Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush wishes his name wasn't attached to tax cuts
CNN ^

Posted on 04/10/2012 7:50:34 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Edited on 04/10/2012 8:08:06 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

New York (CNNMoney) Former President George W. Bush said Tuesday he wishes his name wasn't so firmly attached to one of his administration's signature pieces of legislation - the broad-based tax cuts set to expire at the end of this year.


(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; obama; taxcuts

1 posted on 04/10/2012 7:50:37 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Yup....Part of the BASH BUSH agenda....Wasn’t everything???


2 posted on 04/10/2012 7:53:26 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

“I wish they weren’t called the Bush tax cuts. If they were called someone else’s tax cuts, they’d be less likely to be raised,”

###

Well W, YOU were the one who had the Bully Pulpit for 8 years, yet allowed your name to be dragged through the mud incessantly by the anti-American Left. Even a moderate return of artillery fire would have been helpful

I don’t care so much about you, but you gravely damaged the Conservative cause.


3 posted on 04/10/2012 7:54:27 AM PDT by EyeGuy (2012: When the Levee Breaks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

“I don’t care so much about you, but you gravely damaged the Conservative cause.”

That whole family did and does. Nevertheless, W was the pick of the litter.


4 posted on 04/10/2012 7:57:33 AM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am." - Willard M Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Not that this is anything different than normal but you can see the subtle bias from CNN here. The headline leaves the impression that Bush doesn't want to be associated with tax cuts because it he believes it to be bad policy. An unbiased headline should read something to the effect of "Bush acknowledges his own unpopularity."

As I said before though, par for the course.
5 posted on 04/10/2012 8:01:23 AM PDT by Honcho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Honcho

Yes, that was my take on the headline also until I read the article.

Typical manipulation by our media overlords.


6 posted on 04/10/2012 8:06:28 AM PDT by jtal (Runnin' a World in Need with White Folks' Greed - since 1492)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

As a “compassionate conservative” I’m sure he would personally prefer to have them attached to tax hikes - just like Pappy!


7 posted on 04/10/2012 8:07:17 AM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Not Romney - Not ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry

Seeing as how he CUT TAXES unlike his dad who RAISED THEM, how’s that again...run that by us why you’re accusing him of wanting his name attached to tax hikes??

Huh?


8 posted on 04/10/2012 8:11:41 AM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR" - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

the broad-based tax cuts(sic)

tax rate cuts

The world is full of economic illiterates.

9 posted on 04/10/2012 8:12:25 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham (Barry Soetoro is a Kenyan communist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy
Laura was behind all that whiny, cringing "compassionate conservative" crap. If you don't believe me, read her bio where she brags about being pro-choice, pro open borders, pro same sex marriage, etc etc...she kept her mouth shut, IMO, because she's a low-energy, rather lazy, personality, not because she got all this overflowing "class."

Now she's on the lecture circuit to conservative venues. Apparently the liberals don't want to listen to her.

Not only do we not need any more Bushes, no more Bush Women!!!

10 posted on 04/10/2012 8:26:53 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; All
If the Media were not biased, they would hew to the historical record.

They are the Bush-Obama tax rates not simply the "Bush-era tax cuts" as the Dems propagandize.

Obama and his Democrat majorities in Congress kept the rates in place when they were set to expire in 2010. Sorry, but he owns them now!

11 posted on 04/10/2012 8:27:06 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Newt says, "A nominee that depresses turnout won't beat Barack Obama.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

If I have to explain the “compassionate conservative” milquetoast pablum moderate mindset to you, you wouldn;t understand. You either get it or you don’t. His term in the White House set the table for the Obama landslide. Whether you like it or not.


12 posted on 04/10/2012 8:27:06 AM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Not Romney - Not ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye Battle Cry
You either get it or you don’t.

What don't I get about cuts in the marginal tax rate?

