The Worst President Ever

[Stephen Calhoun]

Good, you scored one point.

You found the darn NYT chart. So, the White House did deploy the NYT research although neither you or the White House provided the proper link. And, your appeals to search on the original mistaken headline are forgiven.

Next:

In most cases, the families with dependents greater than 2 experienced a lower tax rate and a lower tax liability.

You make my point for me. I'm not arguing against the figures, I'm arguing against the deceptive framing of the figure. If the deceptively framed figure goes higher, so be it.

***

Back to math. The majority of Americans make under $50,000.

Alternately the majority, say 51%, can be accorded to other differential slices of household income, as long as slices covers 50% of the households. In other words it doesn't have to start at $0 or even include the lowest 'tile.'

If half make below $48x, then $48x represents the mean income, not the average income.

Basic, junior high school math. I withdraw the Phoenix University offer.

***

Here's the curious thing. First, tax tables don't tell us squat about actual liability, so your attempt to further deceive me, (assuming now that no reader in their right mind would be watching this match,) by averaging the, as you say "complete data set" had nothing to do with the chart you--at last--were able to provide.

The NYT's chart is itself extremely deceptive since, obviously, the effective tax rate shown as an average for those making $50x and less is hardly 2%, except for the bottom end. The chart sorts out 6 demographic groups but lumps 50% into but one.

But, what's striking now that you've delivered the goods is the powerful case the chart makes for your beloved Mr. Bush really delivering the bennies to the super-rich, as well as the super-poor, (I suppose.)

Of course you don't give a darn about what the major impression of the chart is, and, clearly, you didn't know it was out there until you had to go search it out.

***

Good try. Aim higher and you'll not need so many shoes.

[Stephen Eisel]

Alternately the majority, say 51%, can be accorded to other differential slices of household income, as long as slices covers 50% of the households. In other words it doesn't have to start at $0 or even include the lowest 'tile.'

Number of Tax payers
Less than $50k 92,093,452.00 70.61%
$50k - $100k 26,915,091.00 20.64%
$100k - $200k 8,878,643.00 6.81%
$200k - $500k 1,999,016.00 1.53%
$500k - $1mm 356,140.00 0.27%
$1mm - $10mm 175,157.00 0.13%
Greater than $10mm 6,126.00 0.00%
Total 130,423,625.00 100.00%

[Stephen Eisel]

Of course you don't give a darn about what the major impression of the chart is, and, clearly, you didn't know it was out there until you had to go search it out.

Keep on changing the subject....

[Stephen Eisel]

Here's the curious thing. First, tax tables don't tell us squat about actual liability, so your attempt to further deceive me, (assuming now that no reader in their right mind would be watching this match,) by averaging the, as you say "complete data set" had nothing to do with the chart you--at last--were able to provide.

Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 2843 New tax: $ 2542 Savings: $ 301
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 4758 New tax: $ 4362 Savings: $ 396
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 8678 New tax: $ 7862 Savings: $ 816
$ 76,000 Current tax: $16153 New tax: $ 14363 Savings: $

[Stephen Eisel]

And the NYT is so pro-Bush

[Stephen Calhoun]

Stephen, that the NYT, pro-Bush not-so-much, presented information in a deceptive manner and you latched onto the version of same presented at the White House web page, doesn't really let you off the hook.

You made a point and I concede you did so. Bush cut tax rates and average of 47% for all taxpayers making less than $50,000. In one way of construing a majority of taxpayers, this group does constitute a majority of taxpayers.

Whatever...

Yes, I changed the subject to imply that you aren't thrilled by the actual import of the NYT chart. This point was obvious anyway once one peruses the entire chart, rather than simply present its deceptively framed information vis a vis the <$50x group.

***

$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 2843 New tax: $ 2542 Savings: $ 301

Tax savings as % of income: 1.15%; as a % reduction: 10.6%

If this figure, for you, helps constitute a bona fide in support of president Bush being a tax cutter (sure enough) and not one of the worst presidents in American History, then your point is clear enough.

