What If Bush Had Done Nothing?

[ProSense]

What If Bush Had Done Nothing?

by wruckusgroink

The brilliant Charles Pierce perfectly punctures the MSM's fluffery of the opening of Dubya's Museum:

The elite press is dedicating an entire day of coverage to the perpetuation of a monstrous public lie. Electing George W. Bush twice was a monumental act of democratic self-destruction from which the country has yet to recover. Celebrating him celebrating himself is simply to pour battery acid into the still-open wounds.

In order to take in the ginormous magnitude of Dubya's project to destroy the American Dream, ponder this simple question -- what if he'd done nothing? Follow me below the fold for this speculation...

WHAT IF...Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had done nothing, and allowed Richard Clarke & Company to continue their pursuit of Osama bin Laden? What if Bush had paid attention to those warnings (as Clinton did)? 9-11 might well have been averted.

WHAT IF...Bush had valued what he inherited -- a balanced budget -- and DONE NOTHING. No massive tax cuts benefiting the top 1/10th of 1 percent. No massive deficits. 8 years -- budget still balanced, instead of trillions in new debt and a tax code designed to make the government untenable without savaging the social safety net.

WHAT IF...Bush had treated FEMA as a serious agency with a vital role to play in national emergencies? What if he'd appointed a serious administrator, instead of an incompetent crony bent on looting the agency and wrecking its ability to function properly? Katrina might have turned out quite differently.

WHAT IF...Bush had hadn't worked overtime to destroy the regulation of financial markets? What if he'd DONE NOTHING, and let regulatory agencies do their proper work? The financial crash of 2007-8 might never have happened.

WHAT IF...most importantly...Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld hadn't conjured stove-piped "intel" to stampede us into war after 9-11? No trillion dollar wars, shoveled onto the spiraling national debt...no thousands of American soldiers killed...no hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed...no Abu Ghraib...no disillusionment of the American public in our ability to fight and win wars...

What always struck me about Bush and his incompetent cronies is the activist nature of their "wreck everything quickly" administration. All Bush had to do was NOTHING to have a successful presidency. Everything he touched turned (immediately) to shit...and yet he couldn't wait to destroy more. Thank goodness the American people turned on him during the post 2004 "Wind At My Back" "Hand Social Security Over To Wall Street" debacle.

I'm convinced that someday, 50 years from now when historians are analyzing the moment that "broke the back" of the American dream, they'll focus on the Bush Administration -- specifically the catastrophic response to 9/11. Karl Rove's goal was always to repeal the New Deal, monkey-wrench the government to make it untenable, and hand the burning wreckage over to his billionaire pals who are greatly inconvenienced by all those middle class "entitlements", environmental protections and Union rights.

All he had to do was nothing. Instead, he almost wrecked everything

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/25/1204786/-What-If-Bush-Had-Done-Nothing

Never forget: The Bush Administration failed to prevent the September 11 terrorist attacks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022755411







Note:

Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified

[spanone]

1. k&r...

[Gidney N Cloyd]

2. Great piece. K&R

[Berlum]

3. k and r

I salute George AWOL Bush (R - FAIL) with a colossal, well-deserved, all-American Firefart:

[reformist2]

4. Dubya did not "break the back" of the American dream - that's just hyperbolic nonsense.

[Baitball Blogger]

17. What I found most interesting about that era, was that there was one

defined American Dream: Home ownership. Until then, I never realized that the American Dream was so limited.

In that light, yes, he did break the back of the American Dream. Because fewer people would be able to own homes once the time came around to pay for his economic disaster.

[brush]

30. I do not agree. The OP is not that far off. Bush/Cheney did much damage

And we're still trying to dig our way out of it. I don't see how you can deny it.

[reformist2]

34. I do deny it, fully. What Dubya did was bad, but our national recognition of it has made us stronger

We actually are better off now than we were before, not in terms of almighty dollars, but in wisdom, which is far more valuable. Of course we have a long ways to go in rebuilding, but it's being rebuilt our way now, not theirs.

[brush]

35. Ever heard of the word "delusional"? nt

[progressoid]

46. Where is this "wisdom" of which you speak?

The only thing that has been rebuilt is Wallstreet. And even that was rebuilt their way, not ours.

Sorry, I don't see it.

[DCBob]

49. huh?? I understand learning from failure but..

to claim we are better off having gained "wisdom" from suffering through 8 year of the Bush/Cheney disaster is absurd. There are better, less painful ways of acquiring wisdom.

[Boomerproud]

87. I couldn't disagree more.

It is not being rebuilt our way.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

102. that sounds like the spin, not the reality

the trend lines from the 80's to now, continue to go against the 99%, with no signs of abating.

in other words, everything continues to go according to the 1% plan.