13 posted on 04/10/2012 8:29:31 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Bump


14 posted on 04/10/2012 8:31:41 AM PDT by upsdriver (Newt..... stop Romney, get to a brokered convention and start a DRAFT PALIN movement!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle

Yep, yep, yep.

Thanks for your post.

The only thing worse than 8 years of Bush was the 8 years we had to put up with the Bush-WORSHIP and the Laura-WORSHIP on FR.

It was disgusting.


15 posted on 04/10/2012 8:36:10 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
u mad bro?

How much did you save in taxes?

16 posted on 04/10/2012 8:37:59 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144; txrangerette

W was the pick of the litter as you say, heavily burdened by the Bush women all around him, who were boldy perched on the abort-the-innocent side, every single time they were given the opportunity to say so.

Except for W, so far, the family admiration for socialism is loud and clear, in their open and enthusiastic support for the gentleman Romney.

Midland, TEXAS nourished in George W. Bush the only testosterone in this family of bluebloods, but yes, his family was a heavy burden to drag around morally and politically and even fiscally, and sadly it was under Bush where Congressional Republicans lost their fiscal compass entirely.

We all did.


17 posted on 04/10/2012 8:40:32 AM PDT by RitaOK (LET 'ER RIP, NEWT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

Remember???

18 posted on 04/10/2012 8:40:43 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy
“I wish they weren’t called the Bush tax cuts. If they were called someone else’s tax cuts, they’d be less likely to be raised,”

I don't care what they are called. If his economic policies, and government growth policies weren't so horrible, there would be a lot more revenue without tax hikes.

19 posted on 04/10/2012 8:42:29 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

“I don’t care what they are called. If his economic policies, and government growth policies weren’t so horrible, there would be a lot more revenue without tax hikes”

Amen to that. I could not believe what Bush was doing with regards to his financial house. Almost seemed like we had a liberal in there for a minute....


20 posted on 04/10/2012 8:45:09 AM PDT by YoungBlackRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Anyone still calling them the "Bush Tax Cuts" by default thinks the previous higher tax rates under Clinton are what should be in place.

After 10 years they are no longer "tax cuts" they are the current TAX RATES. Going back to the Clinton era rates would be a TAX INCREASE.

21 posted on 04/10/2012 8:51:09 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
If his economic policies, and government growth policies weren't so horrible, there would be a lot more revenue without tax hikes.

Are you talking about the sub-prime debacle? Bush warned us about it. Heck, Greenspan warned us about it. Heck, even McCain warned us about it.

It's a little too convenient for folks to claim they didn't hear it.

22 posted on 04/10/2012 9:00:41 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

Agree.

The Liberal Media sucks and is patently unfair.

That said, cowering in the White House didn’t help anybody...except, ultimately, Obama.


23 posted on 04/10/2012 9:03:43 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Are you talking about the sub-prime debacle? Bush warned us about it.

On the very morning that the bottom fell out from the financial markets in Europe, W was squawking like a parrot in front of the cameras with his rotten Treasury Secretary about how "subprime was contained." A phrase he repeated almost as often as "doing the jobs Americans won't do."

24 posted on 04/10/2012 9:18:40 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

“New tone... amnesty... unneccessary iraq war... harriet miers... see you at the signing”... I just can’t understand why the right was disgusted by W’s actions... but the left hated him because at his core... he is a good man and evil hates good.

LLS


25 posted on 04/10/2012 9:24:24 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES! (accept only the original))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

If it weren’t for that traitor bastard John McCain, they would have been larger tax cuts.


26 posted on 04/10/2012 9:41:57 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Obama: The Dr. Kevorkian of the American economy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
but the left hated him because at his core... he is a good man and evil hates good.

Bwa ahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Phew! That's a good one! Bush a good man! Ah, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Stop it! You're killin' me, here! Bwa ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

27 posted on 04/10/2012 10:15:13 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Sheesh. Apples. Trees. Not much distance and all.


