Worst American Presidents

His voting base was still significantly the average American. Your desire to use money (something that is universal in American politics) does little to negate the fact that his core constituency were average white Americans and a significant segment of hispanic voters. These are not pinstriped Americans, they are you and me.

mertex said:

It doesn't matter that the number of ultra wealthy is small, they are the ones that pay for all the advertisement and propaganda that create the false illusion that the wealth will trickle down.

Click to expand...

false illusions--that rich dems want the poor to escape poverty

false ilusions-you can tax your way to prosperity

false illusions-taxing the rich more and more will make the poor more productive and less dependent on the government

false illusions-the people who constantly bash the rich are not envious or spiteful, they are merely looking out for the good of the nation.

pbrauer said:

:lamo:lamo
Prove it Turtledove.

Click to expand...

1) the name is Turtledude-I got points for altering another posters name

2) This is coming from some guy who claimed that SSI payments come from SS taxes

TurtleDude said:

a decent attempt at a save but the fact remains that BDS victims have been citing that Lovenstein nonsense as authority for years and then when they get pwned on it they start claiming it was a joke etc.

Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't have given you the link if I had been trying to hide the fact that it is a joke, a funny one at that! Didn't you notice that all the Republicans had lower IQ's - aimed at inciting at least a little indignation?

you posted it clearly as something you believed

Click to expand...

Oh sure, an IQ based solely on assessments/opinions by others - how believable is that? One would have to have a very low IQ to think that someone's IQ can be determined by anything other than actual testing.

What I believe is that Bush didn't have a sterling academic record like Obama - and the fact that some on this thread were trying to insinuate that.

TurtleDude said:

Obama didn't graduate with honors either yet he got into harvard law even though that meant he was below a 3.3 and at that time the 25th percentile at harvard law (meaning 75 percent of the successful applicants were above the 25th percentile GPA) was around a 3.7.

Click to expand...

Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. That was the one that counts.

Bush's grades at yale were slightly better than Kerry's and his other opponent. Al Gore-had a bunch of Ds at harvard

Click to expand...

Actually Gore had a little edge on Bush on the SAT scores, but neither was exceptional.
Confidential college transcripts and test scores obtained by the Washington Post reveal that neither presidential candidate, George W. Bush nor Al Gore, were shining students during their college days at Yale and Harvard, respectively. Although each earned respectable scores on the SAT college admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush), neither did that well in their college courses. Both earned a mix of B and C grades. Gore's lowest grade of D came in a natural sciences course, while his top grades were an A in French and English, an A in Visual and Environmental Studies, and an A- in Social Relations. Bush's lowest marks were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest scores were High Passes in History and Japanese.
Bush/Gore Grades and SAT Scores

If academic prowess was your main criteria Bush was far better than Gore (who failed to complete two graduate programs while Bush got an MBA at the finest B school in the world) or Kerry who not only had slightly lower grades at Yale but went to the third best law school in Boston

Click to expand...

Bush wasn't good in Economics, something that he got to prove to us.

mertex said:

Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. That was the one that counts.


Actually Gore had a little edge on Bush on the SAT scores, but neither was exceptional.
Confidential college transcripts and test scores obtained by the Washington Post reveal that neither presidential candidate, George W. Bush nor Al Gore, were shining students during their college days at Yale and Harvard, respectively. Although each earned respectable scores on the SAT college admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush), neither did that well in their college courses. Both earned a mix of B and C grades. Gore's lowest grade of D came in a natural sciences course, while his top grades were an A in French and English, an A in Visual and Environmental Studies, and an A- in Social Relations. Bush's lowest marks were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest scores were High Passes in History and Japanese.
Bush/Gore Grades and SAT Scores


Bush wasn't good in Economics, something that he got to prove to us.

Click to expand...

Gore failed to complete both divinity school and law school. so he was not fit to run a kingdom of man nor of God. a Harvard MBA is alot more relevant to understanding economics than failing to complete law or divinity school or being rejected at Harvard Law as Kerry was (no one applies to BC as their first choice in Boston)

mertex said:

Well, I wouldn't have given you the link if I had been trying to hide the fact that it is a joke, a funny one at that! Didn't you notice that all the Republicans had lower IQ's - aimed at inciting at least a little indignation?


