Have you benefited from a Bush policy?

[FM Arouet666]

My question, have you benefited from anything that Bush has done? I must admit that a current topic in the news would benefit me greatly if it were to be passed. I have mixed feeling regarding this issue, I do not feel like the bad guy just because a single republican agenda would help me. Guilt? Confusion? Troubled? However, I have seen numerous posts attacking the issue, basically, anything GOP is bad.

To be clear, I voted democrat and I have for the last 10+ years, since I was an undergrad at Berkeley. I support 99% of the democratic plank. Had Kerry won I would have willing and enthusiastically paid more in taxes, this is not the issue. How can one vote based on greed, when the world suffers at the hands of this misguided administration?

I have neglected to mention the specific issue, I don't want to turn the tread into a specific debate on my single issue. I will offer a thread in the future. To be honest, other than my personal impact, I don't know the truth behind the two sides of the issue. But it is very divisive and drawn clearly between democrats and republicans.

[bluestateguy]

1. I did get a tax rebate in 2001

But I have saved thousands more because of the Lifetime Learning tax credit from the Clinton Administration.

[Occulus]

20. Yeah, I got that rebate too....

...made an extra CC payment, IIRC. Money WELL SPENT! /sarcasm

[OrwellwasRight]

58. But at what cost the rebate?

A dirtier environment? More unsafe workplaces? Although I got some that refund too, I don't think it benefitted me. I htink it harmed me and all of us.

[Kashka-Kat]

68. it was a wash- property taxes increased to cover shortfall at local level

[OrwellwasRight]

71. And you're probably actually lucky that there was a wash...

In many communities, the anti-tax mantra is so strong that votes to increase local taxes fail, so fewer services are the only answer: fewer library hours, fewer extra curricular activites, mantenance and repair delays on public buildings, closure and consolidation of public health clinics...

[senseandsensibility]

76. NOOOO!!!!

I may have reaped some miniscule tax rebate, but it will be more than eaten up by what I will lose in the future due to the mind boggling financial ineptitude of the puppet chimp and the robber barrons pulling his strings. Also, he makes my life a living hell with his unfunded NCLB B.S., not to mention my students'.

[Bouncy Ball]

2. I honestly can't think of a thing.

I mean we got a $300 check a while back (2001? 2002? Can't remember) that was from the tax cuts, but we didn't want it. We felt it was fiscally irresponsible of him.

Other than that, can't think of a damn thing.

[Osamasux]

5. Nope, that $300 came from the Democrats.

Bush wanted no part of it. He wanted rate cuts for the upper brackets, period. Dems forced that $300 refund on him or they would have blocked the whole bill.

Of course he took credit for it after the fact. Like he did the 9/11 commission. Like he did Intelligence Reform, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc

[hfojvt]

42. Sorry, but that is false

The rebate idea may have come from Democrats, but the 10% bracket, which was the source of the rebate (the tax rate for the first $6,000 of taxable income was lowered from 15% to 10%) was part of the original Bush proposals. I remember that from campaign 2000. After he was elected by the Supremes, I wrote Harkin (D-Iowa) and said that Dems should pass the bottom half of his proposal as a separate bill and then they would be free to filibuster the top half.
By the way, since there were cuts across the board, I have saved $300 a year for the last four years. I was never against the idea of a cut for people on the lower end, but saw that as a smoke-screen for the cuts that went to the jet-set.
Also, although I oppose the idea, I have taken advantage of the higher IRA limits, and probably will do so again this year.
Finally, I, like all Americans , have benefitted from JR's vigilance in tracking down the Saddamy-man. I used to be totally freaked out, afraid that the Saddamy-man was either in my closet or under my bed, and Bush has also kept me safe from my sister's niece, Tara, even if he has been mysteriously unable to capture or kill her.

[Osamasux]

56. I'm pretty sure I remember it correctly.

The economy was stagnating. Bush was selling his big tax cut plan as a stimulative response, but it would have had no immediate impact on the economy, when immediate impacts were the only things that could actually stimulate the economy. Bush had been selling this same damned tax cut package throughout his entire campaign, including during the boom times in the mid to late 1990s.

I have not looked up links on this in years, but hear is one I found quickly that agrees with my position.

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=280053

[hfojvt]

72. Your link agrees with what I said too

What Lieberman proposed was that we get the checks in June, instead of in February of the following year. I repeat, the Bush plan included the $300, and it has been a savings for most income tax payers since then (not just that one time). The only thing the Democrats did was send the checks about 8 months earlier than people otherwise would have gotten them.
The credit for the $300 goes to Bush, but it is a false credit, because the $300 that I got was just political cover for the $1.6 million that a $25 million CEO like Dick Cheney got (and still gets, as Bush moves to make the cuts permanent).

[Kashka-Kat]

74. Actually it was a loan from China ....

"tax rebate" my ass.

[imenja]

3. I thought this was a joke

Which Bush policy would benefit you? Tort reform?
Not a single one has benefited me, unless you count the $20 a month I've saved on my income tax. That, however, was far offset by the huge increase in my property taxes.
I consider myself a reasonable person, but Bush is wrong on absolutely everything. Sometimes I wonder, how is it possible? Couldn't he do something right just once? Does he always have to go to the dark side?
Ok, I just thought of one exception. The $350 million for Tsunami relief. I appreciate that. We all know the back story, but it is good he finally came through.
Besides that, he's Darth Vader.

