I listened to 60% of the speached on radio while driving from the Gym and 30% on TV after I got home and I must say that I have to disagree with your assertion. I think he made some interesting concessions and comments. I noticed that he was intentionally amplifying his Texas accent during then press briefing.
I was disappointed at the lack of humor until the end. I liked the question by one reporter asking if President Bush felt responsible for helping create the partisan atmosphere in Washington. And Bush gave some boring, rote answer. Now if I was standing there, and was in the same position, I would have started by joking, "Well, of course it's not my fault. Everybody knows I'm perfect!" which probably would have got a chuckle before I moved on to a serious answer.
It's funny, for a press conference that he himself called, he didn't seem enthused to be there. But he muddled through.
I read an interesting article today dn people say that he isn't smart or not highbrow. It cannot be questioned that his communication skills are awful. But do not confuse that with his intelligence. He is a clear highbrow idealog in the tradition of conservative think tanks like the CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation. I've always thought that but it was well articulated in a column in the Washington Post today by E.J. Dionne.
"The notion of Bush as an egghead no doubt appalls conservatives, too. People on the right have long savored attacking their opponents as 'pointy-headed intellectuals' -- the late George Wallace's phrase was widely popular. Spiro T. Agnew, Richard Nixon's vice president, had perfect right-wing pitch when he assailed his boss's opponents as an 'effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.' That dismissive phrase -- 'who characterize themselves as intellectuals' -- was nothing short of brilliant.
"But with apologies to both sides, the case for Bush as an egghead is overwhelming. One of the central characteristics of the Bush presidency is a profound commitment to theoretical notions, nurtured in think tanks and ideological magazines, and a relentless -- yes, even principled -- commitment to pushing them regardless of the facts or the consequences.
"The president's proposal for private accounts in Social Security is Exhibit A for eggheadism. There was little popular demand for these accounts. Most Americans like Social Security as it is. The private accounts idea was nurtured primarily in libertarian and conservative research organizations such as the Cato Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis and the Heritage Foundation."
And I think this is absolutely true, and my major problem as a republican in the Republican party. The Republican party supports theories that have very little support in fact, because they're based on idology and not real world empirical evidence.
Let me give an example. Supply Side economics is voodoo. It runs counter to real economic principles. Let me put it this way, Supply Side economics is one step away from Communism, and since the entire economic theory of the Republican Platform is based on Supply Side Theory, it's a bitter irony to me that the Republican party which fought communism is sliding intio supporting communist theories.
See, I'm a Keynesian, because Maynard Keynes was able to develop the basic understanding of modern economics in Caitalist systems. It was his concepts that saved capitalism and ended the Depression. And his theories can be applied in a reasonable fashion to economics today. (Consideruing that economics is a Biologicl entity and as unpredictable as such entities are wont to be.) But because it was a Democrat that embraced Keynes Republicans and conservatives have hated the basic facts that Keynes was right. It's like Someone hating Galileo and Copernicus for showing the the earth revolves around the sun. and that hatred has devloped over time into the basic Conservative Economic Supply Side Theory.
And Supply Side economics was cemented by two events in the Regan Era. The Tax Cuts and the Debt issue. See, both worked when some economists of more tradional and Keynedian concepts said they wouldn't. And Supply Siders took that as vindication of their beliefs. But they're wrong ebcause they don't understand the underlying principles.
Take the Tax Cut. One basic tenent of economic growth is through job creation and the biggest way to create jobs is through goverment probgrams. Which causes goverment to grow. That's a Kensian View, but that's not the sole part of Keynsian theory. It's actually quite complex. During the end of the seventies, the problem with the economy wasn't job growth. It was inflation. And according to Keynsian theory the best way to combat inflation is through an influx of capital to the masses to counter out the inflationary effect. That's EXACTLY what Reagan did. He had an instinctual understanding of economic policies. Even though he didn't understand why it worked or that it followed Keynsian models.
Even though everything Regan did performed exactly as Keynsian ideas, it was seen by Supply Siders as disproving Keynesian theory. One, because the economy started humming along without job growth and goverment intervention which to be honest is the part of Keynsian economic theory most everyone knows and talks about because it was the hallmark of the New Deal. And Two, because it fell in line with their own theries that Tax cuts are always good and the trickle down effect. Even though trickle down is inherently a communist economic theory and runs counter to capitalism.
The second major blow was I think the one that relly hurt Keynesian theory and has put us in our mess today. At the time Reagan was cutting taxes he was putting our cuntry in what seemed at the time, massive debt. Again, Reagan instinctually understood that the country could bear the debt,l as long as it gets repaid eventuallly. But to many Keynsians it was disaster. The very idea of the goverment getting into debt greater than it's actual revenue was anathema. Debt is something to be avloided because taking on unecessary debt hurts you wehn you really need it. But Reagan was accurate in assessing that the economy had to take on debt to curb inflation.
Now, Keynsians hated the debt because they saw it grow and grow and thought the economy couldn't bear any more. They were wrong. The reason being, is they didn't understand how much debt an economy can bear. Our debt today is massive, and needs to be paid down. I think it's 75% of our economy. The thing is, some major Europeon economies got into debt up to 200% of GDP! One of the many reasons for their slow growth. So we're no where near the "sky is falling" factor even today. But it is a weight around the economy and should be lightened. Also, we're loosing our emergency cushin for when we really need to go into debt. (Say another inflationary period or a major war or something.)
