That was mean, I was going to say he made too much and was part of that rich crowd that he hates so much and what he and his boy barry fail to realize is that each time they blame dubya it is just another admission of failure.
First answer my question. When was the income tax for the middle class "almost abolished"? How to lie with numbers. :lol: First of all, the 2001 recession happened on Bush's watch, so instead of counting that huge drop into the abyss, they started counting at the bottom so that the climb out of the pit looks impressive. Wait a minute! If the Bush tax cuts were implemented in 2003, why did you just attribute the climb out of the 2001 recession to them. By 2003 the recession had already climbed back over half way! Not even close. Try 1.1 million, all in the second term. http://Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms Misleading by "half-truth". It was 6.3% in July 2003 and fell to 4.4% in March 2007, but . . . with the same tax policies in place it rose to 7.8% by the end of Bush's term. Misleading by "half-truth". Growth increased from 1.75% to 3.5% from 2003-2006, but . . . for the last 2 years of Bush's presidency, under the same tax policies, it declined to -2.8%. Thats a negative number, amigo. Nice try, though. :thumb:
You should know better. I'm unclassified (not civil service) so that they can pay me what I'm worth (almost). And my salary is about half of my income, anyway. It is true in the Reagan era I did not make as much (neither did you), but I have had a middle class income since I left college. If that was supposed to be an insult it fell flat on its face. The quick and perceptive Sergeant is smarter than you. :grin:
That's rich. 2001 was Bush's 1st year in office. 2 and a half years into Hussein's administration everything is still Bush's fault. Can you be more of a hypocrite?
I just said that. :insane: You want to address any of the "facts" I just shot down? No? Try to pay attention, Festus. The subject was Shanes post about Bush's economic numbers. Bush was the goddam subject.
If you had applied your statistics you would have known that the whole paragraph you quoted was disinformation. Whoever wrote it is good, which is why I spotted it right off. Whenever someone is loose with dates and precise with numbers, he may be misleading me with statistics. This guy picks the best numbers within a range of dates but doesn't tell you that he is not counting the whole range. It was cleverly worded, too. Use your statistics before you lose it and you will remember them when you get your MBA. 1-always check the numbers, he may be mistaken or lying. 2- always graph the values against time and the lies will become apparent. I'll tell you a secret to make you debate me better (don't tell anyone else). 80% of the time I know exactly how to back up my claim, 15% of the time, it's an educated guess that I can probably back up if I have to. 5% of the time, I'm making it up as I go. Check my numbers as I do yours. :grin: Supa knows this, which is why he wins 1 out of 20. :yelwink2: One more piece of advice: Be exceedingly suspicious of a man who is surprisingly good with adverbs.
You said the 2001 recession was on Bush's watch. You have said over and over again that the current economic debacle is not Obama's fault, but Bush's. Are we not on Obama's watch? You can bloviate 'til the cows come home but that's hypocricy, my hirsute compadre.
