That's exactly what the democrats did to Bush. And so did the media.
No, you are wrong. The current tax cuts are the Bush tax cuts still in place. Granted, Obama chose to extend them. Along with dropping even more taxes. The issue, though, was that Obama's first option was to leave the tax cuts alive for any family making below 250,000 a year. Republicans, sitting on the rich man train, thought this was unfair and refused to budge.
In comparison, Bush entered office with a surplus in the Federal budget, an economy that was about to go off the charts after 2003, and a terror attack. His own, personal, extravagant ideas, in no way related to Clinton: Cut taxes by 1.4 Trillion dollars, not keep Clinton's cutting of entitlements, Start a costly war, introduce the idea of stimulus packages, and make up words.
Democrats and the media found a bunch of things to bash him for. None of these tiny, and none of these extensions of the previous presidency.
I'm not saying it is wrong to judge Obama for his results just because we can say that Bush was a bad president. Of course he must be judged. But to judge them equally saying that both had the same opportunities to keep the nation afloat on its big yacht that is used to is ridiculous. All politicians have promises, and all of them fail at keeping them. The question is what politicians decide to do after their agenda is hit. The real thing people want to see is a an adaptive leader.
I know it's tough to rule. There's a lot of things they want to see done while they're running, but they realize can't be done when they're there. The problem with the government is all the secret stuff we're doing. When someone becomes president he learns about all that stuff and realizes what a mess he's gotten himself into. He realizes there isn't enough money to fund what he promised. No one likes their taxes raised and if they're raised the president recieves a large public outcry. His priorities are then revised; he then decide which promises will not be kept, and which ones will not.
The funny part is is that in many ways Obama is an extension of Bush's policies yet people hate him still. Tax cuts for the rich still continue yet Republicans still find the tiniest things to bash him for.
Tax cuts has never ruined the country, only government spending. The reason you seem to find problems with tax cuts is because you can't have massive amounts of government spending and low taxes at the same time.
Also, why are progressives against the rich? According to progressives, the rich should pay for everything. Okay, great, then doesn't that mean we need to keep rich people around so that they may continue to support everyone else? What if there was a way to divide wealth fairly so everyone was the same social class? Where are the rich people that we must depend on?
If you're going to depend on the rich to support government systems, then you need to find ways to keep the fat pigs you depend on rich. How I see it, you can either be anti-rich people, or rich-person dependent, but you can't be both. You can't depend on the rich and want them to stop existing at the same time.
I know it's tough to rule. There's a lot of things they want to see done while they're running, but they realize can't be done when they're there. The problem with the government is all the secret stuff we're doing. When someone becomes president he learns about all that stuff and realizes what a mess he's gotten himself into. He realizes there isn't enough money to fund what he promised. No one likes their taxes raised and if they're raised the president recieves a large public outcry. His priorities are then revised; he then decide which promises will not be kept, and which ones will not.
It sounds to me that we should stop worrying about government programs then and try to take care of ourselves.
Tax cuts has never ruined the country, only government spending. The reason you seem to find problems with tax cuts is because you can't have massive amounts of government spending and low taxes at the same time.
And that's why we need to end these tax cuts.
Also, why are progressives against the rich?
They aren't.
According to progressives, the rich should pay for everything.
No, they just believe their taxes should be raised. Nice straw man, though.
If you're going to depend on the rich to support government systems, then you need to find ways to keep the fat pigs you depend on rich.
I think their jobs can keep them rich.
It sounds to me that we should stop worrying about government programs then and try to take care of ourselves.
If only we lived in a perfect world where that could be possible...
[quote] Tax cuts has never ruined the country, only government spending. The reason you seem to find problems with tax cuts is because you can't have massive amounts of government spending and low taxes at the same time.
And that's why we need to end these tax cuts. [/quote]
Yeah, because we all know how fair it is to take from people.
The only difference between the rich, the middle class, and the poor is the amount of money that they have. If it's wrong to take from the poor, and wrong to take from the middle class, why is it right to take from the rich?
Is it okay if a poor man robs a rich man? How is this any different than government taxing the rich?
I think their jobs can keep them rich.
Now we are onto something! Their jobs! And how do they keep their jobs? By bribing politicians to come up with laws that destroy small businesses or prevent small businesses from growing into a potential threat.
If only we lived in a perfect world where that could be possible...
As a human being who lives on this planet, I'm offended. Are you saying I can't take care of myself? Are you, yourself, included?
If there's a mixture between people who can and can't help themselves, then why do we push for a system that treats EVERYONE as if they are helpless? Why do we need programs that FORCE people into helping the less helpless?
Coercion is NOT the answer to the worlds problems. I don't advocate a simple solution that will fix everything, because I am not God, nor do I believe in one. The government, also not God, can not fix all the problems in the world. I advocate the freedom to explore alternative solutions to fixing the worlds problems. I do not advocate a system where a government tries the same failing tactic over and over again to fix problems, many of which they caused in the first place.
Yeah, because we all know how fair it is to take from people.
The only difference between the rich, the middle class, and the poor is the amount of money that they have. If it's wrong to take from the poor, and wrong to take from the middle class, why is it right to take from the rich?
It's not about what's fair or not. It's just simple pragmatics. You can't raise taxes for the poor because they'll become homeless. You can't raise taxes for the middle class because they're the leading spenders.
As a human being who lives on this planet, I'm offended. Are you saying I can't take care of myself? Are you, yourself, included?
I was saying not everyone can. And the government should supply at least a minimal standard of living for its citizens.
So far, it appears Obama hasn't done much to raise his national debt.
It is not his fault though. The republicans are being idiots and not agreeing with him. If by tuesday the republicans don't agree to any deal, the US might have to start defaulting in its payments.
