The Worst President Ever

Tracy Jones · Post by **Tracy Jones** » Wed May 21, 2008 7:39 am

An historical analysis of presidential faux pas. Author Wm. C. Shelton explains in detail how Dubya’s lowest presidential approval rating in history is not his reason for rating our present leader the “Worst Ever”:

The measure of a bad presidency, for me, is neither popularity nor lack of accomplishment. It is lasting damage to the Republic and the wellbeing of its citizens. Such a judgment requires assessment of past failed presidencies and their impact on our shared history. By that measure, I judge the younger Bush to be the worst U.S. president ever.

The article proceeds to compare and contrast various “bad” policies and decisions of various presidents in light of their eventual historical significance.

http://somervillenews.typepad.com/the_s ... worst.html

'James K. Polk launched an unprovoked attack on Mexico. When Mexicans resisted, Polk claimed that Mexico had "invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil." Some Congressmen questioned his truthfulness. Sound familiar?

William McKinley initiated the U.S.'s role as an overseas imperial power by starting a war against Spain. His WMD was the sinking of the Battleship Maine, which the Navy later found to have resulted from a boiler explosion.

Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Ulysses Grant earned their worst-tier designations based on administrations corrupted by lobbyists and businessmen.'

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 12:51 pm

From Shelton's article: No one blames these predecessors for deliberately encouraging corruption or profiting from it. But this president, or at least his brain, Karl Rove, was up to his elbows in these schemes. And Dick Cheney is sitting pretty on his Halliburton stock.

411 on Cheney and Halliburton (clicky)

From Fact check.org

Stock Options

That still would leave the possibility that Cheney could profit from his Halliburton stock options if the company's stock rises in value. However, Cheney and his wife Lynne have assigned any future profits from their stock options in Halliburton and several other companies to charity. And we're not just taking the Cheney's word for this -- we asked for a copy of the legal agreement they signed, which we post here publicly for the first time.

The "Gift Trust Agreement" the Cheney's signed two days before he took office turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education, a charity that provides financial aid for low-income students in Washington, DC to attend private and religious schools.

The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," so the Cheney's can't take back their options later.

The options owned by the Cheney's have been valued at nearly $8 million, his attorney says. Such valuations are rough estimates only -- the actual value will depend on what happens to stock prices in the future, which of course can't be known beforehand. But it is clear that giving up rights to the future profits constitutes a significant financial sacrifice, and a sizable donation to the chosen charities.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 1:05 pm

From Shelton's article: Bush's only other significant domestic policy is massive tax cuts that have redistributed wealth from the middle class to families earning more than $377,000 annually, while hiking federal fees, state and local taxes, and co-payments for veterans and Medicaid recipients

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 405-9.html

FACT: The 92.1 million taxpayers with annual incomes of less than $50,000 in 2003 saw a 47 percent reduction in their average tax bill from President Bush's 2001-2003 income tax relief. ("Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income," The New York Times, 4/5/06)

FACT: The 26.9 million taxpayers with annual incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 in 2003 saw a 20 percent reduction in their average tax bill from President Bush's 2001-2003 income tax relief. ("Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income," The New York Times, 4/5/06)

FACT: In the last five years, the President's tax relief has helped spur growth by keeping $880 billion in the hands of the American people.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 1:07 pm

From Shelton's article:In this tradition, Bush's justification for the Iraq invasion was fictional.

LOL Was this guy not alive during the 1990's????

Stephen Calhoun · Post by **Stephen Calhoun** » Wed May 21, 2008 1:51 pm

Stephen Eisel,

So when I read this,

The 92.1 million taxpayers with annual incomes of less than $50,000 in 2003 saw a 47 percent reduction in their average tax bill from President Bush's 2001-2003 income tax relief

my interest was provoked because I haven't seen any such reduction.

[color=red]Your search for "Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income" in all fields returned 0 results.

