 Patrick.net |
14,778 readers yesterday Get a free "Debt Is Slavery" bumper sticker! |
Watch (0) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/14/world/americas/colombia-summit-secret-service/index.html
These agents where just ones from the Clinton era. They were used to helping the president practice safe sex.
In any case, it's always a good idea to pay the prostitute before she goes to the police.
Viewing Comments 1-25 of 25 Last » See most liked comments
|
Premium member Dan8267 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
if they were not on the clock I just can't see why it's my business, or why it cost them their job. But, if they were on the clock, then it's a mandatory peepee slapping all around.
Follow
Befriend (28)
169 threads
4,153 comments
Premium
At least they didn't gun them down with silencers and stuff their bodies in the hotel dumpster.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,451 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Yet another case of America being the laughing stock of the world.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,672 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
The Secret Service employee guidelines forbid engaging in prostitution even where it's legal. The reason for this is that agents could be blackmailed. And this compromises security.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,672 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says
They were in Columbia, not Mexico.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
Dan8267 says
they are held to a higher standard than Clinton? Intersting.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
Dan8267 says
lmao
Follow
Befriend
53 threads
658 comments
I just bought 12 former-SS staff for a fraction of the usual price! Usually I need to resort to grand schemes to blackmail my closest henchmen into loyalty. These guys came with a bonus.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,672 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
The boss can do anything he wants.
Still, if I had to choose between Clinton and either Bush or Obama, it's an obvious choice. When the worst thing that happens is the president gets a blowjob in the Oval Office from a fattie, it's a pretty good decade.
Compare that to the death, destruction, and economic depression brought on by Bush and Obama, and there's no contest.
I thought Clinton was a mediocre president when he was in office, but compared to the last two presidents, he was a Greek god. And if it would bring back the economy and ethical standards of the 1990s, I'd give the president a blow job.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
Not my point, but we agree. My point is/was no harm no foul for Clinton - even though he was placed in a blackmail situation - should be the same for the SS.
Lets be real here, Clinton had a dozen tramps plus a couple of rape charges plus a few dead bodies around his ass. Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, and whoever beats Obama in November, have never had any of those things that followed Clinton from Ark. to DC.
@your last sentence - lmao - anyways, you are giving Clinton credit for what he was handed, and then blaming Bush 2 for what Lord Barry was handed. No fair.
Follow
Befriend (1)
246 threads
4,658 comments
How do you make a hormone?
Don't pay her...
Follow
Befriend (1)
246 threads
4,658 comments
Well we know about the Hookers, what about the Blow?
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,672 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
G.W. Bush was a known cocaine user. The only reason his ass isn't in prison to this day is that he had major political connections.
Bill Clinton was never charged with rape. Being accused of rape and being charged with or doing it is entirely different things. I have no problem believing that a politician like Clinton would have been falsely accused of such a crime by opportunist and political opponents. But where's the evidence.
In contrast, G.W. Bush is actually a rapist. Rape was one of those "intensive interrogation" methods used by America and its allies in secret prisons. And that includes the rape of children. What better way to get a parent to talk than to start raping his 6-year-old child before his very eyes? Thank Bush and Obama for that.
As for the issue of whether or not a president, open to blackmail, should be dismissed... Presidents are elected, well, except in the case of Bush, but anyway... Elected officials should not be subject to immediate removal from office simply because the potential of blackmail exists.
The Secret Service officers are not elected. They also have to abide by a specific set of regulations that a president or senator does not have to. This set of regulations is what those in charge believe, rightly or not, to be essential for performing the duties of the job.
Personally, I don't care who politicians have consensual sex with as long as they don't interfere with our rights to have consensual sex. ...the hypocrisy of passing laws and then breaking those very laws yourself notwithstanding
I have no reason to believe Bill Clinton committed rape or sexual assault. If there is substantial evidence, present it in a court of law, that's what they are for. As for Bush's cocaine use, I wouldn't mind that if not for the hypocrisy of the war on drugs under his administration that has curtailed the liberties of those of us who have never used drugs. And his drug use is beyond reasonable doubt as is the corruption of our government that decides to selectively enforce drug laws.
