In case you haven't noticed, tax cuts have stimulated the economy. Nearly every economic indicator is positive. In fact, the performance of the economy has been remarkable lately when the temporal proximity of 9/11 is taken into consideration.
And don't talk to me about "not much for many" in a country where 95% of the tax burden falls on 5% of the population. Of course the tax cuts weren't as big for the poor. They're not taxed as much. Hell, some of them receive tax "refunds" in excess of the taxes that they paid.
Tell me something -- the strength of an economy is a result of productivity and the building of wealth, correct? So, if you want to build a strong economy, do you give encouragement and incentive to people who are the least productive, and the least succesful at building wealth, or do you give encouragement and incentive to people who are the most productive and the most succesfull at building wealth? Moreover, if you discourage those who are most productive and succesfull at building wealth, what will the outcome be for the economy? Try looking at it this way. Suppose you have a couple of mutual funds, A and B. Mutual fund A has a higher rate of return and a lower cost than mutual fund B. So, to improve the performance of mutual fund B, you put more money in it, right? No, you put your money in the better performing mutual fund. It is the same with tax payers. People are not encouraged to build wealth if they are increasingly penalized for doing so. They might as well just sit on the couch and watch television as go down in their basement and work on their invention because if the invention pans out, and they gain some wealth, they will only be penalized for it. I know someone will come back with a reply about the super rich, loopholes, etc. Well, before they were super rich, and could afford loopholes, they were only moderately rich, and got their eyeballs taxed out. But in any case, that objection is a perfect argument for a flat tax, which would be completely fair. No loopholes for anybody.
I agree that the medicare bill is the dumbest, ugliest, messiest bill that has been passed in a good while, but don't blame all of that on Bush. Last I checked, it is the legislative branch that creates laws, and the executive that signs them. Would you rather that Bush vetoed it? (I would.)
I doubt that Bush's objective is to eliminate medicare, but I would like to see that. Government has no call to be in the healthcare business. You think it is screwed up now? Wait until government gets more involved. We could have third-world health care within the decade.
The situation in Iraq was under control? Yes, under Saddam's control. And he was making a perfect laughing stock of the UN as it once again refused to enforce its resolutions, thus depriving itself of any credibility and its resolutions of any meaning. Saddam defied them, and they hid in their corner. Had Bush not intervened, they would still be there, and Saddam would still be torturing and killing his people, supporting terrorism, and developing weapons of mass destruction. Even Bill Clinton knew that we needed to take care of Iraq. The war planning started during his administration.
I don't think President Bush is the greatest President we have ever had, but he surely isn't represented fairly by the ABBA and MoveOn.org types, who really do need to move on.
Reality: An important truth test