[NYC Liberal]

110. Except it wouldn't need to be rebuilt if he hadn't fucked it up in the first place.

Your logic is like that of the people who said, "Look at all the schools and hospitals we rebuilt in Iraq!" -- even though it was we who destroyed the original ones in the first place!

[NoMoreWarNow]

31. it was definitely a few nails in the coffin though

Reagan built the coffin...

[awoke_in_2003]

107. Nixon started it...

by opening trade relations with China.

[MirrorAshes]

79. Sure feels that way to me

As a highly educated 32 year-old who cannot find a job that lives up to my qualifications.

It is bleak.

[yurbud]

109. he was some kind of tipping point

[madokie]

5. Yes what if

good read, thank you

[RC]

6. In that same vain, Gore would have won the election and bu$h II would never have been President.

[AlbertCat]

26. Gore would have won the election

But he DID win it.


And now talk about doing nothing....

[AAO]

88. vein

[RC]

90. Hey, I live in a Red State, what can I say?

[rurallib]

7. Unlike others on various "worst presidents" list, Bushco

went out and actively destroyed government in every aspect. Hoover was a financial disaster and on down the line. Bushco actively sought out to change for the worse each and every aspect of government - foreign affairs, safety nets, workers rights, highways, post office, education, environment - you can't name one thing they did that was positive in any aspect.

By far the worst presidency ever - but we did not learn.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

96. "actively destroyed government in every aspect"? He didn't even try to cut Social Security.

But maybe someone can do better than that.

[OnyxCollie]

8. What if Obama had done something?

LIke prosecuted the Bush administration for lying the nation into war.

Like prosecuted the Bush administration for torture.

Like prosecuting telecoms for illegally spying on Americans.

Like prosecuting Too Big To Fail banks for the fraud that has destroyed the economy.

Too bad Obama either choose to do nothing, or codified and expanded the crimes of the Bush administration.

Things would not suck as much as they do now.

These "What if..." games are a waste of time.

[mercymechap]

9. Are you serious?

Do you really think Obama would have been able to do all that? He couldn't even get the sequester not to take place because Republicans don't give a damn what they do to the country to prove a point and have allowed it to occur. They were more than willing to let the country go off the cliff had it not been that they were surprisingly able to figure out that they might just find themselves being voted out.

They figured that the sequester could be blamed on Obama and that is why they went ahead with it. If people don't realize that they are the ones that are hurting America and vote them out, they will continue to push their idiotic policies and we will continue to get worsel

You are under the illusion that Obama has more power than he actually does. Obama has to smile and make pretty just to get some things accomplished, but to suggest that he could have done all that is sheer nonsense, Obama would have probably been the one ending up being impeached. Yes, Republicans do have that much power.

[OnyxCollie]

12. Are you done now?

Obama can't do any of those things because he is beholden to the same corporate interests which propelled the Bush administration to do all those crimes.

Republicans have that much power because Democrats have failed to do anything to stop them. (I'm looking at you, Harry Reid.)

[mercymechap]

45. Well, I have to agree with you

on the fact that Democrats have failed to do anything to stop them. We have a handful of elected Democrats that are willing to fight for Democratic ideology, the rest just seem to cave in. But, still, if Obama had taken on Bush/Cheney, I don't know that he would have had the support he needed and he would have been hung out to dry, and would have accomplished a lot less.

[dotymed]

16. IMO "mercymechap"

Whether or not Obama "would have been able to do all that", is irrelevant. Had he even attempted to do those things
(or even mentioned the possibility in passing), America would be a much better nation.

[Myrina]

23. +100

Just TRYING is more important than sitting on your hands & pretending there's no problem.

[NoMoreWarNow]

32. exactly-- where was the ATTEMPT?

He didn't even pay proper lip service to much of those crimes and injustices.

[AAO]

89. He took an oath to defend the US Constitution. He broke it long ago...

[mercymechap]

52. Really? With Republicans coming after him even

more fiercely and some Democrats agreeing with them?

I seriously doubt it.

[jmowreader]

15. What really would have been the point?

Not even standing Bush up against the wall would have fixed any of the atrocities he committed. The economy would still be in shambles. All the troops Bush killed would still be dead. The World Trade Center would still be gone. All the people's rights that had been violated would still be damaged. The things Bush did needed to be undone, like the post office destruction bill that's finally being looked at. But as much as I would like to see Shrub Bush at the end of a rope, it wouldn't have changed a thing.

What would have? A repeal of Shrub's legislative legacy. The first clue this would not have happened: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Too small by half and weakened further by it being half tax cuts, what SHOULD have been done is $2 trillion in infrastructure spending paid for by returning to the Kemp-Roth Internal Revenue Code for anyone outside the 15 percent bracket. The beauty of this scheme is that Reagan signed that law, and if Reagan said he liked shit sandwiches they'd become the favorite dish of every conservative in America. They can't stray from Ronnie's line no matter what.