Alternatively, Supply Siders claim that we'll grow out of the debt. That's we're their wrong. See, Supply siders promote a growth at all cost method of economics. And there's some value to that,, because all economic policies should foster growth. Growth is what brings people out of poverty. Growths is what imprves our standards of living. The problem is, Growth at all cost is irresponsible. And Growth can;t be directly control. A Supply Sider can't wave his wand and poof, we're going to grow in the next five years. There are a lot of factors. And because of that, we're piling on debt after debt after debt, and the Supply Sider says, we'll grow out of it, but we never grow out of it fast enough and they pile on even more debt so we grow fatster. It becomes a vicious cycle. You take on more debt to improve your infrastructure to grow faster, but it's never fast enough to cover the enormous debt you've compiled, so you need to grow even faster, so you take on more debt! It's like living a $100,000 lifestyle in your twenties assuming you'll make that much in your fifties.
I mean, people talk about a Ponzi scheme, but I digress.
Anyway, the suply siders said we'll grow out of debt, but that just isn't happening and it isn't realistic. So they were wrong in their belief that the debt is managble under their principles. But because Keynsians were yelling, "The sky is falling" and then it didn't fall, Supply siders took that as proof of validation of their theories. Even though, the debt problem can onkly be solve by, you guessed it, Keynsian economic models of reasonable growth and slow paying down of the debt.
The thing is, none of this conservative ideology, and it is ideology without realy critical examination, is based on the real world. It's build up in think tanks made to promote conservative theories. It may sound great but Communism is also the most perfect form of goverment
on paper. And that's the problem with the party today. The party develops and ideology, it then develops a system to support that ideology not based on any facts or critical examination. Hence you get think tanks like the CATO Institution or the Heritage Foundation. In other words, the ideology develops the facts, not the facts developing the ideology.
And you have to understand that the Bushes are absolute intellectuals when it comes to this ideology. They probably understand it as well as anyone on the planet. So it's not that the President is unintelligent or stupid. It's just that the focus of his energies and intellects is wholly on these ideological principles.
Here's another prefect example from Allan Sloan on the Presidents Tax Reform Committee.
"A case in point: the President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform created by George W. Bush in January. You'd like to believe that this commission, which is currently holding hearings and plans to file a report by July, will offer ways to make the tax system less unfair than the mess we've currently got. But look out. If you decode Bush's executive order creating the commission -- it's on the commission's Web site,
www.taxreformpanel.gov -- you can pretty much guess what the panel will propose. It's not going to design a tax return that you can fill out without software or a master's degree in taxation. Rather, it seems all but certain to lend Bush's existing agenda the imprimatur of the word reform.
"Why am I so skeptical -- some would say cynical -- about the tax 'reform' commission, which has respectable members? Because I've seen the results of a similar outfit, Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. Rather than asking that commission to pick the best possible Social Security system, Bush required it to advocate for private accounts and to avoid increasing Social Security taxes. This meant that the commission was predestined to propose sharp cuts in future benefits, and massive borrowing to fund private accounts.
"The report languished for years -- it came out in December 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks had rocked the country and Enron's bankruptcy had discredited the stock market. Bush dusted it off after last year's election and declared it the starting point for Social Security 'reform.' But its conclusions, of course, had been pretty much determined by the conditions that Bush imposed on it.
"Now, let's look at Bush's tax 'reform' commission. Instead of letting the commission propose the best possible tax system, Bush has hemmed it in. It has been ordered to make investments more attractive -- as if investment income weren't already favored enough. It's supposed to keep homeownership and charitable tax deductions tax-favored. Its proposals are supposed to be revenue-neutral, meaning that any tax cuts must be offset by new revenues.
"So I'll bet my (nonexistent) refund that the tax 'reform' proposals will go something like this. Leave Bush's existing tax cuts in place. Eliminate the estate tax. Eliminate some or all of the remaining taxes on income from investments. Eliminate or pare back the alternative minimum tax (AMT). Make up for these cuts by adopting something like a broad-based national sales tax or value-added tax. Eliminate or pare deductions for state and local taxes, which the AMT has begun to do indirectly.
"The AMT mostly affects people in high-tax (read: Democratic-leaning) states but is spreading to taxpayers throughout the country. Even though it's clawing back an increasing proportion of the Bush tax cuts, the president has never proposed cutting it. Clearly, an AMT fix is being held hostage to make a national sales tax or value-added tax more palatable.
"This 'reform' package would be part of Bush's unstated but clear goal of turning the income tax into a tax on wages only, and making the country even friendlier for inherited wealth and for people with lots of income from investments. As for wage slaves who are trying to accumulate wealth, good luck. They'll pay tax not only on the salary they earn, but also on what they spend. A national sales or value-added tax would fall disproportionately on lower-income people who spend everything (or almost everything) they make. But there's nothing in Bush's instructions to the commission saying that would be bad."
So, to say the the president is unintelligent or stupid I think is clearly unfounded. The man knows what he's doing. He is one of the worst communicating presidents in modern times. That's hard to deny and it is important. But he's as sly as a fox. And he knows what he's doing and he knows what he wants to accomplish. Even though that agendais completely dominated by ideology and not original idea.
Sorry if I sounded off topic, but I've wanted to vent for awhile.
), and I didn't watch our current President (other than 9/11 obviously). It has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with the fact that speeches are just not informative anymore. I agree that Presidents should write their own speeches. Watching generalized statements over and over from a team of writers is boring.
er is always smirking at.
