The Presidents In My Lifetime, Compared To Barack Obama! {KING}

[Avorysuds]

I am not a troll, I believe what I write, I AM a real person.


Do I need to post a proof pic for those of little faith?

The legitimacy of our claims of you trolling does not hinge on you being a "real person."

 

[Statistikhengst]

And what did the rich pay you fucking lemming? What was the average PAID tax for "the rich" at any given time?

Did any rich person in this countries history pay 90% taxes? NOPE!

How about 64% taxes... NOPE!!!

How about =34% taxes........ double NOPE!

I wonder what that 1%er Obama paid... I wonder if he paid 34% under his on reign. NOPE!

Fucking full retard RW.


Let me help you out RW, Obama, the 1%er paid 18.4 % taxes!!!! How's that possible!?!?!?!?!??!!!??! I mean you said clearly that the tax rate on the rich is 34%!!!!! How is it possible that anyone does not pay the sticker price????????????????????????? RW?????????????? HELP BUDDY!


Obama's tax rate is 18.4 percent. Is that too low for a millionaire? - CSMonitor.com


Republicans should love him!!! But wait.... waaaaait... shouldn't democrats hate him? Democrats like, you RW?

the bolded: you lie, and right out your ass:

From Eisenhower to Obama: What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

Under EISENHOWER:

"Marginal Tax Rate on Regular Income over $400,000: 92% - 91%"

Under FDR, during WWII, it was 94%.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Learn to be a man accept historical fast.

List me 1 single person in america that paid 91 or 94% taxes.....


Deductions, deductions deductions.

Maybe 94% taxes under FDR are why we were in a great depression!

Started under Hoover. Learn your history.

 

[Avorysuds]

the bolded: you lie, and right out your ass:

From Eisenhower to Obama: What Wealthy Americans Like Mitt Romney Pay in Taxes - ABC News

Under EISENHOWER:



Under FDR, during WWII, it was 94%.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Learn to be a man accept historical fast.

List me 1 single person in america that paid 91 or 94% taxes.....


Deductions, deductions deductions.

Maybe 94% taxes under FDR are why we were in a great depression!

Started under Hoover. Learn your history.

/blinks.... The great depression started under Hoover... learn yooour.... aww nm.

So, gonna show that single person that paid 91-94% taxes? Ever in American history? Should be easy for a history buff like you.

 

[rightwinger]

Ok

1 Reagan (no doubt)
2 Eisenhower
3 Clinton
4 JFK
5 Bush I
6 Nixon
7 LBJ
8 Bush II
9 Ford
10 tie - Carter/Obama

OK good start

I like Reagan and placed him third. While I don't credit him with the collapse of the Soviet Union, I credit him with maintaining a level head and preventing the Soviet collapse from turning into a war. History is catching up with his economic policies and their impact on middle class America

We are fairly close on the others except for Obama. You obviously hate Obama and it skews your historical perspective. History will look at what challenges did they face and how did they respond to those challenges. There is little doubt Obama faced challenges not seen in 75 years. Economic collapse along with two foreign wars and a major terrorism threat. Like it or not, Obama got us out of that collapse without falling into a depression. Also, Obamacare is a major legislative accomplishment. His war on terrorism has been masterful

I won't even talk about Bush II

So let me get this strait.... You get to rate Reagan on what you see as his economic failures that you claim took after 30+ years to fall apart, discard many other presidents economic involvement, all other conditions and even the federal reserve actions in economics... But before Obama is even fucking done being President you credit him as an economic genius? I mean, he only UNKNOWINGLY... 100% on ACCIDENT saved the US (and world?) from a unforeseeable depression?

How are you no different than Bush-bots? I mean outside of being 100% on board with massive government, wars, huge deficit spending and dumping money on the rich... OUt side of these policies that both Bush and Obama share, how are you different than your average mindless Bush-bot? What topic do you differ on?

No use having a discussion with you since you cannot even rank the Presidents

Give me your rank and we can talk

 

[Statistikhengst]

List me 1 single person in america that paid 91 or 94% taxes.....


