Bush vs Obama: Who's Worse?

[meazza]

Bush's invasion opened this can of worms to begin with. Why is that so hard for you guys to understand? I think its because you are really, really stupid, but whatever.

 

And BTW, if Iraq turned around into a great democracy--who knows, maybe someday--Bush would deserve a lot of the credit

 

Obama > Bush

 

That's like saying JP Losman > Kelly Holcomb.

[Tiberius]

That's like saying JP Losman > Kelly Holcomb.

No, you are a jerk off right winger and want to drag down Obama. Bush was really terrible, Obama just isn't great

[meazza]

No, you are a jerk off right winger and want to drag down Obama. Bush was really terrible, Obama just isn't great

 

I'm a right winger?

[DC Tom]

Bush's invasion opened this can of worms to begin with. Why is that so hard for you guys to understand? I think its because you are really, really stupid, but whatever.

 

And BTW, if Iraq turned around into a great democracy--who knows, maybe someday--Bush would deserve a lot of the credit

 

Obama > Bush

 

And Clinton was responsible for 9/11, because he disengaged diplomatically from the Taliban, leading to them engaging al Qaeda and bin Laden.

[Azalin]

 

 

I'm a right winger?

 

yep, you Canadians are notorious for your American flag-waving, jingoistic conservatism.

[Rob's House]

 

The "middle class" as defined when the term was coined represented a group of individuals earning between the equivelant of 250k-500k/year. Folks with higher earning power than the working class (the working class being those who expected to reap the benefits of social security as a large portion of their retirement plan, and largely lived paycheck to paycheck with little real retirement savings), but who also could not afford to stop working, and live off of their existing assets; meaning that they were not "wealthy" either. Hence the word "middle".

 

Over time politicians, seeking returns at the ballot box; and advertisers, seeking profits from a consumption culture driven by "keeping up with the Jones'"; have muddied the meaning of the word to their own ends.

 

The working class wants to believe that they are middle class, and the middle class is now treated as "wealthy" which serves, in policy, to shrink the middle class, as more of their earnings are attached via taxes.

 

The result being that the truely wealthy are insulated, as they live off their assets and the growth of their assets; while the true middle class is attacked in their stead. This means many who used to be middle class, are now relegated to working class, while the working class, no longer reaping the benefits of a growing middle class, are more likely to become poor in a stagnant or shrinking economy.

 

We've created an economy rife with downward mobility.

 

I have nothing to add to this. Just thought a few could stand to read it again.

[Rob's House]

 

 

I find it funny that people gripe about Obama and taxes - you gripers haven't taken the time to understand what is going on.

 

Reagan: Average Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP: 17.5 Federal Spending as percentage GDP: 23

Bush 1: Receipts 17.6 - Spending 22

Clinton 1st Term: Receipts 17 - Spending 21

Clinton 2nd Term: Receipts 18.9 - Spending 18

Bush 1st Started at 20 went to 15 - 20

Bush 2nd: back to 17 - 20

Obama 1st: 14.8 - Spending Started at 20 went to 25

Obama 2nd: 17 - Now at 23 projected to go to 20

 

Federal receipts are pretty much at historical lows. The Bush 2 first 4 years are not repeatable as the tax receipts were simply too low. RR - the god of conservatism raised both taxes and the deficit in his tenure.

 

So how come our taxes are so high? Because in the last 40 years the tax breaks granted to high end individuals and corporations has exploded. This is Dem And GOP legislators giving breaks to hedge fund managers, the NFL, Boeing, GE, the oil industry, the solar industry......

 

http://thinkbynumber...are-statistics/ Government spends more on Corporate Welfare than Personal Welfare

 

 

Additional corporate welfare goes to Walmart etc in the form of the earned income tax credit. Our society has decided that people pretty much need $30,000+ per year to live adequately....if your employer doesn't pay - they US taxpayers make up the difference so you can actually live. So the guy working at Walmart cost us $20 per hour - Walmart pays the first 10 = we pay the next.

 

The less they pay - the more we pay....

 

Tax breaks in the tax code are more than receipts now....

 

THAT is what people should be talking about....but hey BO bowed once....or twice I guess

 

This is like the smoking angle. You (and by you I mean the government) insert yourself into a situation, then you obligate yourself to provide a service, then you determine that the people who never asked for your intrusion are somehow indebted to you, rather than the people who benefit.

