7d ago

Presidential Goals

You're viewing a single thread.

154 comments

Did bush actually have time for what's claimed here? He was mostly about removing rights from Americans in the face of a sham war. I don't think he actually had much focus on tax breaks for rich people...
Obama continued that ritual, removing even more rights from the American people under the guise of "safety". And Obama could have shoved Universal healthcare through but didn't - he watered it down in the name of "bipartisanship", but then ultimately nobody voted for the bill on the right anyways. If that were going to be the case, he should have just rammed through what the American people NEEDED; but he didn't -- because he wanted MORE MONEY FOR RICH PEOPLE (insurance companies)
Hell, Obama bombed more brown people than any president before him as well...let's not pretend he was an angel.
- The ACA wasn't "watered down in the name of bipartisanship". The public option was removed because that's the only way Joe Lieberman, the 60th vote in the Senate, would vote for it. And yes, what initially came out of committee was not as progressive as we wanted, but if Lieberman wasn't even going to vote for that, there was no way he was going to vote for M4A.
  
  I wish he just pushed to end the filibuster.
  Then, all he would've needed was 50 senators, he can sacrifice 10 of those 60 votes in exchange for a better healthcare system.
  
  Obama's legaacy should prove that "playing nice", in fact, does not work.
- Nah, the crash was well underway by the time Obama took office. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (the bailouts) was Bush Jr’s for example and Obama’s first action was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. (The stimulus packages)
  
  No, Obama wasn’t in office. The election was in 2008, jr. was the president the entire year.
- Bush literally cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, after enterring office of president in 2001.
  
  https://www.cbpp.org/research/the-legacy-of-the-2001-and-2003-bush-tax-cuts
  High-income taxpayers benefitted most from these tax cuts, with the top 1 percent of households receiving an average tax cut of over $570,000 between 2004-2012 (increasing their after-tax income by more than 5 percent each year). Despite promises from proponents of the tax cuts, evidence suggests that they did not improve economic growth or pay for themselves, but instead ballooned deficits and debt and contributed to a rise in income inequality.
  Edit to add the chart - while technically the lowest fifth of earners saw a 1% cut in their taxes, the highest 1% saw a 6.7% cut.
  
  Its weird that you agreed with me but got +5 and I got 3:3

154 comments