President George W. Bush Defends Tax Cuts for American Small Business Owners (Video)
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, November 26, 2010, 8:29 PM
President George W. Bush defended tax cuts for American small business owners tonight during his interview with Bill O’Reilly. The Bush tax cuts implemented in 2003 helped create millions of new US jobs and brought the US deficit down by several hundred billion dollars.
Democrats want to raise taxes on American producers and small business owners.
Once again…
THE TRUTH – BUSH TAX CUTS GREW THE ECONOMY.
During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth.
Not only were more jobs lost after the 9-11 attacks in 2001 than in the 2008 market crash, but more jobs were created by President Bush’s pro-business policies and tax cuts than by the Obama-Pelosi “spend your way to hell” Keynesian failure.
Good for George W. Bush for speaking out against the democrat’s proposed tax hikes.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Obama Campaign National Co-Chair Admits Giving Students Credit For Volunteering to Elect Democrats
Published February 22, 2012 at 4:19 pm - 32 Comments
bg commented:
++
dang, for him to be speaking out like this..
we must be in even worse shape than i thought..
==
jainphx commented:
Tax cuts work every time they are tried, if anyone can show me one instance of failure, just one.
Opaobie commented:
Why did he and the Republicans allow the tax cuts to have an expiration date? By expiring, they become an automatic TAX INCREASE. No tax INCREASES ever have an expiration date. None of the new bureaucracies he created will ever expire, they just continue to grow and consume us. Why didn’t he and the Republicans eliminate the DEATH TAX? It generates very little revenue and destroys small businesses and family farms? It’s an outrageous tax on property and savings that were taxed already when they were earned. Why do I bother to ask? Nobody cares.
bg commented:
++
Opaobie #3
Night of the Living Death Tax
[Lawrence Summers, President Obama's chief economic adviser, declared recently that "Let's be very clear: There are no, no tax increases this year. There are no, no tax increases next year." Oh yes, yes, there are. The President's budget calls for the largest increase in the death tax in U.S. history in 2010.
The announcement of this tax increase is buried in footnote 1 on page 127 of the President's budget. That note reads: "The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters." This means the death tax won't fall to zero next year as scheduled under current law, but estates will be taxed instead at up to 45%, with an exemption level of $3.5 million (or $7 million for a couple). Better not plan on dying next year after all.
This controversy dates back to George W. Bush's first tax cut in 2001 that phased down the estate tax from 55% to 45% this year and then to zero next year. Although that 10-year tax law was to expire in 2011, meaning that the death tax rate would go all the way back to 55%, the political expectation was that once the estate tax was gone for even one year, it would never return.]
hope that helped..
Much riding on future of estate tax
[This year, death has not been followed by federal estate taxes, due
to a quirk in the law. It has cost the US Treasury billions of dollars and fueled a battle in Congress, and it may be prompting end-of-life discussions in some of America’s wealthiest families.
Bluntly put, a very rich person could save his or her heirs
a lot of money in taxes by dying before New Year’s Day.]
==
ADVERTISEMENT
gus commented:
Lawrence Summers has skulked back to a tenured position at Harvard. What about being a PROFESSOR at HARVARD has made Summers an expert on anything except tenure??
Militant Conservative commented:
Just look at the reagan model. cut taxes reduce spending (if the dem’s would have been truthfull) and you grow yourself out of a bad situation. What did dem’s do? spent like drunk sailors with a 30 day leave. Your own home is your model. cannot spend more than you make or the excrement hits the fan. Democrats propogate THE BIG LIE. Spending is good, I have more money I still have checks in my checkbook. Socialists, lying bastards.
bg commented:
++
re: #4
[In other words, by raising the estate tax in the name of fairness,
Mr. Obama won't merely bring back from the dead one of the most
despised of all federal taxes, and not merely splinter many family-
owned enterprises. He will also forfeit half the jobs he hopes to gain
from his $787 billion stimulus bill. Maybe that's why the news of this
unwise tax increase was hidden in a footnote.]
no no no, T – R – A – N – S – P – A – R – E – N – C – Y is key!! /g-d s/
==
Opaobie commented:
From The Center for Tax Policy…whoever they are:
…seems like a lot of money until you consider the taxpayers will be coughing up $44 BILLION/year for ILLEGAL ALIENS if the “DREAM ACT” becomes law. Add those sums together and give the money back to the TAXPAYERS and watch what it does to boost the economy, to say nothing of the synergistic effect of keeping family businesses and farms intact rather than having to sell them off and lay off the workers to pay the taxes…and getting ILLEGALS off the public dole…and maybe out of the country if we can kill the “Nightmare” Act and turn of the “magnet”.
