Talk:Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration article.


Contents

[edit] Bills

Should there be mention of specific or notable bills passed under Bush? Energy bills, for example.

[edit] Economy

Instead of violating the 3-revert rule (which is apparently not being enforced anyways), I brought the para's that VV obstinately excises to discussion:

Polls are lame. Issues should be discussed. The article already states "his opponents allege that they favor the wealthy and special interests and that Bush reversed a national surplus into a historic deficit".
Opponents do not allege that he reversed a national surplus into a historic deficit. This is a statement of fact isn't it? I've changed it. --Ben 08:26, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) I also added some more changes which I hope clarifies some things. If someone can talk about trickle down effect and keep it NPOV I think it would add to this part of the article. I can't think of a good way to do it at the moment.--Ben 08:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In this fairly short article, we do not need to list all such opponents, among whom there are thousands of pundits and millions of individuals. (Mentioning criticism is fine, but several paragraphs attacking Bush makes it an anti-Bush screed, which is what kb wants. An external link might be appropriate.) Violations of trade rules are not part of domestic policy. I'd be willing to discuss this, of course, but Kb made it clear in past disputes that he's not interested in discussing issues with me. Instead he starts polls. VV 19:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Notice the liberal usage of the word "discuss". This is here to get everyone's opinion, broken down into comparable points, in a fashion where everyone gets the same amount of say, instead of me or VV getting all of the say, and everyone else's views being disregarded. Kevin Baas | talk 19:54, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

[edit] para1

..."According to a report (pdf) by the non-partisan U.S. Congressional Budget Office [1], fully one-third of President Bush's tax cuts from the year 2000 to 2003 have gone to people with the top one percent of income (who earn an average of US$1.2 million annually), and two-thirds went to the top twenty percent (who earn an average of US$203.7 thousand annually). According to the same report, the tax cuts have decreased the tax burden for higher income brackets and increased the burden for middle and lower income brackets. (NYT)"...

Is this relevant? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Is this representative? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.

It is only relevant in a more expansive description which gives details of the full impact of the tax cuts on different income levels. The fact is that people at lower income levels got a larger percentage cut. —Mike 08:07, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

That's not true. Read the report. Kevin Baas | talk 17:03, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

A President's tax policy is important, and examinations of it from authoritative sources are relevant to any authoritative survey of that president's domestic policy.

Is this accurate? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.

Saying tax cuts "have gone to" people misrepresents what a tax cut is and is therefore POV. If the government stops taking your money, nothing is "going to you". TimShell 23:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I think the paragraph reads like something taken from the so-called "Democratic playbook". —Mike 08:07, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Statements that tax cuts 'go to' people have been used by both sides.
Is this significant? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Is this pov? discuss.
  • yes.

It would be less POV if the percentages of taxes paid by each percentile were mentioned. If the top 1% pays 33% of all taxes, it would hardly be surprising if they accounted for 33% of all tax relief. TimShell 23:20, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I consider that a valid objection. I think there should definitely be a link to the report, and some brief description. Does anyone have a suggestion? Kevin Baas | talk 03:32, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
Have you considered expanding the paragraph in this article into a mini-section to form a deeper discussion of the +/- of the tax cuts? Not everything in the article needs to be glossed over. (I think this article could benefit from a deeper discussion of some of the issues presented.) —Mike 08:07, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • no.
Should this be in the article? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.

Not in its current form. —Mike 08:07, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] para2

..."On February 7, 2003, ten Nobel laureates and over 450 economists from universities and tax policy institutes released this statement (pdf) regarding Bush's tax cuts. [2]"...

Is this relevant? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Is this accurate? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Is this significant? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Is this pov? discuss.
  • yes.

This looks like a simple argument from authority. TimShell 20:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

appeal to authority - not neccesarily a logical fallacy, and in this case, I think it meets the conditions for legitimacy. Kevin Baas | talk 03:25, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
  • no.
Should this be in the article? discuss.
  • yes.

If the statement includes specific criticisms, these should be listed in the article. The link to the statement can be included in the external links section. TimShell 20:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Having this as an external link might be reasonable, if it really is notable. But (as of course you understand) Bush has thousands of pundit critics; they don't all get a paragraph each. And the text already notes the criticisms of the tax cut: "allege that they favor the wealthy...", etc. VV 20:52, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I know he has pundit critics, and I'm far from giving them all a paragraph. I just think this is notable. It's historically unprecedented. I don't think the text discussing criticisms precludes the inclusion of an event that is in itself notable. Also, the criticisms of the economists are specific and different than those stated in the article. Kevin Baas | talk 03:28, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding external links - is there a policy/discussion page about them? There is some discussion about links on Texans for Truth, as well. Kevin Baas | talk 03:35, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
The specific criticisms of the scientists do belong in the article. What a president has done for science and because of science is an important policy issue and should be treated in an article about that policy.
  • no.

[edit] para3

..."The non-partisian Committee on Economic Development [3] released this report (pdf) regarding the effects of Bush's economic policies on economic recovery and job creation."...

Is this relevant? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Is this accurate? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Is this significant? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Is this pov? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Should this be in the article? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.


[edit] para4

..."On August 31, 2004, World Trade Organization arbitrators authorized the European Union and other leading U.S. trade partners to impose sanctions against the United States for violation of global trade laws. The decision by the W.T.O. is the latest example of several recent cases where Washington has been found to be in breach of international trade rules. [4] [5]"...

