher taxes, but that comes at the expense of fewer children per couple (less than replacement rate for Europe as a whole). Simplifying the system is the way to go. There was a time when you paid the nurse $5 as you left the doctor's office. That's far less complicated than what Kerry is proposing! Peter, Cambridge I did own a home, but with stagnant wages and the inability of my wife to re-enter the workforce at anything higher than a clerk's job we ran into trouble. Health care costs are high, but even more necessary as we age. I would prefer that the government get into the business of providing healthcare and out of the business of providing corporate welfare for companies. If GWB was really serious about a "free market economy" he would insist that companies succeed or fail on their own merits. It is the individual citizen who needs protection from corporate greed, not the other way around as in the argument for "tort reform" in the law. Also, If companies did not have to include healthcare for employees (a single payer system/national healthcare) I believe we would see a greater rebound in hiring. A healthier country would be more prosperous. Peter , Charlotte, NC If Kerry wants to win, he has to quit talking about Vietnam and talk about the issues and his record in the senate. He also has to counter the "flip-flop" stigma that the republicans have placed on him. I don't know how anyone can not beat Bush, but Kerry obviously is trying hard to get that title. Neil, Arlington Unfortunately, Bush doesn't need a plan to beat Kerry; Kerry is beating himself by running a lousy campaign. Mark, Foxboro Most average American's are not equipped to make the decisions they will have to make under the "ownership society" proposed by Bush. This program will benefit the most educated Americans with higher incomes. However, the Kerry campaign has not gotten the word out on their plans so it is impossible to compare Kerry's plans to Bush's. Kerry needs a simple concept, one that the average American can remember; that's what works about the "ownership society". It is a simple statement that is difficult to disagree with; of course everyone wants to own their destiny. But most people don't understand the plan behind the words. Kerry needs to coin a phrase that people can relate to. Something like "a peaceful community", or "a community for all", or "a mutual community". Under a "mutual community there is an emphais on openness, common goals, and shared priorities. Betsy , Wayland I don't think there is any doubt that George W. Bush is hoping to ride into the White House on a platform of antiquated free market economic ideas. Given the number of Americans without health care and below the poverty line, why is Bush concerned with privatization in health care and social security? Bush's policies will create more opportunity and better deals for those at the top, while stealing from the communal pot and reducing the generic assistance available to those at the bottom. Both social security and health insurance are designed to protect everyone in society against tragedy and unpleasant circumstances. Why bother at all if the focus of these programs will be saving money and providing better services for those at the top? The point of collective assistance and health insurance is not to help me save money, it is about helping people when they fall on hard times. But why use programs to protect the general welfare when we can help those doing well? Mike, Concord Yes! At least President Bush has addressed a flawed system. If we had been able to invest all the money contributed to Social Security as individuals, let's say in the stock market or building our own businesses, we would be far better off today. Bill, Hudson, MA
|
Read the story: 