Opaobie commented:
…..and turn OFF the “magnet”….sorry, long day.
gus commented:
Folks. For those of you who UNDERSTAND… Capitalism. It is simple.
Robust Capitalism raises every imaginagle TAX ENTITY. The ENGINE of CAPITALISM makes for FAR FAR MORE tax payers and higher taxes from the SUCCESSFUL CAPITALISTS.
It is PATENTLY SIMPLE.
LIBTARDS DISAGREE FOR 2 REASONS.
1) They hate those who succeed NOT BEING TAX RAPED,
2) This OBVIOUS LOGICAL means of making EVERYONE more wealthy, does not JIVE with their ONE TRICK PONY MARXIST DIATRIBE vis a vis PUNISHING THOSE WHO BENEFIT ….
RedBeard commented:
The fact that anyone, up to and including President Bush, needs to explain this, is depressing and frightening.
Ignorant people, particularly ignorant voters, will be our doom.
The lefties have worked hard since the ’60s to pack our schools with like-minded teachers and administrators, assuring the graduation of fiscal, social, and historical illiterates. What the lefties have done in education is far worse than all the bombings and killings done by the likes of Bill Ayers and his friends.
bg commented:
++
RedBeard #11
oh yes, only difference being, Bill Ayers & his leftist friends have bombed
an incalculable amount of childrens minds (globally) vs a few buildings..
==
J commented:
To reach an accommodation, Pres. Bush and the republicans put an end date on the tax cut.
Did you see the panel on after the Bush/O’reilly interview? Laura Ingraham gave it to Bush, bit time. The roaring liberal quinn was nicer to him that ingraham. Ingraham is taking every opportunity to unload on him.
greg commented:
There is a bunch of wealth tied up in family trusts, charitable trusts, trusts, trusts etc which are all vehicles for avoiding estate taxes. The splintering of a farm due to estate taxes is understood except in the context of the Kennedy clan passing on weath, the Hershy clan passing on wealth. When Soros dies in the next year 55% of his 40 billion will not go to the gov’t because it is protected by trusts. The Gates 50 billion was made estate tax free by roling into a charitable trust controlled by THE GATES. How does the Rockafellow clan make out.
Tax them all at death, or tav none of them.
Iconoclast commented:
I disagreed with President Bush on some issues – I had hoped he would be more Reaganesque – but I always saw him as an honest & principled man. I’m half way through “Decision Points” and one can only admire him for those characteristics, his vision and his genuine love of our Republic. When there is some distance, I daresay history will rate him as one of our best – a burden his successor need never fear.
chuck in st paul commented:
In the America of the Founders, President Bush should be seen as the middle-left President. Instead he is middle to middle-right (disregarding the bleating of the Kosmonuts). It tells you a lot about where America has drifted over the decades.
I’m not sure if there was an actual conspiracy of similar goals to dumb down America or if it just naturally flows from the silly-assed new ciricula developed by professional educators (sic). Either way it produces an electorate wholly ignorant of the Constitution and why America worked so well while others like the Euroweenies didn’t and today’s America is in such dire straights just like 1934.
I weep for America.