Bap33 says
Also, JFK, Johnson, and Carter. You forgot those. But then again, they were Democrats.
Speaking of judging presidents. Let's just put on the table all our political cards. I suspect that you only like judging post-1960 Democrats harshly. But to fair, I'll go first.
Rating the presidents since Ike, the farthest I'm comfortable going back, on a scale from 0 to 10 with
0 - evil incarnated. Satan and Hitler would get this.
1 - evil. Mussolini, Ming the Merciless, Darth Vadar.
2 - horrible, unethical, despicable. Every James Bond villain, Lex Luthor.
3 - bad, corrupt, but with some ethics and restraints. Decepticon Swindle, Al Copone, Billy Maharg, Boss Tweed, Magneto
4 - poor, inept, incompetent, or ineffective. Keystone Cops, Herbert Hoover, asleep air traffic controllers
5 - mediocre. Clark Kent, Xander Harris, Aquaman, Autobot Bumble Bee from the 1980s
6 - decent, some flaws but overall good. Wolverine, Iron Man, Hamlet
7 - good, significantly improves the system. Robin Hood, Martin Luther King Jr., The Greatest American Hero
8 - great, fundamentally changes life in a positive way. Newton, Einstein, Alexander Fleming
9 - awesome, incorruptible, always does good. Captain Picard.
10 - perfection, does the best thing every time. Superman.
So here's how I'd rate the recent presidents.
Ike - 6
Good on civil rights and protecting America. Had intelligence and forethought regarding many issues including satellite surveillance, America's dependency on foreign oil, and the dangers of the industrialized military complex.
JFK - 7
Despite two major failures, Bay of Pigs and starting the Vietnam War, and the bad idea of Brinkmanship in the nuclear age, JFK had resounding success in civil rights, starting the Peace Corps, and running America in an ethical and moral manner that upheld the principles of its founding despite fierce opposition by those who wanted a society of privileges instead of rights.
Johnson - 3
Although he did continue JFK's civil rights platform, he did only so for political reasons. His expansion of the Vietnam War and suppression of anti-war demonstrations cost the country greatly in blood, treasure, and liberty.
Nixon - 3
Not that different from Johnson in policies and practice. Nixon also was involve, at some level, with Watergate and most certainly destroyed or order the destruction of evidence in the resulting criminal case. Had he not been president and pardon by his successor, he would have gone to prison.
Ford - 4
Ford's pardoning of Nixon was clearly corruption and nepotism, but beyond that he was merely mediocre.
Carter - 4
Perhaps Carter would have been more effective if he had a cooperative Congress, but I can only judge his presidency on what actually happened. It was inept. However, I like his post-presidency much, much better. He has done a lot of good since leaving politics.
Reagan - 3
According to modern standards, Reagan would be a terrorist for the sabotage of the Soviet oil pipeline. But I'm not holding them to modern Republican standards. Reagan is worshipped by the Republicans precisely because he was a puppet that gave power to big corporations while absolving them of any legal responsibilities. He is the primary reason the rich-poor gap is so large today, the middle class is shrinking, and the lobbyists have so much power. He really fucked things up badly.
George Bush Sr. - 5
Although I should deduct points for raising a retard who fucked up the country, I'm basing my rating solely on the president's term. Pretty much the definition of mediocre, this Bush didn't screw up or do anything great. The best you can say about him is getting Iraq out of Kuwait, but because of the second Iraq War, that's a wash at best. The worst thing about his presidency is that he wasted the opportunity America had as the sole remaining superpower to promote international law and cooperation to prevent human rights violations, protect the world's environment, and safeguard nations against aggression.
Bill Clinton - 6
He kept the peace, balanced the budget, even had a surplus that was starting to pay down the debt, and he kept the economy strong without violating any human or civil rights. All this for the low, low price of a blowjob. Nevertheless, Republicans ridiculously tried to entrap and impeach him because they couldn't stand that he did a much better job than Bush, Reagan, or Nixon.
George W. Bush Jr. - 1
I'm not sure I should give this rating to Bush or the real president during that time, Dick Cheney. Either way, George the Hutt or Darth Cheney committed the greatest crimes against humanity in the United States since slavery and the Trail of Tears. The literally reversed 800 years of progress in western civilization by destroying Habeas Corpus. They brought back systematic torture of people, something not seen in western civilization since the Middle Ages. The world would have been far better if both this jackasses had been aborted by their hag mothers.