Is this relevant? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.

Foreign trade policy does not belong in a page about domestic policy TimShell 20:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Granted. By this logic, the part on steel doesn't belong either. Currently, there is no section on international trade in the foreign policy section. We should see if people would be willing to accept one, and then move these issues there. Kevin Baas | talk 03:30, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
Is this accurate? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Is this significant? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Is this pov? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.
Should this be in the article? discuss.
  • yes.
  • no.

[edit] Additional questions

  • I would also like to question the "fairness" of this paragraph:
During Bush's presidency, the U.S. population has risen by about three million people per year. The non-farm payrolls survey (which asks businesses how many workers they employ) shows 913,000 jobs were lost from January 2001 to August 2004. The household survey, asking individuals whether they have a job, shows that the number of jobs has risen by 1,891,000 in the same period. The unemployment rate was 5.4% in August, 2004, compared to 4.2% when Bush came into office (5.7 is the historic average in the U.S.).
Considering that the economy was taking a dive from the tech bubble as Bush entered office, shouldn't this also be providing statistics on the recovery from the low in the job market? And perhaps even a comparison to the total number of jobs lost from the economy's peak before Bush entered office? I just think this is one case where the statistics are rather meaningless because they don't properly reflect how the economy has changed during the period. —Mike 07:52, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Secondly, I would seriously question the section on the Clear Skies Act (and the separate article, but that is a discussion for another day). It is very POV and doesn't provide any of the supposed benefits of the legislation. You can comment on these two issues separately if you wish. —Mike 07:52, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary compromise version

The non-partisan U.S. Congressional Budget Office [6] released this report (pdf) regarding the distribution of Bush's tax cuts. The non-partisian Committee on Economic Development [7] released this report (pdf) regarding the effects of Bush's economic policies on economic recovery and job creation. Ten Nobel laureates and over 450 economists from universities and tax policy institutes released this statement (pdf) regarding Bush's tax cuts. [8]

Until we come to agreement on how to present this information, we should put a minimal mention with purely neutral wording in the economy section, such as the above.

  • Yea (feel free to suggest changes/conditional support)
  • Nay

[edit] Listed on RfC

This page has been listed on WP:RFC Kevin Baas | talk 23:26, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC).


[edit] Ecology (i.e. environment)

New environmental policy development: [9]

How can we present this in a NPOV manner? Kevin Baas | talk 18:33, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

[edit] I'm puzzled

Kevin, you changed the word prevented to the word banned in the sentence It would have effectively banned same-sex marriage. Your rationale was that people could still have same-sex marriages, so they wouldn't be "prevented". Surely, if they could still have same sex marriages then they wouldn't be banned either. Or did I misread you? Moriori 01:58, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

If I read Kevin correctly then his point is that "banning" is not retroactive. -- Gay married couples are married now but would no longer be beyond the date a ban became law. "Prevented" could be read to mean "going back in time and preempting that gays ever marry." (That's a rethorical exaggeration of course, but you're getting my drift.) Ropers 03:19, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What I meant was that to "prevent" something is to make it physically impossible, without regard to its legality, while to "ban" something is to make it illegal, without regard to its physical possibility. As the ammendment would make same-sex marriage illegal, but would not make it physically impossible, "ban" is the correct term. Kevin Baas | talk 16:56, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
I know only a little of what you're talking about but it sounds to me as if you are both wrong and right. My understanding is Bush is trying to constitutionally ban sam-sex marriages in the US. If this is successful, it will effectively prevent same-sex marriages in the US. In many countries including I'm pretty sure the US, marriages are a government approved union between (generally two) people. For a marriage to occur, you generally need to register it in such a way that it is legally recognised. If you claim to have a marriage but it is not legally recognised (for whatever reason), this would generally not be considered a marriage, even if you want it to be. You can have a ceremony and a wedding and a priest or whoever can call it a marriage and you can pronounce it a marriage all you want but unless it is legally recognised as a marriage, most people would say it is not was not technically a marriage. Therefore, if Bush were to ban same-sex marriages, he would also prevent them. Both words would are acceptable but I agree with you in that ban is probably preferrable. N.B. Ironically, if this ban is overturned or repelled, it could potentially make 'marriages' that previously occured but weren't at the time marriages into marriages. This may seem rather confusing but it's the nature of things. We can only hope Bush chokes himself to death or something then we won't need to worry so much about all this anymore... Nil Einne 17:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G8 picture

It seems a little odd to have a picture of Bush at a G8 conference shaking hands with a foreign leader at the top of an article on domestic policy. — Nathanlarson32767 (Talk) 06:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Since the other title is so bad, and this article has more structure, format and content, Domestic policy of George W. Bush should be merged in here. For a large article like this i suppose you guys have some kind of structure thing going on, so it shouldn't take too long even though it looks like it would. Jdcooper 11:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Domestic policy of George W. Bush covers the same idea as Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration. Merge. Samuel 22:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, merge. Fephisto 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy Separate

Perhaps there could be a separate article for Bush's economic policy? Rather than throwing it under Domestic Policy? (after all, Social Security has its own article...)Fephisto 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture captions

The picture captions in this article are excessive in length and need to be trimmed down. Quadzilla99 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/o/m/Talk%7EDomestic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration_a315.html"