Barack Obama vs George W. Bush

Is one really better then the other?:confusedshrug:


[IMG]http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/drone-attacks-deaths-bush-vs-obama.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://libertyworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Oct-Obama-Vs-Bush-Private1.gif[/IMG]

[IMG]http://urbangrounds.com/wp-content/uploads/Bush_vs_Obama.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/obamavsbush.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.richgibson.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Obama-War-Vs-bush1.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://mariopiperni.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Bush_Obama_SinCity.jpg[/IMG]

I just don't understand how democrats who under Bush were anti-war, anti-interventionalist under Obama now are supporting an intervionalist war and claiming anyone who doesn't is selfish and self interested. Do they realize how hypocritical they all look?

obama win by KO in first round.

If Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be president. Seriously, so many people just voted for Obama because he was black.

Everybody (mostly blacks) talks about happy they are that they finally have a black president but they never talk about how he is going to be a good president and will fix things.

[QUOTE=Electric Slide]If Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be president. Seriously, so many people just voted for Obama because he was black.

Everybody (mostly blacks) talks about happy they are that they finally have a black president but they never talk about how he is going to be a good president and will fix things.[/QUOTE]

Lol it would be so funny if Mitt Romney would say this in debates :lol

[QUOTE=Electric Slide]If Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be president. Seriously, so many people just voted for Obama because he was black.

[/QUOTE]


The truth.



Anyone else who thinks otherwise is just a blind idiot.

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]The truth.



Anyone else who thinks otherwise is just a blind idiot.[/QUOTE]
My honest opinion-he's a good looking and cool guy, very intelligent, and very charismatic and inspiring during his speeches. If he was white I think he would have won two terms as well.

His speeches are amazing, even now, knowing how full of shit he is, I still get hyped up listening to his speeches, whereas with Bush I would facepalm and get uninspired.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]My honest opinion-he's a good looking and cool guy, very intelligent, and very charismatic and inspiring during his speeches. If he was white I think he would have won two terms as well.

His speeches are amazing, even now, knowing how full of shit he is, I still get hyped up listening to his speeches, whereas with Bush I would facepalm and get uninspired.[/QUOTE]
He probably would but the only reason why Obama won in a landslide was due to him being black. There were some such as myself that voted for him due to his political views though but too many idiots just said "OMG, HE'S BLACK, HE'S GOTTA BE PRESIDENT." Same people that think Zimmerman was guilty.

Obama by fsr. 1st of all Obama finished the job Bush failed to do in killing Bin Laden. He gave tumhe order to help Libian rebels and kill ghadafi, he's even following the constitution and getting congress to Vote on attacking Syria. Obama is a president for the people, he has created many jobs and you know how Republicans want to take away entitlement programs, he wants to add more. He shows that he cares or may I remind you of Bush and Katrina. Don't go trying to compare the two, Obama is nothing like that alcoholic.

[QUOTE=OJ SIMPSON 2.0]Obama by fsr. 1st of all Obama finished the job Bush failed to do in killing Bin Laden. He gave tumhe order to help Libian rebels and kill ghadafi, he's even following the constitution and getting congress to Vote on attacking Syria. Obama is a president for the people, he has created many jobs and you know how Republicans want to take away entitlement programs, he wants to add more. He shows that he cares or may I remind you of Bush and Katrina. Don't go trying to compare the two, Obama is nothing like that alcoholic.[/QUOTE]


Bush killed Saddam and "ended Taliban rule" in Afghanistan, if that is the kind of thing that impresses you.:lol
[IMG]http://libertyworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Oct-Obama-Vs-Bush-Private1.gif[/IMG]

Don't go trying to compare the two, Bush is nothing like that cokehead.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]My honest opinion-he's a good looking and cool guy, very intelligent, and very charismatic and inspiring during his speeches. If he was white I think he would have won two terms as well.

