What GOOD has George W. Bush done for the USA?

[mheslep]

.. The US, with its relatively low tax rates, ...

The US corporate tax rate of 35% is not low relative to other nations, and that is just federal collection. Ireland is 12%, even the UK is lower at 30%.

 

[quadraphonics]

The US corporate tax rate of 35% is not low relative to other nations, and that is just federal collection. Ireland is 12%, even the UK is lower at 30%.

Generally speaking, Europe has lower corporate tax rates than the United States, and higher income tax rates.

 

[Gokul43201]

The US corporate tax rate of 35% is not low relative to other nations, and that is just federal collection. Ireland is 12%, even the UK is lower at 30%.

True. To my knowledge, there are only a handful of countries (Canada and Japan, among them, I think) that have higher corp. tax rates.

 

[turbo]

The US corporate tax rate of 35% is not low relative to other nations, and that is just federal collection. Ireland is 12%, even the UK is lower at 30%.

Have you noticed that due to targeted tax credits, most US companies pay NO taxes? It's been in the news a bit lately, though if you only watch FOX you might have missed it.

 

[Gokul43201]

Have you noticed that due to targeted tax credits, most US companies pay NO taxes? It's been in the news a bit lately, though if you only watch FOX you might have missed it.

I heard something on the radio last week (on NPR, presumably), but never followed up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/12/national/main4342535.shtml

(AP) Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
...
The GAO study did not investigate why corporations weren't paying federal income taxes or corporate taxes and it did not identify any corporations by name. It said companies may escape paying such taxes due to operating losses or because of tax credits.
...
More than 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liability in 2005 and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income tax, the GAO said. Combined, the companies had $2.5 trillion in sales. About 25 percent of the U.S. corporations not paying corporate taxes were considered large corporations, meaning they had at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in receipts.

Thing is, with the complex array or credits, subsidies, and other government aid, it's hard to "calculate" an effective corporate tax rate. I would think, however, such a number should be easily extractable from IRS data (probably even from that same GAO study).

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Not in the United States. There have been plenty of attempts though.

No.. there have been plenty of terrorist attacks in the United States.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

No one can know for sure, but I think it would have come out by now if he was.

Lots of people cheat on their spouses and never get caught.

So I'm saying why are you giving president Bush accolades for not cheating on his wife when there's no possible way for you to know if he has in fact been faithful?

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I thinik by "us" he meant people in the United States. And it is a fact that there has been much less in the past 7 years than in the previous 7 years. In particular, zero attacks by al qaeda.

Here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
Another list, only to 2003:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
List of thwarted attacks:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html

So really there are only two possibilities here: either we've been spectacularly lucky or the ant-terror policy (ie, the DHS) has been very succesful.

I know what he means by "us" as in people in the United States, he claimed there were no terrorist attacks against people in the US since 9/11 and that is completely false because there have been plenty.

Your lists are showing international terrorism all over the world. As far as terrorist attacks within the US borders, were there really less of them in the last seven years than the seven years that preceded?

What I'm getting at is the claim that was made about Bush somehow turning the US into some terrorism proof utopia since 9/11, which there is no real indication that this happened.

So in the last seven years either you were lucky, or Bush's anti terror strategy worked.. Okay then.

So then in the seven years BEFORE 9/11, there were a total of zero AQ attacks on US soil as well. So then either you were really lucky, or Clinton's anti terrorism strategy worked. Which is it?

 

[mheslep]

I know what he means by "us" as in people in the United States, he claimed there were no terrorist attacks against people in the US since 9/11 and that is completely false because there have been plenty.

Please cite one.

Your lists are showing international terrorism all over the world. As far as terrorist attacks within the US borders, were there really less of them in the last seven years than the seven years that preceded?

yes

What I'm getting at is the claim that was made about Bush somehow turning the US into some terrorism proof utopia since 9/11, which there is no real indication that this happened.

No such 'terr. proof utopia' claim has been made here, that is a strawman. The question is one of relative improvement.

So then in the seven years BEFORE 9/11, there were a total of zero AQ attacks on US soil as well. So then either you were really lucky, or Clinton's anti terrorism strategy worked. Which is it?

'93 World Trade center attack under Clinton?

 

[WarPhalange]

Please cite one.

Anthrax attacks don't count? Domestic terrorism = terrorism.

 

[mheslep]

Anthrax attacks don't count? Domestic terrorism = terrorism.

Yes they count, but that was immediately after after 9/11 (30-60 days) before any policy changes were put in place.

 

[WarPhalange]

I see. I must have misread what he said. It looked like he said "since 9/11", not "since 30-60 days after 9/11"

 

[mheslep]

Missing the forest for the trees. The discussion was about judging the effectiveness of US policy in preventing terror attacks in the US, not about cute word play. Since policies did not change significantly on 9/12, slicing the calendar that finely is meaningless.

 

[WarPhalange]

Clinton: 1

Bush: 2

 

[LowlyPion]

And so the search for something nice to say about him continues.

 

[mheslep]

Clinton: 1

Bush: 2

What are you thinking? In '93 alone there was also the Pansi attack at the front gate of the CIA. Look at the links posted above. There were dozen of attacks on US civilians throughout the world and domestically all during the 90's, including one or more famous attacks nearly every year. By any measure attacks on US citizens have declined in this decade.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

Please cite one.

yes

No such 'terr. proof utopia' claim has been made here, that is a strawman. The question is one of relative improvement.


'93 World Trade center attack under Clinton?

The anthrax attacks were mentioned. Also the DC snipers, suicide massacres at NIU, Virginia tech. etc.

Second of all, there was no straw man, the claim that the Bush has kept us "safe from terrorism since 9/11" was made.

Third, I don't see this "relative improvement".. And I don't see any truth in Russ' claim that there were far fewer attacks in the last seven years. How many fewer attacks are we talking here?

 

[wildman]

What are you thinking? In '93 alone there was also the Pansi attack at the front gate of the CIA. Look at the links posted above. There were dozen of attacks on US civilians throughout the world and domestically all during the 90's, including one or more famous attacks nearly every year. By any measure attacks on US citizens have declined in this decade.

Only if you don't count what is going on in Iraq. American civilians are being attacked constantly there.

 

[mathwonk]

the best thing george bush has done for america is make it absolutely clear how foolish it is to elect an ideologically paralyzed moron as president. he has also made reluctant citizens sit up and take a role in the current contest. this seems likely to insure that a more intelligent candidate will at last be chosen next time. i.e. he has given the public an undeniable object lesson in political savvy.

 

[WarPhalange]

He also showed how truly spineless the democrats really are.

 

[Gokul43201]

this seems likely to insure that a more intelligent candidate will at last be chosen next time.

...a more intelligent candidate... - I guess so.
...the more intelligent candidate... - I remain highly skeptical of that.

 

[mathwonk]

Indeed, he has done a remarkable thing and raised the level of candidates from both parties. Neither wants to be caught with someone like that as their standard bearer this time. How can we lose?