George W. Bush: “I wish they weren’t called the Bush tax cuts”

posted at 1:56 pm on April 10, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In a speech to open the Bush Institute Conference on Taxes and Economic Growth in New York City, George W. Bush acknowledged the obstructive connotation that still attaches to his name, particularly when it comes to tax policy.

“I wish they weren’t called the Bush tax cuts,” he said. “If they’re called some other body’s tax cuts, they’re probably less likely to be raised.”

Bush has a really valid point. To hear opponents use the term, you’d think the “Bush tax cuts” reduced the marginal income tax rate for millionaires to about 1 percent and imposed a tax rate of 35 percent or so on the nearly half of Americans who don’t pay income taxes at all.

But what did the Bush tax cuts really do? They’re best known for reducing marginal income tax rates (the 39.6 percent bracket was reduced to 35 percent, the 36 percent bracket to 33 percent, the 31 percent bracket to 28 percent and the 28 percent bracket to 25 percent), but they also reduced the marriage penalty, increased the Child Tax Credit and the adoption credit, and increased tax breaks for education costs and dependent care costs, according to Heritage Foundation tax expert Curtis Dubay.

“Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire” sounds innocuous. It’d be a different story if Democrats said what they really want to do: “We want to raise taxes by $166 billion.” That’s what allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire amounts to — a massive tax increase on income-taxpaying Americans. (Remember, nearly half of Americans pay NO income taxes! This hike doesn’t affect them, so they have no reason to oppose the expiration of the tax cuts — and every reason to vote for politicians who promise them handouts.)

What is, perhaps, worse about this proposed massive tax increase is that it would hit Americans at the same time that other tax cuts are expiring and various Obamacare tax hikes are taking effect. Consequently, Americans could face up to a $494 billion tax increase in 2013 — what some are calling Taxmageddon. We might not be in the midst of a recession, but job growth is still anemic and such a massive tax hike is the last thing we need if we want job creation to soar.

[Incidentally, Taxmageddon includes the expiration of the payroll tax cut, but, as I've explained before, the payroll tax, theoretically speaking, is not a tax but a direct contribution to Social Security. The expiration of that "tax cut," then, is not a tax hike, but the lessening of one of the last remaining obligations imposed on all Americans by the sheer existence of the social safety retirement net. If we want Social Security (personally, I don't, but I'm assuming most people do), everybody should have to chip in; the payroll "tax cut" lessens the investment of all Americans in Social Security. 'Course, that's the one "cut" the president actually likes -- because it fuels his vote pump.]

These are big issues — and they can’t be avoided because the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cut are set to expire and other hikes are set to take effect at the end of this year no matter what. Congress has a history of pushing these issues off to the lameduck session. We’ve seen by the president’s rhetoric that he wants to delay the debates about these issues once again, but that leaves employers and others unable to plan for next year because they’re unsure of what their tax burden will be.

It’s time for the president and Congress to proactively tackle tough stuff like this — or be booted out of Washington for utter irresponsibility.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s ok. When they expire the change will be called the Obummer Tax Hikes.

The MSM will get right behind that one.

CorporatePiggy on April 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

“Bush” anything is the lexicon of the Pravdawannabe media.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I agree.

Sincerely,
Obamacare

Doughboy on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

President Bush never understood, that by not responding to the attacks from his political rivals, he served to anchor their accusations in the minds of too many.

This good man was not served by his manners.

jake-the-goose on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Very OT: According to Fox News, Rick Santorum is calling it quits.

You may now go back to your regular programming.

GrannyDee on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

They are no longer tax cuts at all…that was 2003. They are simply the current tax rates.

Youngs98 on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

It’s time for the president and Congress to proactively tackle tough stuff like this — or be booted out of Washington for utter irresponsibility.

Impertinence is more apt than “irresponsibility”. The guy doesn’t know what responsibility stands for.

Before anyone sends a penny more in taxes to the gov’t, middle-class, rich, or very rich, read this.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

It’s time for the president and Congress to proactively tackle tough stuff like this — or be booted out of Washington for utter irresponsibility.

“If the press was doing it’s job…

… we wouldn’t be $15 Trillion dollars in debt.” - Andrew Breitbart (RIP)

Seven Percent Solution on April 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Very OT: According to Fox News, Rick Santorum is calling it quits.

You may now go back to your regular programming.

GrannyDee on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

YEAH! Newt needs to follow suit and quickly.

gophergirl on April 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I miss George Bush.

OT….Fox reporting that Santorum is throwing in the towel.

JPeterman on April 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Be proud of em, they saved the economy at the time. Now we can have the Odip$hit tax hikes.

msupertas on April 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

This hike doesn’t affect them, so they have no reason to oppose the expiration of the tax cuts — and every reason to vote for politicians who promise them handouts.

Whoa there, Tina, they very well do. The reason a greater percentage don’t pay taxes is exactly because of these tax cuts. Primarily because of increase child deductions.

You’re going to want a rewrite of that part.

MNHawk on April 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

It’s ok. When they expire the change will be called the Obummer Tax Hikes.

The MSM will get right behind that one.

CorporatePiggy on April 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

They already did. They should be called the Obama Tax Cuts. Add in “for the rich” if you wish to be dishonest. :P

Conservative4Ever on April 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Very OT: According to Fox News, Rick Santorum is calling it quits.

You may now go back to your regular programming.

GrannyDee on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Looks like the internal polling in Pennsylvania is really ugly. That and he already sees the writing on the wall(how could he not?) and the recent episode with Bella has to be weighing on him as well. Hopefully Newt follows suit(hey, I rhymed!). Let’s get the general election underway already.

Doughboy on April 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

FOX News Alert:::!!!

Santorum to suspend campaign.

BacaDog on April 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Very OT: According to Fox News, Rick Santorum is calling it quits.

You may now go back to your regular programming.

GrannyDee on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

YEAH! Newt needs to follow suit and quickly.

gophergirl on April 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Who saw that coming?
/

OmahaConservative on April 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

To hear opponents use the term, you’d think the “Bush tax cuts” reduced the marginal income tax rate for millionaires to about 1 percent and imposed a tax rate of 35 percent or so on the nearly half of Americans who don’t pay income taxes at all.

Tina quit spinning. The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

President Bush never understood, that by not responding to the attacks from his political rivals, he served to anchor their accusations in the minds of too many.

This good man was not served by his manners.

jake-the-goose on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

+7%…!

Seven Percent Solution on April 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Obama is making super spending Booosh look like Scrooge. Hopenchange, baby…for a poorer, less-free country! #Obamarox!

search4truth on April 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Doughboy: You suck.

celtic warrior on April 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

(Remember, nearly half of Americans pay NO income taxes! This hike doesn’t affect them, so they have no reason to oppose the expiration of the tax cuts — and every reason to vote for politicians who promise them handouts.)

Something I’m missing here?

Whats wrong with that?

liberal4life on April 7, 2012 at 10:34 AM

M240H on April 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Tina quit spinning. The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Then you have this piece of trash, reduced to just out and out lying. Why lie, boy? Are you so ashamed of your own beliefs you cower in fear at just expressing them?

MNHawk on April 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Tina quit spinning. The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Are you seriously this stupid? Look at what Tina wrote:

But what did the Bush tax cuts really do? They’re best known for reducing marginal income tax rates (the 39.6 percent bracket was reduced to 35 percent, the 36 percent bracket to 33 percent, the 31 percent bracket to 28 percent and the 28 percent bracket to 25 percent), but they also reduced the marriage penalty, increased the Child Tax Credit and the adoption credit, and increased tax breaks for education costs and dependent care costs, according to Heritage Foundation tax expert Curtis Dubay.

Everything she cited is fact, not conservative spin. Most of those are tax cuts that help the middle class, unless you’re insinuating that only “the rich” procreate, adopt, and attend higher learning institutions.

Doughboy on April 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Bullshit. Here’s a summary of the tax rate cuts under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, also known as the “Bush tax cuts”.

EGTRRA reduced the rates of individual income taxes:

a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.
the 15% bracket’s lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket
the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.
the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006
the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006
the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

The EGTRRA in many cases lowered the taxes on married couples filing jointly by increasing the standard deduction for joint filers to between 174% and 200% of the deduction for single filers.

Additionally, EGTRRA increased the per-child tax credit and the amount eligible for credit spent on dependent child care, phased out limits on itemized deductions and personal exemptions for higher income taxpayers, and increased the exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and created a new depreciation deduction for qualified property owners.

——————————————
Get your facts straight moron.

BacaDog on April 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Doughboy: You suck.

celtic warrior on April 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Why? Because I’m glad Santorum is making the right decision to suspend his campaign?

