MERGED: The Politics Thread

[3deroticer]

I'm glad somebody brings up this racist issue. To me, even though no name calling of racist remarks directly, but critiquing the president from the birther(is he born here?), and churchers(is he a Muslim?) without fact to base their criticism on, just hint that maybe the person is a racist. I could come up with more valid reason to critique our president better than some of these birthers and churchers do, and their lack of ability to do so, amaze me. That's why I ask what did the president do specifically that upset you? and don't cop out with a lack of a reason, just because he happen to be black!

When GWBush was president most of us had specific reason and stated so when voicing our grievances.

[Shara]

so wait... if you make under $250,000/year you get a taxcut? And Q_BE is complaining about that?
sounds to me that's like 99% of the country

[JJ]

IS OBAMA DISHONEST, NAIVE, OR BOTH

WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT OUR ECONOMY ?   

By Kevin McCullough
Published September 07, 2010

The longer President Obama refuses to acknowledge the direction of our nation's economy the greater the impact will be when the looming depression that awaits is named in his honor.
For a leader who has had the advantages of an Ivy League education, our president seems to be an exceedingly poor student of history. But in 120 days no one will be able to dispute that the economic mess the United States finds herself in belongs to anyone except the man in the White House.
The basis of this reality is rooted in two truths that became quite pronounced last week. The first is that President Obama is ignoring the very real direction the nation is headed. The second is that he is purposefully ignoring the impact his looming historic tax increases will have. Both are contributing to the pessimism that overarches the morale and tone of the entrepreneurial framework of the future.
Last week President Obama spoke to the White House press corps -- and by extension the nation -- to claim that the nation saw job growth of 67,000 jobs in August. Even if this number was real it would be a pitifully tiny percent of the 14,885,000 who are both on unemployment (1 in 10 Americans) as well as those 23,768,000 who are underemployed (working but not earning enough for basic needs -- 1 in 5 families).
The bigger problem for the president, however, is that the number isn't real. The fact is the nation saw 114,000 people added to the unemployment lines in August and the net jobs lost for the month sat at 54,000.
In all the "summer of recovery" -- as declared by both President Obama and Vice President Biden -- saw 238,000 more jobs disappear. Telling the nation that his plans have taken the economy in the right direction, and implying that the nation is seeing a recovery in the area of employment is either willfully dishonest, or painfully, even treacherously naive. At the rate of this "recovery" another 317,333 workers could be sitting on the sidelines before the end of the year.
Additionally we are now on track to see the single largest collection of tax increases ever proposed take the Obama economy even further into the tank.
In less than 120 days President Obama's plan to add a collective 18.6% to the federal tax burden will continue the economic downward spiral into record breaking Depression-era territory. -- And remember this is all from the man, who said repeatedly --on the campaign trail -- that he should be elected expressly to prevent the nation's economy from falling into complete deterioration.
Instead, the unemployment that was growing in the transition period from Bush's reign to Obama's reign has exploded to double what it was under Bush. Even worse this means that while 14,885,000 Americans are claiming unemployment assistance, some 23,768,000 families are presently struggling to hold on through work that they have but are unable to meet their basic needs.
And about the time we are belting out "Auld Lang Syne" this holiday season, President Obama will raise all five income levels of tax categories between three to five percent.
Ironically the president will be raising the rate on the category that is home to seventy-five percent of all small businesses in America -- they will be socked by the largest increase.
I call it ironic because it is the small business community in America that hires 2 out of every 3 new workers in America.
Eventually it all adds up.
And then there was Monday's announcement. In Wisconsin, the President Obama proposed a $50 billion investment in long-term infrastructure projects that he claimed will stimulate the flailing economy, create jobs and refill the exhausted federal highway trust fund. But it's very unclear whether or not this proposal will ever be passed by Congress before the November midterms.
The president has not been pushed on this issue by the press. The president's team pretends that these realities do not exist. The president himself is willing to perpetuate the false notion that the stimulus package set up a "recovery summer" that in truth ended up in greater pain than it began with.
None of this takes into account the additional costs that will be incurred by taxpayers when the full implementation of President Obama's control of one-sixth of the economy through the manipulation of how we receive health care benefits kicks in. And not that it has a great likelihood of passing this year, but if by some miracle it did, the Obama tax penalties that would be incurred by every citizen in the nation under the proposed "cap and trade" legislation would add even greater misery to the growing pile.
All of these pending tax increases will be put into effect against well more than 95% of American tax-payers. Speaking of which that certainly contradicts his most famous campaign line.
In 1929, Yale economist Irving Fisher made note of a number of trends led to the worst economic depression in our nation's history.
Guess how many of these same trends fit into today's scenario:
• Debt liquidation and distress selling
• Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off
• A fall in the level of asset prices
• A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies
• A fall in profits
• A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.
• Pessimism and loss of confidence
• Hoarding of money
• A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates.
President Obama is ignoring and misrepresenting the rate of growth (or lack thereof) in the job numbers, and his economic team has laid the groundwork for the harshest attack on small businesses and every family in America that pays taxes effective January 1, 2011.
By every indicator this observer can see, we are poised for tragedy... and I didn't even get an Ivy League education!

