Originally Posted By Dabob2 <He certainly isn't one of the worst Presidents, and history will bear that out.> He is, though. And these historians think history will bear THAT out. <a href="http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html" target="_blank">http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html</a> "In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success. Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations." Now, of course, presidents change in their assessments by historians over time. But it's worth noting that no president since polling began has polled SO low on approval rating for so long. A few presidents have dipped into the 30's briefly, but none stayed there for literally years other than the current one. <a href="http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/" target="_blank">http://americanresearchgroup.c...economy/</a> ARG has him currently at 25%, and notice he's no higher than 34% for the entire past year. Rasmussen's got him a little higher, but still at a record low for them. <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval" target="_blank">http://www.rasmussenreports.co...approval</a> President Bush Job Approval Bush Approval Ratings Remain at Record Low Level For the seven days ending June 14, just 31% approved of the way the President is performing his job. Sixty-seven percent (67%) disapproved. Those figures are unchanged from a week ago and match the lowest level of approval ever recorded. Currently, just 11% Strongly Approve of the President’s performance. Four times as many—49%--Strongly Disapprove. Both those figures are a point worse for the President than a week ago and represent new all-time lows. "
Originally Posted By X-san ***I do, however, believe that many people are wrong about President Bush. He certainly isn't one of the worst Presidents, and history will bear that out.*** While I would be a fool to argue the historical axiom that time brings about perspective...in this case, I'm feeling a little foolish. 200 years from now (assuming humans are still around), BUSH will go down in history as the worst. That's just my humble opinion though. When Obama gets the White House, though, here's the big kicker...*I* will have a chance to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom. How cool is THAT!?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>No, I'm defending the GOP in general, from what I believe is an inaccurate claim.<< But it isn't an innacurate claim. You may believe that the Democrats would have been even worse about spending if they were in charge, but they weren't in charge. The fact is that the GOP ran the show until the end of 2006, and despite the rhetoric that they were more fiscally responsible than the Democrats, they spent like mad, ran up debt. There's no one else to pin the overspending blame on, try as you may. I realize it's uncomfortable to own up to the fact that the GOP didn't live up to advanced billing in terms of fiscal discipline, but there's simply no escaping it. After years and years of claiming it was all those darn spend-happy Democrats, if only teh GOP could be in charge we'd get our fiscal house in order. It did not happen. And it's the GOP's own fault, so they don't get to use that talking point anymore with any sort of credibility. That's just the way it works.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Spend Happy Democrats, look at the California Legislature, they have been in charge for how many decades now??? Since 1970 last I checked!!! And how screwed up is the California Budget, which is formed and passed in the House and Senate prior to going to the governor.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <THAT's the evidence.> That's only part of the evidence. <They're just not so blinded by ideology that they can't see it.> Or they are being mislead by other ideology. <He is, though. And these historians think history will bear THAT out.> Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The fact is that the GOP ran the show until the end of 2006, and despite the rhetoric that they were more fiscally responsible than the Democrats, they spent like mad, ran up debt.> The fact is that the whole time the GOP ran the show, the Democrats were arguing to spend more money. There's simply no evidence that the Democrats are more fiscally responsible than the Republicans.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I believe the absolute worst thing I've ever heard anyone say on this board is that more successful people should be obligated to give more to the government in order to provide more for society. That is socialism. Plain and simple. And the mysterious "rich" already pay so much more it's pathetic. Oh but yes, lets raise taxes on that high middle class business owner who gives us jobs. Makes great sense.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad But someone said there is no conservative candidate running in this one and I tend to agree.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer ^ I also agree, and I also have been frustrated with both the amount of the Republican Spending (way out of control) and the Democratic BS comments regarding their promise to eliminate pork (aka earmarks) when they took control of the House. <a href="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21530&keywords=retires" target="_blank">http://www.humanevents.com/art...=retires</a> >>DEMOCRATIC PROMISE: ‘Get Rid of All’ Earmarks Promise: “Breaking with many Democrats, Ms. Pelosi also spoke out against earmarking billions of dollars for home-state projects, a practice she calls a ‘monster’ that hurts Congress. ‘I’d get rid of all of them,’ she says. ‘None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has ... and the fiscal irresponsibility of it.’†-- “Pelosi Promises Fiscal Restraint if Democrats Win,†Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2006. Broken Promise: “In the bill funding EPA and Forest Service projects, Speaker Pelosi obtained $700,000 for a grant for San Francisco for use in the Lower Mission District.…†-- “House Panel Approves ‘Earmarks’ for Lawmakers’ Home Districts, Associated Press, June 22, 2007. “This year, the House approved a $504 billion Defense authorization bill. Among the requesters, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has one earmark in the bill, for $10 million for Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, as part of the military construction portion of the defense budget.†-- “$8B of Pork: Dems Take 60 Percent,†The Hill, May 22, 2007.<< Earmarks should be just plain banned, if it needs to be approved, make it part of the REAL bill, and not added at the last minute, and that is for ALL politicians, regardless of party affiliation!!!!