Obama - 1
For maintaining and expanding the policies of Bush/Cheney.
Average Republican Score: 3.7 with Ike, 3.2 without Ike
Average Democrat Score: 4.5 with Ike, 4.2 without Ike
Of course, Ike was a pre-Goldwater Republican, which is more like a Democrat today.
Conclusion
Both parties suck, but the Republicans suck statistically significantly more.
So, bap, using the scale above, give your ratings and why. Then we can meaningfully discuss presidential politics.
Personally, I don't think anyone less than a 7 should be allowed to be president. It would be better to not have a president than let a 6 or lower get in. But I can't think of any 20th century president that would qualify. And earlier presidents tend to be cartoonify, so I don't like rating them.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
I like your list as wrote, but I would change Reagan to 7, Clinton to 5, and Bush #2 to 4.
I like JFK's stuff that I have read, but I would say that we don't know the whole truth there.
I like Ike.
I like R.B. Hayes because of his first name. It's cool.
I suggest military/national service be made mandatory for all citizens for a minimum of two years straight, between 17 and 25 years old.
And, I suugest all Gov offices from the dog catcher to the POTUSA must have military/national service.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,672 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
The guy who is most directly responsible for the decline in living standards of the middle 80% of the people? That Reagan mythology is more hyped up than even the Kennedy Camelot mythology.
Bap33 says
Including the openly gay?
If military service was mandatory, I'd insist on a few things.
1. All people regardless of their political connections (like G.W. Bush) have to go through the same military, none of this National Guard b.s. to get out risking your life in war.
2. All wars must be openly declared before a single military deployment.
3. The president and Congress can't declare wars. Wars can only be declared by the people via popular vote, and the votes of all people ages 14-22 count 100 times as much as the votes of anyone else. And yes, 14-17 year-olds get to vote on war as they will be the ones fighting it. That's also why the votes of 14-22 year-olds count 100 times as much as people who are past draft age.
4. The conduct towards soldiers by all of their commanding officers regardless of rank must adhere to civilian standards. You do not lose any rights while serving, and no rights are placed on hold.
5. All citizens are subject to the exact same military requirements regardless of gender.
6. Since this is basically forced labor, in exchange for it, we get a nationalize health care system, tax-payer funded, and divorced from employment. No profiteering in administration and insurance.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,672 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Bap33 says
Makes no sense if you keep Obama at 1. They have done the same evil things. And it's evil, not political differences or economic policies that move a person that close to 0.
Follow
Befriend (5)
166 threads
5,054 comments
I would raise Carter to 5 and I'm not as negative on Obama as you (I know your reasons - I just dissagree).
Carter engaged in no war of any kind. The 70s economy recession - inflation - stagflation hurt him, as did the hostage crisis. His whitehouse didn't worry enough about PR and he got blamed for more than he should have.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,672 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
marcus says
4 = poor, inept, incompetent, or ineffective.
I think most people looking back at Carter's administration would consider it ineffective. He didn't fix the economy, always an important issue, and he failed to end the hostage crisis. To add insult to injury, the hostages were released within minutes of Reagan's inauguration.
Carter had the potential to be a better president, a 5 or 5.5, but he had a very obstructive Congress. But as I said, I rated the presidents solely on their record, not their potential.
Still, 4 or 5 is arguing over a minor difference. There's no way everyone's numbers are going to be exactly the same. More interesting is...
marcus says
Yeah, you're much more lenient on Obama and Bap is much more lenient on Bush. To me, there's little difference between the two the deal breakers: human/civil rights violations.
It's funny how Democrats can ignore all the atrocities Obama has committed just like the Republicans ignore all the atrocities Bush committed. Neither side can admit how bad their candidate is even when their candidate does the exact same thing as the opposition. It's almost comical.
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,495 comments
Dan8267 says
Either your history reading or memory of the 60's or 70's is a little weak.