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Baldwin/McCullough Radio"now heard on 212 stations and columnist based in New York. He blogs at The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be is in stores now. And host of "The Kevin McCullough Show"weekdays 7 a.m. - 9 a.m. ET on Sirius 161.

[3deroticer]

http://vimeo.com/14478793

a political animation from the far right!
I hope this helps "JJ" select better sources of cartoon. Starting to feel sorry for his sense of humor.

[3deroticer]

Here is the whole thing on FOXnews on kevin-mccullough-economy-depression-summer-recovery-obama-biden-bush-tax-cuts transcript.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/07/kevin-mccullough-economy-depression-summer-recovery-obama-biden-bush-tax-cuts/

[SamV]

.....
In 1929, Yale economist Irving Fisher made note of a number of trends led to the worst economic depression in our nation's history.
Guess how many of these same trends fit into today's scenario:
• Debt liquidation and distress selling
• Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off
• A fall in the level of asset prices
• A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies
• A fall in profits
• A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.
• Pessimism and loss of confidence
• Hoarding of money
• A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates.
President Obama is ignoring and misrepresenting the rate of growth (or lack thereof) in the job numbers, and his economic team has laid the groundwork for the harshest attack on small businesses and every family in America that pays taxes effective January 1, 2011.
By every indicator this observer can see, we are poised for tragedy... and I didn't even get an Ivy League education!

Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Baldwin/McCullough Radio"now heard on 212 stations and columnist based in New York. He blogs at The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be is in stores now. And host of "The Kevin McCullough Show"weekdays 7 a.m. - 9 a.m. ET on Sirius 161.

Don't know much about Kevin McCullough who wrote this piece, but I don't know a few things about Irving Fisher.

First off it is interesting McCullough choose to use Fisher as his point man for his comparison of economic conditions just prior to, and after the stock market collapse of 1929, which was the bell-weather even that signaled the Great Depression, and our modern Great Recession. And many of those dotted points he lists from Fisher can without a doubt be seen today.

Of course the implication he is trying to make, and it is somewhat a stretch, is that the current economic policies under the "leftist" Obama administration is producing these same trends that occurred in 1929. But he neglects to say that the crash in 1929 was under the Hoover administration at the time, and Hoover, a Republican like his presidential predecessor (Calvin Coolidge) was a pro-business, free-trader, and was versed in ecomonics having served as the US Secratary of Commerce under both Presidents Harding and Coolidge.

And after the crash occurred Hoover proceeded to follow a free-market/pro-business/balanced budget approach to deal with it. He was also a proponent of minimizing, but not eliminating like Coolidge believed, governmental regulations on business. He believed the best approach to the crisis was in voluntary cooperative efforts between government and business, which often ran in to a loggerhead in the form of members of his own party in the Congress, who desired a more direct legislative and protectionist approach to the crisis.

Now where Fisher comes in on this is that at the time he was a well-known and a well-respected economist. However as much as he had earned his reputation in economics, his predictions regarding the stock market prior to the 1929 crash, and when the market would recovery after the clash proved quite damaging to it. It took years before he would manage to regain some of his academic standing among his fellow economists.

