Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
To answer the OP:
George H.W. Bush was opposed in 1992 by a sane person with a fair grasp of reality who wasn't going to govern according to weird ideas properly the business of fringe cults. That's not true of Obama in 2012.
It really couldn't be any simpler than that. In my opinion, he really doesn't deserve a second term, but he'll probably get one, because the alternative is just appalling. Sad but true.
Yeah, lower taxes, living within our means, less government inferference in our lives, and actually living according to our Constitution. That's just absolutely appalling!
Yeah, lower taxes, living within our means, less government inferference in our lives, and actually living according to our Constitution. That's just absolutely appalling!
Yeah, lower taxes, living within our means, less government inferference in our lives, and actually living according to our Constitution. That's just absolutely appalling!
When you look at the details of what's actually meant by those deliberately-vague statements, indeed it is.
Yeah, lower taxes, living within our means, less government inferference in our lives, and actually living according to our Constitution. That's just absolutely appalling!
When you look at the details of what's actually meant by those deliberately-vague statements, indeed it is.
There is nothing vague about the statements.
When you look at the details of what's actually meant by those deliberately-vague statements, indeed it is.
There is nothing vague about the statements.
Yes, there is, and I'll prove it to you.
"Lower taxes" -- claimed by Ronald Reagan, but in fact, most taxpayers experienced increased taxes as a result of his eight years in office, between modest cuts in income taxes and substantial increases in payroll taxes. Only the wealthy actually saw a tax cut.
"Living within our means" -- generally directed at the federal government, but only applied in practice to some forms of government spending and not others; the military gets a blank check, so does federal law enforcement and the national security state, and so do corporate subsidies an bailouts.
"Less government interference in our lives" -- true only if "we" are big business magnates and millionaire bankers, and "our lives" means our financial and business dealings, especially the "freedom" to squash competition, drive down wages, and plunder the environment; government interference in the efforts of any small businesses to compete with the big boys, and in the private lives of pregnant women and gay people, are fine.
"Actually living according to the Constitution" -- used as a catch-all to assert that anything the person happens not to like is illegal, and yet some things that clearly ARE against the Constitution, such as the warrantless wiretaps authorized in the Patriot Act that violate the Fourth Amendment, or locking people up without trial or recourse as "enemy combatants" which completely violates the entire concept of due process of law, seem to meet with approval.
Prove it to me. Use the real tax rates from 1980 and from 1988.
no he didn't lose because of NAFTA....because Clinton, when he was running for President, agreed to support NAFTA and continue with what President hw bush began by signing the agreements that President Bush had made....it was part of clinton's plank.....soooo, Americans must have supported NAFTA at the time...Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.
Still can't figure.....................
Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Trying to prop up his image with fake foreign policy "successes."
Hope the voters dont reward him with a 2nd term.
Bush lost because of his NAFTA push.
Prove it to me. Use the real tax rates from 1980 and from 1988.
Happy to.
Single person, $30,000 annual income, takes standard deduction and one personal exemption, taxes in constant dollars.
Income tax:
1980: combined standard deduction & personal exemption = $3,300, leaving taxable income of $26,700. Income tax on this amount: $3,665.48
1988: combined standard deduction & personal exemption = $4,950, leaving taxable income of $25,050. Income tax on this amount: $3,757.50
Payroll tax:
1980: 5.08% = $1,524 1988: 6.06% = $1,818
Total federal taxes: 1980 $5,189.48 1988 $5,575.50
All figures adjusted for inflation
Sources:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/historical_standard_deduct.pdf
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/feddividendtreatment-20061212.pdf
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf
Social Security Tax Rates
Not sure what your method was to adjust for inflation.
Not sure what your method was to adjust for inflation.
I didn't do the adjusting, it was built into the sources. I went straight to the tax rates, looked up the figures for the standard deduction and personal exemption, applied the rules as listed, and calculated it all out. The 1980 taxes were harder to calculate, because there were lots of tiny tax brackets so I had to subtract minimums from maximums, then multiply and stick it in memory. 1988 was easier because there was just the one rate, 15%; however, in 1988 that 15% applied to all taxable income from the first dollar on, while in 1980 the first few thousand was taxed at zero, hence the higher figure for '88 on income tax (the top marginal rate at that low income was 21% in 1980).
I have no idea where you got those figures you just presented. If they're something on line, please provide a link. If they're your own taxes, in order to evaluate them I would have to ask for information I have no right to know.
Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.
Still can't figure.....................
Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.
The economy?
Its still Bushs fault!
"A majority of Americans believe that former President George W. Bush is more responsible than President Obama for the current economic problems in the country, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.
Still can't figure.....................
Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Trying to prop up his image with fake foreign policy "successes."
Hope the voters dont reward him with a 2nd term.
Reality Check: Obama has no better than 50/50 chance of being reelected at this time. No president has ever been reelected with approval ratings as low as his (going as far back as they've been tracking these things). He has his work cut out for him.
Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.
Still can't figure.....................
Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Trying to prop up his image with fake foreign policy "successes."
Hope the voters dont reward him with a 2nd term.
Bush had huge favorable performance ratings after the Gulf War(historic highs) - a decent economy, yet wasn't rewarded with a 2nd term.
Still can't figure.....................
Obama has historic low ratings and the worst economy since the Great Depression.
Trying to prop up his image with fake foreign policy "successes."
Hope the voters dont reward him with a 2nd term.
