Infographic on Obama's 2012 budget

[a777pilot]

I would like to see more info on this. While this would not suprise me, I am disinclined to believe it on its face. Can you post anything to support it?

Good luck squeezing blood from a turnip. But hey, as long as the wealth "trickles down", they shouldn't have any problem, right? Anytime now... :whiste:

qfmft. Real fiscal conservatives know that tax increases are sometimes the answer. This is why I really respect the first Bush - he saw through Reagan's disasterous "voodoo economics" and raised taxes to pay for the war in the Gulf - not a popular move, but the correct one.

He didn't raise taxes to pay for the war. Raising taxes was the price he had to pay to get the votes of Democrats to vote to go to war. They, the Democrats, knew full well they could use those increased taxes against him in the upcoming election.....and they did.

 

[HendrixFan]

He didn't raise taxes to pay for the war. Raising taxes was the price he had to pay to get the votes of Democrats to vote to go to war. They, the Democrats, knew full well they could use those increased taxes against him in the upcoming election.....and they did.

It was the economy stupid. That and checkout lanes at the grocery store.

 

[MovingTarget]

He didn't raise taxes to pay for the war. Raising taxes was the price he had to pay to get the votes of Democrats to vote to go to war. They, the Democrats, knew full well they could use those increased taxes against him in the upcoming election.....and they did.

Still, it was the correct decision. He could have vetoed it and tried to force their hand. He could have done what his son eventually did. If he had owned this tax increase as a good fiscally conservative move, he could have used it to his advantage. It was "the economy, stupid" - and Bush 1 ran on a platform of a war president, not the economy.

 

[QuantumPion]

I like how the department of agriculture's budget is greater then the GDP of all US agriculture. :hmm:

 

[Anarchist420]

Still, it was the correct decision. He could have vetoed it and tried to force their hand. He could have done what his son eventually did. If he had owned this tax increase as a good fiscally conservative move, he could have used it to his advantage. It was "the economy, stupid" - and Bush 1 ran on a platform of a war president, not the economy.

I don't agree with you that it was the correct decision, but you're right about Bush 41 going through the debates like a major dumbass by not saying that agreeing with the Democrats' tax increases made him just as much of a moderate as Bill Clinton.

Bush 41 was a pretty liberal Republican (even more so than his son), and I'll never know what his true stances are. Did Reagan really convert him, or is he still a Rockefeller Republican?

In any event, I wish Patrick J Buchanan had beat Bush for the nomination and beat Clinton for the general election. If the former had happened, the GOP would've been permanently restored to its Harding roots (the neocons and fascists would've been SOL) and if the latter had happened, we would be better off as a country as Dr. Paul was on Pat Buchanan's 92 campaign.

 

[Atreus21]

windirstat is going to sue their ass for copyright infringement.