His speeches are amazing, even now, knowing how full of shit he is, I still get hyped up listening to his speeches, whereas with Bush I would facepalm and get uninspired.[/QUOTE]


I too was impressed and almost swayed myself into his direction in 2008, but I just couldn't bring myself to place a man with such little experience in charge of a country in such tough economic times. Eventually, his schtick of reading off teleprompters and making every speech into some triumphant moment in history got old. When jobs were unattainable and when he began to apologize to the world for past transgressions, I realized that he was nothing more than just a puppet in place to just pass policy and steer the country into a different direction. While he cements his own personal legacy, the country is being driven into this progressive utopian fantasy that only exists in works of fiction.

You may have facepalmed to Bush as much as the next guy, but with Bush, you felt as if though he was coming to you from the heart. With Obama, he smiles just to pull the wool over your eyes while he begins to fill your head with propaganda and lies.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Bush killed Saddam and "ended Taliban rule" in Afghanistan, if that is the kind of thing that impresses you.:lol
[IMG]http://libertyworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Oct-Obama-Vs-Bush-Private1.gif[/IMG]

Don't go trying to compare the two, Bush is nothing like that cokehead.[/QUOTE]
Obama has to clean after Bush's mess stupid Neocon.

[QUOTE=OJ SIMPSON 2.0]Obama has to clean after Bush's mess stupid [B]Neocon[/B].[/QUOTE]


Can you stop using that word, you've not once used it correctly.

If Obama was white he would have won by a larger margin all other things being the same (also he has a white family).

He would certainly lose some black voters, but as a democrat he would have still won the black vote.

John Kerry (who other than being a democrat has no other obvious appeal to black voters) won 88% of the black vote in 2004

[url]http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html[/url]
A charismatic white man would probably have done better than Kerry (who is kind of a socially awkward stiff).

[QUOTE]While the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained roughly the same, 2 million more blacks, 2 million more Latinos and 600,000 more Asians turned out.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html[/url]

That might have hurt hypothetical white obama, but I think white obama makes up for it by getting more white votes. Also a lot of young voters such as myself voted for obama because we were inspired by him and it had nothing to do with his race.

Obama didnt win because he was black, He won because he was better at lying to us and more charismatic about it. The same reason 99% of presidents win. Also because bush had destroyed the republican brand. Generic Dem was crushing Generic GOP candidate in the polls.

Edit: also he had weak competition. McCain was destroyed by Bush, we just flat out werent going to elect a republican that soon after Bush, the primary between hillary and obama settled who would be president.

Romney's social skills are so bad he makes Kerry seem smooth.

[QUOTE=HarryCallahan]Can you stop using that word, you've not once used it correctly.[/QUOTE]
Does the word offend you or something? Neocon just face it, Obama is a great president compared to that raging alcoholic.

[QUOTE=Electric Slide][B]If Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be president.[/B] Seriously, so many people just voted for Obama because he was black.

Everybody (mostly blacks) talks about happy they are that they finally have a black president but they never talk about how he is going to be a good president and will fix things.[/QUOTE]
This. Everybody was talking about that stupid "hope" and "change" Polyanna mantra and gullible peeps swallowed them hook, line and sinker.

Americans should have kicked him out of the White House at the first chance. Instead they reelected him. :lol :facepalm

[QUOTE=OJ SIMPSON 2.0]Does the word offend you or something? Neocon just face it, Obama is a great president compared to that raging alcoholic.[/QUOTE]

No, you've just not ever used it in describing someone who actually is a neo-conservative. I'm not a neo-con, neither is Nick Young. Obarmer however is a "born-again neo-con" in the words of king neo-con Bill Kristol.

You are an idiot.

[QUOTE=Electric Slide]If Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be president. Seriously, so many people just voted for Obama because he was black.

Everybody (mostly blacks) talks about happy they are that they finally have a black president but they never talk about how he is going to be a good president and will fix things.[/QUOTE]

starting to belive this too..........if he attacks syria it

[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]The truth.



Anyone else who thinks otherwise is just a blind idiot.[/QUOTE]

Joe Biden could have won in 2008, ANYONE except a Republican was getting in.

