(Click to embiggen.) This chart (via) would be a good visual accompaniment to Ramesh Ponnuru’s NYT op-ed advocating that Jeb Bush run for President. Here’s another good one from the same article:
You have to be in a really well-sealed echo chamber to think that anyone with the name “Bush” would have a chance in 2012. Perhaps Jenna’s kids might have a shot, but I think we’re done with that family for a while.
Reader Interactions
45Comments
Comments are closed.
JCT
I’m not so sure that Bush is ananthema to the voting public. Don’t forget the power of rose-colored glasses looking backwards coupled to the Republican noise machine telling everyone that our Kenyan – soshulust President has personally caused unemployment with his job-killing stimulus.
Nauseating, I know, but I don’t think we are safe from the Bushies just yet.
Oh, and Jeb Bush isn’t blackity-black.
Bobby Thomson
FTFY.
ChrisS
sigh …
well at least I’m not rich … so in order to pay those debts, the wealthy will eventually have to pony up because you can only get so much from the poorer 75% of America.
WyldPirate
One would have thought that this would have been the case in fucking 2004 when it was plainly evident to anyone with a functional brain that there was a goddamned gang of liars and criminals in the Bush administration running things. But, since we live in a country of knuckle-dragging morons….
Ash Can
@ChrisS: The wealthy will happily scuttle the entire country to hold onto a few extra bucks. The real trick is to make them pony up.
Kane
Jeb obviously wants to be president. He’s a known commodity within the GOP and has support within the republican party. Raising money for his campaign wouldn’t be a problem. And considering the potential candidates in the field, Jeb would be considered the “serious” candidate by the media. The only thing stopping him from announcing his candidacy is the legacy passed on by his father and brother. The Bush brand is toast, at least for 2012.
Wag
I can feel the Jeb-mentum! And the last point made in the NYT piece about Liz Cheeny was pretty funny. As well as too frightening to contemplate.
jibeaux
They had their chance to run the “smart” one in the family and they didn’t take it. At this point I would suggest they focus on the next generation, or possibly the one after that.
JPL
You forgot that the Bush era tax cuts created all the private sector jobs that occurred last month. Also, too, it was his policies that helped get Bin Laden.
WereBear
I checked the article, which is excellent; and in the sidebar McArdle just discovered Netflix streaming.
Sigh.
Triassic Sands
But, but, but…shut up!!!
Unfortunately, the president and congressional Democrats seem likely to opt for keeping the Bush tax cuts on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year.
If the American people don’t want the social safety net shredded, they’re going to have to step up. Over time we need to restore the highest tax brackets to previous levels in order to stop further income redistribution to the richest Americans. However, in the short term, recognition that the Bush tax cuts — all of them — were unaffordable is important.
The reason I say “over time” is because it is going to take a radical shift in this country before the Republicans are willing to raise taxes on wealthy people or are no longer in a position to stop increases. There are two ways for the change to come about: 1) Republicans decide that the wealthy can and should pay higher taxes (likelihood of that is currently less than 1 change in infinity) or 2) Democrats can regain control of the House and a sixty plus majority in the Senate with a Democrat in the White House (likelihood of that is only slightly better than 1), but at least infinity is not part of the equation).
Up until now all the discussions of the Bush tax cuts have assumed they are an all or nothing proposition. We either get rid of all the tax breaks for the wealthiest and keep all the tax cuts for those below a certain threshold, or we keep all of the cuts for everyone, or get rid of all of the cuts for everyone. Common sense says that tax cuts for those making less than the threshold amount could be graduated. Those making the least could keep the full cuts, those making a bit more would lose part of the cuts, and so on up to the threshold, where all the cuts would disappear. That wouldn’t regain as much revenue, but it would be a lot kinder to those at the bottom of the economic pile, and it would recover most of the lost revenue, since those at the bottom don’t actually pay that much (though they need every penny).
mistermix
@WereBear: Wait until she gets one of those new-fangled iPads. You won’t hear the end of it.
Stuckinred
Does this iPad thing work?
Kane
In the 2008 presidential race, republicans couldn’t move fast enough to disassociate themselves from Bush policy. One could even make the argument that the contest between Obama and McCain was a battle to show who was less-Bush.