Now for the big unfortunately: the Republicans decided to destroy this president, and by extension America.

[NoMoreWarNow]

33. it would have helped restore America's credibility!

and put a scare into the fuckers who have screwed over the country for some time now.

[jmowreader]

38. The only thing that scares those fuckers is a tax increase

The biggest bunch of freeloaders in the world are Americans who make over $1M per year. There is nothing so terrifying to them as having to share their money collection with anyone else...and the truly sick part is, the seriously rich got that way by either selling things to the government (see Samuel Bush) or by using public land for almost nothing (see any oil baron).

No, the correct punishment for Bush is to overturn every overturnable action he did, while he's still alive to see it. That would hurt him.

[NoMoreWarNow]

43. yes, agree

[mercymechap]

47. You really think you can scare Republicans?

You are dreaming - they've lost two general elections but their win in 2010 has made them think they are invincible. Even after losing in 2012, they come up fighting and don't back off. They allowed the sequester to take place and downplayed what would be the outcome that we are now just beginning to realize is hurting a lot of people. They blame Obama and all of the Republican/conservatives believe them and even some Democrat/Liberals/Progressives do too. I don't know how they do it, but they always seem to turn it around on Dems, and some Dems are dumb enough to accept it.

The only thing that it would have done would have been to saddle the country with more debt to try Doofus and the puppetmaster and Obama would have been accused of wasting time and taxpayer money and Doofus/Cheney would still be free, and Obama might not have even won a second term.

As much as I would like to see Dumb and Dumber in jail, I think Obama took the right approach.

[olegramps]

25. I could not disagree with you more. It would have been a exercise in futility.

[OnyxCollie]

27. The status quo must be maintained at all costs.

A Decade of System Justification Theory:
Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious
Bolstering of the Status Quo

www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost,%20Banaji,%20&%20Nosek%20 (2004)%20A%20Decade%20of%20System%20Justificati.pdf

(The link is too long. Copy & paste, then remove the space before the parenthesis.)

Most theories in social and political psychology stress self-interest, intergroup conflict, ethnocentrism,
homophily, ingroup bias, outgroup antipathy, dominance, and resistance.
System justification theory is influenced by these perspectives—including social identity
and social dominance theories—but it departs from them in several respects. Advocates of
system justification theory argue that (a) there is a general ideological motive to justify the
existing social order, (b) this motive is at least partially responsible for the internalization
of inferiority among members of disadvantaged groups, (c) it is observed most readily at
an implicit, nonconscious level of awareness and (d) paradoxically, it is sometimes
strongest among those who are most harmed by the status quo. This article reviews and
integrates 10 years of research on 20 hypotheses derived from a system justification perspective,
focusing on the phenomenon of implicit outgroup favoritism among members of
disadvantaged groups (including African Americans, the elderly, and gays/lesbians) and
its relation to political ideology (especially liberalism-conservatism).

[ProSense]

57. There is always

"The status quo must be maintained at all costs."

...someone in every thread about Bush who can't stand to see Bush get all the blame.

Here's something Obama is doing.

A new day for the 'war on drugs'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022754071

And an FYI:

President Obama has done more to help the poor and middle class than any President since LBJ
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022660715

[OnyxCollie]

58. Fuck that stupid bullshit.

How 'bout this, Prosense? What's your boyfriend doing about the illegal domestic surveillance started by the Bush administration (besides giving out retroactive immunity to big campaign donors like AT&T and codifying the rest?)

Why, he's expanding it.

U.S gives big, secret push to internet surveillance

Source: cnet.com

Justice Department agreed to issue "2511 letters" immunizing AT&T and other companies participating in a cybersecurity program from criminal prosecution under the Wiretap Act, according to new documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications carried on portions of networks operated by AT&T and other Internet service providers, a practice that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws.

The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-secret-push-to-internet-surveillance/

"Constitutional scholar"

You're a joke, Prosense. DU's own Baghdad Bob.

[ProSense]

59. No, fuck the "stupid bullshit" that is that comment.

"How 'bout this, Prosense? What's your boyfriend doing about the illegal domestic surveillance started by the Bush administration (besides giving out retroactive immunity to big campaign donors like AT&T and codifying the rest?)"

I mean, the ODS is strong.

[OnyxCollie]

60. Where did I lie?

I guess I should have said that Obama is your pretend boyfriend.

