Obama's Legacy: richest got richer and poorest got poorer faster than under Bush/Republicans

[The Rabbi]

Completely absurd. I'm not sure any other president has been handed a country in such poor shape. Bush was handed a much stronger economy too.

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

There was no surplurs. Bush was handed the dot com implosion, 9/11, and a recession. As well as the Democrats' failed policy on terrorism.
Democrats fuck up, blame Republicans, and then Republicans come in and fix it.

Bush claimed a surplus as soon as he took office and used it as a justification to cut taxes

Are you claiming he lied?

Are you claiming 9/11 and the dot com bust never happened?

Actually, I am claiming the Bush tax cuts happened

Why would you slash taxes to pay for post 9-11 wars?
How stupid can you be?

Why wouldnt you go kill yourself and leave the smart people alone?
No one slashed taxes to pay for wars. Are the wars not paid for? Is there some bill somewhere, some invoice from someone?
Obama has run the highest deficits in history. Why didnt he pay for those?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Are the wars not paid

Yes, the wars are not paid for. When you borrow money to buy a house it is not paid for until the debt is paid in full.

Bush bought a trillion dollar war house and then decided to reduce his income and forced future generations to pay for it. Then he agreed to vacate the house before he left office.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12778924

When Clinton started out, he had a Democrat Congress, why didn't he reverse Reagonomics? DumBama too had an all Democrat gove

Clinton did reverse Reaganomics. He raised taxes only on the rich. All Republicans opposed it. Net result was 18 million jobs created for the rest of his term.

Then Bush43 undid the anti-Reaganomics miracle. Net result from that was a huge net job growth of zero for the rest of his term.

It least you now admit that Reaganomics did not die with Reagan.

Obama did end the upper part of the Bush tax cuts. Job growth has picked up since then and annual budget deficits have steadily declined.

Your argument is not fairing very well.

Budget deficits have declined thanks to a Republican led Congress:

View attachment 54432

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term. Clinton also heeded the advice of Newt Gingrich and lowered the capital gains taxes which is when the economy took off.

Republicans want to spend more on military and give tax breaks to the richest. That will never lower deficits.

So when was the last time Republicans gave a tax break to the richest?

Republicans dropped it from 70% to 50% in 1981
Then from 50% to 30% in 1987

40% drop in six years

Okay, so the last time they dropped the tax rate for the wealthy was nearly 30 years ago. So what's with all this stuff that the Republicans are constantly giving the wealthy tax breaks?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Okay, so the last time they dropped the tax rate for the wealthy was nearly 30 years ago.

No it wasn't. Bush cut all individual tax rates which included cutting the top three from 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 28, 33, and 35 percent.

This was egregious because it was unprecedented tax cutting during war time.

In 2003 after scheming to invade Iraq, Bush cut the top capital gains rate from 20 to 15 percent and the War President cut the top rate on dividends from 35 to 15 percent.

So he was sending 200,000 U.S. Troops to sacrifice their lives, limbs and sanity in his dumb war in Iraq, while not asking America's wealthiest business and investment class to make one whiff of sacrifice. The shame was American troops went in without the best combat gear and uparmored humvees so when one soldier asked Rummy why his unit had to rummage through trash heaps to find scrap metal to weld onto old humvees, Rumsfeld famously replied, “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish you had at a later time.”

There was no threat from Iraq when Bush decided to invade in March 2003.

So why couldn't Bush tell the richest in America we only go to war with high top tax rates to give our troops the best Army they can have when they go. Or don't invade.

At Clinton's 39.6 top rate America created 18 million jobs. Wealthy families like the Romney's don't fight wars. The least they could do is sacrifice some wealth to give a soldier a decent Humvee to go into combat in.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Rabbi 12785641

Bush was handed the dot com implosion, 9/11, and a recession.

Quite the recession there Rabbi.


Note the lack of two consecutive negative quarters.

Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There needs to be two consecutive negative quarters to define a recession. So your claim is false, Rabbi. If Bush couldn't handle that little dip he had no business being there.

Bush did not inherit the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. They happened well into his watch. So Bush could not handle a mild economic downturn and not protect America from what Reagan earlier referred to as freedom fighters in Afghanistan. The Dot.Com bubble started to burst in June 2003.

None of that is inheriting anything as bad as the messes that Obama actually inherited from Lil Dubya and Big Dick,

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, so the last time they dropped the tax rate for the wealthy was nearly 30 years ago.

No it wasn't. Bush cut all individual tax rates which included cutting the top three from 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 28, 33, and 35 percent.

This was egregious because it was unprecedented tax cutting during war time.

In 2003 after scheming to invade Iraq, Bush cut the top capital gains rate from 20 to 15 percent and the War President cut the top rate on dividends from 35 to 15 percent.