Kennedy 4-5 at best. JFK has been so overblown that real life isn't in play any more. He was a great orator and had great visions, but his presidency was at best average. Civil rights were his brothers Robert's thing, JFK was actually adverse to the idea. His immigration policy changes were and still are a disaster to this day. I'm not sure what principles he upheld. He approved the FBI running amuck with illegal spying on civil rights leaders and he went after the steel industry price increases with what were probably illegal actions from the executive branch. Kennedy also ran the first non wartime deficit in the nations history, not something that should have been started. On the other hand anyone who allegedly boffed Marilyn Monroe, Angie Dickinson, Km Novak, and Judy Garland should get bonus points.
LJB is a well deserved 3, but in all fairness most civil rights accomplishments were actually his. He fought hard for civil rights for a long time even though he knew it would ruin the democratic party. Read his writings and you will know civil rights were not just political to him. The great society was simply a huge failure that everyone in the US is still paying for. Welfare was the worst thing that ever happened to the poor.
Nixon should be much higher than 3. No way a continuation of LBJ's policies. Very strong on foreign, weak on domestic. Opening up China and dramatically improving relations with USSR were major initiatives that shaped today's world. On the domestic front Nixon actually moved power from the federal to state level over strong objections from congress.
Ford-corruption and nepotism?? You have got to be kidding. Ford was always known as one of the most ethical politicians in the congress (not stiff competition admittedly). The US was in tatters in 1974. Years of race riots, Vietnam war protests, watergate, cities burning, etc.. There was real concern that the republic would not survive. Pardoning Nixon eliminated what would have been a divisive and destructive impeachment process dragging on for years. The pardon let the country move on. Ford knew it would kill his chances of reelection. A very selfless act. It was the best thing Ford did in a 20 month presidency, which was not mediocre at all.
I have to agree about Obama, it's just Bush's third term.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,672 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
bob2356 says
If you remember the 60s, you didn't live them.
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,672 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
bob2356 says
I don't disagree with the points you made. Kennedy's "Camelot" is a pure myth just like Reagan as a competent president is a myth.
However, JFK did accomplish quite a few important things.
1. Among John F. Kennedy's most notable and long-standing accomplishments was the establishment of the Peace Corps, an organization that is now responsible for sending thousands of American volunteers around the world to help the needy.
2. It was John F. Kennedy's cautious and sensible approach to the standoff during the Cuban missile crisis that ultimately diverted a nuclear war with the Soviet Union and secured the removal of missiles from Cuba.
3. John F. Kennedy was committed to landing a man on the moon, and although it occurred after his death, it was his support of space exploration that helped make it happen.
4. John F. Kennedy's perseverance was instrumental in securing a limited nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union. This was the first step to ending the cold war, which had been escalading since 1945.
5. It was John F. Kennedy's dedication that helped secure the passage of the Area Redevelopment Act, which assisted states that were suffering from high rates of unemployment.
6. Under John F. Kennedy's administration, laws were put in place to end segregation in interstate travel facilities.
7. John F. Kennedy issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the sale or lease of housing that was financed by federally guaranteed loans or owned by the federal government.
All of these things were game changers, dramatically improving the world. It Kennedy didn't screw up a few times, most notably in the Bay of Pigs, then I would have rated him somewhere around 7.5 to 8.0. I haven't seen any president since him accomplish anything remotely as impressive.
bob2356 says
I'm a bit more skeptical than you, but I'd like to be wrong about that.
bob2356 says
The best thing about Nixon was Kissinger. That said, Nixon ranks a 3 in my opinion because 3 means "bad, corrupt, but with some ethics and restraints". For the only president that had to resign to avoid impeachment and unconvincingly saying "I am not a crook", I'd have to say that Nixon was corrupt to an extend that warrants a three. He even destroyed evidence in the most important criminal case in U.S. history.
Now before you go saying, "well, all politicians are corrupt", I'm talking about a level of corruption that materially and substantially interferes with the ability to be president far beyond normal political corruption. Since he resigned over his role in Watergate, I'd have to stand by that ruling.
Heck, Watergate is the namesake of all political corruption scandals to this day.
bob2356 says
Funny how that logic only applies to people with connections. If Joe common does anything slightly wrong or even just "looks suspicious", he's thrown in jail, strip-searched, and fingerprinted. I'm not seeing equality under law here.
bob2356 says
Yet, Ford still ran for president. Not exactly supporting your hypothesis.
bob2356 says
Some of us don't take apacolypsefuck seriously. Or his counterparts in the 1970s.
