Posted on 08/06/2010 6:35:20 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Heard something tonight that floored me about Bush 41.
Lady who cuts my hair was telling me that she watched a show on the History Channel a while back called the "Presidents".
She said they bashed, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, and FDR for their economic polices. Group of professors did the studies.
They claimed that the boom of the last 25 years and the 90's boom was caused half by Reagan and the other half from Bush 41 raising taxes.
They said Bush 41 knew this would sink him from getting reelected. He did it cause he know a crisis like the one we are having now would have came earlier.
ping
Journolisting at it’s best.
They claimed, they said....
Yeah whateaver...
They got one part right - it did sink his re-election effort.
Bush 41 caved to Dem led Congress and then the media skewered him for it - “Read my lips”.
When the media, History Channel included, starts lauding tax increases as “good for the economy”, you know there are liberal activists involved in the script. Tell the lie often enough and suddenly its true.
I agree. I don’t know how 41 could see this crisis we are having now back in 91?
Pres. Bush made a deal with the Democrats, if I remember correctly. The deal was one dollar in tax increases to two dollars in spending cuts. Of course, the Democrats had no intention to cut spending.
It was Reagan’s tax cuts and the America’s private sector that gave us the great economy.
Well it sure did. It led to the 1991-1992 recession which cost him hi re-election bid. I always thought he was a fool for falling for the Lucy Football the Dems threw him in 1989.
Bush agreed to raising taxes because he was sincere about balancing the budget. Actually, it's more accurate to say that he HAD to balance the budget, because the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Balanced Budget Act (passed during the Reagan administration) would have made politically unpalatable cuts if Bush didn't act on his own.
Bush "made a deal" with the Democrats controlling Congress that the tax increases would be matched by spending reductions. But you guessed it: significant spending reductions never happened. Bush got rolled.
Everyone was screaming that something had to be done because of the rising deficit, and Dems refused to do anything without tax increases.
Bush went as far as shutting down the government before compromising with the Dems and raising some taxes.
If not for the “read my lips” promise, it wouldn’t have been that big a deal.
Buchanan used it to attack him in the primaries, and then Clinton clubbed him to death with it in the general. With the MSM’s imaginery recession, and the Perot idiots, we ended up with Clinton.
In hindsight, he might have done the right thing but he shouldn’t have.
Good to see you CC.
Great seeing you.
Perot supporters were not idiots. They sensed the middle class and our country was about to be sold out by both parties over free trade. Free trade started by Bush 41 and finalized by Clinton did wonders for America. Gee in the 1990’s a gov worker made less then a private worker. Gov workers got only COLA while private workers salaries were suppose to soar under the great prosperous society based on free trade. Today the gov worker with benefits make double a private worker. Gee what happened???!!!!! Well private workers had to compete against Chinese and Indian workers. In the meantime corporate profits and management salaries soared. By the way when Bush 41 was POTUS, the US had the most technically advanced military while China was using 1960’s technologies for its military. Today after free trade, the Chinese military flies advanced jets, have super accurate missiles and basicly closed the tech gap with our military sufficiently to keep our carriers away the Chinese coast. Man that free trade really worked. Lose our wages and now our military edge.
If the story related to you is the way the History Channel actually presented it, I would say they are just spinning the importance of the tax increase itself.
The big boost to revenue IIRC was the Clinton tax increases that followed. Those, plus cutting the military budget, combined with strong growth gave us the “surplus”.
This was passed on to me from my hair cut lady.
Sorry, they were idiots.
Free trade has been good for America, not bad for it.
Jobs have been lost to productivity primarily.
By the way, our military budget is still nearly six times the Chinese’s.
Do some homework before you start spewing.
I’ll have to keep an eye open for it, it will be interesting to see exactly how they present his presidency compared to how I remember it.
She said three professors did the study. They bashed Clinton, LBJ, Carter and so on.
Don't forget the GOP takeover in 94 - Contract w/America.
RUBBISH!G.H.W.was”Rolled”by George Mitchell and Tom Foley!They knew that if he violated his”No New Taxes”promise,he was TOAST!!The ONLY reason the economy survived the tax increases of Clinton(retro-active)was because of the Ronaldus Magnus tax cuts of 1982-83.Clinton’s economy rallied largely due to the”Dot Com Bubble”(which burst in 1999-2000).This is just more re-writing of history by The LEFT!!!
I don’t know if Bush 41 was a bad president, but he was a weak president. The Republicans, in 1986, lost the Senate, having lost the House in 1982. George H.W. Bush who ran on a very clear promise not to raise taxes got into a real battle with Congress on that issue, and lost. You may have to excuse me for disagreeing with the panel of C-Span experts, but Bush 41 was not known for a vibrant economy. A strong economy faltered during his presidency, and the economy fell into a recession from which it did not strongly recover until the mid 1990s. So, in real time, we had a strong recovery from a bad recession beginning about 1983, which followed Reagan’s first, 1981 tax cuts. The economy continued strong through the ‘80s and Reagan’s second, 1986 tax cuts. The economy then faltered under Bush 41, in conjunction with his budget battles with Congress which resulted, eventually, in the tax increases he accepted in a deal with the Democrats. The economy continued weak into the first few years of Clinton’s presidency, until Newt and the boys actually balanced the budget and started cutting taxes following the Republican tsunami of 1994. Working with a Republican Congress, Clinton wound up to be a pretty successful president. Why isn’t the pattern clear to even the casual observer?
One reason is that because of the cyclic nature of the changes in taxes and the economy, it is possible for an observer to variously connect the dots. For example, blame Herbert Hoover for the depressed economy that continued for eight years following his departure from office, not the person, FDR, who was president during those eight years. Jimmy Carter, I suppose, was responsible for the strong economic recovery that occurred during Reagan’s first term. If not Jimmy Carter, maybe it was Gerald Ford. Just use your imagination and you can connect a development in the economy to whichever current or past president you want. What if you developed a rule for attributing the economy to policies. For example, the incoming president only fully owns the economy after a year. During his first year in office, it’s maybe 50-50. While this rule is somewhat crude, it avoids the subjective approach that makes so-called experts foolish.
A second reason is that the President is not the only “player” involved in setting policy. The Congress also has a role to play. Policies such as the promotion of home ownership are usually the result of the interaction of the executive and legislative branches of government. Republican Bush 41 with a vigorous Democratic Congress not only raised taxes, but increased spending so much that the deficit went up. Democrat Clinton with a vigorous Republican Congress not only cut spending, but eliminated the deficit while cutting taxes. But, C-Span experts are apparently unaware that we have a legislative branch of government (and I wouldn’t even bring up the fact that we also have a judicial branch for fear of causing some of them to have heart attacks).
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.