Oh sure, an IQ based solely on assessments/opinions by others - how believable is that? One would have to have a very low IQ to think that someone's IQ can be determined by anything other than actual testing.

What I believe is that Bush didn't have a sterling academic record like Obama - and the fact that some on this thread were trying to insinuate that.

Click to expand...

Obama did well in law school -was in the top 50-75 of his class of 500

how he did in college is unknown except that he didn't even make honors at Columbia which strongly suggests that the only way he got into harvard law was due to being a minority. I knew several hundred people who went to Harvard or other top law schools and I cannot think of any white male who got into Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke or MIchigan with less than Honors-and that was Honors at Yale.

While the academic slugfest is interesting, a real story of the 20th century has been the inability of intellectuals or of professionals to nail down serious political and sociological issues into likely solutions. I'm very much interested in the experts, and heed their advice, but some of the best words of wisdom have come from professionals who are wary of their ability to conduct productive public policy.

Fiddytree said:

His voting base was still significantly the average American.

Click to expand...

That was his real base, the average Republican. The ultra wealthy were the ones he considered his base, the ones his polices were geared to help.

Your desire to use money (something that is universal in American politics) does little to negate the fact that his core constituency were average white Americans and a significant segment of hispanic voters. These are not pinstriped Americans, they are you and me.

Click to expand...

I guess you miss my whole point. Sure, the average folks were the ones that were voting for him, but those were not the ones he catered to. Most of his policies were aimed at helping the wealthy. Tax cuts to corporations that were outsourcing jobs did not help the avg American.

Fiddytree said:

While the academic slugfest is interesting, a real story of the 20th century has been the inability of intellectuals or of professionals to nail down serious political and sociological issues into likely solutions. I'm very much interested in the experts, and heed their advice, but some of the best words of wisdom have come from professionals who are wary of their ability to conduct productive public policy.

Click to expand...

it might be because supposed experts have political agendas that dominate what they do. Look at that clown Krugman-supposedly a brilliant economist who spews the same tired socialist class struggle BS

mertex said:

That was his real base, the average Republican. The ultra wealthy were the ones he considered his base, the ones his polices were geared to help.



I guess you miss my whole point. Sure, the average folks were the ones that were voting for him, but those were not the ones he catered to. Most of his policies were aimed at helping the wealthy. Tax cuts to corporations that were outsourcing jobs did not help the avg American.

Click to expand...

the common claim of the left that cutting taxes hurts the poor is complete crap. in reality, government handouts are much like drugs-they might make the poor feel better but in the long run they sap the poor of drive and ambition which is exactly while ultra rich dems push for welfare-socialism.

a system that rewards ambition and hard work is going to cause more of the poor to work hard and strive to win than one that tells them that losing is acceptable and they cannot achieve because the "rich" are keeping them down.

TurtleDude said:

it might be because supposed experts have political agendas that dominate what they do. Look at that clown Krugman-supposedly a brilliant economist who spews the same tired socialist class struggle BS

Click to expand...

Well, sort of...sort of not. It is more or less the confidence in their intellectual prowess that can get them going...and then reality sets in. It is difficult to change things for the better, and though our sophisticated measurements can help a great deal in public policy, it is in error to believe that it is the "smart" ones who will make the best decisions. Character, temperament, management style, atmosphere are all things that will impact the experts in ways similar to any man and in other ways uniquely because of their academic prowess. It could simply be that just because you have confidence in your ability, confidence in your intellect, does not mean you will be able to craft a positive public policy.

TurtleDude said:

Its actually the dems who help the ultra wealthy. Estate and income taxes kill off those who would reach their level. If you think rich dems care for the poor you are sorely mistaken. Rich liberals need lots of poor to vote for them and to justify the socialist nonsense that actually helps the uber wealthy

Click to expand...