[FM Arouet666]

6. You hit it on the head, not a joke

Yes, Tort reform, I currently pay 80,0000 in malpractice, and this just out of residency with no actions against me. The city almost lost its pediatric and hand surgeons because of this issue, and may well do so next year because of run away malpractice insurance.

[thoughtanarchist]

9. What makes this a problem with our judicial system

as opposed to a problem with insurers?

just asking.

:think:

[FM Arouet666]

14. Well...

A lawyer brings a suit for a malpractice claim and manages to win the claim, the jury then gives the victim some outrageous sum of money. The insurance company then says to all doctors, you need to pay x amount more. I could give you a number of outrageous claim amounts, as you could, no doubt, give me a number of legitimate and horrendous malpractice claim amounts. Something has to be fixed. Doctors loose, patients loose, some lawyers win big, but others are doing the right thing in protecting patient's wronging injured by negligence.

[thoughtanarchist]

24. I don't think the insurers are increasing payments

because they're suffering losses.

I'll admit that I haven't thoroughly researched the balance sheets of major insurance companies, but I feel comfortable saying that:

If the plan is to make it easier for doctors to perform, the logical action is insurance payment caps. Eases your pain and does not disenfranchise the patients.

If the plan is to make things easier on patients, the logical action is single payer healthcare.

If the plan is to protect and maximize the profits of pharma companies and insurance companies, the logical action is tort reform.

[bling bling]

101. How soon will you feel the relief from this tort reform?

And have they said, specifically, how much and when you will get relief? Or is it more of a theoretical, trickle-down relief situation with nobody having any hard, factual numbers of exactly when you're costs will go down and by how much money?

[imenja]

13. it's a problem

but Bush isn't going to do anything about the insurance companies, and they are a big part of the problem. Don't you think the best approach would combine some limits on law suits coupled with better insurance regulation? Also, the insurance companies that patients use are giving doctors less all the time. Isn't that true? I know that I pay a $25 co-pay when I go to the Dr. (a specialist), but Blue Cross only pays $21. I was shocked to learn that.
I heard on the NewsHour that Bush said most of the malpractice cases are against a few negligent doctors. If that's the case, why don't the medical associations pull their licenses? I think if the legal and medical professions did a better job patrolling their own professions, that would help a lot.

[FM Arouet666]

23. You are correct

I agree, and as I have stated, I do not know all the different sides of this argument, even though it directly affects me. I agree with you, I think a better approach would be to have some kind of tort reform in conjunction with insurance reform. If Bush supports tort reform someone other than doctors are going to win, the insurance companies most likely.

As for insurance companies which pay my bills. I could go on for hours. They pay less and less every year, hold payments for nothing, "lose" claims costing more to refile, refuse payment etc etc. I feel squeezed between two different insurance companies. I just wanted to be a doctor, since childhood, and had I known all the nonsense associated with the field I honestly would have done something else.

[imenja]

83. isn't a real problem that we need a reform of the medical system

I feel for your situation, I truly do. I think the difficult situation doctors face as a result of insurance payments impacts us as patients and helps to explain why so many double book appointments. If you look at California and states that have imposed tort restrictions, they have not positively influenced malpractice premiums or medical costs.
I had a heated disagreement with an attorney on DU a few weeks ago because I insisted some tort reform was necessary, despite the fact I was one of a minority of Floridians who voted against a recent constitutional amendment placing limitations on fees paid in medical malpractice suits. There has to be a full scale reform that puts the common good--not insurance companies or lawyers--at the center of it's concern. Unfortunately, both parties take so much money from these two interest groups, it contaminates the process.
I've never hired a lawyer, but I did have a false personal injury claim filed against my auto insurance policy and my rates suffered. I have been to many good doctors in my life. My recently deceased grandfather was a great physician, chief of neurology at the Mayo Clinic as well as a pioneer in treatment of M.S. and the first to develop a program in rehabilitative therapy for veterans (immediately following WWII). Despite this, I have had some very bad experiences with doctors, violations that were literally criminal in nature, and can't tell you how much I dread going to the doctor. I wish the medical boards would do more to patrol their own profession. I also wish that this administration would consider the medical and insurance systems as a whole, along with tort reform, and consider the best solution for all of us. Of course, they won't do that. Sadly, this administration never does. I wish I had confidence that the pending reform would improve things. I fear it won't.

[OrwellwasRight]

62. And why is the answer to high malpractice insurance rates always

to limit what the truly injured can recover/

Why isn't it to regulate the insurance companies (one of the most profitable industries in the world)?

Why isn't it to crack down on the incompetent doctors?

Let's face it, if the medical boards would drum the few incompetent doctors out of the profession, rates would go down because it is the repeated and large mistakes of the few deplorably bad doctors that raise the rates for the rest who don't make those mistakes.

Example; the immigrant girl who had an organ transplanted with the wrong tissue type. I don't remember all the details, but if bush's proposal was in existence, what would her family get for this gross negligence that amounted to manslaughter? $250K for non-economic. How much for economic? Well, the insurance co. would argue that she was uneducated and had years of being a hotel maid ahead of her, making her worth about $15K a year at most. And the insurance co. would probably win this argument.

Face it, the only people who will win sizable awards under this system are those who are already rich (because their lost future income will be higher).

And the tiny wards to the rest of us will have no deterrent effect on the incompetent docs. Right now, studies show that 190,000 people die a year due to medical error -- and that's when they are practicing defensive medicine, What happens when they stop being scared?

