Someone explain it to me

[Wildbill]

What exactly was the point of the tax cut they passed? It seems to lack any rhyme or reason. I mean lower taxes are nice, but this one smells bad. Two thoughts I get. First of all the fact that its just a cutback in rate, not an elimination, of a tax makes me think it will indeed sunset. When people were talking about cutting it altogether then I had to agree that the sunset would never take place, that reinstituting a tax is politicial suicide to a Republican. Now I can see them letting it happen. Second is that what is up with lowering the capital gains as well in this timeframe? What a pull the wool over their eyes move, most people are drowning in losses that will take years to overcome, by the time this thing sunsets a majority of people will be thinking, where was my tax cut??? Almost everyone I know has carryforward losses that would require a couple blockbuster years to clear off. I doubt they ever even remember that Congress supposedly was there to help them.

So someone please explain the point of all this? Is this just to save face with the theory that you can't make noise about a cut and then not have even some filler cut or else risk losing face? Are we really going to have to play such insanely bipartisan politics? I hear that the Republicans are happy and think this is a big winner for them, but I have to say this just reeks of irrelevance to me, a tax cut that is going to have minimal impact on anything and completely miss the boat on being a stimulus. Maybe I read the details wrong? In any case someone has to explain this because I think on a scale of a 1-10 in terms of economic stimulus and positive political capital this one has got to rate about 2.5 in my book.

[Warren Whitmore]

There was no point. You dident miss it.

[adios]

I haven't really studied the impact of the ammended legislative package but I do know it addresses the issue of fairness of double taxation, it was intended to be a "prop" for the stock market, ease the tax burden of married couples with families, and provide an incentive to pay more in dividends instead of stock buybacks. The idea of encouraging dividends is my take in listening to and reading various statements from administration officials. How effective it will be is something I'm not willing to offer an opinion on at this point.

[AceHigh]

The point of the tax cut was to get Bush reelected. The economy sucks. No sitting president has been reelected since 1900 when the economy grows less than 3%. The economy is growing at levels in the low 2%.

Nothing Bush does can get the economy to the levels he would like it to be. So, his solution is to cut taxes and make voters real income grow. He hopes this eases some of the pain of the economic conditions and makes voters more likely to vote for him.

[Wildbill]

It would be embarassing to lose this reelection. The deck is already stacked with everything under his party control and a horrendously lackluster field of competitors. I just marvel at how far the Democratic party has fallen, but then again it appeared to be the same thing for the Republicans in 1992 when they had control over absolutely nothing themselves.

I think barring major recession this one is in the bag. Just look at the absolute reaches the Dems are coming up with now, criticizing the war for dubious reasons, playing the endless class warfare card, or talking about how inadequate national security has been. They have nothing to work with, it has truly become a case where their only chance to win is to say "vote for me, because I am not him". They have their work cut out to get the voters agreeing with that line of thinking.

I do think however this is the first ray of light for the Dems. This tax cut is a silly joke, it appeases so few and makes no sense. How many people are going to see benefits here? Is cutting the dividend rate enough to get people to buy up dividend stocks and enough to get more companies to issue them? I doubt it, I think its effect is minimal. And I already made my piece about the cap gains tax cut, what a slap in the face to the millions who might be taking that limited loss deduction until long after W is gone. This thing seems to help no one, making a hollow message. These types of things eventually come to haunt you so I will say I won't be surprised if the tide turns and the Republicans start losing a little grip in 2004. They have got all the power, they can make no excuses, and things probably won't become that noticeably better so we will probably see signs of the tide turning.

[AceHigh]

"a horrendously lackluster field of competitors."

It seems lack luster now, but who knows, Gore seemed like a lackluster (to me at least) candidate and he won the popular vote.

"I think barring major recession this one is in the bag."

The closer it gets to election time, I think the more the economy will become an issue. Right now, many Americans are rallying around the flag and the President. Remember how W's father lost the election and he was presiding over a far more popular war.

