Those graphs aren't fully accurate, and over time his tax cuts redistributed wealth from everyone to the rich. And also, cutting taxes NEVER increases revenue. It's like saying "if we cut the prices of our goods in half, we're going to make more money somehow." Here is the income inequality once republicans became tax-cut-junkies:
Yeah.....after Nov. 2, 2010--The Largest Political Ass Whooping in History......the Republicans are just quaking in their boots. Yeah.....who has a half hour to spare every 5 years? The electoral college was created to prevent sectionalism from determining Presidential elections....go read a book. .....considering you espouse such views, and yet you vote for The Democrat Party--Home of the Democrat Super Voter......you better read two. . . .
Over last 10 years Jailed Democrat politicians (On a State & National Level ) outnumber GOP Politicians by 2 to 1
First of all, that's not true. Second of all, Democrats are real people, Republicans want to punish people to the farthest degree, and they don't realize that people make mistakes.
So giving you a tax cut, allowing you to keep more of your money....... ......somehow redistributes wealth to the rich......in Imaginationland. "Never"....except for every tax cut in history. Federal Revenue After The Bush Tax Cuts Federal Revenue After The Reagan Tax Cuts Federal Revenue After The JFK/Johnson Tax Cuts A growing booming economy will always yield more revenue than an overtaxed over-regulated Democrat economy.......and tax cuts yield a booming economy. The lower end of the income gap has been and always will be ZERO......... ......Republicans want people as far away from ZERO as possible.....Democrats want everyone as close to ZERO as possible. . . . . Is that why Solyndra received 500 million dollars? Is that why Obama gave away the second half of TARP to his buddies at Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup, and Chase? Is that why Obama granted special safety exemptions to Barack Petroleum? ......why dont you want to answer/acknowledge the Democrat Party is built upon corruption? . . . .
Obama got more corporate donations than did John McCain. Corruption is endemic in the system. Heck, it's endemic in any enterprise that involves human beings.
If you think that politics in multiple party countries is any less corrupt, than you are delusional. Human beings are corrupt.
While this is OT, if you look back historically at the few elections in which the popular vote chose a different candidate than the electoral vote, you will note that the margin of popular vote victory is low, less than a percent (which could easily be caused by vote corruption)--i.e. a statistically insignificant difference. In those cases, the electoral vote chose the candidate that has the highest geographic popularity (i.e. won the most states). That seems reasonable to me. Ironically, pundits in 2000 were warning that it was possible that Gore might win under the same scenario. We don't use the votes of the people, because we are not a democracy, we are a republic composed of 50 states. The states have a say in the vote, just like the people do.
Exactly. I have worked for our Canadian Foreign Affairs over seas and one day, A diplomat at the embassy said to me,"Buzz, don't tell me or any of the other Dips anything important unless you absolutely have to." "Why?" I asked. "You and I are friends." "Yes we are." He replied. "But you are under the disillusion that politics is the business of doing what's best for the country and its population. It is not. It is rather the business of collecting power to one's self."
Yeah, except for the fact that we were stuck with an idiot from Texas for 8 grueling years because of the electoral voting system. God just imagine how much better off America would be without Bush.
That's true. Why else would somebody want to be in charge so badly? Even if you want to make a change, you running means you want the power to put your opinions into action.
We had him for 4 yrs due to that. He won the 2004 election in both the electoral college and the popular vote by 3 million voters.
In 2004, that is true, I don't know what people were thinking, but it was true. They probably wouldn't have re-elected him if he was never a president, though.
It's hard to deciede if the guy who started this thread, based it off pure stupidity, or ignorance, or a little bit of both.
Talk about corruption??? Does the name Richard Nixon ring a bell?? The White House cleaning staff will never get rid of those stains.
You know what's a shame? The democrat party is bought off by the same (*)(*)(*)(*)ing money as the GOP , and you are so brainwashed into thinking you are truly represented by your party, and some how there's a difference between the two. So how's the whole head being buried in the sand working out for you? Speaking of stains, I wonder if they ever came out of monica's dresss.
Yes Richard Nixon was corrupt.......so why cant you admit that corrupt Kenyan slimeball that slithered out of the cesspool of corruption that is Chitcago is just as bad......most likely worse. . . .
Why? Because you've provide no concrete evidence that he's corrupt. Unfounded allegations are not proof other then your vulgar hate of Obama. Nixon was facing impeachment because of his corruption, Obama isn't because there's no proof.
You are correct, but there's a difference between Nixon and Obama that is important. Nixon at least displayed some competence in the job.
Problem is, the Republicans cut taxes for the rich, Democrats don't. Republicans bust unions, Democrats don't. Republicans deregulate businesses so they can exploit the maximum amount of profits they can with no respect to the environment, Democrats don't. Even if most Democrats were corrupt, whoever would pay them to cut taxes for the MIDDLE class and be pro-environment is a great company! I wish the GOP's oil friends, Koch Industries, were so generous to people and the environment.