 

For your Wal-Mart example to be more than the ramblings of an ideologue trying desperately to rationalize his failed theories it would be necessary to show that Wal-Mart would not be able to staff their stores without this government action.

[Chef Jim]

No, you are a jerk off right winger and want to drag down Obama. Bush was really terrible, Obama just isn't great

 

Obama just isn't great. Holy **** dude. What does that even mean? You can't even talk badly about him with using the word great. It's like when I worked at Hilton the service people couldn't use the word no. They would say "yes, we can't do that for you."

[Tiberius]

 

 

And Clinton was responsible for 9/11, because he disengaged diplomatically from the Taliban, leading to them engaging al Qaeda and bin Laden.

 

Oh, let's change the subject again. You Bushbots sure like to do that

 

 

 

I'm a right winger?

 

Hard to tell, you never say anything other than insults, trite platitude and nonsense.

 

What are you politically, would love to hear this, but I'm sure you can't say for some reason

 

 

 

Obama just isn't great. Holy **** dude. What does that even mean? You can't even talk badly about him with using the word great. It's like when I worked at Hilton the service people couldn't use the word no. They would say "yes, we can't do that for you."

 

Obama isn't great. So?

[IDBillzFan]

Bush and Hillary's invasion opened this can of worms to begin with.

 

Corrected for accuracy. Remember, Hillary wanted this war, too. She went out of her way to explain her reasoning. In fact, if Hillary didn't want Bush to go in, she could have stopped him, so in a way, this is really Hillary's war.

 

(Hey, I'm really getting the hang of this gatorman logic stuff.)

[DC Tom]

Oh, let's change the subject again. You Bushbots sure like to do that

 

I'm not changing the subject, just demonstrating your logic in another context. If, by your logic, Bush's half-assed excuse for foreign policy is responsible for the lack of security in current-day Iraq, Clinton's equally half-assed excuse for foreign policy is as equally responsible for 9/11.

[Tiberius]

 

 

I'm not changing the subject, just demonstrating your logic in another context. If, by your logic, Bush's half-assed excuse for foreign policy is responsible for the lack of security in current-day Iraq, Clinton's equally half-assed excuse for foreign policy is as equally responsible for 9/11.

And that's stupid. It's so stupid. Iraq is in chaos today directly because of Bush's invasion. A surprise attack no one was expecting is a totally different situation. You really need your idiot calling license taken away, you are too incompetent to have that duty

[keepthefaith]

No, you are a jerk off right winger and want to drag down Obama. Bush was really terrible, Obama just isn't great

 

Wow, that's real progress on your part moving the needle just out of the great range for Obama. Step in the right direction. One small step for man, one giant leap for Gatorkind.

[TH3]

Ok, so what you're saying is that you are numbskull.

 

First off, you did imply something, which was that he was responsible for the stats that you provided, or else you wouldn't have posted them. Secondly, for the very same reason that the Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is what it is today is the same reason that health care spending increases have slown down is because of the...........................

 

 

Drum roll .........

 

 

 

Depressed economy.

 

So if you want him to take credit for it, then you can as long as you also acknowledge that he would be responsible for the depressed economy.

 

You and your buddies are in a such a rush to prove your douchebaggery you can't even get your arms around a concept. You must have been flummexed by actual empirical data.

 

I am not trying to prove Bush or Obama or any President is any better or worse when it comes to what you and I see in our tax rates. What I am saying is that there have been so many loopholes, credits, exemptions etc added over the last 40 years by CONGRESS that they have a tremendous effect on those who actually PAY the taxes. Why do we feel pinched by high tax rates - when receipts are actually low? The goodies that have been given out.

 

Thanks to SCOTUS....the goodie getters are full of free speech these days....and they are using it.

 

Think 'Merica is a level playing field?

 

I know you are confused because you can't wedge it into lib/con box or vote on it in a simple poll - but hey....Obama did bow once....I feel so eviscerated

Edited June 12, 2014 by baskin

[DC Tom]

And that's stupid. It's so stupid. Iraq is in chaos today directly because of Bush's invasion. A surprise attack no one was expecting is a totally different situation. You really need your idiot calling license taken away, you are too incompetent to have that duty

 

So the root cause of Iraq's instability is the removal of the stabilizing power by Bush years earlier...but the root cause of 9/11 isn't the removal of the stabilizing power by Clinton years earlier?