If Jeb were to run, he would be forced to embrace or condemn his brother’s policies. It would be like Romney with his healthcare, only magnified on every issue.
PurpleGirl
@jibeaux: I don’t want another Bush to be president, ever. I don’t care which generation they’re from… if she/he is a Bush, they’re anathema to me. The same for the a Cheney.
PurpleGirl
@Triassic Sands: I wouldn’t mind paying higher taxes as long as the rich and uberrich paid more and if corporations also paid something… but not having a job, I’m not paying income taxes. No job = no income taxes.
Suffern ACE
@Kane: Why would he have to condemn his brother’s policies? Those policies are very popular with republicans. As far as i can tell, the only thing Bush did wrong for Republicans was not cut the safety net.
jibeaux
@PurpleGirl:
Well, no, I wouldn’t either. I’m just saying what it will take to run a Bush again, at a MINIMUM, is for a significant chunk of the voting population to have not been alive or at least have no memories of W.
Triassic Sands
@PurpleGirl:
100% understandable and defensible. It’s also wise and fair national economic policy.
I wish you the best of luck in returning to a taxable condition. In the long run the upside of “no income taxes” doesn’t come close to all the downsides of “no job.” But I imagine you already know that.
Good luck in your search for income taxes. (I’m assuming you’re looking.)
Marmot
@WyldPirate:
To be fair, our whole order is a bunch of knuckle-dragging morons. I, for one, am glad that bonobos can’t vote.
Triassic Sands
@jibeaux:
Does brain dead qualify?
Kane
When I’m shopping for groceries, I wont even buy Bush’s beans. Yes, I know that they are unrelated and my buying decision is irrational, but that’s how deep my disdain is for the Bush brand.
Social outcast
Obama and the democrats had the chance to let the tax cuts expire and put the liberal state on a much firmer footing going forward. Taxes need to go up, and there’s never going to be a safe time to raise them, politics-wise.
Chris
@Suffern ACE:
Yeah, but after his administration became a symbol of failure rejected by three quarters of the public, they had to throw him under the bus by claiming “he was a liberal.” Which has been repeated several gajillion times in the last two years as an excuse for the teabaggers to charge off farther to the right.
“Bush was a liberal” was a cathartic release for plenty of conservatives who couldn’t even pretend anymore that he hadn’t screwed things up, but just couldn’t admit it because he was their guy. I just think it’ll be hard to forget that… but maybe not. After all, they forgot the “Bush is our lord and savior” meme quickly enough.
liberal
@Triassic Sands:
My dad said in his day paying taxes was a point of pride—it was a mark of success.
Triassic Sands
@Marmot:
Chimps maybe, but not bonobos? If bonobos were in the majority, we’d solve all our problems with sex. That would give “getting fucked” a whole new meaning in an economic or military context.
Nicole
@Marmot:
Bonobos are matriarchal and use sex to resolve conflicts. I wish they could vote.
Suffern ACE
@Chris: Yeah…so he says, “I’m not a liberal like my brother and I don’t support gay marriage either.” The Bushes are craven opportunists. I’m sure George will get over the insult.
Bobby Thomson
@Kane:
And in 2010, it was like the guy never existed. By 2016, Jeb will be tanned, rested, and ready. (Remember that we didn’t have that guy to kick around anymore, either. Until we did.)
This country has always been extremely forgiving of
its politiciansRepublicans.Marmot
So does this Ramesh Ponnuru column about Jeb Bush remind anyone else of David Broder’s “don’t be surprised if Bush bounces back to popularity” around 2005? (Can’t find a link, for some reason.)
Same disconnect, same cheering for the in-group they claim to be apart from.
Marmot
@Triassic Sands: It’s a nice thought, but they’re no better at macroeconomics than Republicans.
Suffern ACE
@Marmot: Oh, that whole set of columns is a joke. Criminy…half the articles hope Paul Ryan thows his hat in the ring.
Triassic Sands
@Marmot:
Well, not much better anyway.
Marmot
@Triassic Sands: You got me there. It’s hard to be worse than Repubs at macro.
Chris
@Suffern ACE:
True. That is kind of what W did to his pop in 2000. Still, the name “Bush” is mud to a much greater degree now than it was then.
