- Joined
- Jul 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,715
- Reaction score
- 751
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I was just reading up on some CBO stats and I was considering the differences between Bush and Obama's domestic shop-till-you-drop spending. I hear from so many different people on the left, whether they be respectable men like Obama or so-so men like Bill Maher, that republicans are hypocrites for criticizing Obama's hefty spending exercises while Bush "started the mess." If Bush started the process of bailing out banks, and Obama accelerated this process, is Bush wrong because he somehow didn't spend enough?
Bush, as president, dealt legislation that spent more on prescription drugs for seniors than any previous president. More direct spending on education (of course coupled with some heavy testing). More direct spending on welfare programs, despite what so many people argue. He also tilted the tax burden MORE towards the wealthy...and here's the CBO to prove it:
Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates:1979 to 2005
From 2000 through 2005, income Taxes paid by the wealthiest 20 percent increased from 81 percent of all income tax revenue to 86 percent despite no change in income distribution. This resulted from low-income tax cuts removing 10 million filers from the income tax rolls.
Despite his verbal stupidity, his hawkish war policies, or his hyper-Christianity, liberals should love this guy for getting the ball rolling for Obama. Hell, if he didn't...there would be no one to blame for TODAY's massively increased deficit spending. And of course, when you have someone you can always blame, you're able to divert attention elsewhere.
BTW, I am NO fan of Bush or the republican party.
Bush, as president, dealt legislation that spent more on prescription drugs for seniors than any previous president. More direct spending on education (of course coupled with some heavy testing). More direct spending on welfare programs, despite what so many people argue. He also tilted the tax burden MORE towards the wealthy...and here's the CBO to prove it:
Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates:1979 to 2005
From 2000 through 2005, income Taxes paid by the wealthiest 20 percent increased from 81 percent of all income tax revenue to 86 percent despite no change in income distribution. This resulted from low-income tax cuts removing 10 million filers from the income tax rolls.
Despite his verbal stupidity, his hawkish war policies, or his hyper-Christianity, liberals should love this guy for getting the ball rolling for Obama. Hell, if he didn't...there would be no one to blame for TODAY's massively increased deficit spending. And of course, when you have someone you can always blame, you're able to divert attention elsewhere.
BTW, I am NO fan of Bush or the republican party.