Ginger commented:
I have always seen Bush as “controlled” No one is his family spoke out against the Bush bashing. Why? Any one find it strange that Clinton and daddy bush was and still is very close? The lastest interview with the marxis one world order old Bushes supported my beliefs! They are soooo close with Billy boy. I do believe that junior Bush is not a member of the pack but was and is controlled!
man_in_tx commented:
Former Pres GWB was no great shakes — sorry. For just a few examples — think of taking your shoes off in the airport (because “profiling is baaaaaaaaad;” think of establishing Sharia-based Governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan — AFTER spilling the blood of thousands of US (and allied) GIs to free them from former tyrants; think of “too big to fail” and the first TARP bailout; etc, etc. One thing that GWB was not was conservative; another thing that he was not was Constitutionally-based. The fact that people (though not I, certainly) yearn for him is that — as bad as he was (and GWB was pretty terrible) — by comparison to the current occupant of the White House, he begins to look like a knight in shining armor. However, my suggestion is that we set our sites higher: If the best this country can ever do is a GWB or an Obama in the White House, …. We are finished; kaput.
owl commented:
NO, President Bush was not bad, but one of our better presidents.
Jim, this was a great post. If we want to win 2012, these dates and info should be hammered constantly. It takes a very long time for some truths to make their way through the fog of lies put out by the DIMS MSM. They can’t grasp the fact that we had regime change 2 years before Bush left office. And don’t even get me started on the 75% of lousy Republican Congressmen that were in the mix.
A lot of voters are just uninformed or misinformed. The dates and info can’t get through what some of these smart people have cemented as their facts.
bg commented:
++
owl #20
heh, evidently truths now depend on out of context personal opinions
& levels of koolaid consumption.. as if we don’t get more than enough
of that from the know it nothing liberals..
Bush’s Achievements
[The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all wrong.
The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened America's position
in the world and rushed to the aid of the rich and powerful as income
inequality worsened. That is twaddle. Conservatives--okay, not all of
them--have only been a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the
surge that saved Iraq, but not for much else.
He deserves better. His presidency was far more successful than not. And there's an aspect of his decision-making that merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not have done and for which he was vilified and abused.
That--defiantly doing the right thing--is what distinguished his presidency.]
Who says George W. Bush has done “nothing” for conservatives?
Memo to Laura Ingraham et al..
GWB (2001-2009) is NOT, was NOT, and
could NOT ever be Reagan (1981-1989)..
==
man_in_tx commented:
To “owl” #20: who opines: “NO, President Bush was not bad, but one of our better presidents.”
Based on what? Your own ex cathedra assertion?
How was he “one of our better presidents?” By doing nothing (other than issuing idle threats) while North Korea built up its nuclear program? By siccing Condi Rice on the Israelis? By seeking to give administrative control of our ports to Dubai Ports — to say nothing of holding hands with the King of KSA? Surely, all these are marks of greatness!
Sorry: Not buying whatever it is your are selling. Regime change before he left office? I guess he rolled over and played dead, then? What happened to his veto pen? Did it run out of ink?
One-term Jimmy Carter used the veto option more frequently than this allegedly “great” President facing “regime change.”
You appear to give GWB a pass, but blame everyone else — MSM, the Democrats, and the lousy Republican Congressman. I agree with you that these culprits all bear their share of the blame, but — apparently, unlike you — I am willing to assess a good share of the blame to GWB, as well.
Again, I will say it: GWB was a rather weak President, who looks good primarily in juxtaposition to the current occupant of the White House.
bg commented:
++
and i’ll say it again & again.. i am surprised GWB did as well as he did
considering he was akin to a lone salmon swimming upstream against
a tide of hungry bears (cia, pentagon, dod, doj, dos, dems, reps, etc)..
God Bless & Thank You GWB!!
==
Pete commented:
Those claiming that job growth was good under Bush are delusional or indocrinated by Talk Radio and Fox Network propagandists.
According to the Jacksonville Business Journal, job growth since World War II has been worst under George W. Bush. The Journal’s analysis came up with the following job growth rankings for presidents beginning with Harry Truman:
Total employment
1. Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), 3.74%
2. Jimmy Carter (1977-81), 3.11%
3. Bill Clinton (1993-2001), 2.42%
4. Harry Truman (1945-53), 2.38%
5. Richard Nixon (1969-74), 2.30%
6. John Kennedy (1961-63), 2.28%
7. Ronald Reagan (1981-89), 2.04%
8. Gerald Ford (1974-77), 0.95%
9. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61), 0.87%
10. George H.W. Bush (1989-93), 0.59%
11. George W. Bush (2001-09), 0.28%
Chisum commented:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/ap_lies_on_unemployment.html
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000