Triassic Sands
@Marmot:
Republicans don’t really do economics anymore. They’re all so drunk on ideology there’s no room left for facts and reality and science. Anything in conflict with the Edicts of Friedman or the Wisdom of Ronnie is ignored or attacked.
.
Koppleman was writing about the constitutionality of the PPACA (health care reform law), but the truth of his observation extends to everything. That’s why it is recognized by some of us that the Modern Republican Party is a bunch of lunatics, whose policies, if implemented, will wreck this country — possibly permanently.
(Incidentally, Koppleman says the PPACA is obviously constitutional, but that may not matter at all when the Supreme Wingers get their hands on it. Even the rule of law has become quaint and an obstacle to true Republicanism.)
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@Nicole:
that sure would have made me pay more attention to military recruiters back in the day. although it doesn’t make “be an army of one” sound much better, it does wonders for “be all that you can be” and “today’s army wants to join you” takes on a whole bow chika wow wow vibe.
aimai
I don’t think the chart is as clear to a GOP’er or a voter as you might think. For it to make sense I think you have to begin back in 2000 with the chart showing a projected surplus and then falling off the cliff. You just don’t know how stupid these people are. When they see the beginning date of the chart is 2009 they don’t possess the attention span of an infant who knows that an object that passes behind a screen will persist and come out the other side–they don’t “know” anymore that Bush was in power or that his policies affect the current and projected deficits.
I’ve come to the conclusion that right wing voters, at any rate, simply don’t know, in any real sense, that when you run up bills one month, or one year, the bill comes due in the future. So they don’t know, when looking at the bill in their hand, that Bush charged it on a credit card in 2000-2008.
aimai
Chris
@Triassic Sands:
Yep. Not even just economics. Science, journalism, foreign policy, you name it. It’s the kind of blindness usually associated with authoritarian regimes – one of the points of democracy was supposed to be that the regular guys, who had enough sense to see when things were going the wrong way, would apply the brakes via the electoral process.
Which I hope will eventually turn out to be true, but right now, seems to me that a huge amount of the population’s ready and willing to slit its own throat.
maya
@Chris:
That’s why Paul Ryan’s Medicare replacement plan comes with a ***FREE*** boxcutter in every voucher.
Kane
I find it fascinating how republicans all have these wonderful reputations that the media repeats without question. Jeb Bush is “smart.” Newt Gingrich is “the idea man.” Mitt Romney is “the economic wiz.” Paul Ryan is “serious.” Sarah Palin is an “energy expert.” John McCain is a “maverick.”
Nevermind that there are no examples of being smart, great ideas, economic wizardry, serious proposals, energy expertise or maverickiness. The narrative of these individuals possessing these attributes is more important than actually possessing these attributes.
David Brooks (not that one)
I first saw a version of the chart last June. Source. There have been minor changes to the curves but the message remains. Sadly, if its message didn’t enter the wider consciousness then, there’s no reason to think it ever will.
Calouste
@Kane:
That sounds pretty natural to a large part of the population that believes that you will get into heaven because you profess your believes hard enough, not because you do good works.
Triassic Sands
@Chris:
It won’t be the first time the people of a relatively advanced “democracy” voted for anti-democratic thugs.
mclaren
When everyone yips and yaps about how this is the “Bush legacy,” they have a point — but what about all those Democrats who voted for the pointless insane counterproductive bankrupt-the-USA War in Iraq?
And what about all those Democrats who voted for the Medicare Part D expansion?
And what about all those Democrats who voted for the USA Treason Act (popularly but incorrectly known as the “USA Patriot Act”) and the creation of giant worthless bloated senile bureaucratic money-wasting nightmares like the DHS and the TSA and the vast exapansion of the CIA and the endless increases in America’s military spending — 8% increase last year alone?
What about all those Democrats?
Do they bear no responsibility for these gigantic deficits?
If the Democrats had fought the War in Iraq and the creation of our nightmarish demented National Security State as ferociously as the Republican party fought Obama’s HCR non-reform bill, we wouldn’t have a deficit today. And we wouldn’t still have U.S. troops in Iraq and we wouldn’t have a DHS or a TSA.