Congrats. Whoopee. Not much to hang one's hat on in light of all the bloody lives and limbs and borrow-and-spend and corruption and war crimes and eronization and opacity and mendacity and anti-constitutionalism and all the other sundry idiocies of the Bush reign of error.

[Stephen Eisel]

From 1992 - 2000, Al Qaeda attacked America and American interest with little or no response from the US. From 1992 - 2000, Iraq thumbed its nose at its terms of surrender from the first Gulf War and several UN Resolutions. In September of 2001, the days of Al Qaeda attcking America with out a response from the US were over. In March of 2003, the days of Iraq thumbing its nose at UN Resolutions ended. If the previous administration had waged a war on terrorism like it had waged a war against the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas or gone after terrorist like they went after Elian Gonzales then just maybe we would not be having this discussion right now.

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.troupcreative.com/viral/eilian.htm

[Stephen Calhoun]

It's really funny in a thread about bad Presidents that you, Stephen, blame Clinton for handing the job of finishing off Al-Q to George Bush.

We'll return to that in a moment.

I gather your main points in favor of Bush's rehabilitation are as stated here: cut tax rates for the <$50x crowd an average of 47%; sent Al-Q scurrying to Pakistan's NW frontier; and, hilariously enough, offer as rationale,

In March of 2003, the days of Iraq thumbing its nose at UN Resolutions ended.

I stop here for a moment to apprise you of your innovation here. You are the only person over 7 years I have read in both expert and amateur venues who has elevated this reason out of the moving targets of all such reasons.

Evidently, for the Iraqi people,. the penalty they must pay for Saddam thumbing his nose, is to suffer mayhem and attending losses numbering in the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed. It's mentionable that for avenging this nose thumbing, the lost lives of limbs (etc..) of American men and women is, as you would have it, a commendable price to pay.

I disagree of course. Nevertheless, you're on the record for stating that the price of nose thumbing should be so terribly bloody and horrific.

***

I'd like to point out that whatever shortcomings of Clinton's anti-jihadist policies have become evident, the fact is: Bush/Cheney Inc. swept the warnings about the threat of jihadism left them by Sandy Berger and Richard Clark and Madeline Albright right off the table. This was the report of many including Paul O'Neil. It goes along way in explaining why we have such ripe footage of NSA honcho Rice being unmoved by the NIE of August 2002.

As I read your loopy right wing ravings, you've failed to rehabilitate Dubya.

I assume we disagree about his greatness. The T-baller, as I read the record, is the worst President and biggest war criminal we've ever managed to elect,

once.

[Stephen Eisel]

The same Sandy Berger that stole classified 9-11 documents from the National Archive? Even Dick Morris, a former Clinton Adviser puts the majority of the blame on Bill... Bill never even met with with his first CIA chief James Woolsey. Richard Clarke!!! The same Richard Clarke that was the counterterrorism czar when 9/11 happened? The same Richard Clarke that did mothing after the first WTC bombing in 1993. If Sandy Berger, Richard Clark, Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright were so concerned about a jihadist attack on US soil then why did they do nothing during their term to organize this country against terrorist attacks? Even the 9-11 Commission pointed out that fact...
.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Stephen, wail away furiously by deploying straw men if you must.

Bush's pronouncements on the terrorist threat made during the campaign season in 2000 are found where?

[ryan costa]

From 1992 - 2000, Al Qaeda attacked America and American interest with little or no response from the US. From 1992 - 2000, Iraq thumbed its nose at its terms of surrender from the first Gulf War and several UN Resolutions. In September of 2001, the days of Al Qaeda attcking America with out a response from the US were over. In March of 2003, the days of Iraq thumbing its nose at UN Resolutions ended. If the previous administration had waged a war on terrorism like it had waged a war against the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas or gone after terrorist like they went after Elian Gonzales then just maybe we would not be having this discussion right now.

Al Queda was responded to to the best of the respective U.S. Agencies' abilities well as possible. If they dropped the ball that is a problem of their own conduct, not whether there was some kind of "war" announced. even Bush dropped the ball repeatedly before 9/11 by putting basic intelligence reports on the backburner.

The Branch Davidians were Americans on American soil. They died defending David Koresh's right to be a serial rapist.