Follow
Befriend (3)
12 threads
3,094 comments
I said military and/or national service, meaning a non-combative form of national service would be ok too. Not everyone is a warrior, but everyone should learn that America is not all about me me me (well, not me, but "me" )
My way of running things would be such that a persons choice of sexual satisfaction would be the very last worry they have 23.5 hours each day of their 2 year hitch. But, to answer directly, no, anyone professing/or acting to be wired up for unnatural sexual attraction (guys and chicks) would be made to pick weeds from the edges of the freeways all over this land ,,, for the same pay as the soldiers and national volunteers. That allows them to perform a great help, and be part of the group, without disrupting the function of the unit.
On that subject, I have an honest question. If you were to take a basic feminine male homo that is attracted to masculine humans, and a masculine female homo that is attracted to feminine humans, wouldn't it make perfect sense and avoid all the crap for those two to hook up?
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,495 comments
We will just have to disagree on kennedy. The things you cite don't counterbalance the problems as far as I'm concerned. If you want some insight into his "cautious and sensible approach" watch "the fog of war" with mcnamara. It's actually terrifying. Everything about Cuba was a totally mishandled cluster fuck from the beginning right up to today.
Read Johnson's biographies or published papers. I think he was a terrible president, but on civil rights he was sincere and actually worked hard at it.
I was attending a university during watergate. If you don't think there was real fear throughout the population about the future of the country then you just don't know what went on. A lot of people were really scared that everything was collapsing and watergate would be the final straw. Everyone was asking what if Nixon refuses to stand down as commander and chief? Would the military obey him if he did something really crazy like seize the government. Damn right many people were almost in a panic.
What's with you and Ford? Many people hated the pardon because they wanted to see Nixon crucified. But even his worst detractors agreed the pardon was a clean break that let everything move on. It wasn't about connections, it was about the good of the country. Geez, you need to have a little faith in people sometimes. You are starting to live in a very dark paranoid place.
Of course Ford ran for reelection, what does that have to do with anything? He publicly stated that the pardon would probably lose him the election, but he tried anyway. So what?
Follow
Befriend (16)
761 threads
7,672 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
bob2356 says
My logic on Kennedy is that although his flaws and failures where significant, they no longer affect us today, whereas his great accomplishments heavily effect our day-to-day living.
bob2356 says
I thought I was rather lenient on Ford. I didn't even give him a corrupt rating even though he obstructed justice in the single most important criminal case in all of U.S. history to this date. And that is what the pardon was, obstruction of justice. Legal only because the powerful give themselves privileges.
And that's exactly the problem. There should not be two sets of laws: one for lords and one for peasants. That's exactly what we rebelled against in the revolution. So, yes, like the vast majority of Americans, I think that Richard Nixon should have been place on trial like any commoner would have been. The trial should have been in open court, abiding to all the laws and principles that our legal system alleges to uphold.
Furthermore, I don't buy your hypothesis that the whole republic would suddenly collapse if Nixon had been impeached. Yeah, like the army is going to start a coup if criminal charges are brought against a sitting president, just like they would have if Clinton had been impeached over that blow job.
The republic survived the Civil War. That was a divisive period in American history. The 1970s was not anything like that. Hell, today America is far more polarized than in the 1970s. That's due to people moving around and settling where there were like-minded neighbors, the customization of news to everybody's interests and accepted politics. Compared that to a time when everyone watched the same three networks.
Furthermore, there is far more rational justification for fear in America's future today than in the 1970s. Back then, torture wasn't legal; the government couldn't assassinate citizens; there was little foreign economic competition; news agencies didn't engage in outright propaganda tailored for particular audiences; the government didn't know everything you did; people's locations were not tracked 24/7 (mobile phones, traffic cams with license plates readers, etc.).