[FM Arouet666]

86. citing examples

The obese diabetic who went to his doctor in Pennsylvania, I am sorry I don't have a link, I read the story during residency while in the state. Anyway, this individual was obese, diabetic and smoked. The trifecta of heart disease. He went to his doctor who told him his life style was unhealthy and told him to stop smoking and lose weight. The guy goes home and dies a few days later of, you guessed it, a heart attack. The family sued and won. Why? The doctor did not forcefully warn the poor guy who died.

Where is individual responsibility? Spilling hot coffee on yourself at McDonald's, suing for your own bad life style. We are a nation which has lost responsibility. And a legal system which feed off of this.

However, as to your example. Damn right, I remember this story. A blatant case of malpractice, this little girl was killed due to negligence. Again, the problem is not one sided, and the solution, therefore, cannot be.

[OrwellwasRight]

102. But the solution you propose is one sided.

I agree with your example, but without statistical evidence (as you well now), it is anecdotal, and the evidence I've seen is that there are 190,000 deaths due to negligent medical mistakes and 500,000 overall events due to the same every year.

Again, why don't docs police themselves? Where's the deterrent to them if there is no responsibility?

BTW, I agree in general about frivolous lawsuits, but those can be combated through Rule 11 sanctions, curbs on contingency fees, motions for summary judgment and dismissal, and good lawyering to establish the lack of a case--not be limiting the compensation of the truly injured or the deterrent effect on the negligent.

Also, McDonald's admitted that it was overheating the coffee to get more coffee out of the grounds. So it was risking injury to get greater profits (typical). I've seen the photos: the woman's skin was burned off and you could see her muscles; it was disgusting. That was no frivolous suit.

[FM Arouet666]

105. Well, in fact we do police ourselves

The 500,000 mistakes is an interesting number. This includes everything from the wrong diet to a delay in giving a medication, all things out of the doctor's control. The 190,000 deaths is an interesting statistic. I would like to know how this is arrived at and what constitutes negligence.

I agree, anecdotal evidence is of little use, I hesitate to post these stories, but was responding to a specific example in an earlier tread.

As for docs policing themselves. We have weekly mortality and morbidity conferences, to discuss untoward events. More importantly, every hospital in the country has peer review. All cases with negative outcomes are red flagged for review. The doctor can be called in to provide more information, disciplined, or dismissed from the hospital staff. All depending on the nature of the case. Admittedly, the problem is the "peer" part, problems can be swept aside because the investigator is familiar with those he is reviewing.

Part of the problem is fear of lawsuits, doctors are very reluctant to openly confront mistakes for fear of retribution. Not to mention the other effects, the added burden of defensive medicine. The problem is complex, and both sides will need to realize that change is in order.

As for McDonald's, yes they are a greedy corporation out for the bottom line. But to drive with a hot cup of coffee, then burn yourself, must be considered. I am not familiar with the details of the case, but it would seem that the plaintiff bears at least half the blame.

[Cobalt Violet]

94. Is that 80,000 or 800,000?

It might help you as a doctor but if you find yourself to be a patient someday, which I assume most doctors eventually are, It may end up hurting you too.


I find it odd that most never talk about the record year of profits it was for the insurance industry. 2004 that is.

[Dawgs]

53. I'm sorry $350 milliion is still a joke...

We have many billions more on an unjust war in Iraq. Without Iraq, we would have easily been able to get the one billion for Tsunami relief.

[BlueEyedSon]

99. deleted.

[Osamasux]

4. Not really, when all things are considered.

Lower federal taxes, but that is leading to higher property taxes for me. Plus the huge national debt that is going to have to be paid off with interest. Interest rates are rising because of several Bush policies, so that will eventually screw up the housing market. Oil now hangs out in the $40 to $50 range and gas prices suck, so that gets you every week. He has no clue about how to create jobs, so that pushes wages down.

All in all, I did a hell of a lot better during Clinton.

[davidwparker]

7. No, I haven't

I can think of nothing, absolutely nothing that Bush has done to help me out. Since you were serious about your post, I thought about it before giving my reply.

No, not everything GOP is bad. Bush is not GOP. He's a fascist. I have been an independent and have voted for a Republican. I will never vote Republican again because the balance has shifted to far to the right. It will take a lot of time to bring things back to the middle.

I'm hanging on to the Dem party now seeing what will happen with Dean. No Dean; I go Green.

You really should add what Bush policy you are talking about. People can add whatever they want.

[FM Arouet666]

8. The poster above hit it right off

Tort reform, I am a general/vascular surgeon, and yes, my malpractice rates are ridiculous. Trial lawyers? Insurance companies? I don't know who is to blame, but if it goes up I will have to move.

[thoughtanarchist]

11. Tort reform will help your malpractice payments

like the "jobs and growth package" helped create jobs and growth.

[FM Arouet666]

19. Yes and no

Tort reform has been applied in California, and the average malpractice premium is less. However, the number of lawsuits is about the same. Hence, tort reform does not stop lawsuits, but it does impact the amounts that insurance companies have to pay for claims. Who wins, probably the insurance companies more than any. Which is sad, since they fight tooth and nail to decrease payment and make claims harder and harder to reclaim. Insurance companies are not the friend of the doctor or the patient. But tort reform may help stop the insane increases in insurance premiums. As I have stated I pay 80K, that is money I have to earn before I can start to pay my overhead, and before I can earn a living.

[ChairOne]

21. Want lower medmal insurance? Get rid of mistake-prone doctors...

http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/medmal/articles.cfm?ID=8778

There's lots of other stuff out there - the above is just a decently put-together example.

