Could Bush’s Americans with Disabilities Act Pass Today?

Well said...

Bill Hedges of MO 7:50PM July 27, 2010

I'm a legally blind person who personally blames the ignorance on both parties of Civil Rights Acts from passing to success. Bottom line the government should be comprimise some external branches of core bliefs not the core belief itself. Equality with Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and ADA 1990 haven't been realized at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama due to new buildings constantly being constructed with litttle or no accessability like talking elevators at the New Student Center or much of anything at all. Who cares except for the paraplegic the easier more visual disability tht is a bit more easier to remedy than blindness. Bottomline here is I want an approach like an opportunist model to have equal access to print pages, web pages with HTML and CSS w3.org standards and reasonable code modifications to current technology, job stistics for disabled people in all groups, practical fields with current trends in technology for longterm success, reasons why a person was not hired or fired, etc. Transparency would go a long way rather than a unchecked system arbitrary picking the supposed greatest person. Working within the confinds of reasonable accomedation and to comprimise on guide dogs in some areazxs where it's inpractical and not calling it discrimination for the heck of it mainly for unessential services.

I think those approaches above with reform of fiscal solvency of Vocational Rehabilitation with transparency with research think tanks will help too. A real time reporting system with certain websites with a consilidation of service information will help. There is c crap loads of resources but we don't know about them. Its confusing how are we to know when our government workers don't know? Also, higher accountability of lazy ass government workers that work for us. It appears we get the less qualified workers bar none and we have to deal with it. For example, getting an order of a braille mathematics book is going to take me two months. I need it to prepare for calculus for my computer science future major in the future at AU. Stupid with another recommendation is collegesf have a comprehensive listing of all disabilities recommendation on current technology and techniques based on ability and physical limitations like vision level to determine if it can be done. Moreover, all professors in mathematics and natural science more than any other with any challenging material should be required by the federal government to use the same textbooks and roughly the same resources to be on par or to recommend an alternative. Here they sadly think you are using the system rather than long term research and input which is sorely lacking from surveys, polls, feedbacks, technology review, strategy, difficulty level on disability and etc to follow. Nothing not a single net no wonder we drop out so much cause there is nothing there to show us practicality cause of I guess stupidity on the part of the university.

Peter Q. Wolfe of AL 1:48AM July 27, 2010

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner publicly announced that the Bush tax cuts will be extended for all but the top 2% of households. Those individuals earning over $200,000 will see an increase in their top margin from the current 35% to 39.6% as will couples filing jointly earning over $250,000. Some upper middle class tax payers will even see an additional tax cut due to Obama's proposed expansion of the current 28% bracket which will reduce existing taxes on some income now being taxed at 33%. This plan is more than reasonable and actually quite conservative. It is needed for economic recovery and to lower deficits. The combination of middle class tax cuts for the vast majority while raising taxes on the very affluent is fair and economically sound policy.

Tax cuts for the rich have been shown to be a disaster. People like Bill Hedges like to point out that when JFK lowered top margin by 21 percentage points the economy took off quickly. Not true. The Kennedy tax cuts, which weren't actually enacted until Johnson took office in 1964, didn't spur growth nor were they intended to; the US economy was already growing at a health pace mostly due to increased military spending for the Vietnam War. The reason the tax cuts were passed at that time was that it was generally thought that 91% top margin was excessive and no longer needed. So JFK proposed a reduction to 70%. This was still substantial but not like the 91% needed during WWII to fund the war and recovery. With the rapid growth of the 1960s global "economic miracle decade" such high taxes on the rich were no longer needed; the federal government already had sufficient revenue from a rapidly growing economy. However, it is frequently pointed out that LBJ, not wanting to chose between the Vietnam War and the War on Poverty, funded both out of increased borrowing. This, in combination with other factors, led to pent up inflation in the US economy, a collapse of the gold standard in 1971 and rampant inflation throughout the entire decade of the 1970s.

Reagan's tax cuts in the early 1980s led to some growth though it was lower on an average annual basis than during Carter's term in office. From 1981 to 1988, average annual real GDP growth was 3.37%; from 1977 to 1980 real average annual GDP growth rates 3.42%.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidents.html

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/gdp_real_growth_rate.html

Interestingly, the four top ranked US presidents for average annual real GDP growth were all Democrats; three of the four were in office when the top margin was 70%. Clinton's top margin was 39.6% and real GDP growth between 1993 and 2001 was just about 3.6%. George W. Bush's real average annual rate of GDP growth between was about 2.1% from $11.347 trillion in 2001 to $13.312 trillion in 2008 estimated in chained 2005 dollars. This low real GDP growth was despite over $2.1 trillion in tax cuts between 2001 and 2010.

http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

steve of IL 9:28PM July 26, 2010

Steve of IL does not know his JFK. Says:

“The reason the tax cuts were passed at that time was that it was generally thought that 91% top margin was excessive and no longer needed. So JFK proposed a reduction to 70%“.

Absolutely WRONG Let JFK tell his story. Not Steve‘s version of convience:

“According to President John F. Kennedy“:

“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

“The Kennedy tax cuts”

“President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation)”.

“The Kennedy tax cuts”

“Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2003/08/The-Historical-Lessons-of-Lower-Tax-Rates

Bill Hedges of MO 7:49PM July 26, 2010