People underestimate how much the right puts their foot in their mouth, the whole wishy washy on rape and women's rights along with the anti-Mexican vibe they gave off is why they lost in 2012.

Barry was the right guy at the right time, people were lukewarm on Hillary and he provided an option, he basically got 8 years off an inspired speech from 2004.

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]If Obama was white he would have won by a larger margin all other things being the same (also he has a white family).

He would certainly lose some black voters, but as a democrat he would have still won the black vote.

John Kerry (who other than being a democrat has no other obvious appeal to black voters) won 88% of the black vote in 2004

[url]http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html[/url]
A charismatic white man would probably have done better than Kerry (who is kind of a socially awkward stiff).


[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us/politics/21vote.html[/url]

That might have hurt hypothetical white obama, but I think white obama makes up for it by getting more white votes. Also a lot of young voters such as myself voted for obama because we were inspired by him and it had nothing to do with his race.

Obama didnt win because he was black, He won because he was better at lying to us and more charismatic about it. The same reason 99% of presidents win. Also because bush had destroyed the republican brand. Generic Dem was crushing Generic GOP candidate in the polls.

Edit: also he had weak competition. McCain was destroyed by Bush, we just flat out werent going to elect a republican that soon after Bush, the primary between hillary and obama settled who would be president.

Romney's social skills are so bad he makes Kerry seem smooth.[/QUOTE]

However it is still true that if Obama was not black he would not be President. Hed have had no shot in the primaries. He SURGED in the primaries once people saw pictures of him. Voting for a black guy gave Dem voters EXACTLY what they always strive for, which is a badge of "being tolerant" they can show off to everyone. It is the thing they most associate their personal identity with. In fact its the only thing. Like the guy who takes sports too seriously and everythin he has is sports themed. Liberals triumphantly parade and advertise to everyone "HEY IM NOT RACIST!!! EVERYONE LOOK, I DONT CARE ABOUT RACE!" Its all they have. Most of them have no other distinguishing qualities, and so they hone their image as tolerant progressive intellectual. Even tho none of their opinions or thoughts are original. Its a huge crowd of posers hating the "successful conservatives" who used to pick on them in school.

[QUOTE=Nick Young]Is one really better then the other?:confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

If your argument is so strong against Obama, why not state it honestly? Why use the dishonest nonsense you post?

More Americans died in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush because Bush turned away from Afghanistan and turned to Iraq, while Obamam wound down Iraq and refocused on Afghanistan. So if they metric is US soldiers killed under a president, you need to include the Iraq deaths.

I think Afghanistan is a pretty rich area to criticize Obama. For one thing, had he not kicked the can to 2014 and also withdrew troops, he would be having a different conversation on Syria.

The Bush Tax Cuts are in no way whatsoever equivalent to the stimulus under Obama and only a moron would think so. The most obvious difference being one occurred after a financial collapse unseen since the 1930s.

If job creation/loss is your metric, Obama [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-numbers-quarterly-update/"]comes out way ahead.[/URL][QUOTE]The economy has added more jobs since Obama took office than it did in his predecessor

Also plenty of Democrats supported war after 9/11. Bush had 90% approval ratings, it was only afterwards when it was shifted to Iraq that serious opposition began. Seeing how the decision to go war with Iraq was among the worst ever, I don't think your premise holds up.

They are practically the same thing. Republicans are fvcking retarded so I supported the Democrats and they ended up being the same thing

***Partisan Retard Alert***

KevinNYC presence detected in thread

***Paritsan Retard Alert***



[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
More Americans died in Afghanistan under Obama than Bush because Bush turned away from Afghanistan and turned to Iraq, while Obamam wound down Iraq and refocused on Afghanistan. So if they metric is US soldiers killed under a president, you need to include the Iraq deaths.[/QUOTE]

The issue is that Obama campaigned on un-doing what Bush did and doing everything that he didn't do. He got into office and fought the exact same 'war' just in a different country.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
The Bush Tax Cuts are in no way whatsoever equivalent to the stimulus under Obama and only a moron would think so. The most obvious difference being one occurred after a financial collapse unseen since the 1930s.[/QUOTE]

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. He literally signed a bill extending the Bush tax cuts exactly as they had previously existed.