AT&T Inc: Senate Democrats
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000076&party=D&chamber=S&type=P&cycle=2008

Top Democratic recipient in the Senate:
Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $270,191

AT&T Inc: House Democrats
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000000076&party=D&chamber=H&type=P&cycle=2008

Top Democratic recipient in the House:
Emanuel, Rahm (D-IL) House $50,650

Obama's wiretapping flip-flop? Yes
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jul/14/obamas-wiretapping-flip-flop-yes/

In October 2007, Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued this unequivocal statement to the liberal blog TPM Election Central: "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

~snip~

Obama supported an amendment that would have stripped telecom immunity from the measure. But after that amendment failed, Obama declined to filibuster the bill. In fact, he voted for it. It passed the Senate, 69-28, on July 9. The House passed the same bill last month, and Bush said he would sign it soon. (McCain missed the vote because he was campaigning in Ohio, but he has consistently supported the immunity plan.)

In a message to supporters, Obama defended his position, citing a phrase Democrats fought to include that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the "exclusive" means of wiretapping for intelligence. The bill "is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year... (because it) makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court."

[ProSense]

62. I guess

"I guess I should have said that Obama is your pretend boyfriend. "

...I should have said: severe ODS.

[OnyxCollie]

65. Can't defend Obama's actions, I see.

Even when he's covering up for Bush's torture.

(This is from your own post.)
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10022752702

National Security Brief: Pressure Mounts On Obama To Investigate Torture

By ThinkProgress

Pressure is mounting on the Obama administration to allow access to documents pertaining to the CIA’s post 9/11 terror suspect detention program and to order a full accounting of the Bush-era torture program. At the outset of his first term, President Obama said his administration would not be investigating torture because, he said, he wanted to “look forward, not backward.”

A bipartisan 11-member task force convened by the Constitution Project released a report on Tuesday concluding that the Bush administration’s interrogation polices after 9/11 were, in fact, torture, but it also criticized the Obama White House for blocking a formal investigation into the matter. “As long as the debate continues, so too does the possibility that the United States could again engage in torture,” their report says.

“The Obama administration also has failed to be as open and accountable on such fundamental questions of law, morality and principle as a great power that widely supports human rights needs to be,” Task Force member Thomas Pickering wrote in the Washington Post on Tuesday.

An editorial in the New York Times on Wednesday piled on. “The report’s appearance all these years later is a reminder of the lost opportunity for a full accounting in 2009 when President Obama chose not to support a national commission to investigate the post-9/11 detention and interrogation programs,” the Times writes, adding, “(I)dentifying past mistakes so they can be avoided is central to looking forward.”

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/17/1878711/national-security-brief-pressure-obama-torture/

Your response: "Fuck Bush!"

Anything to avoid blame, right ProSense?

[ProSense]

67. What,

"Can't defend Obama's actions, I see. Even when he's covering up for Bush's torture. "

...couldn't work the "boyfriend" or "pretend boyfriend" drivel in?

[OnyxCollie]

69. Why should I?

I don't need to use ad hominen attacks; I just like to ridicule you.

[ProSense]

70. That's OK

"I don't need to use ad hominen attacks; I just like to ridicule you."

...I like laughing at clowns.

[OnyxCollie]

71. You've provided a lot of entertainment in this thread.

Dance for me some more.

[ProSense]

72. Funny

"Dance for me some more."

...you've provided nothing but idiotic drivel.

Go ahead, say something even more stupid. Please?

[OnyxCollie]

74. You're so cute when you're angry.

XOXO,
OnyxCollie

[ProSense]

75. Thanks,

you lived up to the drivel. Again, thanks for another stupid comment.

[sheshe2]

86. IMHO

Your responses to ProSense, were uncalled for.

I thought that personal attacks were frowned upon at DU.

[Logical]

93. Quit whining and alert it! N-t

[sheshe2]

94. I already did!

And I am not the one that is whining here!

[Logical]

95. So the jury voted it was ok I assume? n-t

[sheshe2]

97. Three three

took the ones that voted for 5 minutes/ speed readers! WOW!

[OnyxCollie]

108. Post the results.

Reveal the bare essence of the DU community.

[Cha]

100. Nobody's "whining".. she's calling out his personal attacks on ProSense.

[Cha]

101. You've added nothing but bully attacks.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

84. You got nothing

As the OP, you should have been more prepared.

[Cha]

91. Yes, ProSense has everything in the OP. The topic of conversation.

Off topic hurlers have nothing but vapid personal attacks.

[sheshe2]

99. And you have what?

[sheshe2]

104. Your pretend boyfriend?

Is that not a personal attack on a DU member? Do we not have rules on that?

[OnyxCollie]

105. Why don't you alert then?

Maybe, instead of being a sheep, you could actually lead for once.

[Cha]

76. you lost when you threw sniveling personal attacks at ProSense.