"This tax cut is a silly joke, it appeases so few and makes no sense"

Maybe it's just me, but everything about this administration/neocons policy seems very short sighted. Look at Afghanistan and Iraq. We made sure we won the wars, but we are losing the peace. We have failed to put a stable government in Afghanistan or Iraq. The US Army protected the oil fields but turned a blind eye to looting and rioting. Bush cuts taxes and increases government spending, basically saying, "let's have our cake and eat it too". Rumsfield and Powell rattle sabers at Iran and Syria for supporting terrorists, but 16 of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 were from Saudia Arabia, who gets a free pass.

[Pauliman]

AHH...Bush bashing...ZZZZZZ...the funny thing about the liberals is that they have NOTHING, nothing positive to say, no proposals of their own, just bush bashing. And that is precisely why voters will turn a deaf ear to them in 04 just like they did last year when they gave control of congress to the conservatives. Just bashing someone cause u dont like him doesnt get u elected to office, u need SUBSTANCE.

"The US Army protected the oil fields but turned a blind eye to looting and rioting."

Sounds like a good plan to me, or did u expect that the museums and government furniture that was stolen would help strengthen the iraqi economy. Its called PROTECTING the iraqi people's assets in order to help rebuild the country. this is just another example of the liberal's mentality to critize the bush administration over trivial matters cause they have nothing of substance to quarrel about.

tired old partisan politics /forums/images/icons/mad.gif

[Wildbill]

I bash Bush on a lot of things and I would never be mistaken for being liberal. The guy is selling himself out to a bunch of people that are unliked and whose extreme views are not close to those held by the general population, yet his and his staunch supporters defense is "you must be a mindless liberal". He is just as guilty of playing partisan politics as anyone else. Yes the Democrats are weak and that is acknowledged, but one who is in power must remember he is elected to represent everyone, not just those that voted for him or write him big checks.

[AceHigh]

I'd be all for a tax cut proposal if it was also combined with balancing the budget.

"when they gave control of congress to the conservatives."

I consider myself conservative on fiscal issues. I'm generally for low taxes and less government spending and a balanced budget. Bush is for lower taxes, but he's not balancing that by cutting government and balancing the budget. Bush is a Reagan type conservative, but I don't think his a fiscal conservative.

I think he is cutting taxes to make himself look good to voters now, and figures the budget crunch won't come until after he hopes to be re-elected. That's the only reason for the tax cut, that I've heard that makes sense to me. Do you think the tax cut makes sense as an economic stimulas package?

"Its called PROTECTING the iraqi people's assets"

Not only did musuems lose valuables, so did Hospitals and power plants, businesses, etc. The oil ministry needed to be protected, but why not protect all the Iraqi assets? Why didn't we have enough troops in Iraq to secure the assets and keep the peace? We have the best army in the world, is it that difficult to control Iraq?

To me, it looks like the Pentagon/Bush administration did a very good job of planning the war, but didn't plan the peace very well. The should have realized it was going to take a lot more troops to control Iraq, than we had in Iraq at the time. The Administration seems to realize that now. The 3rd Infantry division was scheduled to leave Iraq in June, that has been postponed indefinately.

"trivial matters "

I don't think riots and looting and wars are trivial.

[Wildbill]

Excellent points all around. Might I add that I find it hard to believe how we are the country that supposedly led the vanguard in terms of freedom of religion and now this administration seems to think as long as your religion is like theirs and you embrace their beliefs then you can act like you are a good American. Nothing turns me off more than politicians or anyone pandering to religion. Religion is fine, but its a personal thing and here we have a small segment of society that is trying to push their lifestyle on others. Shame on this administration and any other politician who gives them the time of day. The country that spends billions in researching drugs and cures for the world, yet our scientists and their labs are going to have to go elsewhere because of "ethical" issues. Nothing would be more deliciously ironic to me than if some much ballyhooed cloning project finds a cure for some major disease, then we could hear the morons in Congress and from the religious right try to tell us that its bad medicine and it should be banned because some fetus MIGHT have been aborted for it. And if I have to hear one more comment about how gays ruin the fabric of our society and somehow "cause" evil to come upon us I am going to puke. Beyond just the fact that these guys have no clue how to live up to their promises and couldn't jumpstart a car, let alone an economy, they also believe in pursuing their little war to please their church minions. And then what they have done with the Patriot Act and other powers they have given to the Justice Department just take the cake. "We're against big government" they say, yet they gladly will make an intrusive government a priority while they lie about what they do to prevent terrorism. What a joke that whole charade has become, they claim terrorists are everywhere, yet they can't stop them. Very rarely do they come to the obvious conclusion that no matter what we do, terrorists are just a fact of life now and spending our billions won't do much to stop that.