:lamo:lamo
Please prove this pile of nonsense, TurtleDude.

mertex said:

That was his real base, the average Republican. The ultra wealthy were the ones he considered his base, the ones his polices were geared to help.



I guess you miss my whole point. Sure, the average folks were the ones that were voting for him, but those were not the ones he catered to. Most of his policies were aimed at helping the wealthy. Tax cuts to corporations that were outsourcing jobs did not help the avg American.

Click to expand...

You are arguing about the ends (of which will be disputed for some time to come), whereas I am arguing about what crossed his mind for achieving a desirable end, which was what you initially suggested. The effort was to improve life for the average American. His means for doing so were a mixture of tax breaks for average Americans and the wealthy. The desired end result was an improved life for most Americans. The end result could certainly be different from what was intended, but nevertheless, it was his goal.

pbrauer said:

:lamo:lamo
Please prove this pile of nonsense, TurtleDude.

Click to expand...

shall I attempt to prove it as you did with your gaping error on SSI

why are so many of the uber wealthy like BUffett and Gates and Turner dems?

taking half of a 4 million estate is far different than taking half of a 100 million dollar estate. the latter will normally regenerate that amount in the normal lifespan of the heir.

TurtleDude said:

shall I attempt to prove it as you did with your gaping error on SSI

why are so many of the uber wealthy like BUffett and Gates and Turner dems?

taking half of a 4 million estate is far different than taking half of a 100 million dollar estate. the latter will normally regenerate that amount in the normal lifespan of the heir.

Click to expand...

Buffet hasn't always been a Democrat, as a matter of fact, he grew up as a Republican. He's the one that brought attention to the fact that his secretary paid more taxes than he did, and he didn't think that was right, something that Bush probably didn't find fault with, when he decided to give the ultra wealthy the tax cuts.


Buffett grew up a Republican like his father, Howard, who represented Nebraska's 2nd District in Congress from 1943-49 and 1951-53. The younger Buffett switched parties during the early 1960s, saying his views on civil rights aligned more with Democrats.

Buffett normally supports democratic candidates and contends that the George W. Bush tax policy unfairly burdens the middle class. However, he is ... a confidante of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.

Fiddytree said:

You are arguing about the ends (of which will be disputed for some time to come), whereas I am arguing about what crossed his mind for achieving a desirable end, which was what you initially suggested. The effort was to improve life for the average American. His means for doing so were a mixture of tax breaks for average Americans and the wealthy. The desired end result was an improved life for most Americans. The end result could certainly be different from what was intended, but nevertheless, it was his goal.

Click to expand...

The tax cuts for the middle class were only a means to appease the middle class, so that he would not get any flack for tax cuts for the very wealthy, who didn't really need them at all, and who benefitted far more than the middle class from them.

President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress passed a series of massive tax cuts from 2001 to 2006. Their cuts lowered everyone’s taxes, but they were skewed heavily to the wealthy. More than half of the total benefit from the Bush tax cuts this year alone will accrue solely to the richest 5 percent of Americans while the middle 20 percent of Americans will reap only 7 percent of the benefit.

Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year

mertex said:

Buffet hasn't always been a Democrat, as a matter of fact, he grew up as a Republican. He's the one that brought attention to the fact that his secretary paid more taxes than he did, and he didn't think that was right, something that Bush probably didn't find fault with, when he decided to give the ultra wealthy the tax cuts.


Buffett grew up a Republican like his father, Howard, who represented Nebraska's 2nd District in Congress from 1943-49 and 1951-53. The younger Buffett switched parties during the early 1960s, saying his views on civil rights aligned more with Democrats.

Buffett normally supports democratic candidates and contends that the George W. Bush tax policy unfairly burdens the middle class. However, he is ... a confidante of California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.

Click to expand...