So he was sending 200,000 U.S. Troops to sacrifice their lives, limbs and sanity in his dumb war in Iraq, while not asking America's wealthiest business and investment class to make one whiff of sacrifice. The shame was American troops went in without the best combat gear and uparmored humvees so when one soldier asked Rummy why his unit had to rummage through trash heaps to find scrap metal to weld onto old humvees, Rumsfeld famously replied, “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish you had at a later time.”

There was no threat from Iraq when Bush decided to invade in March 2003.

So why couldn't Bush tell the richest in America we only go to war with high top tax rates to give our troops the best Army they can have when they go. Or don't invade.

At Clinton's 39.6 top rate America created 18 million jobs. Wealthy families like the Romney's don't fight wars. The least they could do is sacrifice some wealth to give a soldier a decent Humvee to go into combat in.

Why you equate wars with tax cuts is beyond me. They were two separate issues. We had this attack on our country and an economy that was going into the tank. Bush addressed those situations separately and not together as you think.

The tax cuts inspired businesses to invest which created employment. I know, I was there. Things were slow and somebody had to do something. Bush did that something. For instance, my employer bought a whole new fleet of trucks because of that tax break. Our customers were investing in million dollar machinery because of that tax break.

Bush (nor the Republicans) promoted giving tax breaks to the rich on the backs of the working. Nearly every American business owner or working employee got a tax break. Bush didn't have the tech bubble that Clinton did. The Clinton success story was that of the tech bubble not to mention tax cuts on capital gains.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray 12788626

Why you equate wars with tax cuts is beyond me.

They are separate issues of course but not separate is the fact that starting the war in Iraq, that never needed to be started, costs American taxpayers money. But more importantly, it costs combat troops their limbs and lives. I'm just more concerned about the troops well-being than about taxpayers' problems with the taxes they pay when so many were in a long term and deadly combat situation.

You said "we had this attack on our country..." As if Iraq had something to do with it? That is a gross misunderstanding of the choices Bush had to make. He could have allowed the UN inspectors to verify if Iraq was disarmed, finish the mission in Afghanistan and called on Americans patriotism to rally behind the war effort and pay as we go until the objective in Afghanistan was truly realized.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray 12788626

Why you equate wars with tax cuts is beyond me.

They are separate issues of course but not separate is the fact that starting the war in Iraq, that never needed to be started, costs American taxpayers money. But more importantly, it costs combat troops their limbs and lives. I'm just more concerned about the troops well-being than about taxpayers' problems with the taxes they pay when so many were in a long term and deadly combat situation.

You said "we had this attack on our country..." As if Iraq had something to do with it? That is a gross misunderstanding of the choices Bush had to make. He could have allowed the UN inspectors to verify if Iraq was disarmed, finish the mission in Afghanistan and called on Americans patriotism to rally behind the war effort and pay as we go until the objective in Afghanistan was truly realized.

First off I never said Iraq attacked us and never have.

Secondly, sure, we can say Iraq was a mistake now. It's easy to criticize looking in the rear view mirror.

But what if that was not the case? What if we did find WMD's and documentation that Iraq was indeed providing the same terrorists that took down the WTC with weapons of mass destruction? Wouldn't it have been worth it?

The UN was involved before we went into Iraq. They inspected the files and tapes Saddam gave them to prove he destroyed all his WMD's. Even the UN said those documents and tapes were as phony as a three dollar bill.

The Iraq war was never about 911 or getting even. The Iraq war was to help make sure another 911 (or worse) never happened again. Some of the weapons that Saddam had could have killed hundreds of thousands of people and even in the millions if dispensed properly. But even if not dispensed properly, those weapons could have been used in water treatment plants, anywhere there was ventilation, or even some kook in a prop plane dusting NYC.

Now if that did actually happen, GW would have been heavily criticized because he had domestic and foreign intelligence stating Iraq did have WMD's. Bush had a coin flip to make.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Ray 12789362

The UN was involved before we went into Iraq. They inspected the files and tapes Saddam gave them to prove he destroyed all his WMD's. Even the UN said those documents and tapes were as phony as a three dollar bill.

The UN continued to inspect Iraq and by March or late February both Blix an el Baredai said the inspection could have a conclusion within months. That was because both inspection teams had found no evidence that Iraq had any WMDs or programs and that Iraq prior to March had cooperated on process from the start of inspections and by March were cooperating on substance proactively.

That proactive cooperation was mostly on finding a way to resolve the issue of unilateral destroyed CWD in the early 1990's

Those destroyed stockpiles were well known to the UN - they were not a threat to anyone.

Bush claimed to have fresh intelligence that left no doubt Iraq was hiding WMD from that round of inspectors.