Deductions, deductions deductions.

Maybe 94% taxes under FDR are why we were in a great depression!

Started under Hoover. Learn your history.

/blinks.... The great depression started under Hoover... learn yooour.... aww nm.

So, gonna show that single person that paid 91-94% taxes? Ever in American history? Should be easy for a history buff like you.

The tax rates are there for everyone to read. This is, of course, assuming that you can read. How many actually paid 90-92% in 1954, nobody knows, but there were considerably less loopholes back then, which means that rich Americans paid a substanitally higher percentage of the 92%, after deductions.

No matter how you slice it, rich Americans up to Nixon paid considerably more in taxes than after Nixon.

 

[Avorysuds]

OK good start

I like Reagan and placed him third. While I don't credit him with the collapse of the Soviet Union, I credit him with maintaining a level head and preventing the Soviet collapse from turning into a war. History is catching up with his economic policies and their impact on middle class America

We are fairly close on the others except for Obama. You obviously hate Obama and it skews your historical perspective. History will look at what challenges did they face and how did they respond to those challenges. There is little doubt Obama faced challenges not seen in 75 years. Economic collapse along with two foreign wars and a major terrorism threat. Like it or not, Obama got us out of that collapse without falling into a depression. Also, Obamacare is a major legislative accomplishment. His war on terrorism has been masterful

I won't even talk about Bush II

So let me get this strait.... You get to rate Reagan on what you see as his economic failures that you claim took after 30+ years to fall apart, discard many other presidents economic involvement, all other conditions and even the federal reserve actions in economics... But before Obama is even fucking done being President you credit him as an economic genius? I mean, he only UNKNOWINGLY... 100% on ACCIDENT saved the US (and world?) from a unforeseeable depression?

How are you no different than Bush-bots? I mean outside of being 100% on board with massive government, wars, huge deficit spending and dumping money on the rich... OUt side of these policies that both Bush and Obama share, how are you different than your average mindless Bush-bot? What topic do you differ on?

No use having a discussion with you since you cannot even rank the Presidents

Give me your rank and we can talk

There is no rank, they are all shit. Why rank crap? All I'd be doing is giving my opinion on who was the worst of a list of bad Presidents. If I were to do that BushII and Obama would be tied for the worst. They both caused unnecessary wars, grew Government, divided the country, ran massive deficits, lied to the people for political gain and didn't follow the constitution.

However that pretty much all Presidents on that list, just to what degree.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Your context lacks context. But everyone and I mean everyone on these boards knows you're a mindless Obama-bot so no one takes you seriously.

I suspect he was posting cartoons or graphics from some leftist hate site, with no content.

Since I filter out hate sites, links to Common Dreams, KOS, ThinkProgress, etc. come up blank.

You got it. What really gets me is even RW disagrees with duddlys images, but he lacks the integrity to call him on it. Maybe that's because RW knows that's all he has on his side, is the far left noobs.

Well yeah, cuz we're all clones with cookie cutter beliefs.

Grow up.

One of you nutters said that, for rw's, this is a popularity contest. Sorry, but that's just not the way us independent thinkers post.

OTOH, if it "really gets you", I'll go find some more to post.

Serious note about posting graphics:

They are a statement of opinion.

THAT is what a message board is about - opinions.

Not everyone is going to agree with your lies. For that, you need other rw's. Like I said, grow up.

 

[Avorysuds]

I suspect he was posting cartoons or graphics from some leftist hate site, with no content.

Since I filter out hate sites, links to Common Dreams, KOS, ThinkProgress, etc. come up blank.

You got it. What really gets me is even RW disagrees with duddlys images, but he lacks the integrity to call him on it. Maybe that's because RW knows that's all he has on his side, is the far left noobs.

Well yeah, cuz we're all clones with cookie cutter beliefs.

Grow up.

One of you nutters said that, for rw's, this is a popularity contest. Sorry, but that's just not the way us independent thinkers post.