[URL="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html"]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026069-503544.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]There's plenty of honest and legitimate criticism you can make of Obama, why choose stupid, dishonest and easily disprovables ones?[/QUOTE]

I asked you around the time of the last election to name one single disagreement or criticism you personally had toward Obama and you couldn't/wouldn't. You are a complete hack, a pretend "wannabe-political talkshow host" a partisan sheep and an admitted welfare hording loser. Even now you won't actually name a SPECIFIC criticism of the president, the farther into those waters you'll dip your toe is to say "its possible in theory" to criticize him, which is something everyone else ALREADY KNOWS. You personally will not volunteer a single individual opinion as you never, ever have. You are completely tied by handcuffs to Obama and the Democratic Party rhetoric, you are scared to venture out of the safety net they provide you.



[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
If job creation/loss is your metric, Obama [URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-numbers-quarterly-update/"]comes out way ahead.[/URL][/QUOTE]

Any government can "create" phony government jobs. That's a metric of nothing. It means nothing. It is literally money the government WASTES to create an illusion that sounds good to idiot voters. It's a talking point losers like you cling to because you have no value. You pretend like you are Rachel Maddow or some other party hack who at least has made it and has a real audience, while you collect welfare and pretend all day long from your apartment to be the authority on Democratic Talking Points.

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]However it is still true that if Obama was not black he would not be President. Hed have had no shot in the primaries. He SURGED in the primaries once people saw pictures of him. Voting for a black guy gave Dem voters EXACTLY what they always strive for, which is a badge of "being tolerant" they can show off to everyone. It is the thing they most associate their personal identity with. In fact its the only thing. Like the guy who takes sports too seriously and everythin he has is sports themed. Liberals triumphantly parade and advertise to everyone "HEY IM NOT RACIST!!! EVERYONE LOOK, I DONT CARE ABOUT RACE!" Its all they have. Most of them have no other distinguishing qualities, and so they hone their image as tolerant progressive intellectual. Even tho none of their opinions or thoughts are original. Its a huge crowd of posers hating the "successful conservatives" who used to pick on them in school.[/QUOTE]

Meh, nobody voted for Jesse Jackson that time he ran.

Obama is a charismatic guy (with appeal to white people). Honestly American presidential elections are kind of a farce. something like the candidate with more money will win 94% of the time. Basically 30 second TV ads inform the voters actually decide the election. We call them undecided voters or swing voters. If you are undecided about an American election a month before the vote, you are a dumbass. All of the intelligent voters who are voting on the issues cancel each other out.

Obama was more likeable than Hillary. The more likeable candidate usually wins. Personally I voted for Obama because I felt he was more likely to immediately end the wars, Close gitmo, pursue at least the public option, and prosecute wall street fraud. He was better at lying than Hillary. It had nothing to do with him being black. I honestly think him being black helped him with blacks (a lot) and latinos (somewhat) and that is it. The rest was charisma.

Also Because of the electoral college only a handful of states actually matter in the general presidential election

Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, etc.

States like Texas, Georgia, Alabama, etc are going to go GOP whether you vote or not.

States like NY, California, Massachusetts, etc are going democratic whether you vote or not.

Obama won because of 3 things:

1. Money.

2. Change from Bush.

3. Youth vote.

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]Meh, nobody voted for Jesse Jackson that time he ran.

Obama is a charismatic guy (with appeal to white people). Honestly American presidential elections are kind of a farce. something like the candidate with more money will win 94% of the time. Basically 30 second TV ads inform the voters actually decide the election. We call them undecided voters or swing voters. If you are undecided about an American election a month before the vote, you are a dumbass. All of the intelligent voters who are voting on the issues cancel each other out.