Doughboy on April 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Tina quit spinning. The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

It helps to read it all.

But what did the Bush tax cuts really do? They’re best known for reducing marginal income tax rates (the 39.6 percent bracket was reduced to 35 percent, the 36 percent bracket to 33 percent, the 31 percent bracket to 28 percent and the 28 percent bracket to 25 percent), but they also reduced the marriage penalty, increased the Child Tax Credit and the adoption credit, and increased tax breaks for education costs and dependent care costs, according to Heritage Foundation tax expert Curtis Dubay.

Of course, since the ‘off the top’ reduction is larger for the uppermost bracket you could spin it as an increase for the middle.

M240H on April 10, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Of course, since the ‘off the top’ reduction is larger for the uppermost bracket you could spin it as an increase for the middle.

M240H on April 10, 2012 at 2:14 PM

How could a net drop be classified as an increase, regardless of the relation to other brackets?

preallocated on April 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

We’ve seen by the president’s rhetoric that he wants to delay the debates about these issues once again, but that leaves employers and others unable to plan for next year because they’re unsure of what their tax burden will be.

It’s time for the president and Congress to proactively tackle tough stuff like this — or be booted out of Washington for utter irresponsibility.

This is one of the reasons why the economy remains stalled, this and Obamacare. Business won’t take risks on expanding and hiring people to fuel that expansion with such uncertainty of the rules. We’ve had tax chaos nearly EVERY YEAR of the Obama Regime, and they’ve waited until the last second to extend the current tax rates and withholding.

Which makes the current economic malaise a self fulfilling prophecy.

wildcat72 on April 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM

How could a net drop be classified as an increase, regardless of the relation to other brackets?

preallocated on April 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Its right there in the DNC talking point memo’s all the way back to 2002.

Geez.

BobMbx on April 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Tina quit spinning. The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Just how stupid are you?

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

I call it the repeal of the Clinton tax increases.

mouell on April 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Bush was a Christian Socialist who believed in big government. You can thank him for Obama. His no child left behind is a disaster. He fought 2 wars with no game plan to win. Go away George. Cut some brush at your ranch. It makes me sick to see him sit at Texas Ranger games. He looks like he doesn’t give a crap about those who lost lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

kozmo on April 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

“I wish they weren’t called the Bush tax cuts,” he said. “If they’re called some other body’s tax cuts, they’re probably less likely to be raised.”

Not true, many in Bush’s own party including the former Treasury head Paul O’Neill, Alan Greenspan, and even Alan Simpson opposed those tax cuts based upon their long-term impact on revenue generation.

Tina quit spinning. The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Are you seriously this stupid? Look at what Tina wrote:

But what did the Bush tax cuts really do? They’re best known for reducing marginal income tax rates (the 39.6 percent bracket was reduced to 35 percent, the 36 percent bracket to 33 percent, the 31 percent bracket to 28 percent and the 28 percent bracket to 25 percent), but they also reduced the marriage penalty, increased the Child Tax Credit and the adoption credit, and increased tax breaks for education costs and dependent care costs, according to Heritage Foundation tax expert Curtis Dubay.

Doughboy on April 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I’d focus less on which tax brackets or income groups benefited the most. The real issue here has nothing to do with fairness, but on the overall effect on net government revenues.

As the smart money knows, the outcome has been problematic:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gundlach-presentation-dollars-cents-2011-9#-8

bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

As tax cuts they did nothing anyway. What we really got, that was significant, was the Bush inflation. And we have economic distortions and Obama to make matters worse, to show for it.

rickv404 on April 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Tina quit spinning. The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

If you really believe this to be true, please explain why Obama wants to keep the “Bush tax cuts” for the middle class, but let them expire for the “rich”? He would get to lower middle class taxes while raising taxes on the “rich,” and he wouldn’t have to negotiate with those nasty Republicans to do it.

toby11 on April 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

As wiki tells us about the Bush Tax Cuts:

The 2001 act and the 2003 act significantly lowered the marginal tax rates for nearly all U.S. taxpayers.

PS-still waiting for credible multi-sourced cites re. Dick Cheney’s alleged “War Crimes”. Colon Powell was also charged at The Hague by you folks on the Left with War Crimes, but mysteriously he got a Pass from you Useful Idiots, right after he endorsed O’bama.