I guess you never understood that Buffet structured his compensation to avoid taxes on earned income and instead structured his compensation mainly as unearned income but he paid higher rates on his earned income than she did and he doesn't pay lower rates on any other source of income

however, since he structured most of his compensation as capital gains or dividend his overall tax rate is lower even though he pays thousands more times in taxes and certainly doesn't get thousands times more government benefits.
but its dishonest for him to whine about something he created in the first place

he wants to ingratiate himself to people who FEEL as you do but the fact is, his tax rate is higher on earned income and probably on dividend income so the whole Buffet example is bogus

mertex said:

The tax cuts for the middle class were only a means to appease the middle class, so that he would not get any flack for tax cuts for the very wealthy, who didn't really need them at all, and who benefitted far more than the middle class from them.

President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress passed a series of massive tax cuts from 2001 to 2006. Their cuts lowered everyone’s taxes, but they were skewed heavily to the wealthy. More than half of the total benefit from the Bush tax cuts this year alone will accrue solely to the richest 5 percent of Americans while the middle 20 percent of Americans will reap only 7 percent of the benefit.

Three Good Reasons to Let the High-End Bush Tax Cuts Disappear This Year

Click to expand...

the richest 5% pay more than half of the federal income taxes. so its only fair that they receive at least half of the benefits from tax cuts.

why do people like you spend so much time demanding other people have more stuff taken from them by the government? is it envy or do you actually believe that it helps you when others are looted by the government?

TurtleDude said:

he cut taxes for everyone who paid income taxes and many were dropped from the tax rolls. Its actually the dems who help the ultra wealthy.

Click to expand...

How do you figure that. It isn't the Dems that turn down all programs that help the middle class and below. If that was the case, the Dems wouldn't support HCR, Finance Reform, or regulation of corporations.

Estate and income taxes kill off those who would reach their level. If you think rich dems care for the poor you are sorely mistaken.

Click to expand...

Yeah right, that is why Dems are against Welfare, HCR, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Rich liberals need lots of poor to vote for them and to justify the socialist nonsense that actually helps the uber wealthy

Click to expand...

They just need lots of "easily led to believe they will benefit from the policies that actually benefit the rich," that's all.

And, how do socialist nonsense actually help the uber wealthy? That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would the wealthy Dems support welfare, finance reform and other such programs that benefit the regular folks?

mertex said:

How do you figure that. It isn't the Dems that turn down all programs that help the middle class and below. If that was the case, the Dems wouldn't support HCR, Finance Reform, or regulation of corporations.


Yeah right, that is why Dems are against Welfare, HCR, Medicare, and Medicaid.


They just need lots of "easily led to believe they will benefit from the policies that actually benefit the rich," that's all.

And, how do socialist nonsense actually help the uber wealthy? That doesn't make any sense at all. Why would the wealthy Dems support welfare, finance reform and other such programs that benefit the regular folks?

Click to expand...

stuff that keeps people dependent on the government help those who get their power by being in government. its like pushers selling drugs to addicts.

why do the ultra wealthy support welfare socialism? didn't you just claim Buffett supports higher taxes on those who already pay most of the taxes? its a rather simple concept.

your biggest failing is thinking that welfare is designed to actually help the poor. its an opiate of the masses and that helps the entrenched elites.

TurtleDude said:

false illusions--that rich dems want the poor to escape poverty

Click to expand...

If that was so they would become Republicans. After all, Republicans are the ones that want to abolish all the programs that help the middle class and below.

false ilusions-you can tax your way to prosperity

Click to expand...

Allowing the tax cuts to the very wealthy is going to reap $700 billion over the next 10 years. And, he's not really raising taxes, just letting the tax cuts expire. Taxes will just revert to what they were, before Bush tax cuts.

false illusions-taxing the rich more and more will make the poor more productive and less dependent on the government

Click to expand...

I don't know that anyone is saying that. What it will do is help lower the deficit.

false illusions-the people who constantly bash the rich are not envious or spiteful, they are merely looking out for the good of the nation.

Click to expand...

You don't make sense. You say the Dems are the wealthy and the ones that don't care about the poor, so why would they want their own tax cuts to expire?

TurtleDude said:

stuff that keeps people dependent on the government help those who get their power by being in government. its like pushers selling drugs to addicts.

