According to Bush- ownership of property/stock makes you have more of a stake in America?

Guess I'm not a good American since I don't own anything... see below.

Bush's Own Goal
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 13, 2004




ARTICLE TOOLS
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles




Columnist Page: Paul Krugman

Forum: Discuss This Column

E-mail: [email protected]


TIMES NEWS TRACKER

  Topics
Alerts


Taxation
Finances
Federal Taxes (US)
Bush, George W


new Bush campaign ad pushes the theme of an 'ownership society,' and concludes with President Bush declaring, 'I understand if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of America.'

Call me naïve, but I thought all Americans have a vital stake in the nation's future, regardless of how much property they own. (Should we go back to the days when states, arguing that only men of sufficient substance could be trusted, imposed property qualifications for voting?) Even if Mr. Bush is talking only about the economic future, don't workers have as much stake as property owners in the economy's success?

But there's a political imperative behind the 'ownership society' theme: the need to provide pseudopopulist cover to policies that are, in reality, highly elitist.

The Bush tax cuts have, of course, heavily favored the very, very well off. But they have also, more specifically, favored unearned income over earned income - or, if you prefer, investment returns over wages. Last year Daniel Altman pointed out in The New York Times that Mr. Bush's proposals, if fully adopted, 'could eliminate almost all taxes on investment income and wealth for almost all Americans.' Mr. Bush hasn't yet gotten all he wants, but he has taken a large step toward a system in which only labor income is taxed.

The political problem with a policy favoring investment returns over wages is that a vast majority of Americans derive their income primarily from wages, and that the bulk of investment income goes to a small elite. How, then, can such a policy be sold? By promising that everyone can join the elite.

Right now, the ownership of stocks and bonds is highly concentrated. Conservatives like to point out that a majority of American families now own stock, but that's a misleading statistic because most of those 'investors' have only a small stake in the market. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than half of corporate profits ultimately accrue to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers, while only about 8 percent go to the bottom 60 percent. If the 'ownership society' means anything, it means spreading investment income more widely - a laudable goal, if achievable.

But does Mr. Bush have a way to get us there?

There's a section on his campaign blog about the ownership society, but it's short on specifics. Much of the space is devoted to new types of tax-sheltered savings accounts. People who have looked into plans for such accounts know, however, that they would provide more tax shelters for the wealthy, but would be irrelevant to most families, who already have access to 401(k)'s. Their ability to invest more is limited not by taxes but by the fact that they aren't earning enough to save more.

The one seemingly substantive proposal is a blast from the past: a renewed call for the partial privatization of Social Security, which would divert payroll taxes into personal accounts. Mr. Bush campaigned on that issue in 2000, but he never acted on it. And there was a reason the idea went nowhere: it didn't make sense.

Social Security is, basically, a system in which each generation pays for the previous generation's retirement. If the payroll taxes of younger workers are diverted into private accounts, there will be a gaping financial hole: who will pay benefits to older Americans, who have spent their working lives paying into the current system? Unless you have a way to fill that multitrillion-dollar hole, privatization is an empty slogan, not a real proposal.

In 2001, Mr. Bush's handpicked commission on Social Security was unable to agree on a plan to create private accounts because there was no way to make the arithmetic work. Undaunted, this year the Bush campaign once again insists that privatization will lead to a 'permanently strengthened Social Security system, without changing benefits for those now in or near retirement, and without raising payroll taxes on workers.' In other words, 2 - 1 = 4.

Four years ago, Mr. Bush got a free pass from the press on his Social Security 'plan,' either because reporters didn't understand the arithmetic, or because they assumed that after the election he would come up with a plan that actually added up. Will the same thing happen again? Let's hope not.

As Mr. Bush has said: 'Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - can't get fooled again.'

you and me both!

OK.
I want nit-pick his words.

But how about his actions? Why should there be tax only on income? Why should that 1% get the big tax break on investments?

---

Posted by eogara

It's called the American Dream ladies... I don't take from his statement that other people are sh!t because they don't own property. I don't either but I don't take offense to this. It's what most Americans aspire to and it creates a wealthier country. I feel like people soooo nitpick every single thing that comes out of this man's mouth. Gimme a break.

---

Unfortunately, it creates a wealthier upper class. 10% of the United States population controls 90% of the wealth.

Do I wish to own a home, yes. But rather than fight against the middle class, why doesn't Bush offer to help us. Instead, he rewards his friends and corporate allies.

JMHO

---

Posted by Sassyz75

OK.
I want nit-pick his words.

But how about his actions? Why should there be tax only on income? Why should that 1% get the big tax break on investments?