[Logical]

92. You are correct, but doubt she will listen! n-t

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

103. spin control

the act or practice of attempting to manipulate the way an event is interpreted by others <political spin control>

no matter that the trends, that the policies direct, continue to go against the 99%

[BethanyQuartz]

10. If he had done nothing he would have been assassinated

For not doing the job his election backers put him in power to do.

[madinmaryland]

11. If Bush had done nothing, his name would have been President Al Gore. nt

[JEB]

13. What if Bush had never been elected?

Never mind.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

83. He was imposed not elected

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. In the corner:

[Thinkingabout]

18. K & R

Really good article, places proper prospective on this subject.

[matt819]

19. Word Order

Good essay. I would propose one change.

In the last line, he writes, "Instead, he almost wrecked everything."

I would change that to, "Instead, he wrecked almost everything."

Minor change, perhaps, but I think a significant one.

[brush]

36. Good catch. Agreed. nt

[treestar]

20. We would be a lot better off

Bush used the political capital created by 911 to push through whatever he wanted. Remember how the nation stood behind him then - if he had cared about the country rather than right wing ideology, we would have been better served.

It's such bad luck he was President then! We can blame Al Gore, Clinton and Nader till the cows come home. If only more voters had turned out and it had not been so close that the courts got involved, we might have had Al Gore for President. One bullet we did not manage to dodge, as with did with McCain and Mitt.

[humbled_opinion]

21. Great Speculation but...

The way I hear it from the teabaggers I work with is that Bush was well ahead of his time when it comes to privatizing Social Security and to some extend Medicare under the "Ownership Society"... The bagheads claim that the trajectory of the debt has created an unsustainable America and it is only a matter of years before the dollar collapses under the weight of the bubble being created by the Federal Reserve.....

As far as all of your other points the baggers would say, SO.... exactly what has Obama done differently? I hear so your vaunted President Obama is exactly like Bush in every other measure but yet you idiots on the left are a bunch of lemmings bowing to your dear leader, the rest of us in "realville" know better, hopefully you will wake up soon...

LOL so amazingly to them Obama is Bush....but worse because he won't deal with the debt....

[Stardust]

114. Heh heh..."bagheads" ...heh heh!

[Stardust]

115. What's their response to the latest finding by that wunderkid (Thomas Herndon, I think) who has

debunked the Reinhart & Rogoffn high-debt-requires-austerity study recently?

[Myrina]

22. He basically did ... nothing. He took an 8 year vacation while Cheney was president.

Dimson was just the spokesmodel.

[hfojvt]

24. too bad about that bullsh*t line

about the Bush tax cuts.

"WHAT IF...Bush had valued what he inherited -- a balanced budget -- and DONE NOTHING. No massive tax cuts benefiting the top 1/10th of 1 percent."

Seriously, that is just a load of crap, and not even a self-serving load.

Here's the distribution from 2010, when the "Republican plan" was "make the Bush tax cuts permanent".

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf

(I've only posted that link now about 29 times.)

As it shows, the Republican plan (that is, the Bush tax cuts) gives

26% of its benefits to the top 1% (not the top 0.1% that's the whole top 1%)

but it gives 39.3% of its benefits to the top 19% (by which I mean the top 20% without the top 1%). That's Obama's "middle class". So by Obama's bullsh*t definition, the Bush tax cuts were "middle class tax cuts". Heck, they even gave 27.1% of their benefits to the 3rd and 4th quintiles.

So 26.1% to the top 1% and
73.9% to the mystical 99%.

It's that "top 1/10th of 1 percent" bullsh*t that just allows corrupt and dishonest politicians to make most of the Bush tax cuts permanent and tell the public they increased taxes on the rich.

[xtraxritical]

28. Whatever it takes to get and keep RepubliCONs out of power

that's fine with me. No matter what your tax "statistics" income disparity and wealth distribution disparity was enhanced and pronounced under the Bush tenure.

[hfojvt]

39. I don't want to keep Republicans out of power

I want to keep Republicans BAD IDEAS out of power.

Income disparity and wealth distribution have been enhanced under Obama and Clinton too.

Because both of those jackweasels embraced and endorsed Republican IDEAS.

Obama, as you know, kept 85% of the Bush tax cuts and made them permanent. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022130101

That "greatly increases inequality"

"Say hello to more income inequality. $2.4 trillion in tax cuts for the top 20%. $700 billion in tax cuts for the bottom 60%. Plus $124 billion in recovery act credit provisions. Is still only $800 billion for the bottom 60% "

(and when I think about it, I quote myself).