In your opinion, should the War Crimes Charges against Powell be “reinstated?”

Del Dolemonte on April 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I’d focus less on which tax brackets or income groups benefited the most. The real issue here has nothing to do with fairness, but on the overall effect on net government revenues.

As the smart money knows, the outcome has been problematic:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gundlach-presentation-dollars-cents-2011-9#-8

bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Bush tax cuts cost about half of the Obama spending increases and were far more stimuluative, but you know that.

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Them teaches don’t teach math two gud on the upper east side…
Public edumication you know, we need to spend more Federal Moneys on it…

kirkill on April 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Clearly, Romney can’t win the White House

Steveangell on April 10, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I call it the repeal of the Clinton tax increases.

mouell on April 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Ha ha well that’s in some ways a fair statement, although Bush went further than repealing Clinton’s cuts. I guess it’s a matter of which you think is worse- tax rates that are a few percentage points higher than the norm with a balanced budget, or taxes that are lower than the norm (as a % of GNP) with a running deficit.

bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I’d focus less on which tax brackets or income groups benefited the most. The real issue here has nothing to do with fairness, but on the overall effect on net government revenues.

As the smart money knows, the outcome has been problematic:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gundlach-presentation-dollars-cents-2011-9#-8

bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

We can have an honest debate over whether or not these tax policies overall reduce revenue or increase it. Certainly there are ways to measure that. But to say that these are “tax cuts for the rich” is a tired and disingenuous partisan talking point used by the left that I’m frankly sick of.

Doughboy on April 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM

President Bush never understood, that by not responding to the attacks from his political rivals, he served to anchor their accusations in the minds of too many.

This good man was not served by his manners.

jake-the-goose on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

+1000 !!!

Starting in about 2005, the Bush Administration seemed to be unable to communicate effectively, especially when Scott Duh McClellan was Press Secretary, whose stammering is rivaled only by Jay Carney.

For about two years, between Hurricane Katrina and the surge in Iraq, the Bush Administration never rebutted the false accusations against them in the media, even though the Administration had plenty of facts on its side to set the record straight. The Bush Administration let Democrats take over the airwaves, and the American people started believing the lefty/MSM spin instead of the truth, simply because the truth was never told, and anything named “Bush” became toxic to the voters.

Of course, when the 2003 tax cuts were about to be “sunsetted” during the lame-duck session of late 2010, Obama and the Democrats rushed to prolong them, and never mentioned the name “Bush”. They could never give George W. Bush any CREDIT for what he did right.

Steve Z on April 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Ha ha well that’s in some ways a fair statement, although Bush went further than repealing Clinton’s cuts. I guess it’s a matter of which you think is worse- tax rates that are a few percentage points higher than the norm with a balanced budget, or taxes that are lower than the norm (as a % of GNP) with a running deficit.

bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Tax revenues shot up to just above historical average as a % of GDP after the 2003 tax cuts and deficit plummetted by a factor of 3.

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Tina joins the growing list of people in their 20′s who would be fine with getting rid of social security.

Literally everyone in their 20′s I’ve heard talk about social security fully expects to receive nothing from it. Not just republicans or politically active/aware kids, but everyone.

I don’t think politicians (or people in general) realize that the younger generation is fully ready to reject social security. If they realized the extent of this feeling, maybe it would be possible to make some changes.

dkidic on April 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Tina quit spinning. The Bush tax cuts DOES reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires while raising them on the middle class.

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Just how stupid are you?

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

One strongly suspects that Uppereastside doesn’t pay US taxes, is innumerate, or a useful stool pigeon for the Regime.

It’s probably ‘all of the above’.

CorporatePiggy on April 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

OT/ St. Orum just bowed out. Move to Newt?
/

cartooner on April 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

(Remember, nearly half of Americans pay NO income taxes! This hike doesn’t affect them, so they have no reason to oppose the expiration of the tax cuts — and every reason to vote for politicians who promise them handouts.)

I’m not sure that is accurate, Tina. IIRC, Bush eliminated at least 2 of the bottom tax brackets. If the Bush tax cuts [sic] are allowed to expire, these tax brackets would return.

stvnscott on April 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I’d focus less on which tax brackets or income groups benefited the most. The real issue here has nothing to do with fairness, but on the overall effect on net government revenues.