 

Or are you intentionally applying a double-standard?

[IDBillzFan]

. Iraq is in chaos today directly because of Bush and Hillary's invasion.

 

Corrected again for accuracy.

 

Remember. This is Hillary's war, too. She wanted it. In fact, she wanted it so badly, she took the time to explain it to the core of her base...Code Pink.

 

http://youtu.be/HtK9AzcU42g

[Magox]

You and your buddies are in a such a rush to prove your douchebaggery you can't even get your arms around a concept. You must have been flummexed by actual empirical data.

 

I am not trying to prove Bush or Obama or any President is any better or worse when it comes to what you and I see in our tax rates. What I am saying is that there have been so many loopholes, credits, exemptions etc added over the last 40 years by CONGRESS that they have a tremendous effect on those who actually PAY the taxes. Why do we feel pinched by high tax rates - when receipts are actually low? The goodies that have been given out.

 

Thanks to SCOTUS....the goodie getters are full of free speech these days....and they are using it.

 

Think 'Merica is a level playing field?

 

I know you are confused because you can't wedge it into lib/con box or vote on it in a simple poll - but hey....Obama did bow once....I feel so eviscerated

 

To begin with, I would suggest that you don't use words that you don't fully understand. Which clearly, you don't know the meaning of the term "empirical evidence". Empirical evidence is information that justifies without question a belief. What you did was respond to a post from Chef, regarding how Obama has raised taxes in a number of areas, and then you responded derisively by saying - "I find it funny that people gripe about Obama and taxes - you gripers haven't taken the time to understand what is going on."

 

 

Then you went on post a fact of average tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, in which you then responded with - "Federal receipts are pretty much at historical lows."

 

 

Emphasis on "historical lows"

 

In other words, it was a vacuous attempt to basically imply "Hey you right wingers, all this talk of Obama raising taxes, you simply don't know what you are talking about, Look at my stats that show otherwise".

 

Of course, there is no context within those facts, such as a depressed economy and the continuation of the entirety of the Bush tax cuts in place during most of the term. Or that the ACA taxes hadn't been implemented. There is a litany of reasons for that.

 

Secondly," The Bush 2 first 4 years are not repeatable as the tax receipts were simply too low. "

 

They aren't repeatable? Too low? They are only too low because our level of spending is too high

 

With this level of spending, yeah, but it certainly is repeatable if we could have a more efficient government.

 

"RR - the god of conservatism raised both taxes and the deficit in his tenure."

 

Is this how you make your arguments, filled with strawmen? Were there taxes raised? Yes, but were tax rates both nominal and effective Reduced? Dramatically. Also Reagan's deficit had much more to do with the astronomically high defense spending, than anything else. And one of the reason's why we won that cold war, was simply because the other side new they couldn't keep up. But that's a wholly separate topic, but it's important to add context, which is something you consistently failed to do.

 

"So how come our taxes are so high? Because in the last 40 years the tax breaks granted to high end individuals and corporations has exploded."

 

So THAT's the reason? Oh, so I guess DOD, fraud and waste, overall spending has little to do with it. If you were to say "a reason why....." then maybe you could have an argument.

 

"Government spends more on Corporate Welfare than Personal Welfare"

 

So "Spending" now also includes the absence of taxation? Wow, this is how far to the left people have moved. Amazing! Somehow, now if you aren't taxed, that is now considered "Spending".

 

Having said that, I do believe there is too much corporate welfare, and one of the ways they can remedy that is by lowering the ridiculously high corporate tax rate. Make it the same for every corporation, with no additional tax loopholes etc.

 

One last point:

 

"Think 'Merica is a level playing field?"

 

Hey, I've got news for ya, No where on this planet, is it a "level playing field"

 

Adapt and move on. This thinking that you provide only reinforces those who are on the verge of becoming another one of the millions of people in this country who are so resigned from succeeding to now dropping out of the labor force, simply because they have been told over and over and over, that the cards are stacked against you, and you are a poor victim that needs to be sustained by the assailant's by sucking off the right tit of 'Merica'.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Magox

[TH3]

To begin with, I would suggest that you don't use words that you don't fully understand. Which clearly, you don't know the meaning of the term "empirical evidence". Empirical evidence is information that justifies without question a belief. What you did was respond to a post from Chef, regarding how Obama has raised taxes in a number of areas, and then you responded with derisively - "I find it funny that people gripe about Obama and taxes - you gripers haven't taken the time to understand what is going on."