In any case it is clear that during that time even a pro-business administration like Hoover's, that followed many of the policies being pushed by today's conservatives, could do little to end, yet alone mitigate, the economic crisis, given these trends Irving Fisher cited. So perhaps all these people who are clamoring for a change in governmental policy should take a second look and realize that quite possibly when a massive economic contraction occurs that there are no single set of answers to solve it, and the best any administration can do is to try whatever might work to mitigate the worst effects of it, while the country has to mutter though it.

[JJ]

the Obummer car......................

[onion_writer]

Yes, JJ. Yes. Now I am convinced of the logic of your arguments.

(Actually, it looks pretty cool -- though the right hand steering shows that it's a British vehicle.)

[pedonbio]

If you desire a nation where the 'redistribution of wealth' is expected, than I welcome you to find another country to call your own. 

And if you seek a country where taxes are very low, the government is very weak, and there are no economic regulations, you are free to move to Somalia.

If you are going to complain about personal attacks, please show enough integrity to refrain from engaging in them.

[pedonbio]

so wait... if you make under $250,000/year you get a taxcut? And Q_BE is complaining about that?
sounds to me that's like 99% of the country

As of the end of last year, it was 98.7%. Good guess, Shara. The point is that the remaining 1.3% are the people Q_BE worships--Mel Gibson and the Koch brothers.

[TheZookie007]

Yes, JJ. Yes. Now I am convinced of the logic of your arguments.

(Actually, it looks pretty cool -- though the right hand steering shows that it's a British vehicle.)

Why are you bothering to try and confuse him with the facts, onion_writer?

[pedonbio]

This is not cute, not animated, and not funny, but it is true. John Bohner voted for every expenditure in 2001 and after, and voted against every effort to balance the budget. Where was the sense of thrift he now claims to have?

[TheZookie007]

This is not the first time someone has posted non-partisan facts on the amount of the deficit and more importantly on whose watch it started. Sadly it will not be the last, because some people simply refuse to acknowledge that the current president didn't start us on this path -- he is attempting to clean up after the dude who came before him and racked up a deficit of $500+ billion, largely by starting two wars (only one of which was really necessary, and even that one has become a quagmire of its own).

What you can blame Obama for, you should blame Obama for. What you can blame G.W. Bush for, you should blame G. W. Bush for. Anti-Obama zealots should take note, please. And if you want to blame either man for something, it had better be provable and accurate. Let's please stop with these "I'm gonna spew a lot of lies, post a few cartoons, then keep quiet as other people blast holes in my spewing, only to come back and repeat the process". It's not productive.

On that note: can someone explain to me why any federal legislator (who earns on average $180K/year) would try and spin the president's attempt to remove the Bush tax cuts for people earning over $250K/year as a bad thing? as something that "would affect small business"? as something to be fought against? When the country's second-richest man (Warren Buffett) is on record as saying that it is wrong that he and his secretary are essentially in the same tax bracket, despite him having thousands of times a higher income than she, why would the Boehners of this world argue FOR the Bush tax cuts to remain in place? And why would any right-minded or fair-minded person agree with him? Why?

[3deroticer]

I think its like Football! Policy is so darn confusing for some people that they no longer go by that anymore and just root for the uniform that their father wore. Put down the other team, and play dirty. Whatever it takes to win for the gipper.

[Shara]

I think its like Football! Policy is so darn confusing for some people that they no longer go by that anymore and just root for the uniform that their father wore. Put down the other team, and play dirty. Whatever it takes to win for the gipper.

yes and then there's zealotism

[Siria]

This is not the first time someone has posted non-partisan facts on the amount of the deficit and more importantly on whose watch it started.

As much as it's wonderful to point fingers at who created the deficit, it's more useful to spend time figuring out how to end it.

Americans will need to accept either significantly higher taxes, significantly fewer social services or something in-between the two. I doubt they will really accept fewer social services, so...

[onion_writer]

Or we can "grow" the economy and earn our way out of it. Simply put, more workers earning more money = more tax dollars.

The question is how to stimulate the economy. Virtually everone agrees that things will get worse if we don't get money out there, to increase spending. (If we don't, everything is going to lock up, there will be no liquidity, and we really will be in a depression.) One suggested way to do this is to preserve tax cuts that are set to expire soon.

We could preserve those cuts, even for the very wealthiest, as Republicans are now arguing; this continues the Reagan-era "trickle down" philosophy.

