The rehabilitation of GWB

[LumbergTech]

I agree harvey. good thing Obama is doing everything different eh?..hmm..so how s the closing of Guantanamo bay? pulling the troops back?


new boss the same as the old boss.

what if we sent them all to gitmo? fair enough?

 

[Acanthus]

Seriously, how do you quantify "tax breaks for the rich"???

Unless they are taxed at 100%, there is *always* room for someone to say the government could be taxing them more.

So when the Bush Tax Cuts expire, "the rich" will be taxed at 36% instead of 35%, and that will make the world a perfect place? Well aren't the rich getting a tax break at 36% instead of 37%? Well then they are still getting a tax break because they're not at 38%. Or wait, 39%!

The term "tax break" as it is used by Krugman & most of "the left" is just hyper partisan spin. Just say you want "the rich" taxed more than they currently are. It's not a "break" because for it to be considered a "break" it specifically implies that they are not paying their fair share, which is an opinion and only an opinion. Not a fact.

When their tax bracket is posting massive YoY gains and others are flat or falling, and you have a large deficit to deal with, yes, the rich are not paying their fair share.

Increase the taxes to pay down the deficit, if they don't like it they can lobby for spending cuts... but the deficit needs to get paid down whether they like it or not.

 

[manimal]

I like my old suggestion about how to rehabilitate Bush. Give him, Cheney and his entire adminstration enforced lifetime vacations at the beautiful downtown Guantanamo Hilton with free daily passes on the exciting waterboard ride. It's not torture. They said so, themselves, and we can believe them... right? :hmm:

And for the wingnut tards who will now accuse me of wanting to torture them, as much as they may deserve it, the above is sarcasm. I just want to see them tried for their crimes.

And for the wingnut tards who will play brain dead and try to deny they committed any crimes, yes, I am fully armed with at least one "macro" fully reformatted for vB to make the legal case against them for those crimes.



Then, you haven't been paying attention.



That's easy. Old Republicans = New Republicans. :thumbsdown:

They want to repeal everything that Obama and the Democratic Congress have accomplished, despite their constant filibusters, lies and other impedements, and re-enact all of the horrific lack of oversight and responsibility that gave us an illegal war in Iraq, the financial meltdown, the Massey Energy mine disasters and the BP oil disasters. Plural intended -- The Gulf oil spill wasn't their first.



Then, you REALLY haven't been paying attention.

this


The funny this is Bush recently even went as far as to say he would torture them all over again. Isnt that an admission of guilt?

 

[shira]

I swear, you all must be living in your own separate reality. Let's look at Krugman's "evidence"

"including tax breaks for the rich and financial deregulation. They’ve even resurrected the plan to cut future Social Security benefits."

That should be corrected to "tax breaks for all". And financial regulation that works, not just what makes for keen political headlines (why did Obama as a Senator vote down legislation to look into what Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were up to, and why are they left out of the new regulation bill?). And last but not least, Social Security must be cut, it is a simple matter of mathematics, there is not enough money coming in to cover what's going out.

That's your *amazing* case for your partisan thread?

1) The tax breaks inordinately benefited the rich, not the middle class.

2) The incredible economic growth that right-wing fanboy tax-cut advocates keep telling us about never seem to materialize:

In 2007, at the height of the “Bush boom,” such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000.

 

[cubby1223]

2) The incredible economic growth that right-wing fanboy tax-cut advocates keep telling us about never seem to materialize:

In 2007, at the height of the “Bush boom,” such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000.

Well, if you're going to take the hyper-partisan spin route and only look at a small portion of the world as a whole, then I will too:

President Obama on the success of the stimulus:

It's hard to argue sometimes things would have been a lot worse, right? So people kind of say "yea, but unemployment is still at 9.6". Yes but it's not 12 or 13, or 15.

Tax policy did not create the economic growth in the 90's, nor did tax policy create the economic slow-down in the 2000's. There were a whole helluva lot of other factors at play.

 

[jackace]

Well, if you're going to take the hyper-partisan spin route and only look at a small portion of the world as a whole, then I will too:

President Obama on the success of the stimulus:


Tax policy did not create the economic growth in the 90's, nor did tax policy create the economic slow-down in the 2000's. There were a whole helluva lot of other factors at play.

I will be the first to admit that both Republicans and Democrats have problems, but trickle down economics has been nothing but a failure as an economic policy. We saw no real growth from it during Reagan and Bush Sr. and we saw no real growth from it in Bush Jr's 8 years. How long do we have to keep trying the same economic policy before we can all agree that it doesn't work?