<p>A person who unites is…</p>
<p>…a uniter!</p>
<p>A person who divides is…</p>
<p>…a divider!</p>
<p>And a person who decides is…</p>
<p>… the Worst President in US History!</p>
<p>and think we could have had … [Flippity</a> Floppity](<a href=“http://www.dummocrats.com/images/x/2004/bunny.gif]Flippity”>www.dummocrats.com/images/x/2004/bunny.gif)</p>
![http://www.dummocrats.com/images/x/2004/bunny.gif]Flippity](http://www.dummocrats.com/images/x/2004/bunny.gif%5DFlippity){kind=link}
<p>Even a pancake flipper who lives in a flophouse would be a better choice than what we ended up with. :)</p>
<p>In reply to Xiggi’s response to my post, it was meant to be sarcastic not funny. And the figures I mentioned are accurate. If my wife and I were to die today our son would inherit an estate worth about $3,500,000 though $1,000,000 is in a joint comp life insurance policy and would be tax free regardless inheritance tax policy.</p>
<p>Sadly, because of our nation’s mismanaged fiscal policies under this President I am investing more and more money foreign based companies because I feel there is a reasonable chance of a currency collapse if foreign governments begin to shy away from financing our budget deficits. In addition to currency imoacts, the resulting increase in interest rates could initiate a collapse in the real estate markets which have been bouyed up by cheap and “creative” financing.</p>
<p>IMHO, this Administration has adopted the most RADICAL of economic policies. And to state that my middle class friend’s children will be paying for the largess of this George’s to our family is NOT being funny but is totally truthful. And if you are among our hard working middle class xiggi, please thank your children too on our family’s behalf!</p>
<p>loog, I’m happy to see that you are doing so well and that you have such care for your fellow man. It’s a shame that your concern for your fellow citizens is exceeded only by your willingness to take advantage of whatever tax break is thrown your way. You know that charities exist don’t you? If you prefer the efficiency of the federal government in dispersing your good fortune, you can always pay more taxes. I’m sure the IRS won’t complain.</p>
<p>Reasons for liking Bush: backing a decent tax bill, having the guts to attack terrorists, not getting America involved in Kyoto, umm…and a few others</p>
<p>Reasons for not liking Bush: conducting a sissy war, thus losing 2K+ soldiers, apologizing for Islam, ban on stem cell research, ‘faith-based initiatives’, Patriot act, generally any religious and ethical bill/law/etc</p>
<p>More to come.</p>
<p>In reply to OOG, I’d like to note that I was addressing Digimedia comment that most would be missing the humor of the post. Since I admitted missing the humor, I have no problem in adding that I would also have missed the attempt at sarcasm. Sarcasm, even if meant to convey insults or scorn, requires a modicum of witty language. When lacking wit, the sarcastic language that is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule, ends up defining the author himself.</p>
<p>At one time I belonged to Political Party A, but got ticked with them when they became too radical. So I became became a member of Party B, which I became disillusioned with because the they said one thing but actually performed like Party A. So I became a Party C’er. But Party C is wimpy. I’ve decided to be either above or below the flat catagorization of your simplistic test, and say to you…</p>
<p>You are all a bunch of IDIOTS.</p>
<p>Oops. wrong thread. However, I’m on Oog’s heals. And I’ve also thanked GWB many times on this forum. Someone’s misfortune brings opportunithy and fortune to others.</p>
<p>Well xiggi, I may not be a erudite as you but I have no desire to hide my contempt for President Bush, his administration and those who blindly support his disasterous policies, fiscal and otherwise.</p>
<p>Has there ever been a time in our nation’s history where budget deficits have been higher? NO!</p>
<p>Has there ever been a time in our nation’s history where we have been at war and chosen to cut taxes? NO!</p>
<p>And in the past 75 years has there ever been a time when the monetary gap between the wealthiest 5% and the bottom 40% been greater? NO!</p>
<p>And who are the prrimary beneficiaries of the disasterous tax policies of this President? Well we all know the answer to that question. </p>
<p>As to my comments defining me, yes they do. Though my assets place me in the top 10% of all Americans, I am sure that most here understand that I would love to have the tax breaks that benefit me repealed asap. I neither want, need or deserve them. Use my tax breaks to reduce the national debt for our children, alleviate program cuts assisting needy families, promote a clean environment for future generations. </p>
<p>As for middle class folks who support this Administration’s policies, well I just don’t understand them I guess. I am certain the feel strongly about values issues like abortion, gay rights, etc. But for many their middle class life is falling apart with daily realities like health care, retirement planning, job security, stagnating wages, energy prices and the human costs of an ill conceived war heavily bearing down on them. Honestly, none of these realities impact me at all, yet I vote for people I hope will improve their lot in life. I really do!</p>
<p>Haven’t even read all 48 posts, but can say, unequivocably, that George Bush is the worst president in American history.</p>
<p>Responding to fundingfather, I trust my last post helps you understand my care for my fellow man. As for taking advantage of tax breaks heaped on me by George, what am I to do. I do not make any investment decision based on tax consequences and report every last dime on my tax return. It the IRS that defines the math I am to use.</p>
<p>Regarding your remark about charities. Here I plead the 5th. My wife and I set up a Charitable Gift Fund through Fidelity Funds some years ago. It is a charitable trust which is administered by us and can only issue grants to federally certified charitable organizations. We normally fund this trust by conveying stocks directly to Fidelity and thus avoid paying any capital gains on that stock. That is the only tax avoidance we do and the savings go to charity. I think we are reasonably gererous in our giving but maybe you can tell me what you think. wink</p>