Or, across the board, tax cuts may not be enough; it assumes that all people  continue to earn in the first place. However, yesterday's news is that 1 in 7 Americans now live in poverty. They will not benefit from tax cuts because they already pay little or no tax.

Another way is for the federal government to borrow against future projected income, similar to tax incremental financing in any city, and create works projects similar to Roosevelt's in the 1930s. This is what today is being called stimulus spending.

One thing is certain: with 1 in 7 now in poverty, we need some serious, immediate help.

[Siria]

Or we can "grow" the economy and earn our way out of it. Simply put, more workers earning more money = more tax dollars.

Not on any reasonable timetable. The size of the U.S. economy (GDP) was $14.26 trillion last year and estimated tax revenue spending for FY2011 $2.57 trillion, or 18.0% of GDP.

If we assume the portion of the GDP that the tax revenue remains the same regardless of the GDP's size, for each additional dollar of GDP (i.e. each dollar of economic growth) $0.18 of new tax revenue will be generated.

The estimated deficit for FY2011 is $1.267 trillion. Assuming the deficit remains constant, only being reduced by new tax revenue, and that tax revenue is linear relative to the size of the economy, the GDP would need to grow by ($1.267 T) / 0.18 = $7.030 T.

In increase in the GDP of $7.030 trillion would represent a 49.3% growth relative to now. Such an extreme growth rate would be unheard of in a developed country, which is lucky if it can get 5% growth per annum once in a while.

Frankly, "growing the economy" isn't a realistic solution to the problem on any reasonable timetable.

The question is how to stimulate the economy. Virtually everone agrees that things will get worse if we don't get money out there, to increase spending. (If we don't, everything is going to lock up, there will be no liquidity, and we really will be in a depression.) One suggested way to do this is to preserve tax cuts that are set to expire soon.

We could preserve those cuts, even for the very wealthiest, as Republicans are now arguing; this continues the Reagan-era "trickle down" philosophy.

The error in doing so is that tax cuts for the rich are the least stimulative fiscal measure in existence. The multiplier process enables some types of fiscal policy to result in an economic improvement several times what the actual government spending was, whereas a tax cut for the rich will be a fraction (generally smaller than half) of the deficit created by the cut.

Republicans want to keep their political donors rich, but in terms of pragmatism tax cuts for the rich are quite simply bad policy.


If you cut taxes for the rich to the tune of $100, the economy only improves by $30. But if you spend $100 on expanding the food stamp program, the economy improves by $300. This seems like magic until you understand the dynamics of how the multiplier process works and the differences between the way the poor and rich use their money.


Edit: Corrected an error in my original reasoning, but the point remains the same. Actually, the correction makes the situation look even more dreadful than the original was, because the economic growth required would be 49% instead of 33%.

[onion_writer]

Siria, I appreciate your intelligent comments -- very sincerely. Thank you for an informative and interesting post.

(And I mean it!)

[SamV]

Or we can "grow" the economy and earn our way out of it. Simply put, more workers earning more money = more tax dollars.

The other problem with that equation that Siria didn't point out, is that even if more people joined or re-joined the workforce, it would all have to depend on the types of employment they take on.

Workers who end up in lower paying jobs pay little, if anything in taxes. I believe I once saw something to the affect that some 50% of US workers pay nothing in taxes. And in some cases, because of deductions and things like the EIC, and other credits in our income tax law, these people who go to work every day to earn a wage from their employer, end up earning part of their yearly income from the government, effectively being supplemented by other taxpayers. Thus no matter if they have a job, they, along with their family can't live on what they earn, because of how much businesses and companies undervalues the work their employees do for them.

So increasing the workforce won't necessarily increase the tax revenue.

(BTW I'm always amused over seeing how people that I know are in the lower income brackets, and in all probability fall out in that 50% who don't currently pay income tax, can get so fired up whenever politicians talk about reducing taxes, since in all likelihood it won't effect their situation one iota.)

[Real]

Has he stripped us of more rights than any other president in my lifetime? Yes. By far yes.

Has he brought more mindless alarmists to the fore than any other president in my lifetime? yes.

Please list the rights you've been stripped of under the Obama presidency.  I retort that under the patriot act you were stripped of ALL of them under the discretion of the executive.  But should be no problem for you to own that argument since its "by far" hey?