28 posted on 04/10/2012 10:19:32 AM PDT by Yaelle (Let's fight Romney with every primary. Why make it easy for him? Go Rick!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Bwa ahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Phew! That's a good one! Bush a good man! Ah, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Stop it! You're killin' me, here! Bwa ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Thanks old timer, for that insightful post.

29 posted on 04/10/2012 10:47:28 AM PDT by Paradox (I want Obama defeated. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jtal

The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth —
 
Runaway government spending, not declining tax revenues, is the reason the U.S. faces dramatic budget shortfalls for years to come.
 
 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2551642/posts
  
 
By allowing the 2003 tax cuts to retire, Present 0 will be increasing the bottom rate from 10% to 15% and the 20% bracket to 25%.

Raising the 10% bracket to 15% represents what percentage of increase? ( The correct answer is NOT 5%)
 
Raising the 20% bracket to 25% represents what percentage of increase? (correct answer, again, is NOT 5%)
 
Finally, raising the 35% bracket to 39% represents what percentage of increase: Hint: The correct answer is NOT 4%.
 
Extra credit question: People in which tax bracket will see the largest percentage of increase in their taxes?
 
Extra extra credit question: People in which tax bracket will see the smallest percentage of increase in their taxes?
 
 To those moving from the 35% to the 39% tax bracket...that’s roughly an 11% increase in taxes.
 
From 20% to 25%...that’s a full-blown 25% increase in taxes.
 
To those moving from the 10% bracket to 15%, their taxes will be increased by a whopping 50%.


30 posted on 04/10/2012 2:23:45 PM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

I agree with your assessment.


31 posted on 04/10/2012 5:52:03 PM PDT by Psalm 144 ("I'm not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am." - Willard M Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Oh, you mean, he was talking politics? Imagine that, from a politician. Anything else you’ve figured out?


32 posted on 04/10/2012 7:47:28 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Oh, you mean, he was talking politics?

No. He was displaying his gross ignorance of the global financial system he was commenting about.

Anything else you’ve figured out?

Yes. You have a hard time accepting that W was a poor president.

33 posted on 04/10/2012 8:20:32 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
He was displaying his gross ignorance of the global financial system he was commenting about.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

34 posted on 04/11/2012 5:07:12 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
He was displaying his gross ignorance of the global financial system he was commenting about.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.

If you want to show me your understanding of the subject, then go right ahead. And then I'll show you how W was a terrible president for economics, and other areas as well.

35 posted on 04/11/2012 7:17:37 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
I do appreciate your desire to tell me how terrible Bush was, I really do. But this is a thread regarding what is, apart from his response after Sept. 11, probably the the crowning achievement of his presidency. If you cannot recognize it, not my problem. If you cannot admit it, then you are suffering from symptoms of BDS.

And apart from that, the notion that you expected him to fly in with his magic cape after the sub-prime market blew up is simply laughable (or another example of BDS, but I repeat myself).

36 posted on 04/12/2012 8:29:23 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I do appreciate your desire to tell me how terrible Bush was, I really do.

OK, I'll give you some more. W's demand side tax cuts were designed to be crowd pleasers and vote buyers, rather than stimulate the economy. Except for the dividend tax cuts, everything else that was good for the economy was put in the bill by Republicans in Congress. For instance, W strongly opposed the capital gains tax cuts that made it into the bill, while pushing for temporary cuts like rebates.

You like to make the excuse that subprime was the cause, but W participated in that, and as I've indicated, he was blissfully ignorant of the severity of the problem when it finally broke the backs of the markets.

W also had no way to pay for the tax cuts, such as stimulating long term economic growth, thus giving tax cuts a bad reputation.

And then because of his terrible economic policies, he had to make it worse with his large corporate bailouts, or to put it in his own words: "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system."

Compassionate conservatism, a new tone in Washington, and ruling like a big government Democrat is no way to run a country.

37 posted on 04/13/2012 5:41:39 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson