Posted on 04/12/2010 10:30:40 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
;-)
From a mathematical point of view, Bush’s tax cuts made the schedule MORE PROGRESSIVE. Percentagewise, the “rich” got a smaller reduction than the middle. Many lower income earners were removed from paying any tax at all.
And then to note that McCain went along with the Dims and the MSM crying about “tax cuts for the rich.” Bush helped get us to the tipping point where less than half pay the way for those willing to vote themselves a part of the national treasury thus killing the republic.
Cato Institute has been infiltrated with statists and liberals the last few years, so I hardly think they are ones to judge anything ‘statist’ anymore. They aren’t getting anymore money from us until they weed out the liberals.
“Really? He doesnt seem that good at it. How come his approval ratings are down to 47% “
After what Obama has already done to America, his approval rating should be 27%. Don’t depress me even more!
Impressive list of keywords there...
Bush Derangement Syndrome continues unabated... People on this thread have really got it bad
11 years later, it turns out I was right. Hey CATO... You are late to the Party.
Now if we can just keep the GOP and the MSM from saddling us with Bob Dole Mark II with a Romney/Huckabee/Guiliani/Pawlenty candidacy in 2012...
Cato Institute has been infiltrated with statists and liberals the last few years, so I hardly think they are ones to judge anything ‘statist’ anymore. They aren’t getting anymore money from us until they weed out the liberals.
Yes, Cato is statist, liberal, and Globalist....so it is kind of telling that such an organization thinks Bush was a statist....more like Bush was too much a statist for Cato....
Like most RINO's, he accomplished some wothwhile things like great supreme court nominees and had the sense to realize that a healthy private sector is necessary to generate the tax revenues necessary to support the nanny state. But like most RINO's, he didn't really have the heart to actually prune back the nanny state. Sooner or later, the sheeple always tire of RINO's and will trade them in for the next available alternative.
Which, far too often, is something much, much worse.
Alito.
Well stated.
LLS
Maybe it is a coincidence , but have you noticed that Obama’s approval ratings 45%-47% are about the same as the % of Americans that have to pay income taxes this year(for last year) ?? I guess deficits and increased government takeovers don't sound as scary if you think you won't be the one paying for it.
Amnesty anyone?
A consumption tax might make more sense than
” Maybe it is a coincidence , but have you noticed that Obama’s approval ratings 45%-47% are about the same as the % of Americans that have to pay income taxes this year(for last year) ?? I guess deficits and increased government takeovers don’t sound as scary if you think you won’t be the one paying for it.
Amnesty anyone?”
WINNER!!
Yo, sickoflibs—Are you supporting the idea we need more taxes—any kind of taxes? Before we get there there needs to be some work done. First, every existing program—especially entitlements—needs to be examined and determined to be effective and non-redundant. Second, there needs to be massive effort to curb frsud, wast and abuse of tax payer money. Third, money collected for infrastructure must be overseeen by independent managers. Politicians have proven themselves ineffective—or worse—with regard to that responsibility. Fourth, every working American should pay a federal and state income tax—even if it is only $1.
Only after those four things are accomplished can we know whether or not we actually need new tax revenue.
The "freeloader factor" is one of the prizes that leftists hope to use with amnesty. That also explains why they want "universal voter registration," so that those too lazy to register won't have to.
As I have said to my liberal friends many times:
“I don’t know what you all are whining about. Bush is the best Democrat the Republicans ever elected.”
Not really a RINO, but unfortunately as you note an adherent to most of what is wrong with the GOP. I don't think Bush views conservatives as enemies the same way as e.g. John McCain does.
But like most RINO's, he didn't really have the heart to actually prune back the nanny state. Sooner or later, the sheeple always tire of RINO's and will trade them in for the next available alternative.
Which, far too often, is something much, much worse.
A problem with electing RINOs is that they can almost never be replaced without letting a liberal Democrat have a seat for a term. The more consecutive RINO victories there have been, the worse the Democrat will be.
(the same problem with RINOs occurs with wrong-wing Republicans who aren’t pure RINOs). My point wasn’t that GW Bush was a RINO, but rather that the election of John McCain would have handed the 2012 election to someone even worse than Obama.
I can buy this Bush I and Bush II were not, and have not, been Conservatives. That being said, they were 100 times better than the Marxists we have in power now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.