Clinton gave huge tax cuts to the rich in his 2nd term. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2665533

It's simply not all about the top 0.1% because the other 19.9% has far more money (as a group) than the top 0.1% does, http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2676454

[mercymechap]

50. But wait!

All Republican's ideas are "bad ideas" - so if you don't keep them out of power, you end up with their bad ideas!

You may be right about Obama keeping 85% of the Bush tax cuts and making them permanent, but have you forgotten how we ended up with our credit downgraded? Because Republicans are tenacious that they were willing to allow the country to go into the crapper by their inability to compromise, mainly to make Obama fail, what makes you think that a more stringent suggestion from Obama would have been received with a more positive reaction?

[hfojvt]

51. but if you don't fight their bad ideas

then you end up with their bad ideas ruling the day, even when Republicans are supposedly OUT of power. Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the Senate in 2009 and won the White House again in 2012, and yet, and yet, most of the Bush tax cuts are now permanent.

Obama could have gotten rid of all the Bush tax cuts by doing nothing, and there was nothing at all preventing him from proposing something much better for the American people than keeping 78% of the Bush tax cuts.

[mercymechap]

55. But he has tried to fight

their bad ideas, and I don't know why you say Republicans are out of power. That they hold the House is major, and that they hold Dems to 60 votes in the senate is also to their advantage. The fact that they don't back down and Dems know it gives them that power. If he is able to get the loopholes done away with, I think more revenue will be forthcoming from the rich and famous. That he was able to get what he did is miraculous.

I agree and was willing that he would have let all the Bush tax cuts expire, but I have a feeling that Republicans would have been able to twist that around to make it look like Obama hurt the middle-class. They always seem to find a way to blame us. The only way to beat them is to not give them the upper hand in the House, Senate or WH - (although they still have SCOTUS).

[hfojvt]

56. Obama NEVER proposed anything more progressive than

"keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class"

by which he meant "keep 78% of the Bush tax cuts"

and as I kinda tire of pointing out, that plan was heavily tilted towards the rich.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf

The fact is that Obama held two trump cards

1. The Bush tax cuts were going to expire automatically - no way in hell Republicans wanted that to happen

2. Republicans have spent two years plus, whining about the deficit, the deficit, the deficit. So any proposal that Republicans passed that gave too much money to the rich, Obama could just swat away - using the Republicans very own bat against them - the deficit, the deficit, the deficit.

Obama had the upper hand, he had the leverage, and instead of squeezing something out of the Republicans, he folded like an empty suit, and then tried to paint his abject surrender as some kind of glorious victory. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/138

Of course, we heard that "Obama had to do what he did because of the economy and because he had to get re-elected" but then he did the same damned thing again, even AFTER he had been re-elected, and some STILL try to spin "making 85% of the Bush tax cuts permanent" as some sort of awesome victory for Obama.

[NoMoreWarNow]

29. I don't get your point.

I think revenue-wise, that cut to the very top had a huge impact, is the point of why those cuts were so damaging.

Also, even that top 19% could use the cut more than the very wealthy. One issue is at what tax bracket does that cut become stimulatory to the economy versus hurt govt revenue more?

[hfojvt]

37. no, that is exactly wrong

because revenue wise 73.1% is simply, much, much more than 26.9%. And the 26.9% is not even the amount that goes to the very, very top.

And the thing about people in the top 19%. They look up at Bill Gates and think to themselves "I am not rich" which is basically another way of saying "I want more money" and they don't look down at the 80% of America who is poorer than them, often much, much poorer. And if their main concern, their main focus is about "getting more money for myself" then they tend to trample those below them in their scramble to get more.

Further, increasing inequality in our society is not all about the very, very top.

It's about the gap between the top 20% and the bottom 20%

and about the gap between the top 5% and the bottom 20%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1824827

[NoMoreWarNow]

42. well, I guess I suck

because I am in the top 5%.

I am comfortable certainly, but my wife and I have worked hard over the years to earn this, and we still work hard.

On the other hand, I would be willing to pay more in taxes if the rates were raised on those above me.

Revenue-wise, I would like to see the numbers for 73% vs 27%. Because, the lower 73% are poor, and don't pay much in tax.

[hfojvt]

48. the 73% is from the 99%

Not from the bottom 73%.

And the 73% is not poor.

Last year my income was $31,541.84 (at least on paper) and I am not poor. Maybe lower middle class, but not poor. Heck, in 2008 I made $11,779.17 and still was able to put $920 into my IRA.

The bottom 99% is not poor, the pie is split up in this country like this

So, it looks like this
top 0.1% - 10%
top 0.9% - 10%
top 9% - 26%
next 40% - 41%
bottom 50% - 13%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2676454

By which I would note that collectively the top 9% gets a much bigger slice of the pie than the top 0.1% gets, and so does that "middle" 40%. As a bulk number 41% of the pie is much bigger than a mere 10% of the pie.

Look at it this way. There are, for the sake of argument 110,000,000 households in the USA. If you get just $50 from each household, you have collected $5.5 billion. True, there are perhaps some of those households who would be pinched by losing a whole dollar a week. They can perhaps barely afford cigarettes, beer, lottery tickets, tatoos and cell phones with the current tax system.

But get that same amount of money from the top 0.1% and you are hitting people with a $50,000 a year tax bill.

Now take the Obama-Bush tax cuts (please). The average tax cut for those in the 80-95th percentile is just $3,810, but collectively it is 29% of the $3.7 trillion total or $1.07 trillion. That's more than the $666 billion in tax cuts going to the top 1% (to say nothing of the top 0.1%).

If you want to cut the deficit, you have to look past the top 0.1% and look at the top 20%.

Further, I would insist that Obama-Bush, by giving $1.74 trillion in tax cuts to the top 19% and only $111 billion in tax cuts to the bottom 20% will obviously increase the inequality in our society.

People seem to have this foolish, media driven idea that inequality is all about the top 0.1% or the top 1%, and it is not.

edit: Finally, I am not at all trying to convince you that "you suck" what I am trying to convince you of is that "you are rich". I don't see how that is bad news. I'd celebrate it, if it was me. (but then again, people do try to tell me that I, as a white hetero male, am "privileged" and I usually want to poke them in the snoot rather than celebrate my "privilege".)

[ProSense]

63. You know this

"Further, I would insist that Obama-Bush, by giving $1.74 trillion in tax cuts to the top 19% and only $111 billion in tax cuts to the bottom 20% will obviously increase the inequality in our society. "

...is nonsense.

Your entire point is ignoring the fact that the income tax is progressive, and then claiming that because a gap still exists it's "increasing the inequality."

Nonsense, if a policy causes the gap to be closed by even $1, it's not "increasing the inequality."

The President's policies did more to address inquality than any in decades.
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022660715

[hfojvt]

68. I just love those Republican arguments

"But the Bush tax cuts only favor the wealthy because any tax cut would favor the wealthy"

and now it is like deja vu all over again

"but the Obama extension of the Bush tax cuts only favor the wealthy because any tax cut would favor the wealthy" or "Our tax system is progressive".

When you give $1,700 billion in tax cuts to the top and $111 billion in tax cuts to the bottom, then you are NOT closing the gap by even a dollar. Instead you are widening it by 1,589 billion dollars.

[NoMoreWarNow]

116. sorry, I've read your posts a couple times and I still am not sure what your main point is

About inequality-- my understanding is that it is tilted towards the top 20% heavily, but that it is even more out whack with the top 1% and top 0.1%.

About taxes-- I understand the Bush tax cuts were a large tax cut to the upper class, not just the top 1%. The middle class benefited from them too. That is why it was politically feasible to "repeal" the tax cut for the very wealthy-- who can easily afford it-- and not "repeal" for the middle and upper class. That makes sense.

So I am not still sure what your beef is.

[hfojvt]

117. it seems to "make sense" to you

for you to keep your big tax cut

whereas to me, that just increases inequality in our society.

And my beef is, that when most of the Bush tax cuts were made permanent, as I have said a number of times before, even the very rich ended up with huge tax cuts. ATRA lowers the tax rate on dividends from 39.6% to just 20% saving Mitt Romney almost a million a year in taxes.

Yet Obama sells that as a "tax increase on the very rich".

I said from the start that the line that the Bush tax cuts were massive for the top 0.1% is bullshit.

Because the top 0.9% got big tax cuts too, and so did the next richest 1% and so did the next richest 1%. In fact, the tax cuts going to the top 4.9% were much, much bigger, collectively, than the tax cuts going to the top 0.1% to say nothing of how large they were (and are) compared to that going to the bottom 5%.

But I understand, that to you it makes perfect sense for people like you to get thousands of dollars in permanent tax cuts. I mean, sure, you got $50,000 in tax cuts over the last decade (thank you President Bush!!!) and you will get $50,000 over the next decade and that's enough money to double my retirement account, pay for my house, my car, my computers and my bicycles, but you cannot understand why I think you are rich.

Yes, my beef is that trillions of dollars in tax cuts are going to rich people like you and then all kinds of cuts to head start, meals on wheels, chained CPIs and such are being proposed, impacting much, much poorer people, in the name of the deficit.

No, it is the inequality between the top 20% and the rest of us that is the bigger problem than the top 0.1% and in fact, it is the greedy upper middle class that keeps voting for those tax cuts for the top 0.1%. Because as long as they get their own $5,000 they don't care too much that Mitt Romney gets $1,000,000 in permanent tax cuts.