So you and Bush should have paid attention to what the UN said over four months. There is no 20-20 hindsight here. There was disregard for the inspectors finding and succeeding process.

 

[bedowin62]

"notfooledbyW"

but George Soros' balls are resting on your chin

 

[bedowin62]

look at the left-wing loser still fighting over the decision to go to war in iraq.

let me know how the war crimes and impeachment trial work out for you leftard

 

[rightwinger]

Bush was handed a surplus......he left a trillion dollar deficit

There was no surplurs. Bush was handed the dot com implosion, 9/11, and a recession. As well as the Democrats' failed policy on terrorism.
Democrats fuck up, blame Republicans, and then Republicans come in and fix it.

Bush claimed a surplus as soon as he took office and used it as a justification to cut taxes

Are you claiming he lied?

Are you claiming 9/11 and the dot com bust never happened?

Actually, I am claiming the Bush tax cuts happened

Why would you slash taxes to pay for post 9-11 wars?
How stupid can you be?

Why wouldnt you go kill yourself and leave the smart people alone?
No one slashed taxes to pay for wars. Are the wars not paid for? Is there some bill somewhere, some invoice from someone?
Obama has run the highest deficits in history. Why didnt he pay for those?

Yes there is a bill
It is in that $18 trillion that Republicans keep blaming on Obama

The so called party of fiscal responsibility showed no such inclination when they held the purse strings

 

[rightwinger]

Ray 12778924 Clinton did reverse Reaganomics. He raised taxes only on the rich. All Republicans opposed it. Net result was 18 million jobs created for the rest of his term.

Then Bush43 undid the anti-Reaganomics miracle. Net result from that was a huge net job growth of zero for the rest of his term.

It least you now admit that Reaganomics did not die with Reagan.

Obama did end the upper part of the Bush tax cuts. Job growth has picked up since then and annual budget deficits have steadily declined.

Your argument is not fairing very well.

Budget deficits have declined thanks to a Republican led Congress:

View attachment 54432

Congress are those nice people that spend our money and create laws. Presidents preside.

Clinton's success hinged on the tech bubble which much like the housing bubble, eventually burst at the end of his second term. Clinton also heeded the advice of Newt Gingrich and lowered the capital gains taxes which is when the economy took off.

Republicans want to spend more on military and give tax breaks to the richest. That will never lower deficits.

So when was the last time Republicans gave a tax break to the richest?

Republicans dropped it from 70% to 50% in 1981
Then from 50% to 30% in 1987

40% drop in six years

Okay, so the last time they dropped the tax rate for the wealthy was nearly 30 years ago. So what's with all this stuff that the Republicans are constantly giving the wealthy tax breaks?

They have been getting that tax break every year for the last 30 years

All in the name of trickle down prosperity. Give the "job creators" more money and wealth and prosperity will trickle down for all. For some reason, they just kept the money....who could have expected that?

 

[imawhosure]

As I said in another thread...............everything going on today, are OBAMA POLICIES.

Why?

Because when Obama got elected, Democrats controlled ALL the levers of power, Presidency, House, and Senate. It is how we got the ACA. They could have done ANYTHING they wanted, change tax rates, absolutely ANYTHING, short of messing with entitlements. Obama could have passed IMMIGRATION reform, closed GITMO, whatever he/you/Democrats desired. He did NOT!

Therefore, these policies that you seem to dislike, are now OBAMA POLICIES because he allowed them to stay in force when he could have done whatever he and the Democrats wanted.

What are the outside Republicans saying running for President? (paraphrasing) On the 1st day, we will revoke ANY executive order put in by Obama. We will REPEAL the ACA. All of the regulations put in will be SUSPENDED until Congress gives them a thumbs up, or down!

You see lefties, that is HOW you do it. Don't blame us because Barry (AKA, the messiah, praise be his name) liked the rates he seen, or was to lazy (shocking, lazy?!?!?! Oh yes, probably out playing golf) to do anything about it. And so.........it is no longer BUSH, REAGAN, or BUSH 1, it is all Obama because he FAILED to do anything when he could have virtually done ANYTHING he wanted.

Trust us when we say, that if a Conservative is elected in 16, they will not do the same thing. Obuma policies and regulations will be removed, almost instantly-) And oh yes, they CAN be. Why? Because MOST of them were not created laws, they were created from EXECUTIVE orders, and un-elected officials in control of departments.

If a conservative is elected, you will find that the inbred Washington levers are going to be dismantled, so that when you do win again, which your surely will, the apparatus you will be in control of will be much, much, smaller, and once the states get some of their power back, you libs will NEVER get it back in Washington again.

 

[The Rabbi]

There was no surplurs. Bush was handed the dot com implosion, 9/11, and a recession. As well as the Democrats' failed policy on terrorism.
Democrats fuck up, blame Republicans, and then Republicans come in and fix it.