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<if it needs to be approved, make it part of the REAL bill, and not added at the last minute, and that is for ALL politicians, regardless of party affiliation!!!!>>> I totally agree.
Originally Posted By dshyates " lets raise taxes on that high middle class business owner who gives us jobs." This arguement is so full of crap. People don't give people jobs out of philanthropic desires. That ludicris. They give people jobs because they need sh..stuff done. Regardless of how much capitol gains taxes they personally paid. In this age of giving rich people everything they want we have seen the slowest job growth since the depression. But don't let facts deter your mindset.
Originally Posted By DAR We need to have a fair tax system that doesn't punish anyone for the amount of hard work that they do. Whether they make 250K or 25K a year.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "We need to have a fair tax system that doesn't punish anyone for the amount of hard work that they do." But how do you determine how much "hard work" someone is doing? There are some people that make 25K a year that do very little work, but others that work their *ss off and just can't get ahead. And conversely, there are people that make 250K that do very little "hard work" and some that do. So how would you make a fair determination of what consitutes "hard work"?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<This arguement is so full of crap. People don't give people jobs out of philanthropic desires. That ludicris. They give people jobs because they need sh..stuff done.>>> I didn't make the claim you write here. People give people jobs when their business grows and there are jobs that need doing. The vast majority of jobs in the country are with small business. If we go back to pre-Bush taxes I will have to spend money on taxes that I would have paid another employee or two with. It's simple and it's real. I mean you can't expect ME to shrink my own personal lifestyle to pay the extra taxes. Its the reality of things.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121435112024101581.html?mod=djemEditorialPage" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...rialPage</a> >>Last week, Barack Obama revealed his plan to shore up Social Security's shaky finances by raising the income level on which the payroll tax is applied. Currently, incomes above $102,000 are exempt, with that threshold rising every year indexed to wage inflation. Mr. Obama would keep that limit in place, but then assess payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000, which his campaign claims would apply to only the richest 3% of Americans. Mr. Obama angered liberals last year when he admitted that there was a "Social Security crisis." But at least Mr. Obama's base should be appeased now that his solution to the "crisis" is to soak the rich. One liberal columnist actually noted with glee the fact that this would take us back to top tax rates not seen since the 1970s. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Mr. Obama's new tax would siphon off 0.4% of gross domestic product annually. Combined with Mr. Obama's other tax-hike initiatives, "the total tax on labor would be close to 60 percent. In high-tax states like California and New York, the top rate would be even higher." Would it help Social Security's financing problems? Mr. Obama has no idea. One of his senior economic advisers admitted to me that no one on the campaign has run any detailed models or performed any rigorous analysis. When one proposes an enormous tax increase, shouldn't there at least be a spreadsheet somewhere? But the most alarming thing about Mr. Obama's proposal is that the $250,000 threshold, above which the payroll tax would be applied, refers to household income, not individual income. So it's quite deceptive when he claims that the $250,000 threshold will "ensure that lifting the payroll tax cap does not ensnare any middle class Americans." Suppose your household consists of you and your spouse, each earning wages of $150,000 per year. Currently, you are each subject to the payroll tax up to $102,000 of wages, so together you are taxed on $204,000. Under the Obama plan, you'd be taxed again on another $50,000 of wages. At the current payroll tax rate of 12.4% – 6.2% from wage-earners and 6.2% from their employers – your household would be looking at a tax hike of $6,200 per year. You probably didn't consider yourself rich before, and you certainly won't after paying that tax bill. But that tax bill could be higher still. While the payroll tax has always been calculated just on wages from labor, Mr. Obama hasn't decided yet what forms of income will be included in the $250,000 threshold. It's an open question whether it might include interest on savings and capital gains income. And neither has Mr. Obama said whether the rich – and, truth be told, the middle class – paying his new higher taxes will get correspondingly higher Social Security benefits when they retire. Throughout the history of the Social Security program, there has always been a connection between what you contribute in taxes and what you get back in benefits. If Mr. Obama uncaps the wages subject to tax, but doesn't uncap benefits, then he has severed the link between them. Social Security would stand revealed not as a work-related contributory retirement system, but simply as a tax-funded