Policy Changes Under Two Presidents (Help Me Refute a Hussein cultist!)

Slimes of New York, the old gray whore ^ | 7/24/11 | NY Slimes Graphics Dept.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Policy changes under two presidents, figures in billions.

[Recovering_Democrat]

FRiends, I cannot post the image now. But please look at it. A Hussein cultist who pretends to be intellectually honest just showed it to me--in an attempt, I think, to show Bush was worse than Hussein.

My first response kind of knocked them back a bit...as I cited that the BULK of the Bush policies indicated (even the tax cuts) were done on a BIPARTISAN basis, whereas Hussein's policies have been wholly PARTISAN.

I am sure there are more concepts and truths that can refute the implications intended by this graphic, but I cannot recall any. I would appreciate your insights.

My goal here is not so much as to defend all of Bush's decisions, but to provide a refutation to the notion he was worse than Hussein.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Recovering_Democrat.

[SunStar]

Sure, here you go...
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/26/charts-of-the-day/

[taxcontrol]

Your first tactic in getting in this type of discussion is to pin your friend down to specifics. Bush was worse in what area? Unemployment, spending, etc? Get the topic down in email or written down. Then proceed to distroy their position. Once it has been destroyed, don’t allow them to slip away by moving on to different topic. This can be done by staying on that topic and asking them how could Bush be worse when Obama did xxxxx. Get then to either say that Bush was not worse or that Obama was.

If the arguement shows that they are equal or Bush was in fact worse (I doubt it but just in case), REMIND your friend that Obama was a Senator at the time. Check his vote record and unless Obama voted against it, he supported it.

[submarinerswife]

Slimes of New York, The Old Grey Whore

This is so true.

[blackdog]

Emotional investment trumps all logic in the liberal mind. It makes denial that much easier to pickle the head.

[VeniVidiVici]

And then don’t forget to remind them that the Democrats took control of congress, and therefore the purse strings of the United States, in 2007.

[cartan]

• Tax cuts are not spending. There is no linear relation between tax rate and government revenue. See Laffer curve. If Obama raises taxes now, and strangles the economy even more that way, revenues would go further down, and the deficit would be even bigger than it is now.
• Iraq and Afghanistan wars happened in reaction to external national security events. They are not an entitlement program, and they were approved in a bi-partisan fashion. BTW, Obama has decided to continue the costly nation building process. So, that part of the costs should be on his pile, too.
• Stimulus and bailouts began under Bush, that is true. Yes, he shouldn’t have done it. Note that they happened already under a Democratic congress, however.

The important thing is this little graph, anyway:

[DJ MacWoW]

[Mr.Unique]

The first step for everyone is to make them understand what is a cost and what is a savings. They win when they take control of the language.

A tax cut is not a "cost" and reducing the rate of growth is not "savings".

[Recovering_Democrat]

Thanks for the graphic....what is the source?

[DJ MacWoW]

I asked the FReeper that posted it for the source. I’ve done a search and can’t find it.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks SunStar.