Can We Admit Now That The Bush Tax Cuts Weren’t Ever Just For The Rich?

bush_cuts.gi

Going back a few years, when Democrats talked about the Bush tax cuts, they described them as though it were tax policy that only benefited the richest Americans. The “tax cuts for the rich” was their refrain, over and over again.

But things have changed. In the context of the current “fiscal cliff” combat, suddenly Democrats are being forced to admit that the Bush tax cuts weren’t just for the rich. The Bush tax cuts actually reduced tax burdens quite a bit for people who are not rich at all.

Case in point, this CBS report about President Obama’s new social media campaign in support of his proposed tax increases:

Mr. Obama is promoting the hashtag #My2K to continue to the conversation about a potential tax increase on the middle class if Bush-era tax cuts are allowed to expire. The keyword #My2K was chosen specifically because, according to the White House, a middle class family of four could see a tax increase of about $2,220.

A tax reduction, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, of $2,200 per middle class household sure sounds like substantial middle class tax relief to me.

Time to admit that, for all those years Democrat demagogues were talking about “tax cuts for the rich” they weren’t being 100% accurate. They were being, you know, dishonest.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • mikemc1970

    Sure conservatives and Republicans can, but liberals won’t even admit that Benghazi was a premeditated terrorist attack, so don’t hold your breath waiting for them.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Time to admit that, for all those years Democrat demagogues were talking about “tax cuts for the rich” they weren’t being 100% accurate.

    • alanstorm

      And what’s your point? That X percentage of a large amount is bigger numerically than X percent of a smaller amount? Gee, thanks, math whiz.

      • SigFan

        Funny how they are all for a “progressive” tax structure, but when it works in the opposite direction they get their knickers in a twist.

        • kevindf

          Math is hard for slackers.

        • Steve539

          SigFan, now that is a good post! If you look, basically, at anything liberals support it is punitive in nature. They take from those that have, and redistribute it to those that will vote for liberals. It is punitive both ways. You rob the receivers of their humanism!

    • jl

      Are you kidding me? If the federal, say, gas tax were cut, who would benefit the most? Truckers, or folks who drive alot, right? So in other words, some would benefit way more than others. Simple- you put more in, you take more out. Please follow along. So if libs weren’t hypocrites (a big “if”), they’ld should start chanting “Tax cuts for truckers, tax cuts for truckers- how unfair!”, right? Do I have to draw you a picture to see it’s just math, as said below? And if that’s way over your head, try this- If you paid a $100 to go to a baseball game and i paid only $30, what would happen if it got rained out early and they paid cash-back? You would get more back, right? Why? Because you put more in. Our 3rd grade math lesson is now over.

  • Snarkie

    Tell us some more how much you love Bush.

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Thank you, Dumbya.

    • alanstorm

      And the higher revenues from that tax cut covered that expense. What’s your point?

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Conservatives weren’t in favor of the stimulus checks, boob.

  • Davo

    Top marginal tax rate for the wealthiest 10% of Americans in 1963 was 91%. Under President Bush, it was 35%.

    • alanstorm

      What’s your point, other than displaying your ignorance? Are you aware that the rates changed many times in between those tho years, along with changes in tax shelters and loopholes? Are you aware that conditions in those two years were not the same?

      Silly question. Of course not. That might require thought on your part.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      You say that like it’s a bad thing.

      • Davo

        That’s your Reptile Brain talking. 4 legs good, 2 legs baaaaad!

        • Steve 539

          Davo, at least he has a brain. I can’t say that for you!

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Also, nobody said the rich didn’t get any tax relief under Bush. Conservatives have always pointed out, rightly, that the tax cuts weren’t just for the rich.

    • Steve539

      So Davo, what would you suggest?

      • Davo

        99.9% marginal tax rate on all incomes over $253,000. Universal health care, guaranteed living wage, and a public (non-profit) education system (at all levels, including post-secondary).

  • Guest

    Sure, it wasn’t just for the rich, just mostly for the rich.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Well, when the rich pay most of the taxes, it’s hard to implement tax cuts across all income levels without giving them the biggest cut.

      As a percentage, the provide the biggest chunk of government revenue.

      It’s math.

    • fredlave

      The Bush tax cuts were proportional to the amount of taxes paid. What could be fairer than that?

  • kevindf

    How can income taxes be cut for people that have never paid them?

    • banjo kid

      They can’t but in the 40 to 50 grand area they can be cut . the ones making 20 grand do not pay taxes .

  • banjo kid

    That much would buy a new car or truck making payments . that much would be over ten years would help greatly avoid student loans for the kids. I used it to buy Christmas and I am or was not considered rich . The only tax cut I remember the democrats passed cost me $1,780.00 a year.

  • Harold

    Republicans and democrats if you and the people you vote for and put into office in Washington truely want tax reform then go to a national sales tax at point of purchase with medical and food the only exemptions. Then you couldn’t buy tax favors from these corrupt people you elect to office every 4 years, that lear jet Donald Trump buys and writes off now would be taxed, illegal aliens would be taxed when they purchase something, everyone would pay when you buy something no one could duck it by hiding money in the Cayman Islands. But no one is really interested in tax reform its just a ploy to distract you from how bad our tax system really is now days. Sales tax = equals no power over people and business’s who need the politicians special tax favors now.

    • Randy131

      Everyone already pays a sales tax on everything you have described, and in some states even on food and medical expenses, and if they do as you say they should, then instead of the top 10% of earners paying 70% of all revenue as they do now, then the middle-class, who about only 2/3rds now pay only 30% of all revenue, would then all pay at least 60% of all revenue, which the rich would love to see. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to tax the top 10% any more than they’re paying right now, because I think they’re paying more than their fair share, but I do think all right-offs should be rescinded, and everyone should have to pay something, no matter how little, then at least everyone would be paying a share, whether it amounts to a fair share or not, everyone should have to pay something. What amazes me is that most Americans don’t understand that even during this recession, the US Government is collecting record amounts in taxes, more than they ever have collected in the past, but are just spending way to much. It would help if Harry Reid’s control of the Senate would allow the Senate to obey our laws and pass some kind of budget, which Harry Reid has refused to do for the last 4 years, which gives Obama an open check book with no limit to the amount he is allowed to spend, hence the yearly average of $1.5 trillion deficits for each of Obama’s 4 years as President. (National Debt of $10.6 trillion when Obama took office, projected National Debt of $16.6 trillion when Obama’s first term ends on January 19, 2013, for a total 4 year deficit of $6 trillion, when divided by 4, is $1.5 trillion per year)

      • Sama

        Amen, Randy!

    • Randy131

      Best case scenario, your ‘Fair Tax Act’ is passed, how does this stop the just over 50% of the American people supporting the other just under 50% of welfare recipients and government employees, for it is almost a one to one ratio of earners supporting non-earners and government employees. I fear that the passage of what you want will only prolong the inenvitable, by giving the government some more money to spend on the non-earners and government employees, extending the coming of the financial collapse of the USA for a little longer. I personally would rather see it happen sooner than later, so then we could get to rebuilding this country, by going back to what the ‘Founding Fathers’ instituted as our heritage, that has been stolen by the socialist and communist who now call themselves Democrats, by violating the many parts of the ‘Bill of Rights’ and the rest of the ‘US Constitution’, on a daily basis. We need much more than just tax reform!

  • banjo kid

    It won’t make any difference they will just print more fiat money and we will strum along as if nothing was wrong.

Top