[FM Arouet666]

28. Thanks for the link

Too much to absorb tonight. However, I wonder, why have insurance rates increased so precipitously over the last few years? Has the number on incompetent physicians increased? I will review the site, it looks informative. Again, Thanks for the info.

[ChairOne]

32. And iirc, most of those reports there have extensive bibliographies...

.... in which many of the reports are government-generated. And across various branches and departments, it was consistently found that freeing doctors from accountability (aka tort reform) would have little if any effect on medmal insurance. I specifically recall a CBO/GAO report and a HHS report to this effect.

[FM Arouet666]

38. Freeing doctors from accountability does not equal tort reform.

This is propaganda from the trail lawyers. Let us be honest, the trial lawyers make huge amounts of money from malpractice, and in general, tort claims. I am troubled by this every time tort reform comes up. How can you believe one side which has so much to gain with unrestricted law suits? Moreover, when you look at class action lawsuits you see these brave freedom fighters, the lawyers, claiming the lions share of the judgment with each individual, those who have suffered, getting a tiny fraction.

Reform must balance out each side, the doctor's ability to practice without huge malpractice premiums, lawyers right to file suit but with limit on their income, and the real bottom line, the patient. Doctors, lawyers, and insurance companies are at odds, how do get the patient out of the middle, and provide affordable, and safe health care?

[ChairOne]

45. Sure trial lawyers make huge amounts....

... and you can thank the medical establishment for that as well. If doctor would police themselves, preventable medical injuries would decrease hugely. Without such injuries, there wouldn't be as many suits. Without as many suits, the lawwyers lose.

I am certainly not in the lawwyers' back pockets on this. It's the 500,000 preventable medical injuries I'm against. If the medical community were, contrary to fact, doing everything it could do to minimize these, then I might be open to other remedies for the medmal insurance problem.

But they aren't, in fact, doing everything they can. And that's just about as big an understatement as is possible to make. It's much closer to the truth to say that they absolutely refuse to do anything about them. Nothing except grab for Bush's anti-consumer-get-out-of-jail-free-card, of course.

The reports provided in this thread give all the numbers on the issue - I don't commit them to memory. There is no flood of malpractice litigation - to the contrary, doctors are the beneficiaries of a large claims *gap*. Very few frivolous lawsuits are filed, and essentially none get past the initial stages. There is no problem with "runaway" jury awards - after being reviewed by medical panels, awards are acknowledged as being commensurate to the harm done.

Doctors need to police themselves, plain and simple. I fully admit that they are the most *appropriate* people to do this. But the fact that they *refuse* to do this leaves it to the legal system.

But if you wanna stick to your guns, saying that it's just the lawyers, fine. Then get rid of the *reason* for the lawyers in the first place - the medical harm done to the public. Get rid of the 1% of doctors that account for 20% of malpractice claims (guesstimate numbers; consult the docs).

EDIT: You said: "Reform must balance out each side...". Wonderful. Give me the "balanced" reform that responds to 500,000 preventable medical errors. Tell me how limiting the harmed's right to seek redress "balances" 500,000 preventable medical errors. And then tell me about the "balance" associated with the fact that only 20% of doctors convicted of malpractice 3 or more times are sanctioned *in any way*, let alone barred from practice. Yah, let's be honest.

[OrwellwasRight]

64. But the solution you support DOES free docs from accountability

If you are convinced that evil lawyers are the problem (which I am not), then why is your proposed solution not directed at them?

Why not a limit on contingency fees? In the 80s, the standard was 33%; now it is 40%. Why? Pretty much greed. Inflation wouldn't explain it because inflation would be accounted for by increased total awards. Limit the fees for malprac cases to say, 25%. Then, the marginal cases won't be pursued if they are not projected to be profitable, but the victims of the reform will not be those who really lost a lot (e.g., a leg, a brain, a daughter).

Deterrent effect and adequate compensation for injured parties. An answer at least worth addressing.

And a lot better than lawyer-bashing.

[ChairOne]

78. Good try, but in the end, wouldn't work....

Limiting contingency fees would have the same effect as limiting awards: making it less attractive to lawyers to take cases, ending up with the harmed's ability to being restricted.

I *think* the solution has to be to eliminate the *need* for lawsuits. And that begins with the doctors.

EDIT: And that's also an anti-lawyer stance - a twofer, as it were - because by eliminating the need for lawsuits (by minimizing preventable medical errors), one thereby eliminates the need for lawyers. So I'm down with the I-hate-lawyers mob (<shrug> why not?) - let's just do it in a way that doesn't hurt the already-hurt.

[OrwellwasRight]

80. I take your point, but

I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion.

If you read my other posts on this thread, you'll see I am concerned with victims getting adequately compensated and with doctors policing themselves.

My thesis here is that if contingency fees are limited to a reasonable but profitable amount by law, it will reduce their willingness to take marginal cases, but those who are harmed will still be able to get quality representation. Believe me, attorneys are more than recovering their costs in contingency cases and they would still do so if the fees were lowered a bit.

For example, 25% of a $200K settlement is still a profitable fee and would provide an attorney with a larger income than half of all Americans make in one year. and it would assure that the injured get a larger piece of the amount the jury thought they deserved.

I'm just saying this could be part of an overall solution that includes strict regulations in insurance companies and better policing of doctors.