So there is the sorry state of politics today. I was very glad Bush won the election, but now I wonder what I was thinking. I have come to the conclusion that without a doubt gridlock is what we need and what works best. When one moronic idea faces another they usually both end up on the sideline and that is the best result we could ask for. People might have hated Clinton and his time in office, but I look back at a time when power was well spread and only the most centrist and popular ideas could succeed. Oh how far we have strayed from those days, when one party is in power of everything then everything is out of our power...

[AceHigh]

"I have come to the conclusion that without a doubt gridlock is what we need and what works best."

LOL, there's a lot of truth in that. It almost seems like with gridlock you need a good idea and a popular one to get anything done. So most of the radicals and special interests can be kept out of the mix.

"what they have done with the Patriot Act and other powers they have given to the Justice Department just take the cake"

I agree completely. And Ashcroft is very scary. If he could, he would turn the FBI into the KGB.

[adios]

Sometime look at the budget and you'll see that in order to balance the budget now, spending cuts would have to be made in more than defense and taxes would have to be raised. The unemployment rate during the Clinton administration was consistently VERY low and reached an all time low of 3.9%. Since then the unemployment rate has risen 50% to 6% which has resulted in significant amount of decreased tax revenues. IMO if you look at the Bush tax plan it was aimed at increasing disposable income for consummers, providing extra incentives for business investment, and to prop up the stock market for lack of a better term. The current recovery is very sluggish and I submit that running with a GDP growth rate of 1+%, the economy is under performing by a country mile and the economic risks are much higher if something like 9/11 happens again. Sorry guys I just don't agree with you about the budget deficit (or Ashcroft for that matter NYC is a fortress at time from what I've been told). If taxes are raised, a tight money policy is enactied, government spending is reduced, all we'll need is protective tariffs and we've adopted the economic policies of the Hoover administration in response to a severe stock market decline and an economic slowdown where business investment has fallen off of a cliff. It didn't work in the late 20's or early 30's and I don't see why it would be successful now and I sure don't want to find out. Ok I've hyped that a bit but it's not too far off the mark. Anyway we'll never see reduced government spending without first cutting taxes beforehand.

[Wildbill]

Only thing stimulative about the cut is the child credit and I have long thought that is stupid policy. Not that tax credits and whatnot play a big difference in people having children, but I think its terribly counterproductive to give credits for having a child. The rest of it isn't going to stimulate the economy to any effect until well after the crisis is full-blown or has passed. A short-term cut in the payroll tax is something almost every economist will tell you is the perfect stimulant to the economy. It can be passed and in place within a month. Its not a windfall check like the rebates of a couple years back where you get it one time for a known amount, precisely the thing that would encourage people to save it or pay off a bill or two. That is a tax that has been brought up time and again and every time the Republicans block it. Why? Pretty clearly its not something that benefits their voting block so they are against it. However, this time its a terrible mistake. If you want to be positive to the economy in time for the election you have to act soon. A modest cut in the payroll tax can be made for less money than the tax cut that went through and it has more immediate and certain effects. Playing with sunsets reduced the value of the tax cuts that were passed and they were dubious anyways because people won't spend those cuts in the way they would an extra $20-30 for each paycheck. Simply put I am not against tax cuts, I am against stupid tax cuts and I think this was about the stupidest thing I ever saw in this genre. It literally made no one happy except for the spin doctors in the White House who hoped to spin it for their gain. The rest of us got a half-baked cut that probably won't do much because it doesn't go far enough to change behaviors. Ok enough, I know I run into walls about this, but that is because most people are pretty dense economically. Tom you have a decent sense about the economy so I won't say that about you, but most defenders of this cut I know are like drones and couldn't come up with an accurate idea of how it truly could help out.