---

i'm an equal opportunity nitpicker...

if people can twist Kerry's words around, why can't we have a little fun with Bush?

---

Posted by KerrC

---

Posted by eogara

It's called the American Dream ladies... I don't take from his statement that other people are sh!t because they don't own property. I don't either but I don't take offense to this. It's what most Americans aspire to and it creates a wealthier country. I feel like people soooo nitpick every single thing that comes out of this man's mouth. Gimme a break.

---

Unfortunately, it creates a wealthier upper class. 10% of the United States population controls 90% of the wealth.

Do I wish to own a home, yes. But rather than fight against the middle class, why doesn't Bush offer to help us. Instead, he rewards his friends and corporate allies.

JMHO

---

yes, as Bush has stated 'The haves, and the have mores...'

And I am def. a have NOT.

The elites were in control before Bush even got into power. And if Kerry wins..guess what..they still will be there. These same arguments that people have are repetative..if it were 'easy' to solve these issues a president would have solved them by now.

ETA: Social security took years to get into the mess it is now, and its of no surprise that people want instant solutions...I want one too but since taking all these classes about human services programs like Social security, medicare..etc..I have come to understand that its not one president who will make a change..its going to take one heck of a plan and no one has thought one up yet so stocks and other investments are a different way to go about preparing for the future. If you dont have the money to invest in this type of saving plan, the brute reality is that the social security we are paying now will not be there and this was predicted before Bush was even in office. So society will remain as it always has been, Elite in power over the majority.

Yes, but with Kerry in power it is doubtful he will try to:
1) eliminate tax on investment dividends and
2) try & privatize social security

so yes, the elite is always in power- but it's how they treat the lower classes that is important- and IMO Bush treats anyone that makes less than $250k like sh!t

---

Posted by september2004

---

Posted by Sassyz75

OK.
I want nit-pick his words.

But how about his actions? Why should there be tax only on income? Why should that 1% get the big tax break on investments?

---

i'm an equal opportunity nitpicker...

if people can twist Kerry's words around, why can't we have a little fun with Bush?

---

Because Bush is good at twisting his OWN words

Yes I agree that alot of what comes out of his mouth can be B.S. but I challenge anyone to look back at ANY president and say that they kept true to 100% of what their platform promised. We will be having this same discussion 4 years from now if Kerry is re-elected. Or if Bush gets re-elected.

As for Social Security, privitization was suggested and like all the other plans it has its holes. The problem will not be solved in one presidency. Social security program when invented did not forsee the baby boom.

As for elite..they will have some power regardless whether republican or democratic..lobbyist with $$ tend to have the bigger voice come law making time.

In an election year, everything gets nit-picked. Both sides are guilty of this. I actually think it is a positive thing and leads to healthy debate.

As far as Krugman, I don't put much stock in his opinion. Did anyone see him on Tim Russert's CNBC show? He debated Bill O'Reilly. Krugman was visibly trembling at times. He did so poorly that I was embarassed that they let him teach at my alma mater. He readily conceded that his prediction of a deeper economic recession following the Bush tax cuts was a mistake on his part. He readily stammered out this confession: 'Compare me … compare me, uh, with anyone else, and I think you’ll see that my forecasting record is not great.'

As far as the Social Security problem, that is a system crying out for reform and it will be running at a deficit in 2018--well before most of us are looking to collect on the money that we contribute. President Clinton previously acknowledged that there are really only three options for Social Security reform: raise taxes, cut benefits, or invest privately. Kerry touted at the DNC that he will not privatize Social Security nor will he cut benefits. Therefore, this is an implicit endorsement of raising taxes. He would need to massively raise taxes on everyone (not just those making over $200G...there aren't enough Americans in this category to foot such a huge bill) especially in light of the numerous (and costly) programs he proposes.

Whether Bush's plan of privatization is a good one or not...I do not know. I don't even know if economists know that. But at least we know his position.

The SS situation is a huge problem that will take years and several presidencies to fix. However, each president must address it and not just ignore the problem, leaving it to another day, another president...

If Sen. Kerry plans to raise taxes to prop up Social Security, he should tell us. If he has another idea, he should share it with us. If he believes that the current program, with all its problems, is the best we can do, he should say so.

if you are going to support someone based on public speaking and debating skills- that it's a marvel that anyone supports George W.

I think Krugman is invaluable in that he puts information out there, and I think he's a pretty good economist.

Krugman isn't just an opponent of W, he's a watchdog- and has said pretty sh!tty things about clinton/greenspan policy during that administration as well.

