rdubnpk It wasn't necessary for the terrorist to attack us here in America. We put our young men and women in the line of fire in their own back yard and it became a shooting and bombing gallery. And for what? Two words epitomize George Bush to me. They were "Mission Accomplished". When he stood on that aircraft carrier in that flight suit that he had not earned the right to wear and in his utterly contemptible naivete declared the war in Iraq essentially to be over........It just goes to show you the total lack of any serious thought he put in to getting us involved in that quagmire that has cost so many and so much. That is his legacy and the reason he deserves no respect.
rdubnpk I am no fan of Obamas, but he has to deal with the Republicans in congress having one and only one goal. To make sure he is not reelected. Therefore, they automatically take the opposite side of anything he suggests. And thank goodness the Demos held congress during the last of the Bush years or he would have spent us into oblivion. He almost did anyway.
Oh, BS. He had control of both houses for two years. And Obama's record on spending makes Bush look like a miser and Bush had to deal with two years of a democrat controlled congress. BTW the Republicans have stymied Obama to the extent they can not so much because they dislike Obama, but rather they are opposed to his Socialist, Marxist policies.
Other than what we get on the news, I haven't really been following this too much, we've got our own problems over here lol .. but found this article so thought I'd post it, the website is generally pretty sound The Truth About Who's Responsible For The Explosion In Government Spending
Obama and the dem's had complete control of our gov't from jan 09 thru Dec '10. 2 years. What is your response now?? The deficit in Bush's last term was $440 billion. Obama, thru the 'stimulus", jacked it up and has kept it up to $1.4 trillion ever since. He has crammed down his foot on the spending gas pedal since his election as most of us predicted he would. Bush was lousy, Obama is worse. He is not the psuedo-God figure so many lib's exulted over....Have the courage to admit about Obama what we Bush voters have done on this very page...Admit it. Which brings up a salient point: Why do we Americans place so much faith in a guy-in-suit who speaks well??
Ben smacks one over the left field wall! And sports a beautiful woman on his arm....Doubly admirable...Most Americans forget that dem's controlled congress the last 2 years of Bush's 2 nd term.....Not to forgive him (dammit). BTW, this is the hubby posting here...I just fully realize no one wants to look at MY picture...
Rdub, You really should quit with this "the rich should chip in" stuff. You well know the top 10% earners in our country pay 70% of our federal revenues and that the bottom 50% pay zero (they do have $$$ withheld but get it all back at tax time). To say the rich are getting a "free ride" is intellectually disingenuous and frankly, discredits your arguments...
To correct your stats, the top 5% of earners pay 75% of all taxes. The top 1% of taxpayers pay more in taxes than the bottom 95% of taxpayers pay. Most of the bottom half of taxpayers not only pay no income taxes, but they get back MORE than they pay in. America, What a Country!!!!
How would you respond to the assertion that the top 1% have seen their income bloat to what many would describe as an obsene amount when compared to the average income. Should CEO's of publically held companies really be awarded millions of dollars annually? Their income is far above their counterparts of 20-30 years ago, proportionately. I know the argument exists that they are merely being compensated at a level that the market dictates. How would the market go about correcting this inequity?
I agree that there is a huge imbalance in what public company CEO's get compensated. As far as I'm concerned there should be an additional tax on any Company CEO in a publicly traded company that exceeds $1,000,000. I agree that they should be compensated for making money for their shareholders, but the level of compensation that is being seen now is way out of control. I think anyone who has compensation in excess of $1,000,000 per year should be looking at a higher tax rate than those who are well below that figure. I know that is substantially different that what is being proposed by the Republicans, but on that factor alone I have to disagree vehemently with the GOP. A public company has a responsibility to not only their shareholders but also their customers, their community, and most importantly, their country. I have not seen much good corporate citizenship in the last few years. I think that a higher tax rate on public companies can be justified. How about this? Let's put a tax rate on any CEO of a public company of 55%, but he or she can lower that rate by 1% for every 1,000 jobs created in the US. That might create some incentive out there.