Obama was more likeable than Hillary. The more likeable candidate usually wins. Personally I voted for Obama because I felt he was more likely to immediately end the wars, Close gitmo, pursue at least the public option, and prosecute wall street fraud. He was better at lying than Hillary. It had nothing to do with him being black. I honestly think him being black helped him with blacks (a lot) and latinos (somewhat) and that is it. The rest was charisma.

Also Because of the electoral college only a handful of states actually matter in the general presidential election

Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, etc.

States like Texas, Georgia, Alabama, etc are going to go GOP whether you vote or not.

States like NY, California, Massachusetts, etc are going democratic whether you vote or not.[/QUOTE]


This is all true.

90% of Americans vote based on party and politicians. Not policies. That's the problem.

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]The issue is that Obama campaigned on un-doing what Bush did and doing everything that he didn't do. He got into office and fought the exact same 'war' just in a different country.
[/QUOTE]

Um. No he didn't. Anyone who paid attention noted that Barack Obama campaigned on refocusing on Afghanistan. Here [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0"]he is in July 2008.[/URL]
[QUOTE]Senator McCain said – just months ago – that “Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq.” I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that’s why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Obama extended the Bush tax cuts. He literally signed a bill extending the Bush tax cuts exactly as they had previously existed. [/QUOTE]
Yes he did, during a severe recession. In fact, a good chunk of the stimulus was in tax cuts. It's still completely irrelevant to the comparison made above but you're not bright enough to see that. Later Obama signed another bill that brought those tax cuts back on the top 2% and the top brack is currently
39.6% on taxable income over $450,000.


[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]I asked you around the time of the last election to name one single disagreement or criticism you personally had toward Obama and you couldn't/wouldn't. You are a complete hack, a pretend "wannabe-political talkshow host" a partisan sheep and an admitted welfare hording loser. Even now you won't actually name a SPECIFIC criticism of the president, the farther into those waters you'll dip your toe is to say "its possible in theory" to criticize him, which is something everyone else ALREADY KNOWS. You personally will not volunteer a single individual opinion as you never, ever have. You are completely tied by handcuffs to Obama and the Democratic Party rhetoric, you are scared to venture out of the safety net they provide you. [/QUOTE]
Blah, blah, blah. I've never been on welfare in my life so please show me where I admitted that.

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Any government can "create" phony government jobs. That's a metric of nothing. It means nothing. It is literally money the government WASTES to create an illusion that sounds good to idiot voters. It's a talking point losers like you cling to because you have no value.[/QUOTE]
A. Your point is bullshit. Money earned by cops, firemen, teachers, scientists, soldiers, contractors still flow through the economy.
B. Your point is blatantly false.

[URL="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/"]Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs[/URL]

[URL="http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=a4602806-9a56-4980-91fd-71334748a79b"]The number of public sector jobs has shrunk by more than 700,000 on [Obama's] watch.[/URL] It grew by 1.75 million during George W. Bush's terms.

Government Employment has not kept up with population during this recession. In fact, it's plunged. That spike in 2010 represents Census hiring.
[IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/09/09/opinion/090912krugman1/090912krugman1-blog480.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]
[URL="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/under-obama-a-record-decline-in-government-jobs/"]Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs[/URL]
[/QUOTE]

This is why everyone hates you. Because you aren't interested in the truth, just in partisan face-saving.

YOUR OWN LINK explains that job loss in the public sector came at the local levels Obama has absolutely no jurisdiction over. At the federal level...

[quote]
That record, which will seem a dubious distinction to public-sector employees, is largely a result not of federal policy but of shrinking state governments. State employment fell 1.2 percent in 2011

Obama was supposed to get me free healthcare and pay my mortgage so color me disappointed.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Obama was supposed to get me free healthcare and pay my mortgage so color me disappointed.[/QUOTE]


Those promises don't apply to people who work.

I voted for Obama in '08. I thought he would fundamentally change America. My party lost because Obama's changing of the old guard strategy proved to be too tough to crack for Republicans...as this really resonated with the general public. It's too early to compare Obama to Bush.