[NoMoreWarNow]

118. I understand the problem of inequality and

I said earlier that I would not mind paying more in taxes. I would have been happy to have a full repeal of the Bush tax cuts and pay more because it would help a lot of problems.

But there are a lot of things in this world that I would prefer but don't happen.

[hfojvt]

119. yet you seem just as happy

that 85% of them were made permanent (at great benefit to the rich).

[NoMoreWarNow]

120. how do you know how happy I am about that?

You are presuming way too much. I find your whole attitude here rather difficult, frankly.

[hfojvt]

121. oh I don't know

maybe because I am here complaining about the permanent extension of most of the Bush tax cuts and you are here arguing with me about it.

Things like this, make you sound all hunky dory with is

"Also, even that top 19% could use the cut more than the very wealthy. One issue is at what tax bracket does that cut become stimulatory to the economy versus hurt govt revenue more? "

"The middle class benefited from them too. That is why it was politically feasible to "repeal" the tax cut for the very wealthy-- who can easily afford it-- and not "repeal" for the middle and upper class. That makes sense. "

The only thing that makes sense about it to me, is that the rich have screwed the rest of us, and it was politically feasible because nobody speaks for the lower class.

[whttevrr]

40. What if all those trillions of dollars went to education...?

[Coyotl]

106. Much of it still can, once we take it back from the plutocrats

The Bush Junta was all about wealth transfer from the public trough to the super rich. Time to reverse the flow and recoup the losses.

[icarusxat]

113. If that were ever to happen...

people would stop voting for Repubs...we, as a society would soon be too smart to make such foolish mistakes,,,

[DCBob]

41. Indeed, America and the world would be a much much better place..

had Bush just slept through his entire Presidency.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. Then there was the Orwellian stuff...

"Clear Skies" to make the skies dirtier.

"Healthy Forests" to cut down trees.

A "Prescription Benefit" to make old people pay more for their drugs.

Then there's the CONSTANT FEAR they pushed.

http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/malloy/MalloyMemories/Spider_Hustle-Are_We_Dead_Yet%3f.mp3

[hughee99]

53. The regulation of financial markets was largely destroyed before he even took office. n/t

[librechik]

54. you mean if he hadn't let ***** take the towers down in the first place?

I think he definitely should have refrained from doing that. If he did. Which I'm inclined to believe. Need more investigations.

[grasswire]

61. "electing Bush twice"???

FFS.

Would someone please enlighten Charles Pierce?

[randome]

64. Iraq might have gone on to become a greater influence in the Middle East.

And as a country with secular leanings, that would likely have meant less instability than we have now.

[calimary]

98. Iran wouldn't be such a pain in the ass now. The Iranians were all tied up dealing with Saddam.

Say what you will about Saddam (and yes, most of it will be terrible and well-deserved). Nevertheless, he kept 'em busy at the border they shared. It was kind of an oddly ingenious happenstance way to keep the Iranians contained - they had their hands too full with him and the Iran/Iraq war. Besides, it rendered Saddam spread too thin to cause too much more trouble. Look at Iran now - with nothing checking them next door any longer?

WORST PRESIDENT EVVVVVERRRRRRRR!!!!

[Cleita]

66. But they never would have made all that money, they made,

especially Cheney and the rest of the cabal, if they had done nothing.

[colsohlibgal]

73. The Most Bogus President Ever

It's fact he didn't win in 2000. I firmly believe the 2004 election was flipped - and of course the exit polls, which had usually been spot on, were blamed.

A few years ago Stephanie Miller's amazing voice mimic Jim Ward did a "Christmas Carol" takeoff with an angel taking the "Decider" around explaining why everything was better since he hadn't been president.

What he did do best at was make his dad look better by comparison, along with Millard Fillmore, James Buchanan, and Warren Harding. It at times seemed like a "tween" was in office.

[Electric Monk]

77. K&R

[sheshe2]

78. K&R!

[adieu]

80. Those of us who were disgusted with his election victory

over Al Gore were hoping that all he'll do was to play his frat-boy do-nothing for the 8 years. He basically did that with 4 of the first 8 months away on vacation doing his best to clear brush.

[WinkyDink]

81. Some people would be more vital, and others would be less filthy rich.

[Politicalboi]

82. What if they didn't steal elections

What if Bush didn't attack us on 9/11. All these what if's. What if we charge him with war crimes and 9/11. That would be the icing on the cake.

[mountain grammy]

85. "We've had enough Bushes" said Barbara Bush. 2 Bushes, 2 wars, imagine what a 3rd would do.

[blkmusclmachine]

111. Never forgive. Never forget.

[The Wizard]

112. What if the Supreme Court

didn't stop the Florida recount. Scalia, et al belong in prison.