The Previous Administration or the Cuban Expatriate Population went after Elian Gonzales by giving him video games and telling him he would get to vote some day. Trips to McDonalds and Disneyland may have been involved. I can't see this working on terrorists.

The U.N. resolutions against Iraq were kind of a joke. Wasn't John Bolton's entire qualification for being nominated Ambassador to the U.N. his belief that the U.N. didn't really matter?

The Oil for Food scandal doesn't really matter, because it should have been Oil for Money the whole time. Invading Iraq was counter-productive to the global war on global jihadic terrorism: Those are two initiatives that contradict each other. It would have been prudent to only pursue one of them. Since Al Queda was being harbored by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, it made sense to invade Afghanistan. This should have pre-empted us from invading Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Even the Russians seemed ok with it.

The resolution congress eventually voted for to invade Iraq was also kind of bogus. They were pulling out stuff that happened before Gulf War One. You don't get a do over in matters this big and serious. The resolution should have only contained grievances for what Saddam Hussein did after the end of Gulf War One. Those grievances would hardly seem worth what Gulf War II has cost. And it should have contained some kind of bet or wager that Iraq under a U.S. sponsored regime would be way safer and cooler than Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The casualty rates seem to disagree. the millions of refugees would seem to disagree.

If the world were to suddenly become sane or lucid, the expenses and shortcomings of invading Iraq would build a strong case against Invading Iran. The draw to invading Iran would be that we only had such a hard time in Iraq because the Liberals wanted us to Lose: We can get it right next time if the Liberals don't get in the way! And we'll do it with tax cuts and small government and traditional marriage! John McCain chastises Barack Obama for suggesting we should maintain dialogue with Iran. This implies John McCain's strategy is to shimmy some kind of War against Iran into reality. For what reason I don't know, perhaps merely to have something to do.

Democracy in the Middle East doesn't really matter. Our CIA guys have helped other guys overthrow democracies all over. We helped the British help the Shah overthrow a secular democracy in Iran about 50 years ago. The Shah was way more of a jerk than Saddam Hussein. The same has happened in Guatemala and Chile. All revolutions are Communist or Socialist revolutions or terrist revolutions for now on.

Here is what is going to happen in middle eastern oil exporting nations: The top families will get the most of the oil money. the population continues exploding. rising oil sale prices won't cover the rising population and rising expense of pumping oil out of ground. Lots of people with not-millions of dollars watching millionaires on television. Insurgency.

[Stephen Eisel]

Stephen, wail away furiously by deploying straw men if you must.

Bush's pronouncements on the terrorist threat made during the campaign season in 2000 are found where?

You brought up the "straw men" by name not me.. What does Bush's pronouncements as a presidential candidate have to do with the lack of actions of an 8 year sitting president? Paralleling Bush's campaign pronouncements to Bill Clinton's disastrous lack of attention to the terrorist threat against the US is ridiculous. Bush's pronouncement on the campaign trail have nothing to do with Bill Clinton not responding to terrorist attacks on the US and US interest. 8 months in office and one terrorist attack and Bush was at war.. 8 years in office and 6 major terrorist attack and Bill Clinton declares war on the Branch Davidians...


PS Bush also has some responsibility for 9-11.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Stephen/Stephen

Get a room.

Actually you guys would love each other over coffee.

The fact remains, as more and more of the Emperor's clothes disappear, and what is left is nothing short of an idiot puppet boy, can we please go and grab the paperwork before it is all shredded.

I am willing to bet, this guy will be the worst elected public official of all time. Such a shame, he had such a stellar career before this.

So now that the lies are being uncovered, and we know incident after incident was a fraud, a mistruth, planned then explained away has "mistake, "chance," "surprise," is it such a stretch to think...

Let's try this from the begining one more time. PLAN to invade Iraq, before being elected. From the man that believed going in that war-presidents have a better place in history.

Mr. President can we stop killing hundreds of thousands strictly for your legacy.

please


.

[Stephen Eisel]

Stephen/Stephen

Get a room.

Actually you guys would love each other over coffee.

Maybe we are already in love in non-platonic way