Man, I keep on thinking that one of you might pop up who actually has something to say.  Disappointing, just like Newt "african mindset" Gingrich.  Sadly no.  Just grasping at any straw possible to drag us back into last decade.

"he's different and scary.  if we get too specific as to why, the terrorists win."...

[Siria]

I believe I once saw something to the affect that some 50% of US workers pay nothing in taxes.

The 50% figure refers to federal income taxes for this fiscal year because the stimulus bill cut taxes across the board.

But those people still pay state and local taxes, where applicable. They probably still pay state income tax, and they still pay state sales tax. They also end up paying indirect taxes, such as corporate income taxes and other taxes applied to different stages of the production process, because those taxes are passed on to consumers.


Ultimately, all taxation comes out of personal income, because the economy is the sum of all personal income in the country. The only people who don't pay any taxes at all are those that live in places where there is no government.... Which makes ideological arguments about whether it's right to tax income somewhat meaningless; all tax comes out of personal income, regardless of the specific method by which it is drawn out.

Please list the rights you've been stripped of under the Obama presidency.

I've been waiting a couple days to hear that one. I suspect Night Lord will do what partisan hacks typically do in this situation, which is say something ridiculous then run away when asked for evidence because they know they don't have any.

[SamV]

When I made that statement I meant the federal income tax, but I guess I wasn't as clear about it as I thought I was. (BTW I should mention I worked for H&R Block a couple of times as a tax preparer.)

I'm also aware that these same low-salary workers still might be subject to a state income tax/a municipal wage tax/a sales tax, but while that might benefit the revenue of a state/county/city, it does little to help the revenue stream going to the federal government and reduce the deficit, which was the original point O was trying to make in his post on how to pay down the national debt.

[Siria]

(BTW I should mention I worked for H&R Block a couple of times as a tax preparer.)

Sounds like fun.

I'm also aware that these same low-salary workers still might be subject to a state income tax/a municipal wage tax/a sales tax, but while that might benefit the revenue of a state/county/city, it does little to help the revenue stream going to the federal government and reduce the deficit, which was the original point O was trying to make in his post on how to pay down the national debt.

Well yeah.

I'm not making a judgment on whether or not taxes are good or bad. (Whether a tax is good or bad depends on what the tax revenue is spent on.) I was just disambiguating.

[3deroticer]

yes and then there's zealotism

Ha Ha Your in the off topic forum! Is that going to be a problem?

[pedonbio]

When the country's second-richest man (Warren Buffett) is on record as saying that it is wrong that he and his secretary are essentially in the same tax bracket, despite him having thousands of times a higher income than she, why would the Boehners of this world argue FOR the Bush tax cuts to remain in place? And why would any right-minded or fair-minded person agree with him? Why?

Thanks, Zookie. I would like to add something, since you mentioned Warren Buffet.

I know that a lot of people here dislike Bill Gates, Jr., for a variety of reasons. I do not, in part because I am marginally acquainted with his father through my work. Bill, Jr., tried to stay out of politics after he unwittingly crossed a number of politicians; prior to the late 1980s no MS executives made significant political contributions. Sun Micro made huge contributions. Suddenly in the early 1990s MS found itself under the microscope of every federal agency that responded to one of Sun's puppets (Read: Orrin Hatch) and found itself in all kinds of trouble. At that point MS started what is a disappointingly common corporate practice of making political contributions to both parties.

Bill, Sr., on the other hand, has become the political conscience of the family. This year he has sponsored and is supporting an initiative to impose an income tax on the top 1.3% of Washington's residents, including, of course, his son. This is for the same reason as given by Buffet--Given Washington's regressive tax structure, a person making less than $20k pays 17% in total state taxes; a person making over $1 million pays 3.5%.

[Shara]

Ha Ha Your in the off topic forum! Is that going to be a problem?

in this case I was referring to Q_BE

[onion_writer]

Given Washington's regressive tax structure, a person making less than $20k pays 17% in total state taxes; a person making over $1 million pays 3.5%.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[3deroticer]

in this case I was referring to Q_BE

And then there is hyper zealot against other zealot.

speaking words of wisdom "let it be"

[TheZookie007]

(BTW I'm always amused over seeing how people that I know are in the lower income brackets, and in all probability fall out in that 50% who don't currently pay income tax, can get so fired up whenever politicians talk about reducing taxes, since in all likelihood it won't effect their situation one iota.)