Yes, SS is screwed up-and no one foresaw that baby boom, but I think as a country we believe in the social contract and social safety net we created after the great depression because we had an understanding that we were our brother's keepers- and I don't think privatizing SS is a way to be our brother's keeper.

And Bush is noted to want to starve SS and other social safety programs by lowering taxes and spending so he HAS to privatize- which leads me to believe that not only does he want to make government as small and horrible as the McKinley error (Bush thinks he was a good president by the way) but he and his corporate fat cat friends would also greatly benefit if this happened.

Bride626 you just touched on the issue I am having with this election.
We know Bush's shortcomings,,we dont know Kerry's, he makes promises that sound so great on paper. I admit it but the planning is the problem..he does not give the public enough information on how he will execute these promises. SOmetiems he does not even put forth his view on an issue..just words that can be assumed he takes one position or the other. That really scares me because America is about to face terrorism in its ugliest form..here on our soil while we have an economy that is failing amidst a struggle of values. I think many Americans are confused

Krugman is a 'pretty good economist' yet he readily concedes that his forecasting record is not so great???? I'm not an economist, but isn't a big part of their job forecasting future trends????

And I don't think that I am my brother's keeper...just like I don't think 'it takes a village to raise a child.' I think I am my own keeper and that it takes a parent or two to raise a child. What happened to the old fashioned values of self sufficiency? Big government is not the answer. One post smacks of an entitlement theory that liberals are consistently criticized for (and rightfully so).

Myasmom....I totally agree with you that Kerry lacks substance. I disagree with you that we have a failing economy. Yes, we have some problems but it has been recovering nicely especially after the recent corporate scandals and the devastating effects of 9/11. The economy has recovered to mid-90's levels (the current 5.5 percent unemployment rate is lower than Clinton's re-election campaign number at this time in 1996, while the GDP continues to grow at its fastest rate in 20 years).

Also, America is not necessarily 'about to face terrorism in its ugliest form.' Since 9/11, 2/3 of the Al Qaeda leadership has been killed or captured. Of course, the threat still remains, it always will, but I think we have made steps toward reducing it.

actually greenspans forecasting is pretty crappy too- economists do the best they can with the information that they have...

I do not think our economy is back to 1995 levels as unemployment only takes into account the #s of people that are actually going to unemployment to pick up the checks- many have run out of benefits or aren't going anymore. Also, that number doesn't take into account the people who are making less money than they were prior to the recession starting (like me) or those that have to work many jobs to hav ethe salary they used to make on 1. I think that is a huge problem... yes I am for self sufficiency- but I have been making 65% less money since Bush took office and my DH has had to work 2 jobs for us to be 'self sufficient'...

so it pisses me off that the top 1% of our society gets treated better than people like me and my DH who are working hard to make ends meet but cannot get a break.

I think has a society we have the duty to take care of those who need help- or are you saying we should go back to the McKinley error and should another depression come- oh well- guess you have to starve b/c you should be self sufficient.. don't you think that's a little heartless? B/C that's what Bush wants- he thinks poor people deserve to be poor and that they don't work hard enough.. but I guess if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you'd think that.

I think having a bigger government is the answer- and just as you think liberals are 'entitled' to wanting to provide for those who need it- then fine- call me entitled- and I'll call you heartless.

I wont argue about failing economy, because this is an area that is subject to interpretation.

As for terrorism in its ugliest form perhaps that was a poor choice of words, I am talking about speculation form terror experts who predict that random terrorist acts will happen on American soil and our ability to handle random acts that take place in other countries.

Sept 11th scared me but its a reality that I knew would eventually happen..just didnt think it would have been so successful in so many places.

And Al Queda is not our only enemy, its just one group who has revealed itself and has received the most publicity. I guess I dont want to sound like I am spouting rhetoric but I have some truely valuable sources and although we are reducing a threat, the operative word is 'A threat'.

ETA: Sassy you make great points..they are from the heart. I too am all for the underdog. But I cant (me personally not trying to judge anyone) condemn Bush alone. He is not the one who just goes out randomly and makes these laws and enact programs like some people believe..its bigger than him. Just like it will be bigger than Kerry. And I am part of the group who beleives that some of the mess we are in comes from selfish Americans..not just ploiticians..it is a joint effort. No one wants to take responsibility and point fingers when the blame is shared..this is mostly towards healthcre issue. Health care is $$$ partly because we:
A: have people who abuse healthcare programs through the us eof fraud or just plain misuse.
B. Did you know that a significant amount of healthcare expenses come from technological advances expense and not actual use.

So you put those to factors together and its a reason for healthcare reform..but to change it..it will take more than a government intervention.

So many factors are at play as to why we are in the state we are today and I am scared for my kid.