OTOH, if it "really gets you", I'll go find some more to post.

Serious note about posting graphics:

They are a statement of opinion.

THAT is what a message board is about - opinions.

Not everyone is going to agree with your lies. For that, you need other rw's. Like I said, grow up.

The images you use make your opinions seems ignorant and stupid.

It's not worth pointing out that Reagan entered during a bad recession, like Obama, but was fighting a legitimate war, the cold war... Reagan pulled us out of that recession, Obama has failed to do so to the degree that of if he stopped printing 85 billion a month to literally hand to the rich, if he stopped mass welfare and food stamps, the economy would more than likely fall into a deep recession if not a depression.

Basically, Reagan's economy didn't need never ending stimulus on a large scale to prop it up, like in the case of Obama's "recovery." If the economy were strong Obama would need near 2 trillion a year in deficit spending to make things hang on at a level most economists describe as "stagnate."

Yes, Obama gets 1 trillion + a year in stimulus spending from the Fed-R that is truly counted off the books. So Obama's near 700 billion deficit this year was really closer to 1.8 trillion, then minus the tax revenues printing a trillion+ gave him (fake money/fare revenues) and you are over 2 trillion.

I know it hurts.

 

[Avorysuds]

Started under Hoover. Learn your history.

/blinks.... The great depression started under Hoover... learn yooour.... aww nm.

So, gonna show that single person that paid 91-94% taxes? Ever in American history? Should be easy for a history buff like you.

The tax rates are there for everyone to read. This is, of course, assuming that you can read. How many actually paid 90-92% in 1954, nobody knows, but there were considerably less loopholes back then, which means that rich Americans paid a substanitally higher percentage of the 92%, after deductions.

No matter how you slice it, rich Americans up to Nixon paid considerably more in taxes than after Nixon.

Let me help you out...

I win, you lose, thank me and stfu you drone. And for the record the "loopholes" were MASSIVE and plenty before Reagan brought the rates down, Reagan simplified a broken tax code.

How else can a person pay a third the sticker tax rate? Even today Obama the great demi-god can only get his tax rates half of what the set rate is.

Just pure fucking stupidity talking to people like you.

 

[Avorysuds]

And this is what I believe the "average" marginal paid tax rate was. I could be wrong but I honestly don;t care because it's more than apparent I have already done far more research on the subject that you.


I think my first graph was what the top end paid, meaning "someone out there paid that amount." This graph should be more along an average of what people in that bracket paid.

 

[rightwinger]

So let me get this strait.... You get to rate Reagan on what you see as his economic failures that you claim took after 30+ years to fall apart, discard many other presidents economic involvement, all other conditions and even the federal reserve actions in economics... But before Obama is even fucking done being President you credit him as an economic genius? I mean, he only UNKNOWINGLY... 100% on ACCIDENT saved the US (and world?) from a unforeseeable depression?

How are you no different than Bush-bots? I mean outside of being 100% on board with massive government, wars, huge deficit spending and dumping money on the rich... OUt side of these policies that both Bush and Obama share, how are you different than your average mindless Bush-bot? What topic do you differ on?

No use having a discussion with you since you cannot even rank the Presidents

Give me your rank and we can talk

There is no rank, they are all shit. Why rank crap? All I'd be doing is giving my opinion on who was the worst of a list of bad Presidents. If I were to do that BushII and Obama would be tied for the worst. They both caused unnecessary wars, grew Government, divided the country, ran massive deficits, lied to the people for political gain and didn't follow the constitution.

However that pretty much all Presidents on that list, just to what degree.

Yea...yea

Everyone sucks

Cross you off as someone to reply to on this thread

 

[Statistikhengst]

And this is what I believe the "average" marginal paid tax rate was. I could be wrong but I honestly don;t care because it's more than apparent I have already done far more research on the subject that you.


I think my first graph was what the top end paid, meaning "someone out there paid that amount." This graph should be more along an average of what people in that bracket paid.

Your chart only goes back to 1979. Not much help there, eh?

