The only way Obama could end up a better president then Bush, is if he left office today. Bush is going to go down as one of the worst presidents we have ever had. In a hundred years (if the US is still around), Obama will be higher on that list.

thanks for repeating what I said. Anyway, i am sorry for using sarcasm in this site, so unusual. I am doing a search for all the threads you posted about Bush being a bad president while he was in office. it might be helpful if you can link me some threads. It's hard going through all these Obma post you got.

So you did not create one single thread about Bush, yet in the last month alone, i have seen more threads from you about oBAMA than Killzone threads.

It's a pain in the ass to search this site, but I will say I didn't make many Bush threads, as back then I blamed congress more then Bush for spending. In this case, I have to thank congress for spending less then Obama. (same congress, if that gives you any indication how bad Obama in is this regard).

When the congress and the president are the same party, what the president wants usually goes, so I blame him. Could just as easily blamed Congress, but they are not coming up with crazy 3.6 trillion spending bills.

My point is I am against the kinds of spending we have been doing, and it does not matter who the president is. Bush signed the package, and I called it a dumb idea.

Here's the problem, Akuma: Raising taxes during good times can cause reduced profitability for businesses and people to lead a country into worse times. We're seeing American jobs being outsourced as a result of more competitive corporate tax rates in other developed, and developing nations. Therefore, by raising taxes, you start to reduce the effect of a 'fat' period.

If anything, the government should learn to actually store back funds for use if times get bad, instead of hampering growth by raising taxes. If they are absolutely needed, I guess I can understand that. But if they are not needed, it won't work. When was the last time a politician raised taxes to pay something off, rather than raise taxes to fund new spending?

And I think your analogy of 'if you can't spend your way out of recession, then you can't cut your way to profitability' is beyond laughable. Have you ever ran a business? Know someone who does? Ask them if cutting back raises profitability. They'll tell you that it does. By your logic, the Big 3 auto manufacturers should be leading the world since they've never cut back a day in their life.

The fact is, that businesses trim the fat and reduce spending to increase profitability. Taxation & spending reduction is the same way. If the government wants to create a surplus, it needs to do what businesses do: lay people off. Close down unprofitable wings. Find more efficent ways to do business. The government, however, has that wonderful advantage of legislating revenue increases, since it can merely force it's populace to give them more revenue. That doesn't mean that it's a smart way of doing business. If anything, it's a horrible model to run a business, or government.

Here's an example of the correlation of corporate taxation, and the effect it has on our economy, and the economies of others:

Now, if you'll notice, outsourcing is increasing, while corporate taxation drops overseas. Guess why? If a business can hire people and pay them, and get taxed less, they have an incentive to do it.

Of course, I question if you'll understand this if you've ever run a business, or understand business economics.