[ChairOne]

81. If nothing else, I guess I'm a fan of going to the source of the problem..

... which is 500,000 preventable medical errors/year - a disproportionate amount of which are committed by "repeat offender" doctors.

In terms of simple qualifications, juries are not the best group to decide on the blameworthiness of doctors. Juries are pressed into duty on the matter simply because the doctors themselves won't do it.

If doctors don't like (admittedly unqualified) juries deciding things, then step up to the fuckin plate and do it yourselves - like you should've been all along!

Crack down on the errors, and the lawsuit problem with be attenuated satisfactorily. Errors are the *source* of the problem. Limiting stuff downstream only harms the already injured party.

If there's a problem is too much water coming out of the hose, don't kink it in the middle - go to the faucet and turn it off. That's all I'm saying.

[FM Arouet666]

85. But.....

Tort reform in states such as California has not limited the number of lawsuits. By your logic I would think the number of law suits would decrease. Which it has not.

However, giant sums of money are not won in states where tort reform has passed.

I don't pretend to offer a solution, the topic is very complex. All sides bear guilt, doctors, lawyers and insurance companies. The bottom line is that something must change, the system is falling apart.

I am all for reform within my field, but recognize that this is not the end. Perhaps a bill which addresses all three components is in order. Alas, not with a republican administration.

[OrwellwasRight]

103. But the tort reform that exists in CA

is exactly the kind Bush is proposing: simply limiting what injured injured parties (or survivors) can get. It does not address reducing the share of awards that lawyers who gouge clients take home, it does not address the incompetence of doctors or their refusal to self-police, it does not address Rule 11 sanctions for frivolous lawsuits, it does not address the profit-seeking behaviors of insurance companies, perhaps the most profitable businesses in the world, who operate virtually without regulation in many states.

So why do you think that Bush's policy would do more good than harm? I think it just blames the victim.

[FM Arouet666]

106. I understand your point

The California reform is not perfect, and I agree, that anything that Bush comes up should be suspect. As for refusal to self-police, I noted this in my other response. We do self-police, but the system could certainly be better.

I think our common ground is that reform will require action from the medical community and the legal community. I fear that polarization on this issue will preclude any action, or action that is one sided. Either way the patient will likely be the loser.

[Osamasux]

18. I have a feeling Edwards' approach would have been better

and more balanced. It seemed to deal with the problems and still provide legal remedies to those truly deserving.

[FM Arouet666]

33. I have mixed feeling about this

I read the Kerry/Edwards info on the topic and was supportive, but with some hesitance. Edwards was a trial lawyer who sued doctors for things such as cerebral palsy. A condition which is NOT related to the actions of the OB/GYN at birth. Yet, he won numerous lawsuits in contradiction to medical fact.

I have sense relaxed my view on this after a friend, also a physician, pointed out that Edwards won these cases at a time when it was unclear how cerebral palsy occurred. Some in the medical community thought it might be related to the birth practice.

I agree, a blatant case of malpractice should be payed for, the victim needs a voice and needs compensation. The villain seems to be the insurance companies and unchecked jury awards. The solution?

[phylny]

61. Are you certain that NO cases of CP are caused by medical malpractice? n/t

[ChairOne]

79. Runaway jury awards are a gop/doctors myth. /eom

[NuttyFluffers]

48. if you don't know who to blame then you need to do your homework

when insurance companies themselves publicly admit (via ceos, vice presidents, etc) that malpractice suits only make up generally 1% of the cost to your rates then obviously it's not the trial lawyers is it? wanna save on 1%? think that 1% is the one that's causing all the cost increases you've been suffering?

there's plenty of places to go look up the info. but you should do your own homework.

here i'll help a bit: go visit 'Center for Justice & Democracy'

now don't give me retorts, "but it could be biased," use your magical research skills finely honed through all those years in school and scan the bibliographies. there's plenty other site, plenty other places to go to find this information. go scan the bibliographies and read for yourself, on all viewpoits of this, and make up your own mind. many of us here already did and came to the conclusion that you are being scammed if you believe him on this. bush is scamming, again. why believe him? why not believe your eyes and ears and go read about this topic. if it so affects you one would expect that you'd be deeply informed on the topic. go get informed :D

[InvisibleBallots]

10. nope

not a god damn thing.

[ShinerTX]

12. I'm not the top 1%, so I haven't got a thing. nt

[Liberal In Texas]

15. NO

[aeolian]

16. The Do-Not-Call list rocks! (when it works)

Other than that, no, I wouldn't let the man run a bake sale, much less the free world.

[Megawatt]

43. The "do not call "

list could lead to unemployment for many telephone solicitors - most of whom are struggling.

Glad you're OK with that.

[MercutioATC]

52. I'm definitely O.K. with that.

Nothing against the workers, it's the practice that's intolerable. I can post a "no solicitors" sign on my door...why not on my phone?

[Osamasux]

57. I am okay with it.

I have a right to privacy which supersedes someone else's right to disturb me.

I wish they had some other employment option. I did my best to provide that option by trying extremely hard to elect a president that actually had plans for providing jobs.

[aeolian]

66. Perfectly OK with it.

No Solicitors.

Those canery jobs kept thousands of kids employed in the 20's. We should bring those back.

[OrwellwasRight]

65. The "Do Not Call" List was not Bush's idea.

Would have happened with or without him.

[aeolian]

67. Right, that was kinda my point.

Not exactly an impresive acheivment, is it?

[OrwellwasRight]

69. Not really.

I guess if that policy had been enacted in typical Bush fashion, it would have acutally INCREASED the number of solicitation phone calls we get.