Bush claimed a surplus as soon as he took office and used it as a justification to cut taxes

Are you claiming he lied?

Are you claiming 9/11 and the dot com bust never happened?

Actually, I am claiming the Bush tax cuts happened

Why would you slash taxes to pay for post 9-11 wars?
How stupid can you be?

Why wouldnt you go kill yourself and leave the smart people alone?
No one slashed taxes to pay for wars. Are the wars not paid for? Is there some bill somewhere, some invoice from someone?
Obama has run the highest deficits in history. Why didnt he pay for those?

Yes there is a bill
It is in that $18 trillion that Republicans keep blaming on Obama

The so called party of fiscal responsibility showed no such inclination when they held the purse strings

You would be referring to the Democrats, who took Congress in 2006 by promising fiscal responsibility. And then spent ths country into the worst recession since the 1930s.

 

[Brain357]

Bush claimed a surplus as soon as he took office and used it as a justification to cut taxes

Are you claiming he lied?

Are you claiming 9/11 and the dot com bust never happened?

Actually, I am claiming the Bush tax cuts happened

Why would you slash taxes to pay for post 9-11 wars?
How stupid can you be?

Why wouldnt you go kill yourself and leave the smart people alone?
No one slashed taxes to pay for wars. Are the wars not paid for? Is there some bill somewhere, some invoice from someone?
Obama has run the highest deficits in history. Why didnt he pay for those?

Yes there is a bill
It is in that $18 trillion that Republicans keep blaming on Obama

The so called party of fiscal responsibility showed no such inclination when they held the purse strings

You would be referring to the Democrats, who took Congress in 2006 by promising fiscal responsibility. And then spent ths country into the worst recession since the 1930s.

Spending doesn't start recessions...

 

[danielpalos]

why can we still afford a drug war?

 

[rightwinger]

Bush claimed a surplus as soon as he took office and used it as a justification to cut taxes

Are you claiming he lied?

Are you claiming 9/11 and the dot com bust never happened?

Actually, I am claiming the Bush tax cuts happened

Why would you slash taxes to pay for post 9-11 wars?
How stupid can you be?

Why wouldnt you go kill yourself and leave the smart people alone?
No one slashed taxes to pay for wars. Are the wars not paid for? Is there some bill somewhere, some invoice from someone?
Obama has run the highest deficits in history. Why didnt he pay for those?

Yes there is a bill
It is in that $18 trillion that Republicans keep blaming on Obama

The so called party of fiscal responsibility showed no such inclination when they held the purse strings

You would be referring to the Democrats, who took Congress in 2006 by promising fiscal responsibility. And then spent ths country into the worst recession since the 1930s.

The Democrats took Congress in 2006 because of public outrage over the Bush wars

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you claiming 9/11 and the dot com bust never happened?

Actually, I am claiming the Bush tax cuts happened

Why would you slash taxes to pay for post 9-11 wars?
How stupid can you be?

Why wouldnt you go kill yourself and leave the smart people alone?
No one slashed taxes to pay for wars. Are the wars not paid for? Is there some bill somewhere, some invoice from someone?
Obama has run the highest deficits in history. Why didnt he pay for those?

Yes there is a bill
It is in that $18 trillion that Republicans keep blaming on Obama

The so called party of fiscal responsibility showed no such inclination when they held the purse strings

You would be referring to the Democrats, who took Congress in 2006 by promising fiscal responsibility. And then spent ths country into the worst recession since the 1930s.

The Democrats took Congress in 2006 because of public outrage over the Bush wars

Yes. And Democrats pledged to stop them.
They held umpteen votes condemning the war and kept funding it all through those votes. Democrats are big fucking hypocrites.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, I am claiming the Bush tax cuts happened

Why would you slash taxes to pay for post 9-11 wars?
How stupid can you be?

Why wouldnt you go kill yourself and leave the smart people alone?
No one slashed taxes to pay for wars. Are the wars not paid for? Is there some bill somewhere, some invoice from someone?
Obama has run the highest deficits in history. Why didnt he pay for those?

Yes there is a bill
It is in that $18 trillion that Republicans keep blaming on Obama

The so called party of fiscal responsibility showed no such inclination when they held the purse strings

You would be referring to the Democrats, who took Congress in 2006 by promising fiscal responsibility. And then spent ths country into the worst recession since the 1930s.

The Democrats took Congress in 2006 because of public outrage over the Bush wars

Yes. And Democrats pledged to stop them.
They held umpteen votes condemning the war and kept funding it all through those votes. Democrats are big fucking hypocrites.

Refusing to pull the financial carpet out while we have troops on the ground is not hypocricy