The paramount difference seems to be that Bush put things in place that favored the wealthy and elite, whereas Obama wants to take from these same people to a reasonable degree, in order to help others who aren't as fortunate. Notice I say to a reasonable degree, because the top 1% have huge advantages when it comes to taxes. I'm not saying stick it to them, I'm saying get back to something a little more reasonable.
watched Bill Maher last night. here is the conversation and how it went.
The panel discussion began with a conversation about the various budget proposals currently on the table in Washington.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow predictably slammed Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-Wisc.) plan.
"The Ryan budget is a document that says the big problems in America right now are that rich people do not have enough money," she mocked. "They need relief from confiscatory tax rates."
"Well," Maher unsuccessfully tried to interrupt as Maddow continued. When she was finally done, he surprisingly pushed back.
Pointing at Virginia's former Republican Congressman Tom Davis, Maher said, "You know what? Rich people - I'm sure you'd agree with this - actually do pay the freight in this country."
"I just saw these statistics," he continued, "I mean, something like 70 percent. And here in California, I just want to say liberals - you could actually lose me. It's outrageous what we're paying - over 50 percent. I'm willing to pay my share, but yeah, it's ridiculous."
So it appears there is a point where Maher's money becomes more important than his politics.
Consider that in California, millionaires on top of the 39.6 percent they'll pay to the federal government in 2013, there's an additional 14.63 percent that now goes to the state.
Add in payroll taxes, local taxes, and property taxes, and I've seen estimates that the total tax bite could exceed 60 percent here.
But the rich aren't paying their "fair share."