Curious, eh? Yet there is an article from April 5, 2006. It's titled:

Big Gain for Rich Seen in Tax Cuts for Investments

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05tax.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

I didn't give up:

[color=red]Your search for "million taxpayers with annual incomes of less than $50,000" in all fields returned 0 results.

***

I still don't give up. I find the attribution at the web site of the White House!

They too, given over to their natural tendency to lie, have misattributed the data and you've bought into it hook, line and sinker.

***

Incidentally, the table on the White House page

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 405-9.html

is a classic case of statistical manipulation. You see Stephen, I don't occupy a complicated tax situation, nor do most people who make <$50,000 a year, so I knew going into it that your "research" was crap and whatever data supported it was being manipulated.

Anyway, if you drop in the entire group who pay no tax whatsoever and pump up the aggregate income (those making 0-$50,000) and then use that figure as the total and divide it into the taxes paid, and then do the comparison, you've reprised the same statistical situation famously known as 'what happens with average income when Bill gates walks into a bar.'

I note also that your intentional deception re-deploys the misinformation, that you could have vetted yourself if you were more concerned with not trying to pull one over the eyes of Lakewoodites, people who are much much smarter than you--evidently--give them credit for.

***

Meanwhile, President Bush took us to war based in assertions about evidence that were not true, and, incidentally, were materially not true in any scientific sense, at the time he made them.

Many hundreds of thousands of innocent lives have been lost; many more maimed. A lot of treasure has been wasted too but we have Chinese and Japanese credits cards with lots of room left, so who cares.

I count Bush as the biggest sinner of all US Presidents. Is he the worst by some other measure? Who knows, but just the amount of blood and limbs and sadness on his hands should suffice in the bigger moral picture.

But you're still peddling your stuff here, the 90's!!! again; my goodness how embarrassing, Stephen. . .sniff test can prevent this in the future.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 2:24 pm

Your search for "Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income" in all fields returned 0 results.

FACT: The 92.1 million taxpayers with annual incomes of less than $50,000 in 2003 saw a 47 percent reduction in their average tax bill from President Bush's 2001-2003 income tax relief. ("Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income," The New York Times, 4/5/06)

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 2:35 pm

Meanwhile, President Bush took us to war based in assertions about evidence that were not true, and, incidentally, were materially not true in any scientific sense, at the time he made them.

Based on assertions from the previous admin...

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYw1q2Ew7Bo

Stephen Calhoun · Post by **Stephen Calhoun** » Wed May 21, 2008 3:14 pm

Let me see if your ill comeback serves any purpose whatsoever.

You find a data source from the disreputable White House, you repeat it's own mis-attribution while tagging it FACT, and then, called on your own deception, you do a little editing and repeat the same mis-attribution. All the while, clearly enough, you can't be bothered to support the White House claim with an accurate reference to a real NYT article.

Nor does the actual unattributed math behind the stupendously deceptive White House claim draw your interest. (As I mentioned before, the actual statistical manipulation is obvious enough.)

I'm not amazed because this is your standard operating procedure. But, I do find it thrilling that you will shill for the discredited war criminal George W. Bush late in his lamest of all ducks career.

***

I have no idea what you're getting at with this:

Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

It's a little late in the game to serve as apologist for President Bush's Iraq mendacities. You and me have been around this bend before and when challenged to back-up your assertions way-back-when you delivered zip.

Well, Stephen dance all you want. I don't know whether I should mail you a straw or a flashlight or a gift certificate to Phoenix University.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 4:22 pm

I have no idea what you're getting at with this:
Quote:

Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

It's a little late in the game to serve as apologist for President Bush's Iraq mendacities. You and me have been around this bend before and when challenged to back-up your assertions way-back-when you delivered zip.

Well, Stephen dance all you want. I don't know whether I should mail you a straw or a flashlight or a gift certificate to Phoenix University.

LOL.. I was quoting President Bill Clinton. He also had an assertion about Iraq.

Bill Clinton Speech (clicky)

CLINTON: Good evening.

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 4:28 pm

look at my post again:

Your dribble: Your search for "Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income" in all fields returned 0 results.