I know a lot of people who lived in the 1970s and they weren't panicking during Watergate. They were more concerned about where to buy weed cheap and how high of platform shoes they could get away with wearing. Those who were paranoid about a civil war breaking out sound, quite frankly, like nutcases to me. Like the Baby Boomers were going to do anything that took as much effort as toppling a superpower. Have you ever seen Baby Boomers work their ass off at anything?
Nevertheless, Ford's pardoning of Nixon didn't even get him notched down from a 4 to a 3, and even without the pardon, Ford was a 4.
Gerald Ford is most remembered for two things: pardoning Nixon and falling down. That's hardly an impressive legacy.
The economy just kept getting worse under Ford and unemployment skyrocketed. From The Bureau of Labor Statistics -- oh wait, do I need to quote Wikipedia instead to get your attention? -- the unemployment figures peaked during Ford's term.
Hell, Carter did far better on keeping unemployment low and I ranked him as a 4 for inept! How could I possibly rank Ford higher when his performance was at least as bad as Carter's?
By every objective measure, Ford was a forgettable, inept president who accomplished nothing great and will be forgotten by history just like Zachary Taylor. Yet, he still ranks higher than Reagan.
Follow
Befriend (2)
8 threads
755 comments
33 male
Fort Mill, SC
Ike - 6. Most of the reasons already stated by Dan but don't forget that the economy somehow managed to grow at an average rate of 3.1% while the top marginal tax rates were 89-92%. 5.5% unemployment.
JFK - 5. I just don't rate him as high, while he did lay the groundwork for civil rights & Apollo, the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam were major errors. It worked out thank god with the Soviets...4.3% GDP growth with 89% top marginal tax rates. 5.5% unemployment. He could have been better but didn't have much time.
LBJ - 6. Would be higher except for Vietnam. 5.2% GDP growth with 76% top marginal rates. 4.2% unemployment. Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Great Society, Voting Rights Act. Finished Apollo. This guy got a lot of great stuff done...Vietnam really screwed him.
Nixon - 3. Watergate, Price Controls bad. Nixon Doctine, China, good. 2.9% GDP growth with 70% top marginal tax rates. 5.5% unemployment.
Ford - 4. The definition of mediocre. Nixon's price controls killed his economy. Was honest and steady at a time when the country needed it. Got us out of Vietnam. 2.6% GDP growth with 70% top marginal tax rates. 7.7% unemployement.
Carter - 5. The first victim of the right wing propoganda machine. Deregulation, SALT II good. No wars. 3.3% GDP growth with 70% top marginal tax rates. 6.6% unemployment. Rated WAY worse than he should be given modern context. Remember those GDP and unemployment metrics.
Reagan - 3. His deification is mind boggling. Reaganomics, Air traffic Controllers, EPA, Iran-Contra, this list goes on. Did have good relations with the Soviets. People generally liked him. Started class warfare and the war on the poor and middle class the persists today. 3.4% GDP growth, 28% top marginal tax rates, 7.2% unemployment.
H.W. Bush - 4. Cotinued Reagan's war on the middle class. Gulf War unneeded for US safety. 2.2% GDP growth, 31% top tax rates, 6.4% unemployment.
Clinton - 6. Balanced budget, DADT, FMLA, SCHIP. 3.9% GDP growth, 39.6% top marginal tax rates, 5.2% unemployment. The only thing bad I have to say is he let his personal life lessen his power to make more real changes.
W. Bush - 3. Provided leadership and calmness post-911, good. Destroyed economy. Went nuclear on class warfare. 2.0% GDP growth, 35% top marginal tax rates, 5.3% unemployment. Set up great recession. Bailed out banks. Started two wars that did not make America safer.
Obama - 3. very much like Carter. Deals with an obstructionist Congress. Inherited worst economy since 1930s. Bailed out Banks. Continued many of Bush policies. 9.4% unemployment, .4% GDP growth, 35% top tax rates. Pushed for legislation that prevent depression. Gave in to Republicans on public health option, now will lose signature legislation to SCOTUS striking down Republican individual mandate. Signed leglislation stripping citizens of rights. Has potential to improve based upon second term, depending on congressional races.
So the BEST Republican president for the economy was Ike who allowed 89%+ top marginal tax rates, and his economy was only better than Obama and Carter, who were the worst two democrats. Explain to me how raising taxes on the rich would hurt the economy?