 

[TemplarKormac]

OK good start

I like Reagan and placed him third. While I don't credit him with the collapse of the Soviet Union, I credit him with maintaining a level head and preventing the Soviet collapse from turning into a war. History is catching up with his economic policies and their impact on middle class America

We are fairly close on the others except for Obama. You obviously hate Obama and it skews your historical perspective. History will look at what challenges did they face and how did they respond to those challenges. There is little doubt Obama faced challenges not seen in 75 years. Economic collapse along with two foreign wars and a major terrorism threat. Like it or not, Obama got us out of that collapse without falling into a depression. Also, Obamacare is a major legislative accomplishment. His war on terrorism has been masterful

I won't even talk about Bush II

So let me get this strait.... You get to rate Reagan on what you see as his economic failures that you claim took after 30+ years to fall apart, discard many other presidents economic involvement, all other conditions and even the federal reserve actions in economics... But before Obama is even fucking done being President you credit him as an economic genius? I mean, he only UNKNOWINGLY... 100% on ACCIDENT saved the US (and world?) from a unforeseeable depression?

How are you no different than Bush-bots? I mean outside of being 100% on board with massive government, wars, huge deficit spending and dumping money on the rich... OUt side of these policies that both Bush and Obama share, how are you different than your average mindless Bush-bot? What topic do you differ on?

No use having a discussion with you since you cannot even rank the Presidents

Give me your rank and we can talk

Wait, Obama wasn't #1? Forgive me if I'm not sympathetic to your plight.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The tax rates are there for everyone to read.

So are the loopholes, sploogy.

This is, of course, assuming that you can read. How many actually paid 90-92% in 1954, nobody knows,

Sure we do, the number is zero.

but there were considerably less loopholes back then,

Did you really just spew that?

Look, no one takes you seriously - you have no credibility to lose; still that is the level of shit that makes all sides dismiss you as an idiot.

{So, let's get more complicated. When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone's entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million. But, that's still taxable income, not earned income.

In 1944, you could deduct business meals, all business travel, all forms of interest payments, and much more. You could even deduct spousal travel expenses on a business trip! (Why travel alone?) Companies could also "loan" or "provide" almost anything to an employee, from an apartment to standard benefits. It was possible to shelter tens of thousands of dollars from taxable income. Three-martini lunches and expense accounts were important realities, skewing tax calculations.

As a result of deductions and exclusions, even the theoretical maximum Real Rate of taxation at 60% in 1944 overstates taxation dramatically. The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944. We simply didn't count much of the compensation as taxable income. }

Almost Classical: The 90% Tax Rate Myth

So, in 2010 dollars (second number actual tax paid for period,) this worked out to;

Here were the tax liabilities in 1944 (effective rate in parenthesis):

$25,000 – $5,750 (23.0%)
$50,000 – $11,990 (24.0%)
$100,000 – $27,390 (27.4%)
$200,000 – $70,422 (35.2%)
$400,000 – $191,411 (47.9%)

JFK slashed rates, but closed a lot of loopholes, the effect;

Here were the tax liabilities for our four sample families (again, adjusted for inflation):

$25,000 – $3,834 (15.3%) …down $1,915
$50,000 – $8,530 (17.1%) …down $3,459
$100,000 – $19,875 (19.9%) …down $7,515
$200,000 – $51,545 (25.8%) …down $18,877
$400,000 – $146,209 (36.6%) …down $45,201

Notice that taxes went down, despite the economy booming and revenue to the federal government skyrocketing.

Now Reagan;


$25,000 – $2,317 (9.3%) …down $1,517
$50,000 – $6,989 (10.0%) …down $1,540
$100,000 – $22,167 (22.2%) …up $2,292
$200,000 – $64,888 (32.4%) …up $13,343
$400,000 – $163,959 (41.0%) …up $17,749

Despite the lies of the left, ACTUAL taxes on those making more than $100K went up. How is this possible? Because the loopholes were closed.