[QUOTE=Electric Slide]If Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be president. Seriously, so many people just voted for Obama because he was black.

Everybody (mostly blacks) talks about happy they are that they finally have a black president but they never talk about how he is going to be a good president and will fix things.[/QUOTE]

so are we gonna act as if there isnt just as many racist white people who voted against him because they didnt want a black man as the leader of their country?

what about all the scandal on his birth certificate and him being a muslim? I bet you those topics would have never been brought up if he was white.

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]YOUR OWN LINK explains that job loss in the public sector came at the local levels Obama has absolutely no jurisdiction over. At the federal level...

Obama's policy is to create as many government jobs/dependents as possible, necessary or unnecessary. That keeps voters under the Democrats' thumb. An excessive of government dependents is not good for any country, but you don't care. You are not concerned about the United States of America. You milk the government for fraudulent disability money, just like your father taught you to do (you admitted this in a thread some 2 or 3 years ago) and you spend all your time defending the hand that feeds you, even when it is with the earnings of others. Good for you. Partisan hack. You are a loser.[/QUOTE]

So you couldn't find any evidence to back up your welfare lie, could you? Now you're spewing a disability lie? My father was a Goldwater Conservative who campaigned for the NY Conservative party. Nice try though.

You claimed government jobs didn't affect the economy. This is a Republican talking point. It's just simply false. And anyone with a basic sense of macroeconomics knows it's not true. It's especially not true in times like past five years.

My post is dishonest only if you can convince yourself that local jobs help the economy while federal jobs don't. Your point is simply incoherent.

Also the fact is that federal goverment payrolls are down overall since Obama took office which demolishes your point about Obama's plan. In
Jan 2009 there were 2,772,000 federal employees. The latest month we have the data for is May 2013 when there were 2,757,000. You can check these numbers on the BLS website. Go here and just select "Federal" to get the numbers
[url]http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm[/url]

Again overall federal employment is down during Obama's term. However, even that 1.3 percent you cite is due to spike during 2010, when we hired a shitload of people to do the census.

The other thing to note is that federal employment has gone down while the population of the country has gone up by 10 million. Population growth especially affects local government. Usually when you get more people you need more cops, more teachers, etc.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Yes he did, during a severe recession. In fact, a good chunk of the stimulus was in tax cuts. It's still completely irrelevant to the comparison made above but you're not bright enough to see that. Later Obama signed another bill that brought those tax cuts back on the top 2% and the top brack is currently
39.6% on taxable income over $450,000.
[/QUOTE]

Obama extended the bush tax cuts in full for 2 years

Then later Obama basically wrote it into law that 98% of the bush tax cuts would be there forever. They will never expire.

If you have a problem with the bush tax cuts how can you support Obama's actions on this issue?

At a minimum Obama's actions indicate that he agrees with 98% of Bush's tax cuts. Bush never made them permanent tax cuts. That was Obama.

All Obama had to do to get rid of the Bush tax cuts was to do nothing and let them expire. Obama actively went out to protect them in full for 2 years and then actively went out and insured 98% of them will never expire. They are at least partially the obama tax cuts now.

[QUOTE=PistonsFan#21]so are we gonna act as if there isnt just as many racist white people who voted against him because they didnt want a black man as the leader of their country?[/QUOTE]

Certainly there are, but those are not people who swing an election anyway. Those people either always vote red or don't vote at all.

Women and wafflers swing the elections. They are the most easily impressionable groups of people. They all gave themselves a huge pat on the back for voting for "this nice black man" and demonstrating to everyone else (which is their top priority) how totally beyond race they are. Even backwoods racists typically don't go around bragging about George Bush or Mitt Romney. Those people typically don't like politicians and government at all anyway. Liberals were wildly flaunting OBAMA PRIDE down everyones throats from Day 1. They absolutely reveled in being seen voting for a black guy. They needed everyone to see their membership in The Progressive Club. They are posers and when you are a poser, your whole thing is showing off who and what you are to others. That's what liberals did. They showed off their Obama Pride nonstop, loud and proud. Just look at the fervor Obama drew that Kerry did not. For all intents and purposes they are the same politician. Same party, same politics. It's not because Obama was "more charismatic" he's honestly not that charismatic. That's a blatant misnomer. Clinton was far more charismatic. Obama was a nice looking black guy who did manage to sell some fraudulent hope dream.