As the smart money knows, the outcome has been problematic:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gundlach-presentation-dollars-cents-2011-9#-8

bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Bush tax cuts cost about half of the Obama spending increases and were far more stimuluative, but you know that.

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Maybe that was part of the problem? The second leg of Bush’s tax cuts occurred in a health economy (reason for Greenspan’s opposition). Based on painful lessons of the past, economists generally oppose stimulus or debt-fueled growth when the economy is growing. By the time the economy cratered in 2008, there was no room for even further tax cuts. Whoops.

If you look at tax and stimulus policy under just about every previous president, but set a precedent that probably will never be repeated.

bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

but, but Obama’s passed the biggest Middle Class Tax cut ever! Sure he took it out of our own Social Security and stuff but I feel betrayed. I can’t believe he actually just wants a second term to raise everyone’s taxes…I’ll never vote for Obama uhhhhhm once.

DHChron on April 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

If you look at tax and stimulus policy under just about every previous president, Bush set a precedent that probably will never be repeated.

bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:41 PM

I wish GWB would come out of retirement and start countering the incessant “Bush’s Fault” drumbeat and addressing the lies the Obama admin keeps telling about his admin. Not for his own sake, but for the sake of the country.

OTOH, Romney may not want him in the way, reminding voters of his existence. However, if Romney does not want GWB doing it he’d better do it himself.

The American electorate would be happy to return to an economy like the one we had for about 95% of the Bush admin. They’d be happy with the unemployment numbers alone.

farsighted on April 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Does anyone remember the record 52 straight months of job growth spurred by the “Bush” tax cuts after a recession, or is that just my imagination? Too bad the dems took over in ’07 and everything went to shat.

DHChron on April 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

OmahaConservative on April 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I was just thinking about you this morning *waves hand furiously like an idiot*. I was going to send an email to check on you. So good to see you.

Cindy Munford on April 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

President Bush never understood, that by not responding to the attacks from his political rivals, he served to anchor their accusations in the minds of too many.

This good man was not served by his manners.

jake-the-goose on April 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Worth repeating.

farsighted on April 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Uppereastside on April 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM
Just how stupid are you?

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

…inquiring minds want to know!
(we read it…we just want it confirmed)

KOOLAID2 on April 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Too bad George. They were your idea, you got them passed. Just like Obamacare, if the name fits, wear it. You thought they were good, and apparently everybody wants to keep their own cut and hike other peoples. Obama and the dems think Obamacare is great too, but not enough to participate, so they exempted themselves. At least your tax cuts were “universal”.

NobleLogic on April 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Bush has a really valid point. To hear opponents use the term, you’d think the “Bush tax cuts” reduced the marginal income tax rate for millionaires to about 1 percent and imposed a tax rate of 35 percent or so on the nearly half of Americans who don’t pay income taxes at all.

But the thing is, back when they were first put in place, the Bush administration very proudly called them the Bush Tax cuts. I remember because the Dems were seething that GWB was taking all the credit even though they had a hand in passing them. Oh how a few years can change political corporate knowledge!

Happy Nomad on April 10, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Feel free to call them the AndrewsDad tax cuts and then I, unlike the Republicans, will do my best to explain to the public exactly what they are and what they did. Instead of running away from the idea of lower taxes like the Republicans seem to do.

AndrewsDad on April 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I never miss Bush b/c all I have to do is go to YouTube for bushisms…instant comedy any day.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Does anyone remember the record 52 straight months of job growth spurred by the “Bush” tax cuts after a recession, or is that just my imagination? Too bad the dems took over in ’07 and everything went to shat.

DHChron on April 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I’m sorry that is not part of the narrative. Please report to the re-education center for proper knowledge adjustments.

LoganSix on April 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Yeah… the Democrats don’t even care what number it might be that they’re raising taxes by. They want to establish the principle that raising tax rates is the right thing to do. They want to win the idea war, extinguishing any appreciation of the reality that there are alternatives to raising taxes, and that the feature the alternatives have in common is that they promote individual freedom over government control.

J.E. Dyer on April 10, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I’m sorry that is not part of the narrative. Please report to the re-education center for proper knowledge adjustments.

LoganSix on April 10, 2012 at 3:08 PM

but I don’t wanna :(

I’m moving to Canadia, that’s a country I’m pretty sure.