A comparative view of tax policy changes since 1944 | GOPCenter.com

which means that rich Americans paid a substanitally higher percentage of the 92%, after deductions.

No matter how you slice it, rich Americans up to Nixon paid considerably more in taxes than after Nixon.

What you are, is a liar and a moron. A pathetic partisan hack who posts bullshit that you don't understand.

You sit in mom's basement and smoke dope, and bitch on the interwebz about how unfair it all is, but you don't have a fucking clue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well yeah, cuz we're all clones with cookie cutter beliefs.

You're not a "clone" Puddly Pillowbite, you are a DRONE. You are a mindless automaton who is programed by the hate sites to spew idiocy.

You have no "beliefs," you have only your shameful party.

Grow up.

One of you nutters said that, for rw's, this is a popularity contest. Sorry, but that's just not the way us independent thinkers post.

OTOH, if it "really gets you", I'll go find some more to post.

Serious note about posting graphics:

They are a statement of opinion.

THAT is what a message board is about - opinions.

Not everyone is going to agree with your lies. For that, you need other rw's. Like I said, grow up.

Again, the idiocy you spew is simply a rehash of KOS, Common Dreams, and the rest of the hate sites. You have no ability to think.

 

[flacaltenn]

I was born in The Year Of Lord, 1973.

The sitting president at that time was.....


RICHARD NIXON!

AKA, TRICKY DICK!

Probably don't remember the lying and deceit from Tricky Dick.. But you MIGHT remember the hurt that Jimmy Carter put on the nation.. That just goes to prove that a bigger brain is NOT a Prezidential asset...

 

[Statistikhengst]

The tax rates are there for everyone to read.

So are the loopholes, sploogy.

This is, of course, assuming that you can read. How many actually paid 90-92% in 1954, nobody knows,

Sure we do, the number is zero.

but there were considerably less loopholes back then,

Did you really just spew that?

Look, no one takes you seriously - you have no credibility to lose; still that is the level of shit that makes all sides dismiss you as an idiot.

{So, let's get more complicated. When there was a 94% top rate in 1944-45, there were so many deductions and exclusions that the taxable income was not comparable to someone's entire income. First, the top rate started at $200,000, which today is equal to $2,413,059.90 — so the maximum EMTR would apply only to incomes of $2.5 million. But, that's still taxable income, not earned income.

In 1944, you could deduct business meals, all business travel, all forms of interest payments, and much more. You could even deduct spousal travel expenses on a business trip! (Why travel alone?) Companies could also "loan" or "provide" almost anything to an employee, from an apartment to standard benefits. It was possible to shelter tens of thousands of dollars from taxable income. Three-martini lunches and expense accounts were important realities, skewing tax calculations.

As a result of deductions and exclusions, even the theoretical maximum Real Rate of taxation at 60% in 1944 overstates taxation dramatically. The reality? On earned income, the richest U.S. taxpayers paid close to 40 percent of their earned incomes in taxes in 1944. We simply didn't count much of the compensation as taxable income. }

Almost Classical: The 90% Tax Rate Myth

So, in 2010 dollars (second number actual tax paid for period,) this worked out to;

Here were the tax liabilities in 1944 (effective rate in parenthesis):

$25,000 – $5,750 (23.0%)
$50,000 – $11,990 (24.0%)
$100,000 – $27,390 (27.4%)
$200,000 – $70,422 (35.2%)
$400,000 – $191,411 (47.9%)

JFK slashed rates, but closed a lot of loopholes, the effect;

Here were the tax liabilities for our four sample families (again, adjusted for inflation):

$25,000 – $3,834 (15.3%) …down $1,915
$50,000 – $8,530 (17.1%) …down $3,459
$100,000 – $19,875 (19.9%) …down $7,515
$200,000 – $51,545 (25.8%) …down $18,877
$400,000 – $146,209 (36.6%) …down $45,201

Notice that taxes went down, despite the economy booming and revenue to the federal government skyrocketing.