All hail the dictator for the one thing he did not screw up. ;-)

[aeolian]

70. LOL! Good point! (n/t)

[leyton]

82. Darn right!

If only it also blocked people trying to get me to renew this or that subscription.

[sonicx]

17. Not a thing. the 'tax cut' went to pay for my higher college tuition

[conflictgirl]

50. Same here. nt

[Taxloss]

22. Yes.

I'm British, and I'm pro-Europe. It's a foolish belief, but many think the UK should reject its nearest neighbours and seek the US as an ally and trade partner as closely as possible forevermore, and that if that works then we don't need the EU. President Bush has done excellent work in demonstrating that Atlanticism is dead, the "Special Relationship" is like the relationship between a hooker and a john, and that while ever-closer alliance with Europe means more red tape, ever-closer alliance with the US means more dead soldiers.

So he has furthered the cause of the EU.

[FM Arouet666]

25. Thanks for an honest answer. n/t

[Taxloss]

27. I'm not trying to offend you. I hate *.

But I've campaigned for closer European integration for 10 years, and support for it has never been as strong, simply because Bush has slain the "Why do we need Europe? We have the US!" argument. There's now a one-word answer to that: Iraq.

I wish it was otherwise.

[FM Arouet666]

29. No offense here

That is why I posted this thread. I wanted to see if there were any other issues which democrats felt they had benefited from under this administration. To be honest, I had not considered your view, but it is honest. I have some guilt having to acknowledge the chimps actions in my favor, but as you say, I wish it was otherwise.

Peace....

[Taxloss]

31. Sorry, over-reaction on my part.

Peace with you.

[Liberal In Texas]

26. My wife is a Brit.

She has not become a US citizen.

We're kind of biding our time, but if they turn the country into a little Nazi-land, we're going to live in her country.

We don't think much of Blair (does anybody?) and the cost of living is pretty high in the UK, but what price freedom?

Are you in the UK or over here?

[Taxloss]

30. I'm a Brit, and I live in London.

Yes, the cost of living is high in the UK, but that's until you factor in the free healthcare. I vote Labour and hate Blair.

But - and I don't want to suggest that you put yourself in any risk - I really suggest you stay and fight. I love your country. It is prodigious in natural beauty, and those Americans I have met are among the finest and funniest people it has been my pleasure to know.

[Liberal In Texas]

34. My wife was born and raised in London.

She's a South-End woman. (She says Southey, Saffie? or something like that, we sometimes have communication problems.) She does not take crap from anybody.

She came here in the early 80's because the employment situation was so awful there.

Yes, we both love America. But we are getting on in years now and have to plan on a retirement place sometime. She loves our garden here in Texas and our relatively mild winters.

BUT, if they make it some kind of police state or something, we'll have to seriously consider relocation. I don't like to think about that, it seems like throwing in the towel.

She will probably inherit a large estate when her parents pass and my employment is quite transferable (if the British will let me work LOL).

Sorry to have rambled, cheers!

[Taxloss]

35. An Essex Girl? :-)

The employment situation was indeed awful in the early '80s. Your wife was right to flee. It was a time much like the US now, if I'm honest.

If you're looking for somewhere to retire, then the UK is probably a bit chilly. But if you have an estate waiting ... then the UK is it! ANd don't worry, I bet the Home Office allows US citizens into the country like a shot!

[Liberal In Texas]

36. I'd ask her but she retired. No not Essex

She says Saff or something.

The folks were in Kent until about 2 years ago, then moved to Cornwall.

They got tired of the traffic. I can't blame them, the last time we were there, I was riding in the left seat with my father-in-law flying like a rocket down narrow lanes, wing mirrors only inches from the oncoming trees and on-coming vehicles.

I'm a legal videographer these days. There is a pretty good demand for depositions in the UK for presentation in American courts. I have all the NTSC gear (because the UK and most of Europe is PAL) and could probably make a good wage. My wife keeps on about how they won't let me work. But I'll take your post as some encouragement.

I really love London. Way too crowded, you really can't own an automobile, but damn it's a fun place to be. Not to mention the history!

Oops, sorry rambling again...

[Taxloss]

37. Man, you're welcome to this country.

From what I hear, you'd be fine.

As for London's history, I run a website devoted to (making up facts about) it:

http://www.thisisntlondon.blogspot.com

[Liberal In Texas]

39. Cool.

Just bookmarked it. I'll probably take some time tomorrow to peruse it properly.

As an aside. For some reason in our little corner of Dallas, Texas a whole lot of Brits have decided to live here. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination complaining. Good heavens, that's how I met my wife! I have many UK or ex-pat NZ or Aussie friends. Mostly UK.

I just think it's odd.

Any explanations?

[Taxloss]

54. The only thing I can think of is oil.

We have a lot of experienced oilfield engineers in the UK, and companies like BP and Shell.

Otherwise, it's a mystery. But we are everywhere ...

[JohnOneillsMemory]

40. I've learned all about the history and psychology of fascism

and how propaganda works.

This has been very helpful in building a coherent narrative of how my own species behaves and why.

This has helped me to both be a better writer and share what I have learned with my family and friends. They have been grateful for both the insights I can offer and the emotional support we all need to cope with what is going on under the reign of the grandson of Hitler's Angel.

Yup. He's a uniter alright...

[Liberal In Texas]

41. I just had to reply.

Have you looked into how the media shapes thought? I really think that it is where the whole thing ran off the tracks.