As for spending, I am not terribly worried about the deficit at this time, its the fact that future deficits are just being ignored. What is worrying about that is that even in flush times, when the government should be in surplus or at least in balance. Who wants to bet that will happen when better times come??? Truth is as long as your deficit is the same rate or less than the rate of the economy's growth then deficits aren't that bad. What gets really troubling though is that even in good times we are not going to be able to close this gap because entitlements will take up more budget and Congress looks to have no interest in doing anything to keep the deficit under control either. I guess I am in between, pragmatic in that I don't think a balanced budget is necessary, but I also think reckless spending, no matter how good the cause is in your mind, is not a good idea either.

While the jobless rate is something to worry about, its not quite the concern to me as it is to most. In my thinking a lot of this was inevitable. A good deal of the jobless are that way because they are skilled individuals in an increasingly automated world. If a computer and specialized software doesn't take a job away, someone working for $6,000/year in India or the Philippines will. This is just reality, all the efforts to stop this will fail because that is the way of the world. Economic law says you have to be productive and the only way our society can be more productive is to start studying and achieving in those fields in demand. The sciences are woefully lacking in American talent, its tons of imported talent using our capital and resources to continue ahead. We are well versed as a society in fields such as business, but those functions are increasingly being done by computer and done quite well.

A good example was something that happened at work a little while back. I caused a great stir. We have Miss Attitude who can't stop talking about how hard she works, putting in 60 hours to do this spreadsheet and that report. Whine whine whine. I on the other hand work 40-42 hours a week. She complains about it to me, to my boss, whoever listens, claiming I am a slacker and not holding up my own because I don't work as hard as her. Finally I confronted her and said "so who reads your work and what do they do with it." She said its passed all around the company and has been required work for years. I scoffed and said maybe 2 or 3 others read it, no one uses it. I further continued that she got herself into her own mess. If she was talented she would figure out that there are others in the department lower than us that could do them, but she is afraid to give the work away. And if she was so talented she would have improved the process over time and been more efficient. I said quite simply "we are here not because we can finish up the most spreadsheets but because we add value that can help the company save money or make money, which do you do?" She cried later I was told and other girls that subscribe to her thinking were bitching about it too, I really got the cold treatment for a few days. Poor overworked moody girls were really whining when I got a new job afterwards that many claimed to have wanted and thought they would participate in, one that contributes greatly to our company and best yet I don't even have to have meetings with them anymore to listen to their whining. Moral of the story, if you want to have a job, add value. If you just want to do processes, get ready for the process of filling out an unemployment form. This could take years and years to improve our unemployment because a lot of people got some success in the boom years and now think a lot of jobs their skills are really suited for are "beneath" them. Hate to break it to a lot of people that way, but its reality and either you deal with it and get better, or you fall behind and become one of those sob stories about losing a house or what not.

[AceHigh]

Tax cuts don't work as economic stimulus. Bush cut taxes a record amount with is first tax cut and it did nothing to stimulate the economy.

"Anyway we'll never see reduced government spending without first cutting taxes beforehand. "

That's just silly thinking, it can be done. We did under Bush I, not only did he cut spending but he raised taxes and cut spending.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for raising taxes. But the US has never cut taxes during a war before and I believe it is a mistake this time. And Bush is increasing spending and higher rates than Clinton, without even counting the War in the budget. The deficit isn't a huge problem now, but is looking to be a HUGE problem in the future. Especially if interest rates rise, the deficit could quickly balloon to a bigger line item than defense spending. Plus Social Security and Medicare are under funded and that plus the deficit are big problems in the future.

The Hoover administration and raising tariffs? Nobody suggested that.

Actually we've already got a huge tax break, oil has dropped $10 a barrel. Cheap energy will have a much bigger impact on the economy than any tax cut.

"or Ashcroft for that matter NYC is a fortress "

Don't believe it.

[Timer]

>>Bush cut taxes a record amount with his first tax cut and it did nothing to stimulate the economy. <<

Au contraire mi amigo. Because of those tax cuts we had one of the softest recessions in modern history.

Keep trying.

[AceHigh]

Believe what you must.

But if we had one of the softest recessions in modern history, why are we still in it? And why do we need a 2nd tax cut?