Click to expand...

You are claiming that the wealthy Democrats work for the government? Is that why the Republicans didn't do away with welfare and Medicare, they were getting their power by keeping people dependent on the government?

why do the ultra wealthy support welfare socialism? didn't you just claim Buffett supports higher taxes on those who already pay most of the taxes? its a rather simple concept.

Click to expand...

Except that Buffet is very wealthy himself. The difference being is that he realizes the unfairness of it, the greed exemplified by Republicans in wanting the rich to get even richer at the expense of the middle class and below.

your biggest failing is thinking that welfare is designed to actually help the poor. its an opiate of the masses and that helps the entrenched elites.

Click to expand...

Your biggest failing is believing that the wealthy Republicans in power care anything about the middle class and below. That's why Bush was willing to outsource so many jobs and let the corporations go unregulated, because that was somehow helping the poor.

mertex said:

If that was so they would become Republicans. After all, Republicans are the ones that want to abolish all the programs that help the middle class and below.

Allowing the tax cuts to the very wealthy is going to reap $700 billion over the next 10 years. And, he's not really raising taxes, just letting the tax cuts expire. Taxes will just revert to what they were, before Bush tax cuts.


I don't know that anyone is saying that. What it will do is help lower the deficit.


You don't make sense. You say the Dems are the wealthy and the ones that don't care about the poor, so why would they want their own tax cuts to expire?

Click to expand...

again you have been seduced by the socialist side of the force, you have bought into the lie that dem welfare programs were designed to actually help people rather than to empower the politicians who created the programs. Uber rich want the tax cuts to expire in order to gain votes from people who feel as you do because being in office makes more money for them than not being in office or not having their politicians in office

you ever hear of Carnegie? he allowed the unions into his steel company and with that power unions spread to his competition who could not afford union wages-they went bankrupt, carnegie bought them up and then crushed the unions. simple people playing chess only see one move ahead. simple people though Fisher lost "the game of the century" when he sacrificed his queen. in reality, he sucked Byrne into a trap that the other master could not recover from. There is an old Asian adage of taking one step back to take two steps forward and that is what the uber wealthy dems do by conceding higher tax rates in order to buy the allegiance of people such as you.

jacking taxes up on the rich allows dems to claim they want to stop the reckless increase in deficits when in reality it allows them to spend more and more and more to buy your votes. the deficit will not decrease becasue the dems have to keep spending in order to maintain power and the rich don't have unlimited funds-and many of them will go into serious tax avoidance ploys or leave the country.

TurtleDude said:

I guess you never understood that Buffet structured his compensation to avoid taxes on earned income and instead structured his compensation mainly as unearned income but he paid higher rates on his earned income than she did and he doesn't pay lower rates on any other source of income

however, since he structured most of his compensation as capital gains or dividend his overall tax rate is lower even though he pays thousands more times in taxes and certainly doesn't get thousands times more government benefits.
but its dishonest for him to whine about something he created in the first place

he wants to ingratiate himself to people who FEEL as you do but the fact is, his tax rate is higher on earned income and probably on dividend income so the whole Buffet example is bogus

Click to expand...

Most wealthy people don't even "earn" income. They live off their capital gains, so they don't even "work" for their money. And, the rate on capital gains is lower, so most of them don't have "earned" income. The middle class and below pay more and they actually work for it.

Now we have a Republican in California who is suggesting that capital gains taxes should be done away with - there is no end to their greed.

But Whitman thinks she and other rich people are so special that she wants to exempt them from taxes on capital gains. That means the rest of us -- the poor fools who actually get up every monring and go to work -- will have to pick up the slack.

Oh, but won't this "create jobs?" Chris Kelly in Huff Po:

For example, if a billionaire didn't have to pay taxes, he could hire you to express his dog's anal glands. And you could pay taxes.

Pardon me for thinking this is about the dumbest tax idea I've heard since Ronald Reagan decided to tax the unemployed.
Meg wants to stop paying taxes | San Francisco Bay Guardian