Bush's Society of Ownership!!

Gwen Ifill, and PBS:
I am trying to do some research that can make sense of the Candidates and the election of 2008; in this study I wanted to find real articles of exactly what George Bush, said he would do, what he promised and what actually happened. I wanted to do this because its so obvious that we cannot judge by what people say, but really by what they actually do when they have the chance. It seems like we just go so fast to the next guy-we never look back to hold the last person responsible--or own up to it... I read on this web site, that George has been saying he wants to create a society of Ownership, where the government wants to take a step back and let the people take ownership. Gwen interviewed him on this subject and it is posted for all to see. Where in the world did this promise go ? Then he states that we neeed less frivolous law suits, people should be sueing the agents who qualified them for homes they could not afford, and the institutions should be doing the same, where is the ownership on these home loans? He say s this and does another thing, its not that I am trying to find things wrong, I am just trying to see what he said, and whether HE made the promise true.
I want to find out, how many times the Consitution was amended and by whom. I know that the Patriot Act infringes heavily on what our forefathers believed was our most precious asset of this country, our freedom.

If everyone is going to sling mud at the new candidates, I find it only fair we drudge up own own dirt that is soon to be plowed over.
Please, let's bring up the past, lets talk about this, we can not let the new President just be chosen out of pure politics, what is important is seeing what has happened and how WE can change it, we are the people we are the government, it should not be us and them.

Here is part of the Article as it is posted on the PBS website please note that I am not the author- colors represent the different speakings, when and if I get a good responce I will post it here.
DECEMBER 15, 2004
JIM LEHRER: The president's second term economic vision. Gwen Ifill has our look.
GWEN IFILL: During the campaign, President Bush and Vice President Cheney coined a new phrase to describe the economic promise of a second term. They said they would create an "ownership society," one that would lower taxes and shift more of government's burden to individuals.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I believe our country can and must become an ownership society. When you own something, you care about it. When you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of your country.

Discussing an ownership society
GWEN IFILL: Now, for some analysis of the president's rosy vision for the nation's economic future. William Spriggs is an economist and senior fellow at the Economic Policy Institute here in Washington. And Brian Wesbury is the chief economist at Griffin, Kubik, Stephens and Thompson, an investment bank in Chicago. He was a member of the opening panel at today's conference.
GWEN IFILL: William Spriggs, let's start with you about the definition of an ownership society. Watching this campaign, and watching what the president has had to say about this, what is your interpretation of that?
WILLIAM SPRIGGS: Well, I think there are some things that we would like to see people have greater ownership of. We certainly want to see home ownership increase in this country. But there are a lot of things that the government does today, which are in place because the market is not a good allocator of resources or because what the government is really doing is serving as an insurer; and in that role the government does best when we include everyone, and that's best done as a government program

GWEN IFILL: Brian Wesbury, what is your definition of ownership society and whether that's a good or a bad thing?
BRIAN WESBURY: Well, I think the ownership society is a very good thing. We have to remember that the more people have a skin in the game, have a stake in society, have assets built up over time, the less difficulty society will have withstanding bad times. And there are lots of different ways that we can do this. The American Dream Down Payment Assistance Act was signed into law of December 2003, and my belief, my take on this act... and just to describe it, it allows people that earn less than 80 percent of the median income in a region, in a city or a locality, to get a government-sponsored down payment, 10 percent of the value of the house -- or $10,000 or 6 percent of the value of the house to help them purchase their first home.
And I believe what this does is it allows the government's spending to be put toward a use that will build assets and build ownership and build personal responsibility over time, rather than having that money being used to say subsidize a rent with no ownership and really no end in sight in many cases. And as a result, when people own assets, they have access to the credit markets. They're more likely to be entrepreneurs. All of this, I think, is a very good thing in the long run.
GWEN IFILL: Let me anticipate something that Mr. Spriggs might say to you, which is that this is the government sloughing off its responsibility on to individuals.
BRIAN WESBURY: Well, the individuals should have the responsibility in the first place. And I think that's point. That government should be there to catch those who fall and can't get up on their own.
And what we've seen is that government, at least in my opinion, over the years, has grown into an enabler that, in fact, includes more people than it really needs to. It tries to help more people than it truly need help. And for example, Social Security or some of the systems we have put in place and Social Security in particular, in my view, because Social Security exists, I think two things happen: Number one: People probably save less during their working lives because they know Social Security will be there in the future. At the same time, those people who do invest also probably are more willing to take risks. In other words, swing from the fences with their investments because they say hey, Social Security will be there

GWEN IFILL: Allowing individuals to invest part of their Social Security savings in private accounts,
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: We must allow younger workers to save some of their own payroll taxes in a personal savings account that earns better interest, a personal savings account they call their own and an account the government cannot take away.


VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: For four years now, President Bush has pursued an agenda that put a recession behind us and kept the economy strong.

GWEN IFILL: One panel focused on how lower taxes can jumpstart the economy.
PAMELA OLSON: I would add one more thing to that and that is the need for a stable system. A broader base, lower rates and a more neutral system would meet the president's goals which I think are the goals of all of us for a simpler and fairer system that would do a better job of promoting economic growth.
GWEN IFILL: This afternoon, President Bush chose to take part in the session on the issue of legal liability reform, one of the staples of his reelection campaign.


PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: One of the things that I talked about was making sure that the environment for risking capital was conducive for job creation. And I tried to say that as plainly as I could. And one, one issue that I talked about to make sure that -- that costs were reasonable, and that the cost of capital was reasonable, was legal reform.


GWEN IFILL: We don't want to really re-debate that issue. We should get back to legal reform --
BRIAN WESBURY: That's my whole point. It's over. The tort reform issue... the whole idea about creating more growth in the economy is that we always need to lower risk and increase rewards in the economy and that's the way you encourage more entrepreneurial activity. That's what makes the United States so great. America is the strongest economy in the world -- we are technology leaders.
And to lower risk and raise rewards you have to attack a number of things. Number one: Taxes are a punishment to those who are successful very often. So what we have to do is move to lower after tax - or, excuse me higher after tax returns. And I think that's what the tax cut last year did. We need to lower risks for investors, part of that is fighting the war on terror and making the world a safer place. But another part of that is reforming the tort system, the litigious society we have because there are so many risks to businesses in this country coming from the legal sector, which raises costs and lowers returns and I think that becomes an important part of making sure this economy stays strong for the long run.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Spriggs, you have a chance to reform to that question about legal reform.
WILLIAM SPRIGGS: Well, I would say this, that we have set up a system in which litigation plays a role in correcting bad behavior for businesses because the cost of their errors are not borne by the company itself. So if you think of tobacco and what damage that did to our economy in terms of needless people-- needless numbers of people dying from tuberculosis, from lung cancer, et cetera.
So if you think about that and then look at the recent withdrawal of an arthritis pain reliever, because the company understood that they were going to face litigation, meaning that we wouldn't have needless doubts in that case, but tax reform has to be fair. We heard that word before about making it fairer. The economy has worked the way the economy wanted it and that is that the returns of all of the growth in the economy has been to capital income, not to American workers. To shift the tax burden further on to the American worker means that we are putting even more burden on the American worker.
GWEN IFILL: OK. William Spriggs and Brian Wesbury, thank you both very much.
BRIAN WESBURY: Thank you, Gwen.


Coming soon-- a blog that will give the republican side to each of these and more questions we all have, but are too silent and scared to ask.