<p>BTW, anyone can set this CGF up very easily and it can be used to pay church donations(not pledges) too. For more inf go to :<a href=“http://www.charitablegift.org/?refhp=c[/url]”>http://www.charitablegift.org/?refhp=c</a></p>
<p>Whenever any responsible American points out that our tax structure is descigned to shift the responsibility for current expenditures from the wealthy (who are already enjoying the lowest federal income tax rates in our lifetimes) to our children’s - and children’s children’s generations, you can always count on someone to come up with the smarmy “witticism”: “Well, you can always pay more taxes if you want. I think I can spend my money better than the government.”</p>
<p>OOG, again I take good note of your contempt for President Bush as well as for “those who blindly support his disasterous policies, fiscal and otherwise.”</p>
<p>“Has there ever been a time in our nation’s history where budget deficits have been higher? NO!”</p>
<p>Well, that depends entirely of the manner you present the problem. </p>
<p>The biggest deficits by far – measured as a percentage of the economy – came during World War II. In 1943 the deficit was $54.3 billion – which today would amount to little more than rounding error. But back then it amounted to more than 30% of the wartime economy. Nothing since the war years has come close.</p>
<p>“And who are the prrimary beneficiaries of the disasterous tax policies of this President? Well we all know the answer to that question.”</p>
<p>Visibly, the definition of the term ALL is as highly debatable as the term IS was for a notorious individual and “those who blindly support his policies, fiscal and otherwise.”</p>
<p>Okay, how about: “Everyone who can read IRS spreadsheets or any other credible source of information regarding taxes and their impact on different economic groups knows who the primary beneficieries of his disastrous tax policies are.” Better?</p>
<p>I think everyone would agree that if we were attacked by two powerful enemies and drawn into a major global war which threatened the continued existence of western society as we know it, we’d be prepared to see the government go into debt, while we all tightened our belts, paid a higher portion of our wealth in taxes, etc. </p>
<p>Comparing that to tax cuts for the wealthy leading to you and your generation being saddled with massive and totally uneccesary debt, for no evident purpose other than to make some extraordinarily wealthy people even more extraordinarily wealthy (plus a little extra to fund an unnecessary and counter-productive little war in the middle east) doesn’t exactly seem like the best comparison, do you think?</p>
<p>How does it feel to know that you will be paying the interest on Paris Hilton’s 10th car for the rest of your life, because Bush’s tax policies gave her just a little more money at the expense of the national debt?</p>
<p>The worst? Hard to say. Definitely in the running, though.</p>
<h1>53. Xiggi let us explore your statistic.</h1>
<p>If I remember my history, WW2 was financed by massive taxation and borrowings from the American public. This money was then used to finance the US war effort and also lent to Allied Nations so that they could continue their war effort. We were the Creditor nation. Everybody owed US money.</p>
<p>The current Terrorist War effort is being financed by again borrowing but less so by taxation. But the lending is not by the American Public but by practically every other nation. The recent runup in interest rates is only partly attributed for the desire of Federal Reserve to “manage” the economy but is also designed to attract foreign investors to our debt (higher interest rates). This all classical Keyesian, Sammelson-freshman, economics. We now are in an era of “Voodoo” economics (Bush '41); Personally I am betting where the money is currently going.</p>
<p>There will be time, when ever that may be, that the oil nations will not accept Dollars for payment.</p>
<p>Well, there’s still James Buchanan to kick around. Secession began on his watch.</p>
<p>There are enough historical facts for any of us to select and support our individual conclusions, as divergent as they may be. </p>
<p>We could debate the parallels between the dissent about the current war and the works of America First Committee. </p>
<p>We could debate if the Revenue Act of 1942 was indeed the greatest tax bill in American history" as President Roosevelt claimed or how effective the massive spending of 1932 to 1941 was to emerge of the 1920s depression cycles compared to the post 1941 period. </p>
<p>We could debate the finer points of FDR’s speech on December 8th, 1941 and draw a new set of parallels between contemporary attacks on american soil and the correct interpretation of the will of Congress and american citizens. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well it is true that the Japanese did attack Hong Kong, Guam, the Philippenes and Wake Island … and then we declared war on Japan.</p>
<p>OBL devised and carried out an attack on the US and OBL was in Afghanastan so we attacked places we believes OBL might be and in the process overthrew the local government … pretty close to a parallel … at least the going after OBL; I’m not so sure about overthrowing Afghanastan’s government.</p>
<p>IRAQ … our president based are attack on a position that now appears nebulous at best … for me it’s hard to see a parallel to our response to an attack by Japan and our proactive attack on a sovereign government in Iraq which was based on faulty info and faulty conclusions. Interestingly, FDR catches some critisism from some circles for waiting until Japan attacked us to declare war … he knew it was coming but wanted to make sure we responded to an attack. A very different scenario than GWB and Iraq.</p>
<p>(I apologize for my horrific spelling)</p>
<p>
Facts would be more compelling than insults. The total tax burden for the wealthy (taxes as a % of income) in the US is among the lowest of any country with a reasonable economy … we can argue if the tax burden is appropriate or not … that said if our tax burden is “high” than virtually everyone else’s should be describe with a more severe word and I don’t know who should be described as low if not ours (which is low compared to other major economies).</p>
<p>The “tax cuts” have benefited the rich very nicely. It always was the neocon intent to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. We are moving swiftly in that direction.</p>