DHChron on April 10, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Maybe that was part of the problem? The second leg of Bush’s tax cuts occurred in a health economy (reason for Greenspan’s opposition). Based on painful lessons of the past, economists generally oppose stimulus or debt-fueled growth when the economy is growing. By the time the economy cratered in 2008, there was no room for even further tax cuts. Whoops.

If you look at tax and stimulus policy under just about every previous president, but set a precedent that probably will never be repeated.

bayam on April 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

You’re completely wrong.

Go back and read up on the economy and unemployment in 2000-2003. When Bush passed the tax cuts in May 2003, unemployment was rising and had been for almost 3 years. It peaked at 6.4% in June and started a 5 year drop. GDP growth in the July-Sept quarter was a whopping 7.2% – biggest in 20 years (as in bigger than anything in the 90′s). The deficit maxed at $450 billion and started dropping at record rates.

Now compare that to the Stimulus and the deficits now.

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Peaked in June 2003 to be clearer – the month following the Bush tax cuts. 4 months later, the economy clocked the best quarter in 2 decades.

That’s what a stimulus looks like, kiddies.

Chuck Schick on April 10, 2012 at 3:26 PM

What a retro, one of the few things he did which was useful and ethical he disavowes.

burt on April 10, 2012 at 3:26 PM

He cost us the election. He needs to be quiet till 2013

social-justice on April 10, 2012 at 3:28 PM

ignore my dangling participle…it gets out of control sometimes

DHChron on April 10, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I never miss Bush b/c all I have to do is go to YouTube for bushisms…instant comedy any day.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I’m as sure you don’t get the irony of that statement as I am that I’ve visited all 57 states.

DHChron on April 10, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Bush was a Christian Socialist who believed in big government. You can thank him for Obama. His no child left behind is a disaster. He fought 2 wars with no game plan to win. Go away George. Cut some brush at your ranch. It makes me sick to see him sit at Texas Ranger games. He looks like he doesn’t give a crap about those who lost lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

kozmo on April 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Amen. Bush was indefensible. I can’t believe the ignoramuses here and on other conservatives sites that defend him. Even Rush Limbaugh excuses him and Cheney. And what is about to happen? We are about to get another Bush-type for president in Romney, as if Obama wasn’t bad enough. Everything Obama did was an extension of Bush’s policies.

rickv404 on April 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Even Rush Limbaugh excuses him and Cheney.

rickv404 on April 10, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Even Rush?!?!?! Who gives a sh!t! Rush is a recycling blowhard who can’t manage an original flukeing thought.

DHChron on April 10, 2012 at 3:42 PM

“Everything Obama did was an extension of Bush’s policies.”

Not true. Much of Obama’s crap is a repeat of the New Deal of FDR.

burt on April 10, 2012 at 3:47 PM

How much money are we borrowing to keep these in place?

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

How much money are we borrowing to keep these in place?

Zekecorlain on April 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM

not as much as we’re borrowing to pay Brazil to drill offshore ;)

DHChron on April 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I never miss Bush b/c all I have to do is go to YouTube for bushisms…instant comedy any day.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Funnier than a leftist piece of garbage misspelling their own nick?

You’s really do fail, boy.

MNHawk on April 10, 2012 at 4:19 PM

He’s right. We should change the name to the Banana Republic Tax Cuts, because only banana republic-type countries throw these kind of tax cuts around while not addressing spending (actually ballooning it instead) or tax inequality (hello loopholes; hello 50% that pay zero) as the progressive Bushians did.

Oh yeah, and D-Rats using them ever since as both an agitprop tool and a Sword of Damocles to force Republicans to capitulate on cue. What’s not to love. Hopefully the lesson is learned and we concentrate on decisive tax reform instead.