To your point: Steve Jobs recently got into a pissing match with yet another Apple customer. The full story is interesting in and of itself and can be seen here. One of the people who commented on that article said inter alia:

"I'm a Republican, but I'm still shocked when I hear people who aren't even close to being rich advocate tax cuts for the wealthy. (Thank you very much, by the way.) I can only assume that this is a manifestation of this entire syndrome where everyone thinks that wealth is just going to find them, so they don't want there to be higher taxes on them when they get it."

Of course, the presumption is that someone with this attitude, is actually thinking.

[TheZookie007]

Thanks, Zookie. I would like to add something, since you mentioned Warren Buffet...

Bill, Sr., on the other hand, has become the political conscience of the family. This year he has sponsored and is supporting an initiative to impose an income tax on the top 1.3% of Washington's residents, including, of course, his son. This is for the same reason as give by Buffet--Given Washington's regressive tax structure, a person making less than $20k pays 17% in total state taxes; a person making over $1 million pays 3.5%.

Yeah, I like William H. Gates Sr. too. He seems to be a pretty steady, solid fellow. And we have him and his late wife to thank for gently prodding "Trey" into becoming the world's largest philanthropist...aided and abetted by one Warren Buffett, of course!

[TheZookie007]

As much as it's wonderful to point fingers at who created the deficit, it's more useful to spend time figuring out how to end it.

True. But when certain people keep up a constant campaign of calumny re: who is to blame, you have to fight back with the facts. It should be more like, "Hey, this wasn't my problem, I didn't start the fire, but since I'm in the hot seat now, here's what I intend to do to solve the problem..."

Americans will need to accept either significantly higher taxes, significantly fewer social services or something in-between the two. I doubt they will really accept fewer social services, so...

I really don't mind paying higher taxes, if and only if they are used properly and we can see the results of that spending. I was reading my alumni magazine this morning and I came across an article on Neil deGrasse Tyson. He gave an interesting quote:

...A reasonable person might ask: Given all the problems on Earth — war, hunger, poverty, disease, unemployment, et cetera — why should the federal government spend billions of dollars in space?

As a public scientist, Tyson hears the question a lot, and it tends to raise his atmospheric pressure.

"I would just ask you: How much do you think we're spending up there? Here's your tax dollar. How much? Ten cents on the dollar? Five cents? The answer is one half of one cent. That funds the space stations, the space shuttles, all the NASA centers, all the launches, the Hubble Space Telescope, the rovers on Mars. All of it. Half a penny. So the question isn't, 'Why are we spending money up there and not down here?' The question is, 'If we pumped that half a cent back into the 99.5 percent of the budget, would the country be fundamentally different in the ways you want?' Do you believe that?

"NASA should be counted as a force of nature. There is no greater stimulus of the public's interest in science and technology than the ambitions that NASA places in front of the country."

[SamV]

Sounds like fun.

Which is why I only did it a couple of times.
 
There is nothing like trying to explain to some ninny, why the US federal tax code does not permit him to declare his girlfriend as a dependent, like his children by his ex-wife, even though he is providing all of her support. And then getting cursed out by him, when he doesn't like the answer, before he stomps out of the office with her and a couple of his kids in tow, yelling how he should have gone to Jackson Hewitt instead.

[pedonbio]

I really don't mind paying higher taxes, if and only if they are used properly and we can see the results of that spending. I was reading my alumni magazine this morning and I came across an article on Neil deGrasse Tyson. He gave an interesting quote:

What? You quote a graduate of New York City's public school system? 

My favorite Tyson quote is about his lack of concern that 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences don't believe in God; it's the 15% who do that bothers him.

[3deroticer]

I have a question, because someone brought up the blame of economy on former prez, is how long must the benefit of the action to take place by the acting president in order to credit that president hand on result of his policy?

I kept telling myself, that its a good thing that GWBush serve 2 terms, because I thought surely whatever damage he has done, his people could no longer blame the former president for the downfall. He had 8 years to mess with and at the end of 8 year, we have a national debt and 2 wars, and a losing jobs epidemic. We are still debating the GWBush tax cut?