FACT: The 92.1 million taxpayers with annual incomes of less than $50,000 in 2003 saw a 47 percent reduction in their average tax bill from President Bush's 2001-2003 income tax relief. ("Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income," The New York Times, 4/5/06)

maybe you should put the glue bottle down now... just sayin

http://allfinancialmatters.com/2008/05/ ... -the-poor/

[quote]He also lowered every OTHER tax bracket (from 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent to 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent) and added other of tax credits and breaks for the â€œpoorâ€

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 4:43 pm

You find a data source from the disreputable White House, you repeat it's own mis-attribution while tagging it FACT, and then, called on your own deception,

Are you saying that the Federal tax rates were not lowered?

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 5:47 pm

Well, Stephen dance all you want. I don't know whether I should mail you a straw or a flashlight or a gift certificate to Phoenix University.

Steve, I would love to reciprocate with some free boxing

or grappling lessons

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 6:16 pm

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa010201b.htm

Single - 0 Children
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: $ 1791
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 23593 New tax: $ 20362 Savings: $ 3231

Single - 1 Child
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 1623 New tax: $ 622 Savings: $ 1001
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 3123 New tax: $ 2122 Savings: $ 1001
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 5690 New tax: $ 4582 Savings: $ 1108
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 13020 New tax: $ 11082 Savings: $ 1938
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 20190 New tax: $ 17082 Savings: $ 3108

Single - 2 children
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 710 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 710
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 2210 New tax: $ 710 Savings: $ 1500
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 4420 New tax: $ 2895 Savings: $ 1525
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 11750 New tax: $ 9395 Savings: $ 2355
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 19420 New tax: $ 15395 Savings: $ 4025

Married Filers - 0 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 0%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 1995 New tax: $ 1395 Savings: $ 600
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 3495 New tax: $ 2895 Savings: $ 600
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 5595 New tax: $ 4995 Savings: $ 600
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 12127 New tax: $ 10920 Savings: $ 1207
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 18847 New tax: $ 16920 Savings: $ 1927

Married - 2 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 0%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 170 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 170
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 1670 New tax: $ 70 Savings: $ 1600
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 3770 New tax: $ 2170 Savings: $ 1600
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 9587 New tax: $ 7545 Savings: $ 2042
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 16307 New tax: $ 13545 Savings: $ 2762

Married - 2 Children - 2nd Earner Income = 50%
Income
$ 26,000 Current tax: $ 170 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 170
$ 36,000 Current tax: $ 1670 New tax: $ 0 Savings: $ 1670
$ 50,000 Current tax: $ 3770 New tax: $ 1795 Savings: $ 1975
$ 76,000 Current tax: $ 9587 New tax: $ 6795 Savings: $ 2792
$ 100,000 Current Tax: $ 16307 New tax: $ 12795 Savings: $ 3512

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 6:47 pm

[color=red]Your search for "Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income" in all fields returned 0 results.

I now see the problem .. You missed the parenthese. That is why your search came up with a goose egg.

FACT: The 92.1 million taxpayers with annual incomes of less than $50,000 in 2003 saw a 47 percent reduction in their average tax bill from President Bush's 2001-2003 income tax relief. ("Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income," The New York Times, 4/5/06)

Stephen Eisel · Post by **Stephen Eisel** » Wed May 21, 2008 6:56 pm

I still don't give up. I find the attribution at the web site of the White House!

They too, given over to their natural tendency to lie, have misattributed the data and you've bought into it hook, line and sinker.

***

Incidentally, the table on the White House page

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 405-9.html

is a classic case of statistical manipulation. You see Stephen, I don't occupy a complicated tax situation, nor do most people who make <$50,000 a year, so I knew going into it that your "research" was crap and whatever data supported it was being manipulated.

Please Google ("Who Benefits Most From Tax Cuts On Investment Income," The New York Times, 4/5/06) The New York Times veririfed the numbers used by the Whitehouse.