 

 

Then you went on post a fact of average tax revenue as a percentage of GDP, in which you then responded with - "Federal receipts are pretty much at historical lows."

 

 

Emphasis on "historical lows"

 

In other words, it was a vacuous attempt to basically imply "Hey you right wingers, all this talk of Obama raising taxes, you simply don't know what you are talking about, Look at my stats that show otherwise".

 

Of course, there is no context within those facts, such as a depressed economy and the continuation of the entirety of the Bush tax cuts in place during most of the term. Or that the ACA taxes hadn't been implemented. There is a litany of reasons for that.

 

Secondly," The Bush 2 first 4 years are not repeatable as the tax receipts were simply too low. "

 

They aren't repeatable? Too low? They are only two low because our level of spending is too high

 

With this level of spending, yeah, but it certainly is repeatable if we could have a more efficient government.

 

"RR - the god of conservatism raised both taxes and the deficit in his tenure."

 

Is this how you make your arguments, filled with strawmen? Were there taxes raised? Yes, but were tax rates both nominal and effective Reduced? Dramatically. Also Reagan's deficit had much more to do with the astronomically high defense spending, than anything else. And one of the reason's why we won that cold war, was simply because the other side new they couldn't keep up. But that's a wholly separate topic, but it's important to add context, which is something you consistently failed to do.

 

"So how come our taxes are so high? Because in the last 40 years the tax breaks granted to high end individuals and corporations has exploded."

 

So THAT's the reason? Oh, so I guess DOD, fraud and waste, overall spending has little to do with it. If you were to say "a reason why....." then maybe you could have an argument.

 

"Government spends more on Corporate Welfare than Personal Welfare"

 

So "Spending" now also includes the absence of taxation? Wow, this is how far to the left people have moved. Amazing! Somehow, now if you aren't taxed, that is now considered "Spending".

 

Having said that, I do believe there is too much corporate welfare, and one of the ways they can remedy that is by lowering the ridiculously high corporate tax rate. Make it the same for every corporation, with no additional tax loopholes etc.

 

One last point:

 

"Think 'Merica is a level playing field?"

 

Hey, I've got news for ya, No where on this planet, is it a "level playing field"

 

Adapt and move on. This thinking that you provide only reinforces those who are on the verge of becoming another one of the millions of people in this country who are so resigned from succeeding to now dropping out of the labor force, simply because they have been told over and over and over, that the cards are stacked against you, and you are a poor victim that needs to be sustained by the assailant's by sucking off the right tit of 'Merica'.

 

Just so you know about my succeeding: I have started 2 companies - sold the first, the second is blowing up (I invent products, patent them and bring them to market). I have raised private capital offerings and have negotiated with huge publicly traded companies to develop operating agreements.I am heavily integrated into the manufacturing and marketing of the products I develop - I don't just turn them over for royalties. I am what some would call a 1 percent-or. My investors have made money - twice - through horrible economic conditions.

 

I have also held public office for 6 years - and lived and worked abroad, I have completed deals in Europe, the Middle East and China.....

 

I am sure though - your C.V. gives you a much wider view of what is going on....

[Chef Jim]

Just so you know about my succeeding: I have started 2 companies - sold the first, the second is blowing up (I invent products, patent them and bring them to market). I have raised private capital offerings and have negotiated with huge publicly traded companies to develop operating agreements.I am heavily integrated into the manufacturing and marketing of the products I develop - I don't just turn them over for royalties. I am what some would call a 1 percent-or. My investors have made money - twice - through horrible economic conditions.

 

I have also held public office for 6 years - and lived and worked abroad, I have completed deals in Europe, the Middle East and China.....

 

I am sure though - your C.V. gives you a much wider view of what is going on....

 

I blew my nose this morning which has about as much relevance as your post.

[Tiberius]

I blew my nose this morning which has about as much relevance as your post.

Envy