President Bush often argues that history will vindicate him. So he can’t be pleased with an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted by the History News Network. It found that 98 percent of them believe that Bush’s presidency has been a failure, while only about 2 percent see it as a success. Not only that, more than 61 percent of the historians say the current presidency is the worst in American history. In 2004, only 11.6 percent of the historians rated Bush’s presidency in last place. Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, “tax breaks for the rich,” and alienating many nations around the world. Bush supporters counter that professional historians today tend to be liberal and that it’s too early to assess how his policies will turn out.
The only question is….whats up with the other 2%. I want names.
#40
yes rich people pay a lot of taxes, and giving them a tax break isn’t really a bad idea, so i’ll give you that
so, there’s one good thing g.w. did, now, do you think i can have my constitution back?
#41 – Which part do you want back?
Seriously, wasn’t arguing for Bush. I just have a problem with people who think that punishing behavior A & rewarding behavior B will result in more “A” and less “B”. Whatever that behavior is.
34 JimD. Poland invaded US crucial ally Kuwait too?
RBG
# 42 pat
Let me clarify my position. While the top 5% MAY pay around 50% of the taxes collected they still pay a lower percentage of there income. The more you make the more you should have to pay. Why? Because you benefit the most from society and the money that runs it. If you benefit the most you should also contribute the most.
#42–pat==I missed it. What behavior is being punished and rewarded?
#44–J==excellent point assuming you mean disposable income.
#44 “The more you make the more you should have to pay. Why? Because you benefit the most from society”
Or, the more you benefit society. I don’t subscribe to: “From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need”
This country wasn’t founded on nor made successful by Marxism.
Can we all agree that “nobody” likes taxes and that nobody “should” pay them??
So, the remaining question then is how to organize society so that it works?–as in provides the most for the most while not abusing anyone as much as possible?
Lots of work to be done.
I keep forgetting to mention the picture on this thread is a poor representation of “Rock Bottom.”
Rock bottom is when your pants are down around your knees and you have not made it to the urinal—and your wallet is missing.
# 46 pat
“Or, the more you benefit society.”
The wealthy are dependent society. Society is not dependant on the wealthy.
Your process is all fucked up! Society would do just fine without the wealthy because all the money they keep for themselves would be diluted into the system where it can be put to use. Now without society the wealthy could not exist because there would be no one there to give them money for their services.
“This country wasn’t founded on nor made successful by Marxism.”
Who said anything about Marxism? How about they just pay an equal percentage of the income? Warren Buffet pays less % than his secretary.
“Among the reasons given for his low ratings: invading Iraq, ‘tax breaks for the rich,’ and alienating many nations around the world.”
That should be enough to make anyone a little skeptical of this study. Those are democratic talking points. The Bush presidency has been a complete failure, but the reasons given by these historians show that they were biased against him to begin with. Why complain about tax breaks for the wealthy, which are a matter of some disagreement, when you could complain that he cut taxes at all while increasing spending? Why not cite the resulting deficit? Why complain about the fact that he invaded Iraq when you could complain about the moronic way he handled the invasion? Aren’t the needless deaths, wasted money, and years of combat a stronger case for failure than the invasion itself? If these historians were making any effort to objectively judge the president’s success they’d do better to cite his incompetence than matters of policy.
We should stay! We aren’t invading! We are keeping everything safe and steady there. We should stay in Iraq to train their troops and support everything until the government in part of the middle east can support theirselves like the rest of the world! It is not about repulican, democrats, independence and such.
The Bush presidency isn’t any faliure! It is just rough but not fail! We have solved problems in the middle east. Why are US citizens so darn negative! I don’t know why?!? Enough with the war! The war isn’t war now, it is just support now! And I approve this message!
Our president wanted to be a “UNITER”…
looks to me like he`s succeeded.
Victor Davis Hanson may count as the
missing 1% holdout.
>>We have solved problems in the middle east.
We have? Could you name ONE that we have solved? Could you even name one that we have made better than it was before we put our big ham hands all over it?
I thought not.
#49 – “Who said anything about Marxism?”
You did.
# 54 pat
No, I didn’t. Paying an equal percentage based on what they make is not Marxist. Only a right wing WINGNUT could make that leap of logic.
#55 – “Each according to his ability [to pay].
Only an idiot would not recognize Marxist based tax systems…
#16
*Every* member of al Qaeda? Really? Is this because Bush helped get to their 70 virgins?
#36
Kerry is an “honest, courageous man.” AHAHAHAHA. Are you here all week?
#44
What you are missing in your equation is that if you are paying taxes based on a percentage and you make more than most, then by definition you ARE paying more than most. What you want is for the “rich: (a term loosely defined by liberals) to not only pay more in taxes, but to pay a higher percentage as well. In other words, you have a problem with the very concept of wealth.
#49
> Society would do just fine without
> the wealthy because all the money
> they keep for themselves would be
> diluted into the system where it
> can be put to use
Proof that microeconomics is not taught in schools. If ten people are out in the bush and nine have a bushel of apples and the tenth has two bushels, then that last person is “wealthy.” By definition, the middle class are “wealthy” in comparison to the poor. To say that someone is wealthy simply means they have more resources that most. The people that financially wealthy do not stuff that money in a mattress. They invest it and that investment goes back into society.
#57 – Don’t waste your typing. These guys don’t realize that the system they love and want to expand upon has already been shown to be a failure.
All but destroyed the UK up to the late 70′s, until reversed, USSR, etc.
>>AHAHAHAHA. Are you here all week?
Tommie, I’m here as long as it takes to defeat the forces of evil. My work should be over in November of this year, when Dumbya can start planning to go back to his cocaine, beer, and brush-clearing.
Harry Truman.