Maybe it's the softest and longest recession in modern history?

Remember the first tax cut, was the largest in the history of our country.

[adios]

"But if we had one of the softest recessions in modern history, why are we still in it? And why do we need a 2nd tax cut?"

Um... I haven't seen anywhere in the economic literature where 6 straight quarters (undoubtedly it will be 7 including the current quarter) of positive GDP growth qualifies as a recession. Just what is your definition of a recession? Anyway I'll answer your post and your doubts about the nature of security in NYC and the effects of tax reductions and increases on budget deficits this weekend. I'll also have an anwer for wildbill as well.

[Wildbill]

Hope so because this thing is just baffling me. What worries me the most is the sunset issue. Every day more and more people talk about making these cuts permanent. Its outright stupidity. While no one wants to believe that tax increases, these people are saying they can have their cake and eat it to.

Ok, so for those that don't get it, here is simple math. These tax cutters think that they can cut taxes now and grow the economy. Fine, nothing wrong with that. Problem is that they have no sensibility as to what to do on the other side. When we have another booming economy, guess what will happen? Yep, lets cut taxes again, government is getting too big. The fallacy is this, right now they are saying economy needs a kick, lets go into deficit. Fine, that is a good choice. When things get good the ONLY thing you can do is offset the time you were in deficit and run up a massive surplus to overcome this huge deficit you created. The reason this is necessary is because our politicians can't do s*** right! When times are good they set up entitlements and cut taxes fundamentally hurting us when times aren't so good. When times are bad they do the same damn thing. Why doesn't this common sense approach ever enter into people's thought process? When times are good, taxes should be modestly raised or at the very least not lowered, money should be set aside, spending needs to be very closely monitored because that is the time you prepare yourself for the next mess. Well how many people think Congress can follow that formula7 If the states had followed that formula their messes right now wouldn't even be on the radar. See this is the problem, its not just this cut or this policy, its the fact that all policy from now until years from now will bring us down unless we change it. Fine, cut your taxes now, but make those sunsets near impossible to make permanent because the problem is that no one has the political will to roll back a tax cut. Make a tax cut now, but be required to show how you will make up the money for it later. If times are still bad then, maybe you get some leeway and pass a new bill, but this better be an emergency is all I say. No we aren't in recession and no I don't buy into the gloomy attitudes of most today. And that is the craziest thing of it all, the Republicans playing it both ways. Seems to be their new favorite hobby. Have your tax cut now and later, have your deficit now and don't worry about ever covering for it, and worst of all yes we are in a recession while I am voting for the tax cut, but the minute I step out of the chamber things are great so vote for me in 2004.

Now you see where I am coming from? I am a very centrist person who abhors the Republicans social views a lot more than their economic views, but boy they are starting to make it tough for me not to wonder about those too. The party that tells me how I should live my life while ruining my future economic well-being, what a legacy that is.

[adios]

"Ok, so for those that don't get it, here is simple math. These tax cutters think that they can cut taxes now and grow the economy. Fine, nothing wrong with that. Problem is that they have no sensibility as to what to do on the other side."

Yep that's a great point. One thing in looking at the budget dedicit, the biggest decline that I've seen so far was due to Grahm-Rudman. I submit that there is a history of doing something on the "other side" as you eloquently put it albeit perhaps not enough.

[adios]

"Ok, so for those that don't get it, here is simple math. These tax cutters think that they can cut taxes now and grow the economy. Fine, nothing wrong with that. Problem is that they have no sensibility as to what to do on the other side."

Yep that's a great point. One thing in looking at the budget dedicit, the biggest decline that I've seen so far was due to Grahm-Rudman. I submit that there is a history of doing something on the "other side" as you eloquently put it albeit perhaps not enough.

[AceHigh]

"And that is the craziest thing of it all, the Republicans playing it both ways."

That's what I don't get. If Bush was some kind of cut taxes, cut spending, cut government, super-conservative, I could understand where he's coming from. If he did a good job of cutting pork from the budget, I think I, and a lot of others would be for his tax cut plan.

As it is, his plan seems like some kind of desperate buy votes, give tax cuts to his political backer's policy.