welfare and income-redistribution program. And for all that, Mr. Obama's proposal won't help Social Security's long-run solvency problems. According to the Social Security Administration actuaries, uncapping all wages subject to the payroll tax (not just those above $250,000) doesn't make much difference to the system's long-run solvency. If the increased payroll tax payments earn increased benefits, then only about one third of the system's 75-year shortfall is addressed. Even if there is no corresponding benefit increase, only about half the shortfall is addressed. Remember, that inadequate result is what you get when all wages are subject to payroll taxes. Mr. Obama's plan – even with his household definition of $250,000 income – would collect far less than that. No wonder Mr. Obama's economic advisers aren't interested in doing any detailed analysis. Worst of all, even the small contribution to Social Security solvency that Mr. Obama's plan might make is entirely illusory. In fact, the more taxes his plan collects, the worse Social Security's long-term situation gets. That's because all plans based on collecting taxes and saving them in the Social Security Trust Fund for future benefit payments rely on the U.S. government being able to redeem the Treasury bonds that trust fund holds. There's only one place that the money to redeem those bonds can come from: taxes. So ironically, any tax dollars collected today will have to be collected all over again – plus interest. You like the idea of paying more taxes today for Mr. Obama's Social Security plan? Then just wait 20 years or so, because you'll get to pay more taxes all over again.<<
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< So how would you make a fair determination of what consitutes "hard work"?>>> There is this gross misconception that people who make over $X are there becuase they are lucky or because they inherited the money or position. There are those out there but they are very very few, ESPEICALLY in todays society where we as a country spend 1 dollar more per year than we make so that we can have nice cars, homes, vacations, private schools etc... For further explanation of the real deal with taxes on the upper middle class see post #112. People don't get to the upper middle class these days becuase momma sold a bunch of land and got a million bucks. Well a few might, but he vast majority at some point went to 10 years of post high school education. Or someone sold everhthing they own, tried and failed and tried and failed and tried again until they got a break. But even with that break that only got them in the door. And after thousands of hours of work, putting things like having kids on hold for a few years, they proved themselves and made all kinds of incredible sacrifices and now 20 years later they have that spot on the NYSE floor, or they have that Car dealership they built from ground up, or they have 5 fast food franchises, or they made Full-Colonel, or they finally after 14 years from high school have their own orthodontics practice, and on and on and on. It's where American works. Hitting these emoloyers with more taxes, especially payroll taxes and incresed Social Security is insane. It is directly counter productive no matter what you think of it personally. Even if good hearted people like Trippy are willing to make more money to pay more taxes, you miss the point. It's not about what you or I think on an individual basis about "FAIRNESS". Its about what increased taxes of these kind do to the economy as a whole. It is detrimental and in a time of recession it makes NO FINANCIAL sense at ALL. As for this $250K mark, I would say that the VAST majority of business owners make more than that. I'm not saying I make more than that, and I'm not saying I make less. It's not relavant what we make. That would get me into the "How does it affect only ME" way of thinking, which followers of both parties are too quick to do. But even if small business owerns don't make over $250 K, their businesses will be impacted, impacting the entire econcmoy. I've had enough of the war, and enough of the farm deal, and enough of everything else that is wasteful spending. The money NEVER goes where it is supposed to, and it never will, so let's quit spending it, lets balance the budget if we must, and let's lower taxes and shrink this robust and horribly fat inefficient government list of progams. I don't see this happening with Obama nor McCain truth be known. So then what is the answer? I don't really know. I'm lost. I gotta eat Crow because I really thought Bush was going to make us far better off. *pout* I keep telling myself that things are the way they are due to so many First Time problems that have arisen in his tenure, but I don't believe myself anymore.
Originally Posted By queenbee Dvc_dad are you telling me that employees who make less than 250K are in a better position to pay the "extra taxes" and pay the countries bills than someone who makes over 250K a year? Who should pay? China wants there money. Trickle down economics has turned out to be a cruel joke.
Originally Posted By X-san DVC Dad, it sounds as if you are a real philosophical crossroads here. I would very much like to hear what your feelings are from here, going forward. I prepared a long winded reply, but re-reading what you wrote a bunch of times I can honestly say I'd rather hold my comments until I hear more about what you have to say fwiw.