Hitler used it to his benefit. They're doing it now IMHO.

I know this might be off topic, so feel free to PM or whatever.

[proud patriot]

44. Nope

x(

[DrCorday]

46. I've benefited

But it's not worth it.

As a member of the highest tax bracket, my average income tax payment was lowered significantly. I recieved a larger return.

Yet, this benefit was easily outweighed by the devastation Bush's economy did to many of my personal investments. However, switching all of my currency investments to the euro after Bush's first "election" was most profitable.

Despite this, I would like to believe I'm not a selfish bastard and vote based on the good of the county instead of the good of myself. (I assume Republicans vote the same way too, but sometimes it's hard to tell.)

Social policies? He really didn't do anything there that affected me at all.

Libya's abandonment of nuclear proliferation was a plus, but again far outweighed by the foriegn policy nightmare this Administration created elsewhere.

Bush made one of the most significant strikes in history against Al-Qaeda. He did more than Clinton in terms of taking military action to dissolve the terror group. Despite this, many leaders of the organization have not been apprehended, and much of the investigations and detentions resulting therefrom have amounted, at best, to a wild goose chase.

Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator and enemy to human rights worldwide, was deposed by Bush's arrogant Iraq campaign. Having removed Saddam from power was a massive achievement, but is again reversed by the human rights violations, deaths, and fiscal cost incurred to accomplish this.

One thing I noticed in trying to answer this post is that: aside from the War, the tax cut, and the "Patriot Act-related activities," Bush really hasn't done a whole lot.

[phylny]

63. Interesting post, thanks. And...

are you THE Dr. Corday, from E.R.? ;)

[FM Arouet666]

87. Mixed reaction

I agree with the tax payment, I did better under the chimp. But voted democrat, knowing it was better for just about everyone to do so, including myself.

Libya was buy off for political gain, they were ready to do anything after economic isolation, can't really give the chimp credit on this one.

As for Al-Qaeda, yes we attacked and defeated Afghanistan, but screwed up in the completion of the task. Got side tracked with Iraq. As for Hussein, yes he was a brutal dictator. He has been for thirty years. Despite this we supported him with arms and intelligence when politics dictated. Interesting how the moral absolutists can forget about supporting the regime in the eighties, and proclaim him the incarnate of evil in present day. He was a brutal dictator back then, we just didn't care, the oil was flowing.

Overall, the world is worse because of Bush, and this will ultimately include Iraq, when this little Neocon adventure proves to be the folly that everyone with a brain said it would be.

[Liberty Belle]

47. No, but we've been hurt by lots of things Bush has done.

Starting with letting Enron gouge Californians. Our power bill quadrupled. Local businesses jacked up their rates to consumers to cover their soaring power bills. So we're paying up for everything from restaurant meals to ice time at the skating rink. The kid's coaches all raised their rates, too, to cover the hikes the ice rink passed on to them.

Our healthcare cost has soared under Bush's "compassionate conservatism." We're paying hundreds more each month, if you include prescription meds that have tripled in our out-of-pocket expense. I'm worried about Social Security, especially since I'm self-employed, have no pension, and can't save much in my IRA.

Our savings account has dwindled drastically, to far below the comfort level.

College tuition has gone up 40% in California since Bush took office, and federal aid for college kids has dwindled. I have an 18 year old and a 16 year old, so this really hurts.

Of course, if they get drafted, paying for college will be the least of our worries!

[StrongbadTehAwesome]

49. directly, no

My husband and I make so little money (around $7k last year - we just live very, very frugally) that the only taxes we pay are sales tax, so we didn't even get that lame $300 check. The test balloons being floated about a national sales tax scare the shit out of me.

indirectly - he's helped me learn that a lot of the family members I'd assumed to be rather strictly conservative are in fact far from it. Thanks to NCLB, the economy/deficit/outsourcing/etc, and the war, I learned that my aunt (a public school teacher), my grandfather, and my husband's grandfather (both vets and former union guys) not only hate Bush, but most other conservative politicians as well. It was nice to learn that I'm not the oddball of the family...or at least not quite as much.

[paulie5]

51. In answer to the question

NOPE all I know is my job went to India 2 years ago and I'm still looking for work. Bush is an unmitigated disaster on all fronts. PERIOD !

P5

[SammyWinstonJack]

75. Not for the greedy rich in this Country he's not.

"Bush is an unmitigated disaster on all fronts. Period!" Tax cuts for them equal more luxuries and hey, they don't mind one bit not having to sacrifice anything for the "War on Terra" or the lost social programs that hurt the working poor and poor, or the increases in health care premiums that most middle class workers can't afford. The rich with their un-needed tax cuts don't give a rat's ass if a large majority of Americans can't afford health care, it's simply more vacation homes and luxury cars, etc. for them at the expense of the working class. Bush has done something positive for me, he has made me see how truly greedy the upper class in this Country are, it's been a real eye opener.

[Deja Q]

55. Nope. None has benefitted me, and his policies have done more to take

real jobs away from us.

[phylny]

59. We got a whopping $600

Other than that, nothing he's done has helped us. We honestly didn't need it as badly as the country needs the money, though I can understand that for some, it would be a benefit.

We won't be that affected by his nutjob Social Security plan, because we're older and have pension money, etc., but I'm against it.

If he enacts changes to federal income taxes by not allowing deductions for home mortgage and/or property taxes, we're f****d. I mean F****D good.

[bear425]

60. I'm getting fewer phone solicitations due to the

Nat'l Do Not Call Registry.