[TAFKAn]

One thing you are totally right about is that payroll tax should be reduced. However, by "reduced" I mean completely eliminated and the Social Security Administration dismantled as well.

Also, I'm a middle class married guy with a kid. I did the calcs and I expect to save between 2-4 grand this year due to the tax cuts. I don't call that completely worthless.

[Wildbill]

Well almost worthless to me. I got $20 extra a check now, so about $500 a year and frankly I couldn't care that much if it raises the risk of long-term damage to the economy. Think of it this way, in a macro sense. If I were EVER to lose my job because of damage done by this endless rush to tax cuts, then this cut would be a negative for me. No saying if that would ever happen, this is a world of endless unintended consequences, but just a thought. In the end few people will spend all their cuts and much of it will just pay off old bills or save for something they aren't even sure of in the future.

I do kind of like your idea, but come on that is politically unacceptable, total suicide. For all its faults and uncertainties, if they ever got rid of social security it would lead to rioting.

[Carl_William]

MY 2 cents: (just my feelings)

I like tax cuts: WHY:
It gives my family more money.
I can give more money to my charities, and not the waste
that government commits.
A higher inflation rate is coming -- maybe in a few years -- maybe in seven years -- who knows -- the federal reserve bank always prints more money to pay the bills.

Social Security "SS" won't go broke in spite of what politicians and people say.... The politicians (both parties -- mostly the Democrats) messed up SS -- just study its history.... The feds can always print more money thus more inflation -- no problem.

For the average guy who can be his own man (i.e., manage his own affairs): The stock market along with real estate is a must for protection against inflation. Just about the only tools that a little guy has.... The key is to learn how to manage your life; manage your accounts -- when you let other people do it they rake off the lion's share. Example:

In CA, in the past most school teacher 403(b) retirements accounts are forced to put the money in a variable annunity with a greedy insurance company (there are exceptions -- especially in recent years). The CA state won't let the teachers put the 403(B) money into a Vanguard Group mutual fund because of a stupid CA hold harmless boiler plate contract that benefits only insurance companies, lobbyists, and the school teacher managers being paid off... example -- insurance companies variable annunities currently pay about 2.6% in fixed income funds minus a 2% rake leaving a net of less than 1%.

The bottom line is: manage your own life. Don't (in general) count on brokers, financial advisers -- what ever... When the going gets rough in any business -- charity begans at home. Think about this -- don't be lead like sheep -- learn how to manage your affairs on your own -- otherwise you will never accumulate much (much doesn't have to be money -- just happiness in your life).

[Carl_William]

Hi,

What you say is true. But the economy spurred on by the dot.com bubble coundn't go on forever -- the bubble had to be seen for what it really was.... Other than deregulating energy (done in a very poor manner) not much has changed other than facing and exposing reality. Most of the manufacturing stuff has been made outside the USA for many years . The CEO crooks were operating full bore during Clinton's terms. People who want to cut down on waste: desire tax cuts. I want to spend my money on my charities -- most liberals (not all ) are tight wads and want to spend other and prefer to spends other people's tax money for charity.

[Aragorn]

>>I think barring major recession this one is in the bag.

There is an ETERNITY between now and election day. It is downright silly to be predicting results at this time.

[Aragorn]

>>I'd be all for a tax cut proposal if it was also combined with balancing the budget.

I couldn't agree more.

>>Not only did musuems lose valuables, so did Hospitals and power plants, businesses, etc. The oil ministry needed to be protected, but why not protect all the Iraqi assets? Why didn't we have enough troops in Iraq to secure the assets and keep the peace?

I was (and am) totally opposed to this war, but I don't agree with this criticism. The army went in with strategic objectives. I don't think protecting museums should be a high priority when you are first just trying to defeat the enemy.

>>We have the best army in the world, is it that difficult to control Iraq?

Yes it is that difficult (which is one reason we shouldn't be there in the first place.)

>>To me, it looks like the Pentagon/Bush administration did a very good job of planning the war, but didn't plan the peace very well. The should have realized it was going to take a lot more troops to control Iraq, than we had in Iraq at the time. The Administration seems to realize that now. The 3rd Infantry division was scheduled to leave Iraq in June, that has been postponed indefinately.