[QUOTE=PistonsFan#21]
what about all the scandal on his birth certificate and him being a muslim? I bet you those topics would have never been brought up if he was white.[/QUOTE]

Parties are always gonna attack each other, regardless of race. Republicans actually wanted to waste time impeaching Clinton for adultery. :facepalm As far as being a Muslim, I'm pretty sure Obama's father IS a muslim, and Obama's christian "pastor" was applauding/glorifying September 11. Those are facts. It's not exactly a leap for his detractors to labale the dude a "muslim" even if they know he doesn't practice it actively.

The Bush presidency was the worst in US history. The economy completely collapsed, forcing the US to print money hand over fist to bail the economy out. He also started a war with Iraq for no reason costing lives and roughly $5trillion dollars.

Bush was a train wreck and made the US a worldwide laughingstock for electing this idiot.

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]Obama extended the bush tax cuts in full for 2 years

Then later Obama basically wrote it into law that 98% of the bush tax cuts would be there forever. They will never expire.

If you have a problem with the bush tax cuts how can you support Obama's actions on this issue?

At a minimum Obama's actions indicate that he agrees with 98% of Bush's tax cuts. Bush never made them permanent tax cuts. That was Obama.[/QUOTE]


Obama extended the Bush tax cuts quietly in the middle of his term.

When election time came rolling around, then he got on the soapbox and demanded rich people "pay their fair share."


Obama, just like Bush, is not doing what he feels is best for his country. He is an actor on a stage, justifying the decisions of his party and the people behind the scenes who have the power to control the nations affairs. The guy is absolutely, 100% not a leader. He is a puppet, putting on a charade. And sadly, he has regular Americans bickering over him, which is the entire purpose of the illusion.

[QUOTE=tontoz]The Bush presidency was the worst in US history. The economy completely collapsed, forcing the US to print money hand over fist to bail the economy out. He also started a war with Iraq for no reason costing lives and roughly $5trillion dollars.

Bush was a train wreck and made the US a worldwide laughingstock for electing this idiot.[/QUOTE]


Bush didnt "make" the economy collapse. No president does. He happened to be in office when it did.

Also, Congress voted for war. As in, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and others. Guess that doesn't suit your "good guys and bad guys" agenda.

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]Obama extended the bush tax cuts in full for 2 years

Then later Obama basically wrote it into law that 98% of the bush tax cuts would be there forever. They will never expire.

If you have a problem with the bush tax cuts how can you support Obama's actions on this issue?[/QUOTE]

Read upthread.

The original argument was a completely apples to oranges comparisons of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to the stimulus. They are not comparable and it's dishonest to pretend they are since they took place under completely different economic conditions. The only way they could be comparable is if you pretended that ALL job growth/loss is due to tax/stimulus policy.


Also tax cuts affecting the bottom 98% is not 98% of the tax cuts, note the 30% going to the top 1 percent there, but this is a completely separate issue from my point.
[IMG]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/01/image-3.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=OldSkoolball#52]Bush didnt "make" the economy collapse. No president does. He happened to be in office when it did.

Also, Congress voted for war. As in, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and others. Guess that doesn't suit your "good guys and bad guys" agenda.[/QUOTE]


the banking deregulation and the war on Iraq are what led to the collapse of the economy. And Congress believed that Iraq had WMD's which was nothing but a Bush Administration lie.

Still waiting to hear you explain why Federal employment has gone down even though you claim that "Obama's policy is to create as many government jobs/dependents as possible, necessary or unnecessary." I won't hold my breath.