Ummm, yeah - that's about it.

[Misunderestimator]

73. Yes, my income tax is slightly lower... but I would give it all back

times ten to have gotten Bush out of office. (Actually, I think I did, in contributions to that effort.) AND, I would gladly pay more income tax than before the cuts if it were used to get rid of the deficit and restore all the social and environmental program cuts, and provide for a reasonable exit from Iraq, and come up with a viable universal health care plan. Absolutely.

[amazona]

77. yeah the savings and loan collapse (Bush I)

There were 50,000 boarded homes in New Orleans as a result of the Bush I Savings & Loan collapse. I was able to buy one of them below market value and with the federal gov't paying my closing costs as part of the recovery plan.

This is only proof that it would be an ill wind that blows nobody any good, since I would never wish 50,000 families to lose their homes so that I could have my pick.

I have had huge financial losses as a result of Bush II policies.

[FM Arouet666]

84. What the hell, kick it

Working my butt off the last few days, to pay my malpractice, and noted my original posted flaming away.

[Skittles]

88. HA HA, HA HA HA HA

Arouet666, you are a HOOT! :D

[malmapus]

89. Lessie I'm making less than half of what I was when he came into office

I have been unemployed more than I have been employed in his 4 years in office....

But hey, I got $300 in 2001 WOOHOO

[Yupster]

90. The tax cut from

28-25 % saved me about $ 5,000 per year alone.

The 10 % bracket I guess a little more.

The 15 % capital gains tax rate has been a nice change, but I don't save more than a couple hundred dollars taxes from the dividend tax cut.

Getting to put $ 4,000 in my wife and my Roth IRA instead of $ 2,000 I guess is a help.

The do not call list is not a big deal, but it's a help.

That's a few.

[FM Arouet666]

93. But not enough to vote repug?

And I guess that is my point. Did you consider the befit when weighing your vote. I did for about two microseconds. The social, geopolitical, religious and humanitarian concerns made any benefit from tort reform or taxes seem insignificant. But I do have to acknowledge that I did benefit. Makes me ill in the end.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhr]

92. Unemployed 55 Months - You Can Accurately Imagine My Reply

eom

[Cobalt Violet]

95. I haven't benefited at all under bush.

Not one damn thing he has done ahs helped me.

[Sugarbleus]

96. Our lives are being crushed because of the Neocon agenda..

We are in DIRE straights right now. What did we do to deserve being crushed?

One of us has a severe head trauma which has left the person brain damaged to some extent along with left-side hemiplegia. The other of us is disabled from rotting bones all over lower torso: OsteoArthritis in both hips, spine, and feet. We use the medicaid heathcare program and a bit of Medicare. We also use rent subsidies and I work for in home supportive services as a caregiver for the handicapped family member. Both of us receive SSI/SSDI

ALL of these programs are being gutted to a fairtheewell. We are hanging on by threads. We are severely depressed at this point.

We can't sleep, or eat well. We are raising a grandchild and live in a tiny, substandard, handicapped INaccessible dwelling; right on top of each other. Kinda like living in a large walk in closet. The only heat we have is a couple electric room heaters. We don't have enough $$ to buy anything "extra" or go on vacations or the movies or much of anything else. Our three biggest possessions are this computer, a TV and our vehicle. WE JUST EXIST.

NO, bush's policies have raped us good. No joy here.

[Indie Media Magazine]

97. I have benefitted from a Bush Policy. I was able to buy ASSAULT WEAPONS!

LOL, J/K. But a friend of mine who is also (D) bought an assault rifle, so I guess he has benefitted from a Bush Policy.

[Old Mouse]

98. I'm really, really enjoying the Daily Show!

[BlueEyedSon]

100. Thank the good lord Jesus that Bush wont let fags get married!

/sarcasm off

But seriously, when it comes to most economic & policy issues, are we at DU any different from the average red state voter?

What would they say of you asked them this question?

[Inland]

104. I will, as soon as I get over being an American

and caring about how he has screwed the greatest hope mankind had.

If I can just focus on a tax break that I personally get, and not give a shit about the future or the rest of you, I will achieve the bliss of all true Bushite believers.

[alittlelark]

107. We got a big tax cut, and wasted it on Kerry.

....seriously, that's how I feel - We calculated our tax cut and gave the max to Kerry, and the extra to locals.

I wish someone here could convince me that we did not WASTE our$$$ on Kerry (I met the man, and liked him....).....

I feel hung out to dry, and think the $500 to Dean a couple of years ago was my BEST investment.

[TeeYiYi]

108. I've been enjoying the internets. ...n/t

TYY

[muse]

109. I can't think of anything that he's done that has benefited anyone.

Sorry. I stopped and thought for awhile. Nothing is coming to me. Any tiny beneficial thing that popped up in my mind or that I glanced at in the replies in this thread seem to me to be outweighed by something else that is far more negative and destructive.

That's what my 11 year old daughter says about Bush - "Bush is destructive." Sums it up.

[LeftyMom]

110. Nope

Speaking from down here in the "if I was slightly more broke I'd qualify for welfare" tax bracket I haven't gained a thing. Financialy I've lost some ground since the Clinton era but I can't really say how much of that is the shitty economy and how much of that comes from becoming a mother.

The only really cool political thing to happen to me in the last four years is that my right to homeschool my kid became a bit more secure when Delaine Eastin hit the unemployment line, but that's a California thing. Still makes me smile though. :)