I don't know how much they should have realized in advance, but clearly post-war planning was VERY weak.

[Aragorn]

>>"I have come to the conclusion that without a doubt gridlock is what we need and what works best."

>>LOL, there's a lot of truth in that. It almost seems like with gridlock you need a good idea and a popular one to get anything done. So most of the radicals and special interests can be kept out of the mix.

It's a bit of a dilemma. We have genuine problems that are not being addressed and should be addressed by the government. The future of social secuity, serious health-care problems, crumbling infrastucture, a horrilbe tax code, an ecomnony with genuine problems, a ballooning deficit, etc. I don't think ignoring our problems is the answer.

[Wildbill]

Not really because it seems that almost all decisions are already being made with an eye to that election. If you put yourself in the frame of mind that election considerations are out there, then things at least surprise you less.

Still its in the bag barring a new unannounced candidate or some hideous scandal. I think the odds are better of W passing away than either of those two happening and changing the outcome of the eleciton.

[Wildbill]

Hold on there! Gridlock is a world of difference from what you are saying. Desirable gridlock is where things are debated and issues are handled, but unless there is good consensus, hopefully created due to good policy being proposed, then you don't pass a law. I think most would agree that no law or policy is a lot better than bad policy. As for your list of issues, are you really certain that government could solve those problems with something they could pass today? I don't think so in most cases, they might be government issues but passing laws won't necessarily make those issues be solved. Its not something where if only the Congress acted that poof all our troubles are gone. Its not even close to that and many times just sitting back and doing nothing works as well or better than a "do-something" law being passed in the attempt to look like you tried. I don't want people to try, I want them to create good policy. That is why they are elected, not to be busy and justify their time in DC. Gridlock enforces that concept, that the solutions they come up with can't be partisan and only make so many people happy and that they have to be reasonable and not just throwing money at something, and you have to address the concerns of many, not just those that are stuffing your campaign chest. And if you don't do things to be reasonable, be willing to negotiate, be willing to give and take...well your constituents just might vote you out of office.

[AceHigh]

"The army went in with strategic objectives. I don't think protecting museums should be a high priority when you are first just trying to defeat the enemy."

I agree defeating the enemy is first priority. But we needed to have enough troops on hand to control the population centers and enforce order.

"is it that difficult to control Iraq?

Yes it is that difficult"

Your right, it is rarely easy to control a large country when a large segment of the population is hostile to the invader. It is very difficult when you don't have a big enough force to do the job well.

[AceHigh]

"Still its in the bag barring a new unannounced candidate or some hideous scandal."

I disagree. A lot can happen between then and now. Remember, Bush was losing to an unnamed Democratic challenger in a poll, just before the war started.

We'll have to wait and see. If I had to predict, I would guess the election will be close.

[Wildbill]

It will be close, but I think Bush is about a -300 favorite to win, at least in my assessment. And even worse for the Dems is that their HUGE camp of such assorted characters could even hurt them more than people think. I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of them decide in the end that they don't care if its Bush or the nominee to win, they don't like either. Its possible when you compare the potential differential between a guy like Dean against a Kerry or Lieberman. Those are big differences, almost enough to make for two parties. As long as the Republicans don't trot out Pat Buchanan their typical candidate today isn't that far from W. And if say the Religious Right felt they got screwed on a candidate, they still have a high proclivity to vote and surely won't vote for a Democrat. This factor is huge because its hard to imagine with the well oiled machines and the huge numbers of people in each side's camp that one candidate will beat another by more than 6 or 7%. What really makes me feel solidly that W will win is how he is perceived amongst traditionally swing votes. He gets strong backing from unions compared to other Republicans, he takes a lot of usually strong Democratic voters. People laugh at his speaking skills and his manner, but that plays real well in places like Detroit where it used to be he would really struggle. Those swing state union voters are likely to back him in pretty decent numbers and quite obviously he has been pandering to them since day one so I don't see things changing there. Sure its a long way, but just look at the strategy and then follow the money and you will probably come to the same conclusion, its almost in the bag simply because this is an election machine doing things purely to insure aa win.