After
addressing comments written by a "drive-by" Marxist partisan,
it thought it important to share my comments with the readership.
Understand that while this is an opinion blog, my opinion blog,
I seldom if ever complete an article without having included important
facts and/or references.
The
article in question is found by clicking on the link immediately below.
It features charts and graphs but the discussion, below,
especially my "Response" stands in its own rhetoric.
While Bush 43 was a Big Government type, he worked within the rules
and had every intention of advancing the greatness of this nation based
on the "rule book," (the Constitution of the United States).
Obama is a revolutionary, a man who has no problem with working outside the law
and without regard for either traditions or protocol.
In response
to my article linked above, "anonymous" went on the attack.
Here is the exchange. Make note of the fact that
"anonymous" never engages in discussion. He only does
"drive-by" commentary, and moves on. The reason for this
is obvious: he cannot win in a substantive debate or discussion, so
he does not even try.
The WSJ reports: The Corporate Tax Rate
is lowest level since at least 1972. Today - the Dow Jones finished at a 4 yr
high, the NASDAQ finished at an 11 yr high, and unemployment is lowest in 3
yrs.
You'll still hear conservatives telling us Obama is ruining the economy. Why? They are INVESTED is the FAILURE of America.
And we should go back to GW Bush, the guy who put us in this mess and who had the worst track record on jobs in modern history?
You'll still hear conservatives telling us Obama is ruining the economy. Why? They are INVESTED is the FAILURE of America.
And we should go back to GW Bush, the guy who put us in this mess and who had the worst track record on jobs in modern history?
2. Response
The Corporate take rate, as you well know, is 35%. Obama wants to
take it to 40% or more. . . . . . highest rates in the industrialized world
BUT, we, also, have more legal "loopholes" than just about any other
nation and Democrats are as guilty of legislating these loopholes as are
Republicans. In today's congress, the GOP has made it clear that they are
willing to eliminate the loopholes which would bring the effective tax rate
from 12.1% back to 20 - 25 percent; problem solved. Keep in mind that GE has paid
zero taxes for the past two years and its CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, is the head of
Obama's jobs commission, so stop with your partisan BS.
Secondly, your last hyperlink takes us to an article written by one of your cousins, the anonymous "Staff" of the Wall Street Journal and a chart that is as bogus as records get.
For example, Clinton did not create anything, the American workforce did. Clinton lowered corporate taxes to facilitate private sector job creation task, something the man-child, Obama, refuses to do in spite of the advice of nearly all economists and Bill Clinton himself. Net jobs created during the Clinton years was 11 million. That 23 million number? 12 million were "dot com" jobs created during the “dot com” bubble and lost before the end of Clinton’s time in office, leaving Bush 43 with an 18 month recession that was mitigated via the Bush tax cuts.
The WSJ chart shows only 3 million jobs created during Bush 43 years, as if that was (a) true (the Clinton job numbers are not only inaccurate, but dishonest) and (b) a bad thing. No one gives Bush 43 credit for having to deal with an economy that took the biggest external hit in history, 9/11. The "Twin Towers" were the center of the financial world and in three hours, or so, they were suddenly gone. With that in mind, the following fact is rather amazing: during the Bush 43 years, GDP grew for 52 consecutive months, the most prolonged economic growth in history. Unemployment averaged 5.2% for the eight year period, and that included 2008. The size of the workforce averaged 66.5%, also, one of the highest totals in history.
Understand, which you don't, that job creation matched population
growth. Bush tried to deal with the Affordable Housing mess, although he
believed in the socialist goals of Affordable Housing (Bush 43 was not a fiscal
conservative; he was a macro-economist in practice) but was attacked and
humiliated by the Marxist Left as someone who hated poor people. You want to
forget that congressional oversight for the economy was in the hands of the
Democrats, from 2007 on. It was Congressman Frank who told the nation that
Fannie and Freddie were "substantially sound" just 5 weeks before the
bottom fell out for those two institutions. Worst president in history? Not
even close. Take a look at the charts above, and review the post's stated
facts. Combine this advice with the fact that the WSJ article you liberals love
to quote, was an anonymous hit on Bush 43 and was written before Obama was
inaugurated (article date: Jan 9, 2009).
I'd just like to comment on the part where you talk about how Bush worked within the law to make policy. That is complete BULLSHIT!
ReplyDeleteBush opened all sorts of doors for Obama and every President after him. Bush changed a long standing foreign policy so he could start a war in Iraq, he went against the most recent intelligence that said that Iraq was not a danger to anyone and used Clinton's old intelligence to start a war that Americans didn't want. He also broke away from the Geneva convention illegally and decided that torture was acceptable for Americans and foreign nationals without congressional approval.
He aslo made the decision that in any future terrorist attack that HE the Prisident of the United States had the authority to deploy the U.S. military inside the U.S., directed at foreign nationals and U.S. citizens alike; unconstrained by any Constitutional limits, including those of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
I don't agree with you, at all, on the Iraqi war, but you know this.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit, however, that Bush was no friend to small government. In practice, at least, he was a macro-economist. He not only increased the power of the presidency as you suggest in that last paragraph - and I agree with all of it -- he made it much easier for a president to declare martial law.
Most of us dummies don't get it: Obama -- or any president -- could use martial law and run this government as a dictator via regulations and the shuffling of funds without any reference to congress or the courts. That is what is scary to me. Maybe we agree on this?
The evidence against Bush and company about what they knew and didn't know is pretty damning. I guess you forgot about the following from Wikipedia:
ReplyDelete"Before the Gulf War, in 1990, Iraq had stockpiled 550 short tons (500 t) of yellowcake uranium at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 20 kilometres (12 mi) south of Baghdad.[91] In late February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate reports (later found to be forgeries) that Iraq was attempting to purchase additional yellowcake from Niger. Wilson returned and informed the CIA that reports of yellowcake sales to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong." The Bush administration, however, continued to allege Iraq's attempts to obtain additional yellowcake were a justification for military action, most prominently in the January 2003, State of the Union address, in which President Bush declared that Iraq had sought uranium, citing British intelligence sources.[92]
In response, Wilson wrote a critical New York Times op-ed piece in June 2003 stating that he had personally investigated claims of yellowcake purchases and believed them to be fraudulent.[93] After Wilson's op-ed, Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was publicly identified as an undercover CIA analyst by a columnist. This led to a Justice Department investigation into the source of the leak."
Maybe this is just another conspiracy theory but anyone with critical thinking skills could smell a rat when Bush was pushing for the war in Iraq.
We do agree about the growing power of the Presidency. Bush started stock piling Presidential overrides and Obama has continued on the same path and this cannot be good for any future American leaders. The whole point of our constitution is to balance power throughout the 3 branches of government. Unfortunately our Presidents have not been observing this balance. I fear that Romney has the potential to be even more extreme and dictatorial. I don't have a lot of confidence that Romney would be any less extreme than Bush or Obama.