Bush Or Obama?

[mrjarrell]

These guys were at the 8/28 rally in DC and asked some questions of the attendees (game style). How many can you get right?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CNouuc-yog&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - BUSH or OBAMA: Can 8-28 DC rally-goers match spending facts with the right president?[/ame]

 

[dross]

The same could be said for rendition, guantanamo, assassinations, and several others that would surprise lefties.

I dislike, however, tax rate reductions being called "spending." Not taking isn't the same as spending.

 

[Fletch]

I dislike, however, tax rate reductions being called "spending." Not taking isn't the same as spending.

Yeah, that one really frosts my ass.

 

[dross]

Yeah, that one really frosts my ass.

"Paying for tax cuts..."

This has to be one of the most tyrannical phrases in modern usage.

All at once it implies that all money belongs to the government and that they COULD take everything, and when they don't, it's costs them.

The money we don't give the government is a government cost.

Tax rates were raised during the Clinton years, so I guess that was the government reducing spending.

Also, if taxes are raised, that's immediately the new baseline, and any future reduction then becomes a "cut."

Of "spending cuts" doesn't mean that we spend less in 2011 than we did in 2010, it means that we spent more, it's just we spent less than was projected back whenever the last budget was passed. Hence, spending a billion dollars one year and a billion and half the next is often called a "spending cut."

Not paying your fair share means the 2% of people in your income bracket pay 40% of all income taxes collected.

War is Peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

2 +2 = 5

I love Big Brother.

 

[rjstew317]

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words"

 

[rambone]

You know what I am getting tired of hearing, the phrase "Bush Tax Cuts." George Bush didn't invent the concept of cutting taxes.

Both R's & D's use the phrase relentlessly.

I think Republicans use it to try and cause people to think that GWB was actually conservative. Barf.

I think Democrats use it to try and associate something they hate with someone they hate. Tax cuts now seem bad by association to their listeners.


/barf

 

[dross]

You know what I am getting tired of hearing, the phrase "Bush Tax Cuts." George Bush didn't invent the concept of cutting taxes.

Both R's & D's use the phrase relentlessly.

I think Republicans use it to try and cause people to think that GWB was actually conservative. Barf.

I think Democrats use it to try and associate something they hate with someone they hate. Tax cuts now seem bad by association to their listeners.


/barf

Well Bush did propose the cuts, so fair enough, in my view.

That whole discussion is a bit of slight of hand that has become one of those things that "everyone knows."

Taxes were cut across the board, with the bulk of the middle taxpayers getting the largest percentage cuts. Also, even more of the bottom 50% were removed completely from income tax liability, bringing the percentage of people who don't pay any income taxes at all to almost 50%.

Then, some bright socialist added up the actual dollar amounts by each demographic and determined that the top 1% saved the most in taxes in ACTUAL DOLLARS, rather than by percentages. Percentages being the mathematical tool that allows us to make meaningful comparisons.

Now they became tax cuts for the rich, even though after those cuts the "rich" were paying more taxes in percentage than they were before the cuts.

But math is hard, and long explanations don't play as well as, "Tax cuts for the rich."

 

[mrjarrell]

Dross, you must not forget that they keep lowering the bar on what constitutes "rich", as well. Once upon a time rich was a millionaire, these days it's a small businessman who's business makes 250K/yr. No doubt it will be lowered again before the current regime is through.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Dross, you must not forget that they keep lowering the bar on what constitutes "rich", as well. Once upon a time rich was a millionaire, these days it's a small businessman who's business makes 250K/yr. No doubt it will be lowered again before the current regime is through.

I don't know if it's true, but a few months ago I saw something that said that if you have money in your pocket, money in the bank (any money), and some change in a dish somewhere around the house, you are among the top 8% of wealthy people in the world.

I suppose by that logic, we're all wealthy, that's why so many are looking for work.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[88GT]

Heehee. I actually got one right.

 

[Delmar]

I just shocked by the fact that almost half of all Americans, including 90% of Blacks are still on the Obama bandwagon. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. There are a lot of people who still number FDR among the greatest presidents. It make me sick!

 

[96firephoenix]

Dross, you must not forget that they keep lowering the bar on what constitutes "rich", as well. Once upon a time rich was a millionaire, these days it's a small businessman who's business makes 250K/yr. No doubt it will be lowered again before the current regime is through.

I think by the time obama is through, there will be no rich, just one big huge poor class. if he gets his way.

 

[Pocketman]

Since WWII, Dwight Eisenhower was the only Republican president to reduce the national deficit. Barack Obama is the only Democrat to increase it. As the video points out, this is not a single party problem.

“We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much” - Ronald Reagan

 

[dross]

The President signs or declines the budgets that originate in Congress. Spending is inititate in Congress, not the White House.

 

[Pocketman]

The President signs or declines the budgets that originate in Congress. Spending is inititate in Congress, not the White House.

Yes this is true, and we cannot necessarily blame our presidents alone. An occasional spending veto would be encouraging though. Point is, over spending is not a single party issue. The mindset in Washington needs adjusted.