smiley on April 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Schadenfreude @ 1401 … I bring you a great quote: “There are times when the average man must spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats.” -H.L Mencken
And to Kozmo @ 1428 … what a moron you are.
Let us compare the two: Bush visits the troops (surprise visits BTW) to immense, loud boisterous applause. He has mess with them, a sit-down meal with our troops. Bush walks among them, shaking every hand within reach, talks with each and every one who wishes to speak with him. Personal cameras come out, photos for hundreds with “The CIC” arm-in-arm. His smile is natural and it is evident that he loves their presence and they his. With only two SS guys in proximity he walks among the troops; Navy, Army, Marines surround him, he is at this time the most protected individual on the planet. He’s comforted by their presence and they his. Bush takes time to visit the wounded, in theater. He does this in DC, he does this at Ramsdein, he does this in San Antonio AND he does it in private. He does this after the Ft. Hood shootings (in private as a private citizen).
Obowmao visits the troops, he is surrounded by SS men there is at best, polite applause. The WH staff had given out cameras to the troops prior to Dear Liars introduction. He does not meander among the troops he is SURROUNDED by SS men. There is a pre-arranged photo-op with troops arranged BEHIND ‘The WON’.
Now, President Present, will not visit wounded soldier ANYWHERE … bad photo op don’t ya know. However, he has a special ‘staged’ photo op with a camera crew of him saluting coffins at Dover AFB. The family members of these fallen refuse to participate and are disgusted with TOTUS and his crew.
King Putt will not even contact the families of Brian Terry or Jaime Zapata! What an azzhole. As I’ve said before: King Putt is a complete and utter fraud.
In addition: I want a comparison of Romney’s and Soetoro/Obama’s college transcripts. I want this issue brought up at every encounter with TOTUS. King Putt will fight this tooth & nail. Romney is willing to share.

Missilengr on April 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM

We can have an honest debate over whether or not these tax policies overall reduce revenue or increase it.
Doughboy

Not with a lying liberal(redundant, I know) like Bayam you can’t.

xblade on April 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM

I never miss Bush b/c all I have to do is go to YouTube for bushisms…instant comedy any day.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Yea, not quite as good as the Obamateurisms, are they. That would be comedy gold if it wasn’t so sad.

msupertas on April 10, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Bush inherited both the Dot.Com bust and the 9/11 attacks, both of which pushed our economy into recession.

What did Bush do? He passed the Bush Tax Cuts, which turned the economy around.

The economy did not start getting worse again until the Democrats took majority control in January 2007.

Look at the last 10 years of the:

Employment-Population Ratio
Correlated with Political Party of Majority Control

The positive inflection point was…
the signing of the second part of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2003.

The negative inflection point was January 2007
… when Democrats took majority control.

It wasn’t Bush and the Republicans who drove the economy into the ditch… it was the Democrats who took majority control in January 2007 and who still hold majority control to this day.

Are you better off now than you were 5 and a half years ago?

What is, perhaps, worse about this proposed massive tax increase is that it would hit Americans at the same time that other tax cuts are expiring and various Obamacare tax hikes are taking effect. Consequently, Americans could face up to a $494 billion tax increase in 2013 — what some are calling Taxmageddon.

This Taxmageddon woud have the exact opposite effect that the Bush Tax cuts had in 2003-2006. That is to say that this Taxmageddon would make the Employment-Population Ratio drop precipitously. Double-dip recession ==> Outright Depression.

ITguy on April 10, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Not with a lying liberal(redundant, I know) like Bayam you can’t.

xblade on April 10, 2012 at 5:11 PM

But but but Larry Ellison, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs – they’re smaaarrrt…..

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2012 at 6:01 PM

I never miss Bush b/c all I have to do is go to YouTube for bushisms…instant comedy any day.

0bamaderangementsyndrom on April 10, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I don’t have to go to YouTube and I never miss you. At least until you show up here – then the place smells funny.

ghostwalker1 on April 10, 2012 at 6:21 PM

[T]he payroll tax, theoretically speaking, is not a tax but a direct contribution to Social Security. The expiration of that “tax cut,” then, is not a tax hike

You’re buying into the socialist propaganda of Social Security. If Social Security were voluntary, you would have an argument. However, it is not. It is a percentage of wages involuntarily deducted from all worker’s pay. That is the very definition of a tax.

Furthermore, the Social Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund. The supreme court has ruled that a contributor to social security has no legal claim to benefits from social security. Social security benefits are, like any other government handout, at the discretion of our paternalistic government.

Social security is a tax, and a steep one at that. How many under-30′s think they’ll get their money’s worth on the 15.3% of income they pay on Social Security tax?

netster007x on April 16, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Literally everyone in their 20′s I’ve heard talk about social security fully expects to receive nothing from it. Not just republicans or politically active/aware kids, but everyone.

What amazes me is when I speak with young Obama supporters who fully expect to receive nothing from Social Security. Doesn’t the fact that the government is taking our money and throwing it into a black hole on Social Security suggest that we shouldn’t accept new big government entitlement programs, like ObamaCare?!

netster007x on April 16, 2012 at 12:59 PM