Now Reagan;


$25,000 – $2,317 (9.3%) …down $1,517
$50,000 – $6,989 (10.0%) …down $1,540
$100,000 – $22,167 (22.2%) …up $2,292
$200,000 – $64,888 (32.4%) …up $13,343
$400,000 – $163,959 (41.0%) …up $17,749

Despite the lies of the left, ACTUAL taxes on those making more than $100K went up. How is this possible? Because the loopholes were closed.

A comparative view of tax policy changes since 1944 | GOPCenter.com

which means that rich Americans paid a substanitally higher percentage of the 92%, after deductions.

No matter how you slice it, rich Americans up to Nixon paid considerably more in taxes than after Nixon.

What you are, is a liar and a moron. A pathetic partisan hack who posts bullshit that you don't understand.

You sit in mom's basement and smoke dope, and bitch on the interwebz about how unfair it all is, but you don't have a fucking clue.

You pull up a link from a GOP website, and then adjust the tax rate to your liking, calling it an "effective" rate, and then you expect me to take you seriously. Really?

Damn, better check out that head injury of yours...

 

[Uncensored2008]

You pull up a link from a GOP website, and then adjust the tax rate to your liking, calling it an "effective" rate, and then you expect me to take you seriously. Really?

Damn, better check out that head injury of yours...

You don't know me. I put up lots of links, essentially I cite my claims. This isn't something that the left does, since KOS and ThinkProgress are the basis of virtually all the claims made by the left. But I cite my claims in virtually all cases - you know, since I don't simply make shit up or ape hate sites.

But even in this post, I provided two, independent sources. You made some really stupid claims, and you got smacked. It's going to happen - you're out of your depth and can't get by on bullshit here.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You pull up a link from a GOP website, and then adjust the tax rate to your liking, calling it an "effective" rate, and then you expect me to take you seriously. Really?

Damn, better check out that head injury of yours...

You don't know me. I put up lots of links, essentially I cite my claims. This isn't something that the left does, since KOS and ThinkProgress are the basis of virtually all the claims made by the left. But I cite my claims in virtually all cases - you know, since I don't simply make shit up or ape hate sites.

But even in this post, I provided two, independent sources. You made some really stupid claims, and you got smacked. It's going to happen - you're out of your depth and can't get by on bullshit here.

You don't know me, either. But you will see with time. Have a nice day.

 

[Statistikhengst]

List me 1 single person in america that paid 91 or 94% taxes.....


Deductions, deductions deductions.

Maybe 94% taxes under FDR are why we were in a great depression!

Started under Hoover. Learn your history.

Sorry, FDR proposed a 100% tax rate in 1943. By the end of WWII, the rich were paying a 94% statutory tax rate.

FDR and his New Dealers wanted to finance the war equitably, with stiff tax rates on high incomes. How stiff? FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate. At a time of “grave national danger,” Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.” That would be about $350,000 in today’s dollars.

The war revenue debate would be fought on Roosevelt’s terms — not on whether to tax the rich, but on how much. And, in the end, that “how much” would turn out to be quite a great deal. By the war’s end, America’s wealthy would be paying taxes on income over $200,000 at a 94 percent statutory rate.

When Income Was Taxed at 94%: How FDR Tackled Debt and Reckless Republicans | FlaglerLive - Your News Service for Flagler County News Palm Coast News Bunnell Flagler Beach Beverly Beach and Marineland

I believe I stated that 94% in the one posting. My reference to Hoover was to the beginning of the Great Depression, not the tax rate. Sorry if there was any confusion. Don't know if you were pointing your comment at me or Avorysuds.

The problem with Avorysuds is he is not willing to admit this statistical fact, but rather, relies on estimates of how much people actually paid, after deductions. But that would vary from person to person and there is no reliable compilation of stats on this kind of thing to be found anywhere. The IRS does not release any exact historical stats on this at all. So, in 1945, we may have had one millionaire who paid 80% after deductions, another who paid 52% after deductions, but there cannot be any doubt that the tax brackets themselves were decidedly higher before 1972. Decidedly.